Good luck mate! You know you can buy our votes..i love Redback!

Jim Beam!!

Na sorry......mines already on a promise

Shouldn't this be down in the political section.

I am in another organisation now so don't belong to RFW anymore.

OFW RULES OK

You have voiced many issues in this rather drawn out post. Some I agree with in principle and some I disagree with with much vigour. Perhaps you should go up against Norman Moore.. RFW seem to be making some very solid ground thanks to their skills and their ability to listen to balanced opinions from such a reputable community as in Fishwrecked.com.

Mav, if it was there, it would not get the attention it deserves. Here everyone will see it and read it.

Vince, some things will be always disputed. What I have said is my views, not all will be adopted my many. But I put them up and in the open, so no hidden agendas can be claimed later.

I have been a Recfishwest member for some time now. Yes I did let my memebrship lapse last year, but I have decided to come back and see if a difference can be made.

The best interests of the majority of baoting, shore and spear fishermen in the Rec sector must be always kept at heart.
These decesions must be based on sound science and good management principles. Never on political sway or sea-kitten science etc.

Going up against Minister Moore is politics, and I have a career and it will never be as a pollie!

The reason i have stepped up to the plate, is that I found the cutting of the pelagic baglimit for Cat 1 pelagic frish from 4 to 2 to have been done underhand by the minister and not in the best sciences or any science backing it! It was just done! and slipped by under the Dermersal / dhuie protection! I think a lot of pelagic fishermen that never hit the dermersals hard got shafted. I hope that if I get in, then next time I can stand up for those that felt left out in this round of rules put through.

Tony

I know you won't let subtelty get in the way of a unlistened comment (meant nicely). I admire your drive to put your foot where your heart is. Anyone can be a wise (or smart/glib) spectator or discentor. 

Good man for standing up Tony, a big job looking after the rest of the state but not one you couldn't handle (i know I certainly wouldn't have the time, maybe when the family grows up), I think you'll find though that the demersal bag limit cut was a RFW recomendation. Good luck TH.

thanks Daisy,

I have no problems with the dermersals ( dam spell checker of mine keeps changing the bloody thing..lol)
demersal scalefish means any fish listed in the Table.

Cod
Cod, Grey Banded Rock
Coral Trout
Coronation Trout
Dhufish, West Australian
Emperor and Seabream
Emperor, Red (Government Bream)
Snapper, Red (Redfish)
Foxfish, Western and Pigfish
Groper, Baldchin
Groper, Bass
Groper, Western Blue
Hapuku
Nannygai
Parrot Fish
Seaperch, Tropical
Snapper, Pink
Snapper, Queen (Blue Morwong)
Swallowtail
Trevalla
Tuskfish

( from one of Terry's posts)
I do have a problem with the pelagics ( open water fish, that don't live on reef systems, but migrate, like tuna, dolphin fish, cuda, mackerial, sailies etc...)
This was a baglimit of 4 per person for the Cat1 group, now it's 2! a 50% reduction.

Good on you for putting your hand up mate - it takes courage and the ability to take knocks from other people who won't!

Just with your science/management focus, perhaps a couple of things you may consider:

The marine environment suffers enormously from a lack of scientific understanding, because it is so difficult and expensive to research. You can go and catch butterflies for research on a nice walk on a sunny day with your butterfly net, but it is a whole different kettle of fish (hehe) to go catching butterfly fish.

There is no such thing as proven science. It is by definition a description of ideas about the world, that are supported by demonstrable, documented and repeatable evidence gathering. This evidence is not often repeated though, especially when it costs millions of dollars to do so, as is usually the case with large-scale marine science. Therefore judgements must be made based on a weight of evidence, which might not be very heavy. It is easy to criticise this way of doing things, but very difficult and expensive to criticise it with actual data. The whole point of science is to let anyone who can find alternate answers do so, but it needs to be backed up in a similar, demonstrable way. Thus, we need more science to be done in order to reveal any alternate answers.

