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)
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
WARFFA are starting to put
WARFFA are starting to put the pieces together! This ties into Westport and the destruction of the snapper breeding grounds, then there will be dredging and landfill that will stir up all the poison at the bottom of the sound that will bring on massive fish kills.
Jim
Posts: 1322
Date Joined: 05/05/06
www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyl
www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/fishing/bigger-bag-limits-for-herring-fishing-as-ban-looms-for-demersals-such-as-snapper-and-dhufish-c-8438191.amp
You could see this coming from a mile off. Could have been a conspiracy theory tho! Seems like some people just like to argue for the sake of it. Bluekaiser keep the comments coming don't mind the resident bullies!
Not sure about how the article reads for you guys but I get the opposite impression once I click the 'read more' section. Until you click the read more button they have edited it to give the impression that recfish supports the ban!
Bend over
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
It's called robust debate
It's called robust debate mate, he seems to handle it ok.
Remember it's a forum and if he wants to post his point of view and alternative arguments that's fine, but expect to get pulled up on it as some of the guys who are a lot smarter and acedemically minded than me.
He know it's provocative and conspiratual that's why he keeps posting.
Love the West!
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
The numbers
So this is basically the numbers story that our WA Fisheries want us to believe (as I understand it);
For about 15 odd years from the early 1990s to 2005/2006, the fisheries recorded large catch rates (combined commercial & recreational) of about 800t up to 1,430t in 2005/2006. I believe those numbers were retained catches and did not include released mortality numbers.
Between 2007 and 2009 the fisheries decided that 2005/2006 total catch was unacceptable and so they cut the catch rate down by 50% to 715t (combined) and went about imposing new restrictions to both sectors to accomplish that 50% reduction.
Now they tell us that a total catch rate (combined), including released mortality estimates of 730t is far too high and again needs a 50% reduction to 375t.
Their narrative they now sell is that in 2007 they had a 20 year plan knowing that it would take 2 generations (or 20 years) to get stocks to a suitable level by 2030.
Anybody who can look at those numbers objectively must surely be asking how it was that in the 90s through to 2005/2006 (more than 15 years) we were able to have retained catches well above our current numbers and yet still had a fishery.
To now be told that we need to have reduced catch rates in the region of a quarter of those 2005/2006 numbers to allow our 20 year plan to be successful by 2030 (some 7 years away).
Obviously the WA Fisheries scientists failed back in 2005-2010 with their mythical 20 year plans for us to now be told that we must catch less than a quarter of what we were catching 15 years ago. Why would we trust anything they tell us today???
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Why would we trust their
Why would we trust their science?
Because there is no credible alternative we can use.
Why are you not using all your literary skills to fight the enemy rather than shooting back into your own trenches??
Why not cut and paste the above posts and send as letters to the editor etc?
Or even better paste them into Fisheries WA Facebook posts.
I am not being sarcastic, I am serious.
They are well written, understandable to the layman is their own way (layman being Joe Public non fisher)
They are wasted here, we have other fish to fry
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
Raising Awareness
I don't use FaecesBook.
But I do feel the best I can provide to a cause like this is to promote public discussion and information on the topic.
I do applaud your efforts with the petition, which I have signed, distributed and promoted.
But I have yet to see a petition on any controversial topic considered appropriately by government authorities (especially those I believe who have an agenda). All the same, it will still be worth the effort to at least have the petition properly submitted, tabled and recorded.
Likewise, I suspect letters to ministers are all too easily ignored and dismissed.
Whereas, promoting discussion in communities is one of the best ways to raise awareness.
I was around during the 2007-2009 first round of restrictions.
I went to the Fisheries seminars and sat and listened to their BS.
I sat and heard them tell us how Dhufish stocks were low and listened to how they come to those conclusions ... after recently going fishing and bagging out with our limit of 6 Dhuies and then trying to get away from them and catching more.
They do their best to bury us in scientific methodologies, formulas and irrelevant data while nowhere providing any actual estimates of the demersal populations. Because if they did produce the stock estimates and show how small a percentage of that is caught each year by recreational fishers, it would be obvious to all that they are pushing agendas and not reacting to proper quantified concerns.
And now with these latest proposals I hear them push their narratives of how our Pink Snapper stocks are in danger ... while watching SeaForce Charter videos of them operating out of Coral Bay and struggling to get away from the massive schools of Pinkies there.
