Last Nights News: ABC- Fishing Ban going Ahead.( Link to News Article)
Submitted by Moking on Sat, 2022-10-01 06:51
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8e3b32
____________________________________________________________________________
My Dad taught me how to Fish-Thanks Dad.(RIP)
fishfish
Posts: 307
Date Joined: 01/09/09
Fishing ban
Far out ! So they basically had already decided it .
selthy
Posts: 294
Date Joined: 27/05/11
The last sentence in the clip
The last sentence in the clip is "the bans are expected to be intoduced this summer"
Before I jump at shadows, is anyone aware of an official release from the government regarding this matter? In someway I am hoping this is the case. With the consultation period only closing yesterday, there has been no time to collate and consider the input, suggesting the 'consultation period' was a sham, with the outcome set in stone prior to public consultation.
At risk of downplaying the seriousness of what is happening in Ukraine, I can't help but draw comparisons between this 'consultation process' and referendums the Russians have used to annex certain areas of Ukraine.
Jim
Posts: 1334
Date Joined: 05/05/06
What do we do about it if
What do we do about it if they announce the dates of the new ban? i personally think they will weather the storm and bring in the changes. Much like the covid mandates they will just do it and see what happens.
Bend over
Jim
Posts: 1334
Date Joined: 05/05/06
this article
www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-01/fishing-rules-in-western-australia/101481498
I may have to remove my tin hat but the abc are clearly biased in favour of the ban. Their choice of photos tell the story imo.
No old fish they reckon. how do fisheries get their 'old fish' data? surely the photos on facebook prove there are old fish still thriving out there.
Good on ya punch, we still have herring whiting squid and crabs. Herring have only just recovered, garfish dont exist anymore apprently, cant crab in cockburn. Sure will be crowded down mandurah way come summer for the whiting and crabs.
But i think punch is right. What is he supposed to when recfishwest and the other bodies says we need to cut the catch rate 50%.
Bend over
Rob H
Posts: 5796
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Well, in particular, not cut
Well, in particular, not cut it by 64%, which is what DPIRD quantify this 8-9 month ban as.
The figure came from nowhere, there was no new research released between when 50% was decided and worked upon to 64%
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
Rob I have to pull you up on
Rob I have to pull you up on this. RFW was well aware of the IFM numbers and catch data (inaccurate as it is). The numbers were always a reduction from 320 to 135. Or if charters taken into account 280 to 115. If that wasn’t explained to the working group then that is a failure of RFW.
These numbers were never going to work without a re allocation. RFW might be waking up to this now but they were very very reluctant to push this line. They would call this politics. I would call it failure to sell the message to the people that matter and prob worrying more about a pro/rec conflict than about getting the result the rec community needed.
This fishery cannot justifiably be allocated 65% to a handful of pro operators. It is RFW job to sell that message.
Billcollector
Posts: 2080
Date Joined: 16/05/09
If the fishery is in such a
If the fishery is in such a fucked state then the bleeding obvious would be to buy out the pros. It worked well up here in Broome with our local population of threadfin and Barramundi. We told fisheries researchers for years it was stuffed, then within 2 years of the buyout we could actually catch these fish again.
Let anyone that is too lazy to partake in this near extinct thing we call fishing eat herring and see how that goes.
Billcollector
Posts: 2080
Date Joined: 16/05/09
And has anyone else noticed
And has anyone else noticed the pros don't seem to be whingeing about the cuts, my guess is Punch has looked after them.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
It’s very hard to be on top
It’s very hard to be on top of all this so I don’t blame you. The pro cuts are all on paper. In reality they were catching only half their allocation due to latent effort and there not being enough fish out there to catch them in their allocated days...hence in reality the cut to them will only be 10-12%. And with less rec pressure much more likely to catch their quota in the days they are given. Hence the pro sector is very very happy with this plan. Hence no complaining.
marble
Posts: 775
Date Joined: 03/09/09
Heard plenty of noise from
Heard plenty of noise from the com sector when this was first announced how they are copping a 50% reduction . . . . crickets since then
PMY 25 Centre Console DF300 Suzuki
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
That was WAFIC spin. They are
That was WAFIC spin. They are advertising on radio right now - so hardly crickets. So far very little overt pushback from RFW either.
marble
Posts: 775
Date Joined: 03/09/09
And still banging on about a
And still banging on about a 50% reduction ? Blatant lies
PMY 25 Centre Console DF300 Suzuki
marble
Posts: 775
Date Joined: 03/09/09
And still banging on about a
And still banging on about a 50% reduction ? Blatant lies
PMY 25 Centre Console DF300 Suzuki
Billcollector
Posts: 2080
Date Joined: 16/05/09
So if they where struggling
So if they where struggling to catch their quota shouldn't that be ringing alarm bells that they have previously overfished it. Buy them out with this governments surplus and see the change in the fishery happen quite quickly. Plenty of sharks out there for the people that don't want to fish for a feed. This will hurt the small towns up the coast and their business's that rely on the fishing tourist more than losing the odd boat.