BTW I consider proper input from fishers as contributor to this science, I dont think it needs to be the exclusive domain of scientists. Having said THAT, it is their training and their field of expertise which must be respected. Would you get a cabinet-maker to build your wooden house? He might do a great job, or he might just do that wrong kind of jointing that sees your house blow down in a strong wind... I know that RFW contribute alot to ideas and implementation of ways that rec fishers can assist with scientific info gathering, and that is fantastic and to be supported!

There is no such thing as 'factual data'. The more data we collect, the more we learn about not only the subject, but the data and the methods themselves. They used to think the earth was flat because clearly, the available data proved it to be a fact. Perhaps we might conclude that there are plenty of mackeral around, cos we still catch them, but what if...?

Western Australia has a unique marine environment, it is the only west coast to have a poleward flowing current that suppresses oceanic upwellings and is therefore quite nutrient-poor. This allows more light to the sea floor, so we have lots of benthic production, which is slow growing. This breeds slow-growing and slow reproducing fish, which require special management. In the past we have used fishery management techniques that were not tailored to this 'fact', which were based on other fishery models, and which have led us to the position we are now in. It is vital that more unique science is done in WA, to support unique solutions to our special fishery.

The leaders amongst us, and we who vote for them MUST NOT be afraid of new evidence which supports change, or we become backward. I am sure Aeschylus would agree.

I don't believe in a fishing tax as a deterrent cos it only deters the poorer of us. I do believe in it for revenue raising for research and management. If you play football you pay fees to your club which provides you with infrastructure, jumpers, footies, playing fields, lighting for night training. You still buy your own boots and pay your way to training and games. Your club fees are analogous to fishing fees. I wouldn't want to pay someone else's footy fees if I dont myself play, any more than I would buy football boots, on which GST is charged.

I know people who have been influenced to stop smoking because it is now too expensive, and I personally don't drink as much cos I cant afford to!! Still, like I said I reckon that is *&^# when it comes to fishing.

Anyhoo - I am not running nor am I an RFW member so can't vote, so my opinions may not be relevant to your campaign. But I detected alot of science-distrust in your initial post. In the last 10 years or so there has been an incredible increase in the amount of marine science being undertaken, and this research has really only just established what the questions we should ask should be. We must, at every step, support more research. If management errs on the side of caution, it can only benefit the future generations, leaving more fish for your children and theirs to catch.

Can you explain what you find to be Sea-Kitten Science?

anyhoo - good luck mate, enjoy the ride! I agree whole-heartedly with your over-riding goals to keep families fishing, for it is indeed one of life's greatest pleasures, even if you don't catch a fish!

Cheers,

Ewan

Marine science is one of, if not "the" most difficult sectors to conduct research.

I have said this before and I will say it again. For any "food" species other than fish, you can pretty much visually count them reasonably easily in most cases as there is no visual barrier. Fish on the other hand we can't actually see all that easily as even the best visibility underwater is down to maybe 20 or 30m. (Divers can correct me here)

You can't stay down there for long periods and you can't follow a species for days or weeks at a time to study its behaviour.

Most observational research on fish is "bite size" at best. Therefore behavioural science around each species is limited. Therefore scientists have to extrapolate these bite sized bits of information to come up with a bigger picture. To suggest the scientists have any agenda other than to find out more about something is poppycock.

The only area of concern I have with some research is the weight some of it is given by non scientists with a particular agenda. Unfortunately thats life and its how we all think... I know its only human nature to look for things (data, statistics etc) to support your own existing view or hypothesis and either ignore or dismiss data that opposes that view. Scientists on the other hand are trained to embrace data that opposes their view as that is how a lot of scientific advances actually come about.... experiments are great when things dont go to plan and you get an unexpected result, usually that ends up being a discovery.

Bottom line in my view is the scientists are doing their thing and should be encouraged to continue to do their thing. If you have a beef with how people use the data, then do as Tony has and try and make a difference. I'm just sick of it when I see some people shoot the messenger (the scientists).

Off soap box now!