Simple maths shoud tell anyone with an ounce of logic that if regularly catching over 300-400+ tonnes of Dhufish in a year in the 90s and 2000s did not collapse the fishery why are we now being told we, the recreational fisher need to catch less than 68t (including estimated released mortality and Fishing Charters catches). (NB: their total proposed limit including the commercial sector is less than 113.5t)
And this is after about 12 years of massively reduced (50%) catch rates imposed by them.
The data I give is data they have produced in their own reports and available for any of us to read.
It is up to us to try to become better informed on this topic and to share and promote that information in our communities.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Thought provoking
Have to agree the way this has unfolded leaves a lot ot be desired. In the 2007 work it was acknowledged that the study was relying on models. So to have such a dramartic intervention 10 years into the recovery plan points to problem in either the original assumptions, the models used or both.The old saying that all models are wrong but some are useful acknowledges that models are at best an approximation of reality. So I'd like to sea Fisheries explain all the assumptions and limitaiotns in the past and present models used to understand demersal mortaility, reproductive success and recruitment to the fishery. Somethign must be missing, because to me it seems they are not getting it right.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 114
Date Joined: 28/07/10
Man I’ve got to tell you this
Man I’ve got to tell you this post shows a really really deep lack of understanding.
i can’t be bothered going into details beyond the simple - as you fish a stock down it reaches a point that it becomes far less resilient to the vagaries of recruitment success and high Fishing pressure. Hence why 400 tonnes (part of the fishing down from virgin stock) in the 90s didn’t mean there was no fish anymore. But it was causing the stock to go backwards.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Yes. but
is the issue that the stock is declining or just not recovering as fast as predicted? It would be useful to understand the uncertainties in the modelling, as likely some aspects of the stock demographics are better understsood and other aspects less so. In such cases you can get some insught into what predictions are more or less reliable. In addiiton such an apporach will help focus future research where knowledge gaps are the cause of modelling uncertainty. So, for exmaple, do we fully understand what temporal and spatial variability could be expected in an unfished stock asnd how has that been affected by fishing pressure. How well characterised is the fishng pressure and so on. I get the precautionary approach and support it, but there needs to be better communicaiotn from Fisheires on the complexities and uncertainties they face in trying to deliver a sustainable and equitable fishery.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 114
Date Joined: 28/07/10
If you are genuinely
If you are genuinely interested search for the harvest strategy info that was developed at the beginning of 21. The stock has not recovered really in any significant way and there is no resilience in it. There is a problem with the stock. How it’s going to be sorted is the issue really.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Shall have look
Thanks, I enjoy reviewin this stuff and have just downloaded Fisheries Management Paper No. 305 as a start. My interest in the uncertainties faced by Fisheries relates to the recent press coverage around the upcoming extended closure. For example in November last year the West Australian ran an article based on last year's stock assessment which stated " stocks are not depleting further but haven’t increased in line with projections". So that indicates the projecitons didn't eventuate and I've been involved with a few marine science modellers (not fisheries ones though) and that sort of outcome would normally make you tweak the model for more realistic projections.
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Love your style Reefsta,
Love your style Reefsta, very keen to hear what you glean in laymans terms.
Someone nailed it on FB saying they go for 9 months everyone kicks up a stink they give us 6 months and we all feel like we've had a win with the proverbial wool pulled over our eyes.
Love the West!
Swompa
Posts: 3786
Date Joined: 14/10/12
Don't forget the herring bag
Don't forget the herring bag limit got increased!
Yeah yeah, cockburn sound will get an outer harbour which will cause the snapper stocks to be decimated,you can't catch a demersal species but you can catch more herring now!
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Thats exactly right Andrew,
Thats exactly right Andrew, like fuel companies leaking "40c a litre price rise" news, only raising 20 and you feel good
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.
Curndog
Posts: 443
Date Joined: 21/11/16
Dumb
I must be dumb because that will work on me haha
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Not much progress
Read the FMP 305 (West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource Harvest Strategy 2021-2025). The Harvest Strategy Procedures are summarised in a simple, easy to understand flow diagram to show the straightforward logic behind various management actions. It is pretty well written and says the main ecological objective is to maintain spawning biomass of all retained species above maximum sustainable yield. I was a bit surprised that it declares itself the first formal harvest strategy for the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource. It notes that significant reforms occurred between 2007 and 2010 to recover the resource within 20 years. I checked The 2007 report (FISHERIES RESEARCH REPORT NO. 163), cited in relation to that statement, but couldn't find an explicit statement or recommendaiton using the words " 20 year recovery plan", so I reckon that plan was an informal or in-house undertaking by Fisheries. The current Harvest Strategy does however include a recovery plan with the objective of recovering this resource by 2030. It mentions stakeholder aspirations, once ecologically recovered (i.e. spawning biomass above maximum sustainable yield), that stocks are rebuilt further to target levels to increase the resource’s resilience. There are supposed to stock assessment checks every 3 years I think, but worth noting the 2030 info won't come until 2032. So, whatever new rules get introduced, probably it'll be at least 3 years before any new data arrive to potnetially change the picture. Worst case scenario we wait until 2032, if we can ....