Moking
Posts: 1252
Date Joined: 30/05/12
Crabs Cockburn Sound- Thats
Crabs Cockburn Sound- Thats exactly how they banned /shutdown the Crabs, via the Professional Reported Catch Rate declining rapidily. They issued Graphs showing the actual decline catch rate.
It's now been a 12 year Ban for Crab Fishing in the Sound,and no word from the Authorities when it will re open?
This is my worse case fear with the upcoming Demersal Fishing Ban!
I hope I'm wrong about this- time will tell.
My Dad taught me how to Fish-Thanks Dad.(RIP)
still trying
Posts: 1048
Date Joined: 27/06/17
I think that you might be
I think that you might be right there. We may never get it back.
rather be fishing
Pete F
Posts: 310
Date Joined: 07/01/18
Thats why I thought it was so
Thats why I thought it was so important to protect the breeding aggregations in some way. Either some well placed no take zones or a several month ban at the right time of year for all sectors.
Otherwise come 8 years, pro's are on a quota system and able to fish the dhu aggregation times. Us recs get good at putting 6 big dhu in the boat and there is more intense activity in the time available. Its not hard to fish the right baits and spots, without even leaving a trail of floating baldies and break sea and get a full bag of dhu. There will always be high graders too, the way fisheries have treated us, there is not a lot of ownership of the new rules!
I fully expect we will never get a decent length season back if they go down this path they have planed.
Cheers
Jim
Posts: 1334
Date Joined: 05/05/06
A small percentage of recs
A small percentage of recs would get good at getting 6 dhus in the boat. That generalisation that all recs get dhus has got us where we are today.
Bend over
rob90
Posts: 1526
Date Joined: 06/02/13
I love how they use the "old
I love how they use the "old fish" argument. 15 years ago there was little management and the fishery was in danger, fast forward to now we have proper management and proven recovery but they expect the fishery to be full of 40yo fish in the 10years of management. What's going to happen in 8 years when they re asses and there still aren't 40yo fish?
Hi my name is rob............. and I'm a........... fishaholic
selthy
Posts: 294
Date Joined: 27/05/11
the article does say
the article does say "Government officials will now meet key stakeholders to finalise a management plan, which is scheduled to be implemented this summer." Along with some quotes from the fisheries minister.
Quite interesting, is the reporter just releasing the story as the consultation period has finished or is it because new information has come to light or a press release was provided by the minister yesterday? Is there a slight chance that Recfishwest and WARFFA are considered 'key stakeholders' and they have a small chance of influencung next steps?
I'm interested in this context as it will help inform my next communication with my local minister. Will probably amount to nothing, but one can only try.
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Nothing's been ratified .
Nothing's been ratified . But it doesn't look good with that fuckwit Punch.
Time to break out the Whiting gear imo
Love the West!
Bluetonic
Posts: 1147
Date Joined: 09/01/08
Yep, heard Punch on ABC 'The
Yep, heard Punch on ABC 'The Country Hour' the other day and it sounded like his mind was made up. Apparently the ban (whatever the period picked) will happen this summer so with the Demersal ban from Oct. 15 to Dec. 15, you'd expect it to start from Dec. 15...?
Blue Sky, Blue Water, Bluetonic!
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Just like Covid mate once
Just like Covid mate once our social/recreational lives are being put on ice once again. At least with Covid it was unavoidable and had to be managed on the run. This was totally avoidable and we the recs, the bottom line are the one's being shafted by it all.
Makes my fucking blood boil that it's been so mismanaged that it's gotten to this. I work my fucken arse off through the year and work towards the summer going fishing for Dhu bangers etc. That's likely all gone now just gutted.
Love the West!
Shark1
Posts: 1086
Date Joined: 21/05/12
Imagine u sold tackle or
Imagine u sold tackle or boats for a living -hard times coming up for some family owned businesses
crasny1
Posts: 7002
Date Joined: 16/10/08
What boats???
Ahh you mean the brand new garden ornaments that's going to be sitting in many a home!!!!!!
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
little johnny
Posts: 5357
Date Joined: 04/12/11
Pros won’t cry ocean to themselves
Now .( 50% my ass) , if pros fish nothing will change.( some are shit fisherman) Wasn’t the biggest dhue on record only mid 20 year old ? Once in . It’s forever. Load of wank. How many dead fish will be floating on top. ( while kg fishing) . My guess lots . They have no idea . Sorry but a heap of this is from people doing there hand in frames and there catch log books . It’s not for data . It’s just away to hang you .
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Cannot see the forrest for the trees
The only thing you need to understand in the fisheries recent reports is their mention of the year 2030.
These proposals and decisions are driven by globalists (the only stakeholders they care to consult) and their Agenda 2030 goals (or what they prefer to call SDGs).