To quote..."I do have a problem with the pelagics ( open water fish, that don't live on reef systems, but migrate, like tuna, dolphin fish, cuda, mackerial, sailies etc...)
This was a baglimit of 4 per person for the Cat1 group, now it's 2! a 50% reduction."

Tony, why do you want to catch more than 2 of these fish per person to take home?

Just because he used to be able to, not a terribly good reason.

Yeah me and my bro in law use to be able to catch 16 Snapper every day of a 2 week trip at Shark bay and bring all the fillets home and now we can't , I hope he addresses that problem too (and the size limit was a lot smaller then too, another thing to look into).

I hope you're being sarcastic Mav. Not that I have been able to get one yet but if I manage to land just one of the fish above (pelagics) I would be stoked. I would also have more than enough fish to feed the family and I could invite the boys round! Why you would want more than two is beyond me. Start a fish and chip shop maybe?

Well yes and no, I use to catch 16 Snapper every day as well as a couple of good 15 kg mulla's with plenty returned, we use to fish 10/0 hooks just to keep the small fish from getting hooked, we did that every 6 months for about 8 years until they stopped us camping in the dunes near Steep point, I NEVER saw anyone else fishing the area I fished in all my trips and NEVER saw a fall in fish numbers (and I never fished any deeper than 15 feet of water) I wish I could be up there again tomorrow , even the ranger didn't know we were there for the first 6 years then he came looking for whoever had the tinny to collect his FEE'S.

1 dollie per person is ample. Theres no point taking 2 as they taste like shit frozen. Anybody could have told you that. As for tuna, they make great cray bait.

I've no problem with people criticising a scientific method or its findings as long as they are doing it on its merits. This is indeed the basis of the scientific method.

Tony - why do you call this science (I am assuming you are talking about the Marine Futures project) 'Sea-kitten Science'. Can you explain the reasons you don't think it is good science. Have you read the papers? Or are you talking about the reactions to the science? They are not the same thing. I hope that you are saying these things because you understand them fully and have an explainable opposition to them. You can't get a scientific paper published unless a panel of independant experts in the field, who are not remotely connected to the project, evaluate that the methods are sound, and that the results and conclusions are legitimately drawn from those methods. 

The DoF used a weight of evidence approach to determining that the stocks are at risk, which drove the management changes - it wasn't based solely on Marine Futures science. I don't know your history of fishing around these parts - mine is off Bunbury and my observation over my short lifetime is that there is definitely shlt going down in the fishery, you don't need science to tell you that.

After a couple of hundred years of 'God gave man the Earth' exploitation, you will pretty much never find a new piece of scientific work that says we can or should carry on as normal. Scientific evidence will keep on telling us to pull back - in fact it has for a couple of decades now. Translating the science into management pretty much always has a lag, but maybe we are finally catching up...?

Restrictions are vital, as are more protected areas - the ONLY way to give the natural systems some breathing room. The population will be DOUBLE in 40 years, and who knows where technology will be by then? 20 years ago people used paper sounders and compasses...and there were less people. Still the damage was done.

Cut now, and save it for the future. Call it an investment, call it insurance, call it looking after a resource for our kids, call it what you want, but dont just call it Sea-Kitten science unless there is a pretty good reason for it?

Cheers,

Ewan

My understanding was that recs and pros both catch about the same amount of these species, and that management changes are aimed at cutting both by 50%. Actually I think recs catch more dhus in the metro area? certainly now the pros can't fish here!

I am no fan of commercially fishing these slow-growing and slow-breeding species, i dont think it should be done, but it is still not really a good argument against more restrictions against recs I dont reckon...