So FMP 305 is about procedures and decision making and doesn't contain the sort of size distribution or other data shown in the 2007 FRP 163. So to my mind everything hinges on getting those biomass and fishing mortaility estimates as realistic as possible, but the harvest strategy doesn't shed much light on how confident the managers are about those number,. I guess you have to err on the side of caution, but if they have those estimates wildly wrong the managment actions could come at unescessary social and economic cost.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Not much progress
Read the FMP 305 (West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource Harvest Strategy 2021-2025). The Harvest Strategy Procedures are summarised in a simple, easy to understand flow diagram to show the straightforward logic behind various management actions. It is pretty well written and says the main ecological objective is to maintain spawning biomass of all retained species above maximum sustainable yield. I was a bit surprised that it declares itself the first formal harvest strategy for the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource. It notes that significant reforms occurred between 2007 and 2010 to recover the resource within 20 years. I checked The 2007 report (FISHERIES RESEARCH REPORT NO. 163), cited in relation to that statement, but couldn't find an explicit statement or recommendaiton using the words " 20 year recovery plan", so I reckon that plan was an informal or in-house undertaking by Fisheries. The current Harvest Strategy does however include a recovery plan with the objective of recovering this resource by 2030. It mentions stakeholder aspirations, once ecologically recovered (i.e. spawning biomass above maximum sustainable yield), that stocks are rebuilt further to target levels to increase the resource’s resilience. There are supposed to stock assessment checks every 3 years I think, but worth noting the 2030 info won't come until 2032. So, whatever new rules get introduced, probably it'll be at least 3 years before any new data arrive to potnetially change the picture. Worst case scenario we wait until 2032, if we can ....
So FMP 305 is about procedures and decision making and doesn't contain the sort of size distribution or other data shown in the 2007 FRP 163. So to my mind everything hinges on getting those biomass and fishing mortaility estimates as realistic as possible, but the harvest strategy doesn't shed much light on how confident the managers are about those number,. I guess you have to err on the side of caution, but if they have those estimates wildly wrong the managment actions could come at unescessary social and economic cost.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
have another read
As per my post further below about fmp305 (posted prior to yours) ... I'm not sure you read (p19) Step 3 of the Recovery Plan ... that basically tells us that there is little to no chance of any relaxing of the tight restrictions that are put on us until at least 2040 (Step 3 requires an additional 10 years, of continued restrictions to build resilience) and even then, that will be determined in their "Maintenance" period of their Harvest strategy with planned stock assessments and recalculations of B & F every 3 or so years.
And you did not mention how they state the 2020 stock assessments calculations require data for B & F available in the future 2023 Stock Assessments.
(I have no idea what Stock Assessments or Harvest reports the current decisions and management plans are being derived from???)
Lastly, as I have posted before, you will not find any evidence of any 2030 or 20 year plan prior to 2019 ... because it appears it didn't exist.
How can you possibly now believe in the existence of a 20 year recovery plan that stipulates it must finish within 2 generations (ie. 20 years), which apparently must have started sometime in 2007-2009 based on 2005/06 catch/stock estimates, yet we are now told finishes in 2030 ... and oh, let's not forget that with Step 3, it's actually at least a 30 year plan that finishes in at least 2040 ... but that doesn't have the same ring to it as (Agenda) 2030.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Not much progress
Posts: 160
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Sorry, but my post ended up in a different section somehow. Copied it here now.
Read the FMP 305 (West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource Harvest Strategy 2021-2025). The Harvest Strategy Procedures are summarised in a simple, easy to understand flow diagram to show the straightforward logic behind various management actions. It is pretty well written and says the main ecological objective is to maintain spawning biomass of all retained species above maximum sustainable yield. I was a bit surprised that it declares itself the first formal harvest strategy for the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource. It notes that significant reforms occurred between 2007 and 2010 to recover the resource within 20 years. I checked The 2007 report (FISHERIES RESEARCH REPORT NO. 163), cited in relation to that statement, but couldn't find an explicit statement or recommendaiton using the words " 20 year recovery plan", so I reckon that plan was an informal or in-house undertaking by Fisheries. The current Harvest Strategy does however include a recovery plan with the objective of recovering this resource by 2030. It mentions stakeholder aspirations, once ecologically recovered (i.e. spawning biomass above maximum sustainable yield), that stocks are rebuilt further to target levels to increase the resource’s resilience. There are supposed to stock assessment checks every 3 years I think, but worth noting the 2030 info won't come until 2032. So, whatever new rules get introduced, probably it'll be at least 3 years before any new data arrive to potnetially change the picture. Worst case scenario we wait until 2032, if we can ....