It has nothing to do with our local, state or national fishing stocks.
If I am wrong, then please explain the science to me, because it does not seem to matter how many comments in these threads I read, or the multitude of fishing reports available on the fish.wa.gov.au website, or news articles, or the departments experts, it simply does not make any sense and the numbers do not support their proposals.
But, once you understand that the year 2030 is now suddenly mentioned as the all important year for their targets and with some limited understanding of world politics, Agenda 2030, globalists (vs Nationalists) you may be able to stop arguing and debating about details that do not matter and instead see the forrest.
That is, these proposals are agenda based and when agendas are involved, we are all wasting our time thinking we can understand it or be part of the decision making process.
Lefty 44
Posts: 163
Date Joined: 04/12/17
2030
Good to see someone else can see it.
selthy
Posts: 294
Date Joined: 27/05/11
I can't say that I agree with
I can't say that I agree with all your points, however support your 2030 comment. My read is that the proposed changes are designed to hit a desired 2030 ideal (strategic target) and completely diregard the current social and economic impact of the decision. This was one of the 3 points I raised with my local member and the fisheries minister... I'm not sure it has achieved anything, but at least I feel like I have tried and shared my voice :(
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Why don't you chuck it up
Why don't you chuck it up instead of being obscure
Here I'll do it, this is part of the United Nations agenda. A guidline if you like for governemnts to try act on. It's fanciful in my opinion as long as there's greed, corruption and capatalism. Bob Hawke got it wrong all those years ago declaring no child will be living in poverty by 1990.
This is the part regarding oceans etc.
There's no secret agenda it's out there for all to see.....
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
Goal 15. Protect, restore and prom14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels
14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics
14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information
14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation
14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries
14.b Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets
14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want
Love the West!
Simo_
Posts: 1843
Date Joined: 13/11/06
You will own nothing and be
You will own nothing and be happy...
Bring on April
Swompa
Posts: 3873
Date Joined: 14/10/12
Curious to know, are you
Curious to know, are you guys vaccinated against Covid-19?
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Good to see the resident
Good to see the resident cOnSPiraCy theorists contributing to the thread lol
Love the West!
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Only just read this. Nobody
Only just read this. Nobody was vaccinated against covid-19 mate.
Vaccines work really well and they normally stop what they are targeting. Whatever went in our arms did fuck all and it certainly didn't stop the spread like we were told it would. Have a look around at everyone that's been triple jabbed and most have had covid twice.
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
LOL if you say so, anyway
LOL if you say so, anyway let's not go down that rabbit hole mate. It didn't end nicely last time.
Love the West!
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
No rabbit hole needed. Have
No rabbit hole needed. Have a look at the polio vaccine, chicken pox, tetanus, hep B, meningococcal. They have stopped the targets. We have been sold a lemon and I've been triple jabbed myself! It's ok to admit fuck ups and the point I'm trying to make is don't write everyone off as conspiracy theorists. It's lazy and we should all have a look around from time to time.
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
I'll stick with the data and
I'll stick with the data and facts cheers.
Love the West!
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Data and facts show it did
Data and facts show it did nothing! Have a look around you at all the jabbed people that caught it. Really stopped the spread didn't it?
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Mate I'm not gonna sit here
Mate I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you as you've obviously made your mind up with anecdotal evidence. If you had a clue you'd know how the vaccine works.
Here's a fact sheet.
https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/approved-vaccines/how-they-work#:~:text=decisions%20about%20vaccines.-,How%20the%20vaccines%20work,builds%20this%20protection%20over%20time.
Your choice to read and comprehend.
My last response to you bud.
Love the West!
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Thanks I'll certainly be
Thanks I'll certainly be having a read of that!
Pete F
Posts: 310
Date Joined: 07/01/18
flu vaccine ?
flu vaccine ?
Cheers
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
I'm unsure of the flu
I'm unsure of the flu vaccine. I can only really speak on what I was told about the covid jab and that was get the jab and you won't get covid, then it went to get the jab and you might not get covid and you will protect old mates 98 year old Aunty because her jab won't protect her, then get the jab and you will get covid but won't die or have severe symptoms and now it's get the jab because Pfizer shares are down.
uncle
Posts: 9474
Date Joined: 10/02/07
Seen what shingles can do
The day I turned 70 I lined up for my free one, now I can have a 5th covid jab, we personnely know 2 people who hot it.
all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs
davewillo
Posts: 2396
Date Joined: 08/09/16
smart move Unc. I've seen
smart move Unc. I've seen people with it and it does not look like fun.
PGFC member and lure tragic
Pete F
Posts: 310
Date Joined: 07/01/18
flue vaccine and many others
flue vaccine and many others the same, you can still get the flue but much lesss chance of severe illness.