Final notice of Recfishwest AGM, the names and details of nominations, etc are being sent out to RFW members and are on the Recfishwest website at http://www.recfishwest.org.au/AGMNotice2009.htm

Candidates nominating for three, two year term vacancies and one vacancy for a one year balance of term Public Board Member positions

Andrew Matthews
Lisa Sharp
Matt Gillett
Des Wood
Fraser Hocks
Tony Halliday
Jamie Chester

Candidates nominating for five Association Board Member positions

John Webber - WA Gamefishing Association (WAGFA)
Terry Fuller - Australian Anglers Association WA Div (AAA)
Harry Vosper - Western Australian Trout and Freshwater Angling Association (WATFAA)
Tim Carter - Australian Fishing Trades Association (AFTA) - WA
Matt Howard - Charter Boat Owners and Operators Association (CBOOA)
Stephen Gilders - Australian National Sportfishing Association (ANSA)
Joe Petrovich - Spearfishing Commission (WA) of Australian Underwater Federation (AUF)

There are vacancies for two year terms for Bioregional Board Member positions for the following: South Coast - two candidates, require a ballot.

Robert Robinson - Albany
Mark Halse - Walpole

Two year terms for Bioregional Board Member positions

Pilbara/Kimberley Mr Jay Wheelock – Karratha – elected unopposed.
Gascoyne Mr Brian Deering – Exmouth – elected unopposed.
West Coast Mr Michael Heslewood – Bunbury – elected unopposed.

TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......

You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.

Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?

Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm

a lot of sence imo. You ARE on the right track but as you have already noticed a large percent of fishers on this site have been converted with greenie bullshit and a government minister that knows sfa about fishing stocks. A lot of the fishers here catch far more than the average guy who only catchers a hand full of fish per year and causes no pressure on stocks but get their arses kicked with restrictions because of this lots overfishing activities and then they make out to be very consernd about fish stocks. Me thinks it is these guys and there likes who take home far more fish per year than the average John are the real problem that need to be brought into line. I say bring in a tag system so we all can each catch ex amount of fish per year  exceed the quota and pay a very large penalty. So good on ya Tony and keep up the good work even though it must feel like you are head butting a brick wall sometimes.

tags are the only fair way to ensure fair share to all. It WILL stop the big yearly fish hitters who take fish every month over and over from stripping the stocks.
but I have been shouted down so many times when I have suggested it, a one fish a day bag limit is still too much if you can do it every day of the month.
I'd be happier with a five fish daily baglimit, but max of 18 fish per year, that way you work your own budget out. Not taking one fish 50 days a year !
but thats my view..

Tony

Bit weird that you think that when you're trying to get elected on the basis of restoring the pelagic bag limit of 4.

Reminds me a lot of voting for major parties.

At least we have someone who knows how to freeze strawberries

and drink lots of sherry LOL

Amen!

but the grapes were humanly crushed in the making of my sherry.
but back to real issues!
On another website it was mentioned a shark netter down south in Georaph Bay is setting massive nets out!
Even though his license is for sharks, what he is doing is not illegal, but WILL have ahuge by-catch of dermals while it is a closed season for Recs... A point I want to follow up and go after.
We should not be sitting back to rest fish and then still letting nets go in and take out tons of fish! many of the undersized ones tossed back will be dead!
A Strong RFW board that stands up against netting and abuse of Pro-fishing rights can only be good for WA fishing
so go vote for some one who can stand up for you and is not going to toe-the-line to keep the piece when guts is needed.
JMO
Tony

you may not agree. but this is a bloody good way from stopping exploitation of critical and endangered fish stocks.
Basically the view is some fish stocks should not be sold in restaurants and be only catch to eat by anglers, to prevent Pro-fisher exploiting a stock till it's almost gone.

read the article, I have scanned into jpeg and put into my online gallery.

regards

Tony

ps, please give me your views on this.

OK Jody,

one day not a single comment, and you ask about me been taken seriously...
come on,

The so-called fisher-folk on this forum would rather talk cr@p than address real issues till it hits them in the @ss at times.

Yes I'm pissed off, yes I'm really thinking of withdrawing my nomination too, due to the apathy that our WA fisher-folk have.

Don't cry when you wake up one day and fishing is a computer game and if you want a feed of sea food at home, you have to buy it at Coles or Woolies...

NOT ONE COMMENT IN NEARLY TWO DAYS,

I buy all my fish from Coles, it's Pacific West , proudly made here in Freo.