Cheers
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
I didn't know that about the
I didn't know that about the flu vax mate, I thought they normally tried to guess a few strains each year and stick them in it. Love to know how many others only half work though and if they were sold as stopping the target dead in its tracks then it changed five times as they were developed over time! Like the covid jab that was certainly developed over a long time and Pfizer didn't try to hide the trial results for 75 years. That's probably another conspiracy though isn't it
Pete F
Posts: 310
Date Joined: 07/01/18
www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/con
www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/understanding-vacc-work.html" While vaccines are the safest way to protect a person from a disease, no vaccine is perfect. It is possible to get a disease even when vaccinated, but the person is less likely to become seriously ill."Cheers
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
CDC have been withholding unsafe vax data
Only this week the CDC was forced by a judge only after 2 lawsuits by ICAN to release their VSafe Covid-19 Vaccine data.
The 10 million records released showed 7.7% of VSafe participants required medical attention within days of their jab.
25% missed a days work/school/normal activities due to adverse reactions.
And also this week, Florida's State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo gave a presser stating their analysis found an 84% increase in Cardic-related deaths for 18-39 year old males within 28 days of a mRNA vaccination.
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Not sure if it's worth it
Not sure if it's worth it anymore bluekiaser. Seems like we are talking to the blokes that drive around by themselves wearing a mask.
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Pointless Pete, probably
Pointless Pete, probably talking to the type of blokes on their Covid deathbed begging to be vaccinated. Read about plenty of those.
Love the West!
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Haha he's back
Haha he's back
crasny1
Posts: 7002
Date Joined: 16/10/08
LOL. Covid Vaccines dont
LOL.
Covid Vaccines dont work??? They sure do!
During the start of the pandemic case mortality was about 3%. For example March1 2020 7 day moving average world cases 1589, 7 day average deaths 59 (3.7%), by end of April 2020 7 day av. 85277 cases, 6231 deaths (7%). By December 2020 490 564 cases, 14474 deaths (2.9%). By now us Dr's have started to figure out how to manage patients and unless the systems overwhelmed by cases care was improving.
Then vaccinations started early 2021. Jump to the Delta wave end of August 2021 666 002 7 day av cases, 8603 av deaths (1.2%), to Omicron end January 22, 2 359 686 cases, 7746 deaths (0.3%). If we use the original Wuhan figures from March 1 there would have been 87 300 odd deaths on that day. In Australia on Jan 30 2022 we had 32340 cases and 80 deaths (0.2%), using Wuhan figures above 1196 deaths.
My father had Covid at 84, fully vaxed and OK. I am just glad he was not one of the excess 1116 deaths that would have happened was it not for vaccinations. Yes from 80 families in tears to 1196 families. That is not a joke and we deal with the grief everyday, and I am sure glad I didnt have to deal with this extra load that many colleagues in the USA and UK had to go through early on in the pandemic, not just the treatment, but the aftermath.
Yes the original hope was to stop infections and rate of infections, but variants developed and caused variant escape. But it has not caused variant mortality escape and the vaccines still offer protection against hospitaliation and death. I am sure glad not one of my vaccinated patients has passed on, but 2 un or under vaccinated has. RIP.
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
still trying
Posts: 1048
Date Joined: 27/06/17
I am triple vaxed turns out
I am triple vaxed turns out I spent all last week with 2 people with covid didn't catch it have had covid in april. My exes grandmother is 97 all vaxed she has had covid twice didn't effect her at all hardly very lucky.
rather be fishing
Noxious
Posts: 504
Date Joined: 22/12/11
It doesn't matter what
It doesn't matter what hobby/past-time you are into whether it be, fishing, hunting, aquariums or 4wding. Slowly but surely, piece by piece it is all being taken away from us. Think about what you could do 10 years ago compared to today, imagine another 10 years from now and 10 past that. Wake up go to work, pay your taxes and shut up.
scubafish
Posts: 962
Date Joined: 15/08/12
food for thought
If this does happen, isn't that a total admission of the failure of the sustainability of our fishery by fisheries.
I mean to take such a drastic move all of a sudden in one hit.
At what point did the alarm bells go off 2000/01/02/03/20/21 ?
All those educated people and hours of smarts,stats,reports,surveys,observations over the years by Gov dept to end up here?
What a waste of Tax $$.
P.S
Bet we still have to pay boat reg and fishing lic !
http://img.gg/BQ91Sys
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Fisheries Sustainability Scorecard
The WA Fisheries current website today still has a Sustainability scorecard showing WA Demersals rated as 1 (out of 4, 1 being best) for both commercial and recreational.
( source: https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sustainability_scorecard/sustainability_scorecard_2016-17.pdf )
As I will continue to parrot on ... this is not about our local fish stocks or sustainability, this is all agenda driven by unjustified committments and goals set by globalists and being enforced by their willing soldiers (eg. Minister Punch).
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
As I will continue to parrot
As I will continue to parrot on ... this is not about our local fish stocks or sustainability, this is all agenda driven by unjustified committments and goals set by globalists and being enforced by their willing soldiers (eg. Minister Punch).
I'd assume you'd have some proof of this deep state rhetoric you keep parroting on about?
Love the West!
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
fish.wa.gov.au have the evidence publicly available
The WA fisheries websites own reports and data have led me to believe Agenda 2030 is largely responsible (eg. last annual report referring to 2030 >50 times).
Of course I don't have any evidence to directly implicate Minister Punch. I describe him and others in the government as willing soldiers because I believe they allow themselves to become departmentalised and focused on their careers, losing sight in the process that they should be representing the public's best interests.
And so far when I have spent way too many hours reading Fisheries reports and trying to digest the harvest reports and stock assessments to make some mathematical sense of all this, I keep finding myself taking a step back and asking how the heck can they possibly think they can sell a narrative that they have had a 20 year plan which started by halving our catch, then 10 years later halving our catch again.
To say that was a very poor 20 year plan is being kind.
The numbers and the science simply does not stack up when looked at objectively.
Whereas, my theories and beliefs about Agenda 2030 have many data points that align neatly.
Willlo
Posts: 1490
Date Joined: 07/10/11
Like the NIKE add says ,
Like the NIKE add says , Just Do It and a big middle finger to the govt.
Call Sign - BZ785
Haynes Hunter Prowler CC
Billcollector
Posts: 2080
Date Joined: 16/05/09
And don't forget to take the
And don't forget to take the portable cooktop with you.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Agenda 2030
The year 2030 is referenced 58 times in the Oct '21 Fisheries Research Report.
Go back just 2 years and 2030 is nowhere to be seen in any of the fisheries reports.
Less than 2 years ago (late 2020), Australia was one of 14 countries to sign up to a UN like treaty committing to Agenda 2030 ocean related goals.
It is good to see people in here aware of this bigger picture.
Attempts to dismiss or belittle it with labels of conspiracy theories only makes it easier for the authorities to push these agendas while keeping us fighting about details that do not matter.
(And if anybody wishes to review the whole Covid-19 vaccine topic, in another thread, then I would happily continue on with that discussion where I left off, given I now have the benefit of hindsight and historical data further supporting the comments I posted. But I do not believe this thread should be derailed by other topics or attempts to troll with petty snipes.)
Lefty 44
Posts: 163
Date Joined: 04/12/17
Tin Foil hat
I'm more than happy to be called a conspiracy theorist.
I gave up believing the corrupt mainstream and social media a long time ago.
As you said BK, it's all there to be read by anyone willing to look.
The media seems to "forget" to report it.
swarf
Posts: 58
Date Joined: 07/08/13
2030
Its a bit simpler than that. If you go back a bit....in 2010 fisheries introduced a 20 year recovery plan for demersal scalefish.
That brings us to 2030 hence that date being referred to
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8141
Date Joined: 07/05/12
Are you suggesting that
Are you suggesting that 10+20=30. You've clearly a shill for or have been had by 'Big Algebra'.
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Any evidence
Do you have any evidence of that?
If this was true than why has 2030 only been reported in their own reports after they signed up to this UN type treaty in late 2020.
The major changes to our fish rules and catch limits occurred before 2010 from the 2005/2006 catch rates.
I have read plenty of the current and historical reports available on the wa.fish.gov.au website and prior to 2021 and there was no mention of 2030 or a 20 year plan commencing in 2010.
swarf
Posts: 58
Date Joined: 07/08/13
yeah sure, google demersal
yeah sure, google demersal scalefish 20 year recovery plan and knock yourself out
heres one to get you started
www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/fisheries_research_updates/fisheries_research_update_west_coast_demersal_scalefish_resource_december_2019.pdf
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Thanks for that report
Yes that report is prior to 2021 ... by just over 12 months (Dec'19).
So that report is evidence that my comment prior to 2021 was wrong and on review I now say prior to 2019 there was no mention of a 20 year plan or 2030.
In that report they state;
"In 2007, a stock assessment of WCDSR ‘indicator species’ – dhufish, pink snapper and baldchin groper – concluded that overfishing was occurring. It also found that catches of demersal scalefish needed to be reduced by at least 50 per cent to allow stocks to recover within 20 years (Fisheries Research Report No.163). A plan to recover the WCDSR by 2030 was developed based on reducing both recreational (including charter) and commercial catches by at least half of their respective 2005/06 levels (the ‘recovery benchmark’)."
But there is absolutely no mention of a 20 year plan or 2030 in that FRR163 report, nor in any reports or publications from the WA Fisheries after that point (until recent years). You have provided evidence in Dec '19 in which they claim there was a plan, but I find no evidence of that plan existing.
Management papers (eg fmp247 July 2010) relating to new rules and restrictions imposed after the 2007 stock assessments (eg 2009) would mention 12 month reviews and next stock assessments which would typically happen every 3 or 5 years.