I buy the fillets in beer batter, 2 large pieces for 400gm for around $4.00 I have got it for 3.60 on special, it's just as good or better that fish& chip shop fish, at least it's not meekong snapper.

I can't catch fish for that price.

PS they said it would be hard .

yip Mav, 100% right and soon we won't be allowed to fish for our feed and only buy it.... as you said Proudly caught here in WA by a Pro.
But will your son be proud to be allowed to catch his own in future.

I can buy as many dhu fish or snapper as I like every day of the year...( depends on how rich you are!!!)
yet if you caught one every day of the month the mob would be howling for your blood!

if I went out and bough twenty dhuies a day, I'd be seen as stimulating the economy..
Yet if you spent the the same amount of cash to catch just one fish every day, you killing the stocks and exploiting the fishery...( never mind the fuel, bait, tackle, coffee, chicken from Red Rooster for tucker that day etc...)
DOUBLE STANDARDS FOLKS

I'd rather see fisher-folks spending $200 a day to go out and catch their own one fish for the day,
than go into Coles and buy @$50/kilo a bag with 4kg of fillets in it.

I find it quite humorous you single me out Tony
From another thread entirely. So there is no confusion - http://fishwrecked.com/forum/why-we-battle-learn-new-ways-closed-mind - full circle :p

You would be very suprised what goes on behind the scenes. There are MANY concerned, dedicated informed people beavering away

Mav, thought you only ate Skippy :)

Jody, never singled you out, you came out guns firing at me,I made a bad taste post. Yes it was an error in judgment and light hear-ted, but nothing rude about it, nothing not in most magazines we buy off the front shelf at the cash out till.Yet you linked it directly back to my RFW standing for board! I just responded and asked you to come comment here on what I'm really standing for.

so lets start again, please. olive branch offered.

What is your thoughts on a restriction on what fish can be served in restaurants and sold over the counter in big stores like Coles?
Are we giving away future stocks for Coles, Woolies and Kalus Brothers profit line at the expense of the rec fisher-folk.

remember that we already have been cut to 5% of the lobster take in the state for others profit margins.
How would rec fishing survive with only 5% of the fish take being rec take and 95% being pro for export and sales in Coles etc???

I'd appreciate and value your views on this

"I'd appreciate and value your views on this"
Really?? I feel it far more complex than you portray above.

If you are not getting any feedback Tony, it may be in your best interest to rethink your election strategy. Your condescending tone in this and the other thread leaves me cold.

RWF board members would have to have some tact and diplomacy skills as a prerequisite, I would've thought.

Anyway, enough of this. Can you please desist posting R rated pics on a G rated site.
Thanks

I recon Matt should be running for the RFW board.

Tony i am very intrested in your views. There is apathy and division amongst us and its leaving us powerless.  If rec fish has a strong sway on decisons we need to be voting on individuals which have a wise, passionate and relavent undestanding of our sport.

I think we should be turning the light on many commercials fisheries and let the people have there say. AT PRESENT THE RECS ARE A SOFT TARGET AND WE ARE GETTING NAILED.

Thanks Tony for your time, passion and effort. I may not agree or disagree with your opinons but i am definatly growing wiser to how we can preserve our sport.

G'day Tony, yes I believe there should be a restriction for commercial outlets, firstly on the method the fish was caught on and secondly the species available. Responsible outlets should be pushing for "wetline caught only" demersals (much the same as dolphin safe Toona and freerange eggs or even organic fruit and veg). The habitat destructive Demersal gillnets and trawlers should made an environmental issue to Joe public. On the second issue fresh demersal fish should not be available during seasonal closures in the region they apply and are not to be taken from it in any way shape or form.
Quite frankly if you are buying demersal fish from your region then you, as a rec fisherman, are shitting in your own nest and have no right to bag the gillnetters IMHO.
As for your other post it was in good fun and although a little distasteful (as good fun usually is in my case)has no bearing on your position as a possible RFW member
Welcome to your first bit of bad publicity.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but I think your message is being drowned out by your own apparent demanour and forum attitude (given you can only take what is written at face value and not reads a persons demeanour). Its a very faceless platform to launch a campaign so to speak.