The talk in the fisheries papers and publications have always been about reducing the mortality by 50% from the 2005/2006 levels but never (until recent years) has there been discussion that it is a 20 year plan.
I think we would have clearly remembered if back in 2009 when many of the new fishing restrictions were introduced, if we were told that it would take 20 years until 2030 for these new rules to get our stock levels back.
And even worse if we were told that in 10 years time after reducing the catch rate by 50% we would still need to reduce the catch by another 50% to meet targets by 2030.
The point I am trying to make is in recent years they are attempting to rewrite history to pretend that there has always been a 20 year plan ... when there was not. It is a narrative they have introduced so people do not focus on Agenda 2030 as being the major reason for these new proposals.
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8141
Date Joined: 07/05/12
This is far and away the
This is far and away the biggest load of wank I have read in a long time and shifting the goalposts around to suit your tin hat narrative makes you look like an utter fool.
In 2007 a report said that catches need to reduce by 50% over 20 years and those restrictions came into being in 2010 right? 2010+20=2030 does it not?
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Reefsta
Posts: 311
Date Joined: 03/08/19
20 years is the plan
Agree with you Jackfrost. No rubbish conspiracy theories about 20 year recovery plans and the year 2030, please BK. Fisheries have stated that they commenced a recovery plan in 2010 after the reuslts of that report. They would have planned for a 20 year period, but there's nothing magical about 2030, as it simply is 20 years after they started.
There was one set out in 2017 for Gascoyne snapper (https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=fr_fmp ) that structured the suggested recovery approach over 20 yearslike this, with an end date of 2037;
Rebuild spawning biomass above the threshold (Milestone: Spawning Biomass above Threshold within 10 years: 2027).
Rebuild spawning biomass to near the target (Milestone: Spawning Biomass near the Target within 20 years: 2037, subject to economic and social objectives being met).
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
May 2020 not 2017
The report you have picked out (fmp298) was from May 2020.
It refers to data obtained and presented in the Sep 2017 report (fmp284).
But once again, there is absolutely no reference in the 2017 report or data about any 20 year plans.
Like I see in all the older reports they constantly talk about reviewing and making adjustments based on future reviews (eg. 12 month and 3-5 year data).
But then you look at the May 2020 report and the narrative changes to a confusing 20 year recovery plan from 2018 to 2037.
I say confusing because they state their recovery plan is one generation/13 years;
"THE PLAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF OCEANIC PINK SNAPPER
As oceanic pink snapper spawning biomass is below the limit, the Harvest Strategy requires that appropriate management action be taken as soon as is practicable to reduce the fishing mortality by 50-100%, applicable to all fishing sectors, to enable a return to above the threshold within one generation (i.e. 13 years)."
In any case, here once again we have an example of how in recent years they introduce a narrative of a 20 year plan and pretend it has always existed ... when it hasn't. Just like that 2019 report previously provided as evidence.
I have now responded to two dismissive posts relating to my theory about the fisheries using these 20 year plans and 2030 as a driver for their policies. Both examples only refer to 20 year plans in as early as 2019 and 2020, but nowhere previous to that, and especially not in the specific fisheries reports that the 2019 & 2020 reports reference.
The Agenda 2030 SDG 14 (Life Below Water) was well and truly already established by 2019.
Rob H
Posts: 5796
Date Joined: 18/01/12
and what do you suggest we
and what do you suggest we do?
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Learn from history
We are doing many things right.
Freely discussing the topic as much as we can is essential.
(But please remember, most us here want similar results even if our beliefs of the details differ. That is, constructive criticism is healthy, but infighting about particulars is a waste of all our time).
The petition and it's response has been great and very much appreciated. Thanks to all of you involved in that effort.
And if I am right with my thinking that this is largely related to Agenda 2030, then I suggest we can expect many more similar frustrations of unjust restrictions of our freedoms in the future.
History shows us that when authorities attempt to impose draconian unjust laws on the citizens, peaceful protests, raising public awareness and even some civil disobedience often has some effect.
Examples of civil disobedience could be, we simply continue to fish when the rules are brought in. We do not bring any fish back to shore (I'm not advocating breaking laws). We do not renew our fishing licenses. We encourage the fisheries officers attempting to police the new draconian laws to board our boats and waste an hour of their time. And we continue to catch and release and maybe produce stickers to advertise our rebellious movement with something like "Free2Fish".
And most importantly, we use RecFishWest (or some better group) to represent us and to portray that we want to help with log books, tagging, gathering better data, learning about the stocks, having regular information nights working with Fisheries, etc... That is, we disempower their ability to fight against us.
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8141
Date Joined: 07/05/12
So your answer is to waste
So your answer is to waste time and >$100 on fuel and go out and unnecessarily kill demersal species that we don't intend to eat through barotrauma.
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Bodgy 79
Posts: 285
Date Joined: 04/08/22
Yeah not into wasting fish
Yeah not into wasting fish myself and pretty much the worst you could do for public opinion. Been there before with the firearms reform
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Which 2007 report is that
"In 2007 a report said that catches need to reduce by 50% over 20 years and those restrictions came into being in 2010 right? 2010+20=2030 does it not?"
Can you provide a link to (or name of) that 2007 report please?
(NB: I think you missed the part where I stated that FRR163 has no mention of any 20 year plan. WA Fisheries are gaslighting when they reference that paper which is avaiable on line if you wish to read it ... as I have.)
Reefsta
Posts: 311
Date Joined: 03/08/19
What does it matter
The FRR163, which I have read, does not mention 2030 or a 20 year plan, but the modelling in it provided the basis for initiaing catch reduction strategy to reduce fishing mortality. The path to recovery that seeks to rebuild spawning biomass., if you use that Gascoyne report as a guide, is suggested to unfold over about 20-25 years. So to me the nominal 2030 end point is simply consistent with starting after the 2007 report. Nothing sinister in the dates to my mind.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Then why are we only now hearing about it
If 20 year plans or 2030 was mentioned in the early reports I too would agree that there is nothing sinister about it.
But when we only see it mentioned in recent years (since Agenda 2030 became a thing about 2019+) with a narrative that it has existed (and somehow been ommitted/kept a secret from us) for more than 10 years, and they reference earlier reports to support a 20 year plan narrative ... but none of those earlier reports actually mention 2030 or 20 year plans ... I become very suspicious.
And regardless ... can anybody please pause and try to explain to me what good does a 20 year plan give us?
Why a finite 20 years?
Is it not more professional to have a living 20 year plan that is reviewed and modified periodically/annually when new information becomes available?
If we had a need for a 20 year plan in 2010, why do we now only need plans for 7 or 8 more years until 2030???
Surely if you discover the stock levels are unsustainable, you would want to put in place either long term consistant plans that will lead to stock recoveries (with minor tinkering of relaxing and imposing restrictions along the way) or you impose dramatic short term restrictions for quicker turnarounds, followed by a relaxing of those restrictions.
WA has a Fisheries department that initially imposed dramatic restrictions (pre-2010), with no mention of 20 year plans, followed by reports that show sustainability, followed by another round of imposing dramatic restrictions and now with talk about a 20 year plan that always existed that is now a 7 or 8 year plan. There is no logic to that.
But it now seems that just because the Fisheries in recent reports tell you about a 20 year plan (with only false evidence of one) you get some fuzzy feeling that they have a plan and know what they are doing. If they had a plan and knew what they were doing we would not currently be in this predicament. Just because they are blaming you the recreational fisher does not make it true.
And now we have multiple people in here defending our WA Fisheries and their BS 20 year narrative ... Stockholm Syndrome.
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8141
Date Joined: 07/05/12
All of this is stemming from
All of this is stemming from a review conducted halfway into a 20 year plan showing more needs to be done to reach the targets in the 20 year plan so so yes, it does appear to be a living plan....
It's hard enough for some people to keep up with the raft of restrictions letalone changing them on an annual basis not to mention the cost or that we'll see an influxes or decreases in catches due to external factors such as weather, currents, temperature, increase in food bioimass nearshore etc. Using your ill thought out approach we may see the following scenario.
There's an influx of snapper catches in 2023 due to ideal external factors and the bag limit is increased to 3 for 2024. 2024 however has significantly less favourable external factors resulting in a marked decrease in catches and the bag limit is reduced to 1 for 2025.
Do you see how this works? You need to assess the biomass over a number of years to identify trends and establish a moving average rather.
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Business 20 year plans should not be finite
When I used the term "living" for the 20 year plan I meant that if as an ongoning operational business they saw the importance of a 20 year plan in 2010 (that finishes in 2030), then they should still also have a revised 20 year plan in 2020 (that finishes in 2040) and so on.
When a business has a living 20 year plan, a document will clearly detail that plan but it will be continually updated for the next 20 years ... it does not expire in 20 years from it's first creation. Version 1 may, but a living 20 year plan should exist 21 years after the first version was created.
WA Fisheries had neither a 20 year plan or successive reviewed 20 year plans.
But in recent years 2019+ have invented a narrative that they had one so the gullible public will permit them to impose dramatic unjust restrictions under an umbrella that for some reason they had always planned the year 2030 was their all important goal date (one never mentioned prior to 2019).
Where is this 20 year plan that they so vaguely speak of with references to older reports that make no mention of it?
Do you or any body else truly believe that by 2030 WA Fisheries will tell us that the stocks are back to pre-2005/2006 and most of our restrictions are relaxed? That is not going to happen because that is not their agenda.
Rob H
Posts: 5796
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Without being drawn into
Without being drawn into conspiracies etc.