At the end of the day, its easier to catch bees with honey than vinegar.

I wish you luck

yeah Huggy, but the bee's come with stings attached. But I hear what you saying, more sweat and less acid does help.

I find the slowly quiet way does work some times, but many times is drowned out by the beer and bolshie way of forums.

But still I ask people to read that article above, written by a marine sciences major student.

What I find difficult to fathom is how we keep trying to get different types of square blocks into the new round hole we have. When does the penny drop to those that make changes and those of us that vote for them, that we need a new round peg this time.
Baglimits will never solve our fish resources issue alone.
lock out will work for awhile, but what we need is new approach to how we consume fish, not just catch them. Market demands need to be kept in check at times and just because the Coles, Woolies, fish&chips boys etc want to sell a fish, does not mean they have the right to sell a fish.

Sorry you didn't make the grade Tony
Not to worry, new team looks like a bloody good line up.

congrats to the people that got in, they have a tough job this next few years.

I'll support Frank and his team in anyway they need,

thanks to those that supported me, now get behind the RFW and make a consolidated front visible for rec-fishing,

I am sure that we are and will continue to be well represented by some intelligent people who do share some common interests and go about their business with open minds. It will be interesting to see how things progress from here. One thing is for sure, all the discussion that has been stirred up as a result of a poor government and some radical members here has shown the power of the voice of rec fishers who use this forum. They have had their say again.

Now, I should see if there is any beer in the fridge so I can prime myself for some more interactions of a less political nature.

The evil greenies that Tony and others speak of are waaaaaay ahead of the saintly recreational fishers on the issue of changing the way we make money from wild fish.

Australia's Sustainable Seafood Guide is available from the Australian Marine Conservation Society, it provides an assessment of the sustainability of commercially fishing various species:

http://www.amcs.org.au/WhatWeDo.asp?active_page_id=213

The AMCS actively lobby against large-scale commercial fisheries, such as bottom trawling and shark-finning, etc. Reducing these kinds of fisheries makes our fishing better, and so it follows that the evil greenies are actually more or less on the side of the recreational fisher - well the recreational fisher who can see the forest for the trees that is.

Further up the thread I asked exactly what made the recent scientific revelations 'Sea-Kitten science' according to Tony - who to be fair is probably not alone in his opinions, and got the informed and extensive reply:

"Ewan I call it sea-kitten science as it panders to the whims and wishes of Green votes in many sectors. "

I think it actually panders to the need of more information to guide planning and management. Perhaps the green vote responds because it invariably demonstrates what they have been advocating for so long - restraint (and therefore, restriction) is needed more than ever.

As I said earlier - I am not a fan of commercially fishing many of the slow-growing species, as listed in the Australian Sustainable Seafood Guide.

But for everyone who flings insults at all of the commercial fishers out there - you would not want to need rescuing one day, as many of the Sea Rescue volunteers are ex- or current pro fishos, nor would you want to visit any of WAs coastal towns for a holiday or a fishing trip - they are only there because of the fishing industry.

Like it or not, commercial fishing forms a backbone of WA coastal life, and in general commercial fishers have more knowledge about their quarry than scientists or rec fishermen do. It is also directly in their interests to preserve the quality of fishing in perpetuity, as opposed to the weekend fisho to whom it is a pastime or lifestyle choice - we still like going fishing if we catch something or not. Commercial fishing data are also about the only source of info for historical stock assessments. There will always be bad eggs and villains though, in both rec and pro circles.

Still, as I said, I don't believe people in, say, Kalgoorlie need to be able to buy coral trout or dhufish. Perhaps the sale can be limited to local consumption only, which may give a little culinary tourism boost to coastal towns!! 

There is a balance, and I think we are heading towards it, though perhaps not yet there. Necessity will find it though, in the fullness of time as or if stocks keep declining, as long as we keep watch. Clearly, seeing the number of posts on these topics on just this website alone, it seems as though there is no danger of not keeping watch!

Just some more thoughts to ponder!

Cheers,
Ewan