They are not too clever to be substituting "2030" in the reports now if multiple citizens know that "2030" is the secret code for 2030
So this leaves me struggling to understand what you actually need to convince us of in this particular discussion-we are dealing with this issue and your discussion is a distraction
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
And what is that
And what is that conspiracy?
That from 2019 the Fisheries have invented a narrative of a 20 year plan that "coincidentally" finishes on 2030 during the same years that the Australian government has signed their pledge to an Agenda 2030 SDG 14 with 13 other globalist puppet type Westernised countriies.
The 100's of fisheries reports publicly available prior to 2019 show absolutely zero evidence of any 20 year plan.
The "rec fishers would have no chance of changing" comment ... what have you actually witnessed so far with this WA Fisheries proposal?
To me it is fairly clear we have had no chance of changing it.
If WA Fisheries was not agenda driven then we would have more considered input ... but we don't so why is that?
If these proposals are all simply science based and pure maths, why is that not clearly explained, understood and accepted by us all?
Regarding my civil disobedience post, I do not want anybody to break the law.
My current understanding is that during the demersal closure, a boat of (let's say) 3 fisher persons can go to sea with just one of them having a RFBL and all of them catching and releasing demersals all day long while claiming to be fishing for Sambos, Sharks, large skippy, wrasse, large flathead, King George Whiting, Leather Jackets, etc...
If Fisheries come to your boat, you can treat the officers with respect and tell them that you only have the minimum required fishing licenses to fish (Free2Fish) and prefer not to endorse via license payments a WA Fisheries that is inconsiderate of the recreational fishing public.
Rob H
Posts: 5796
Date Joined: 18/01/12
If your plan is actually
If your plan is actually that we have wasted our time and shouldnt have bothered-you are wrong, regardless of whether we get any concession or not.
If we did nothing, DPIRD/Labor would carry a clear mandate to do what they wanted.
Are we going to win, or get a concession?
I am way more deep into this than you may be aware, and I wouldn't bet even YOUR left nut on it that we get anything at all right now
BUT even if we get nothing now, the legacy will be there for when the tide moves against this government as it inevitably will and they can see the votes at stake.
Half the petiton votes spread across a few of the West Coast electorates is enough to potentially swing a few seats to SFF's Independants or Nats.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8141
Date Joined: 07/05/12
I'm sure you've dealt
I'm sure you've dealt extensively with Fisheries Rob and I have extensive dealing with Dept of Main Roads WA and Dept of Transport over a 16y period. I can categorically state from experience that 1) key Dept staff move within their own and other Departments regularly and it's hard to know who's in a position at the best of times and 2) most of the time Dept staff don't even know what others are doing in their section let alone their Department....
But somehow with those inter-departmental silos in place and constant changing of staff they have managed to align fishing restrictions to a Global agenda
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
timboon
Posts: 2957
Date Joined: 14/11/10
Fellas.... Its been a
Fellas....
Its been a while,
Just browsing the past comments seems like blokes that are on the same page bickering about something they all agree on?!
The glaringly obvious thing for me in all of this is the pressure that will put on the "open" regions....
Trust me, we weren't made feel very welcome down at Windy during the small ban, they will hate the added influx over the longer ban period down there!!
For what its worth I think its fucking bullshit its come to this...
Cheers to Rob and others for getting the petition passed around even if it fell on deaf/dumb ears...
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Good to hear from you Boon,
Good to hear from you Boon, don't worry they are already eyeing off the "open" areas. Particulaly up north.
Love the West!
Rob H
Posts: 5796
Date Joined: 18/01/12
It is already documented.
It is already documented. Bag limits to drop to 3 from 5 etc
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
sea-kem
Posts: 14965
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Aware of the Rob, I'm the
Aware of the Rob, I'm the one who posted the original link to the survey regarding this. And imo I'm not totally against it as 9 fish per boat perday for a 3 man crew is not bad going.
Love the West!
davewillo
Posts: 2396
Date Joined: 08/09/16
Yeah good to know you're
Yeah good to know you're alive Boon!
I think the proposed bans are fucking bullshit, even though I don't really fish for demersals. I have signed the petition, emailed pollies etc. but I don't have the time to do more. Also cheers to Rob and others that are actively doing something.
PGFC member and lure tragic
Rob H
Posts: 5796
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Part of my campaign of
Part of my campaign of "Civil Disobedience"
through this has been adding a petition link to every Fisheries WA post on their Facebook page before they close off commenting due to "lack of moderator resources" or "to capture comments in the survey".
No rudeness at all but also listing the up to date petition/DPIRD survey stats and highlighting the disparity in the figures.
For the record these started as 20 to 1 and increased to 50 to 1 over the last weeks of the survey.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Bodgy 79
Posts: 285
Date Joined: 04/08/22
That's fuckn poor problem
That's fuckn poor problem solving imo! Lucky bushfires aren't managed same way, wouldn't achieve much dropping the water 500k from the fire