So FMP 305 is about procedures and decision making and doesn't contain the sort of size distribution or other data shown in the 2007 FRP 163. So to my mind everything hinges on getting those biomass and fishing mortaility estimates as realistic as possible, but the harvest strategy doesn't shed much light on how confident the managers are about those numbers. I guess you have to err on the side of caution, but if they have those estimates wildly wrong the management actions could come at unescessary social and economic cost.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Strategy a bit light on biomass and mortality details
Had a look at the Harvest strategy. Fine as a strategy, but where can I find data on each of the stock estimates since 2005. Similalry, I'd be keen to look at the estimates, including the error bars, of commercial and fishing mortality every time it has been assessed.? Just trying to understand how solid the data is and how big or small the uncertainties are, that have been fed into the decision framework.
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Still looking
Had a read of that Harvest strategy, which was a decent summary of the procedures and decision makin"g paths, but it didn't shed any light on what has changed in very recent times to restrict fishing mortaility further. In this 2020 national summary about stock status for snapper,https://fish.gov.au/2020-Reports/snapper, where Gary Jackson is the WA correspondent it says, based data up until 2017, "evidence indicates that current fishing mortality is constrained by management to a level that should allow the stock to recover from its recruitment impaired state. On the basis of the evidence provided above, the West Coast (Western Australia) management unit is classified as a recovering stock." So if it looked like things were recovering after the fishing mortaility was reducded by those restrictions introduced between 2007-2010, has a more recent stock estimate changed the picture suddenly?
marble
Posts: 773
Date Joined: 03/09/09
Really ??? I think the
Really ??? I think the tinfoil has done its job
PMY 25 Centre Console DF300 Suzuki
Reefsta
Posts: 281
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Best to be sure
There is still time to make a tinfoil hat in time for Halloween
big john
Posts: 8726
Date Joined: 20/07/06
90 days
If it was a 90 day season, why couldn't we individually nominate the 90 days we want to fish.
Wouldn't be that hard to come up with a website where you log on the day/night before and input boat rego and fishing licence numbers.
As for the cost, peanuts. The govt is sitting on a giant bucket of money, they could even employ extra people to monitor it.
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
Pete F
Posts: 310
Date Joined: 07/01/18
Beacause it wouldnt be a
Beacause it wouldnt be a reduction, everyone would be able to fish as they previously had. According to the available quota its 2.8kg per licenced fisher. Not factoring in kayak beach rock and drone fishers! Numbers don't add up going from a two month ban 16.5% reduction last time. To a 9 month ban 75% reduction this time.
With better monitoring of the recreational take what do you think they will say in 2030. People are catching 2.8kg or less?
Cheers
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
DPIRD have said they've
DPIRD have said they've surveyed the whole of the region ( which is absolute bullshit ) Unfortunately I don't have the time or brains to go through all the reports and studies. A lot of smart people here actually have the time to sort through it all and see if DPIRD have recorded times and dates of when they completed research in certain areas and what they found? I'm not talking asking fishers that have just retrieved there boat I'm talking actual hard data where they put baited cameras down onto reefs and they monitored over a decent timeframe? GPS points of where those cameras got placed and the timeframe they sat at the bottom of the ocean where these fish live?
selthy
Posts: 286
Date Joined: 27/05/11
The reports presented by
The reports presented by DPIRD and the fisheries minister reference 2017/18 survey data presented by Ryan et al.. This data was used to estimate recreational catch and effort which was then used to inform the status of our fisheries in subsequent years. Moreover, at least one of the 2021 status report papers on the DPIRD site advises that an updated recreational survey was performed between September 2020 and August 2021, with the updated estimates to be available in 2022.
I've had both DPIRD's senior principal research scientist and (as late as last week) the Fisheries senior policy adviser confirm that the updated data is currently being reviewed and key staekholders consulted before release later this year... So again, WTF is the minister pushing through his agenda, based on 17/18 data when an updated report is imminently due for release?
Whether we agree with the methodology or not, DPIRDs past practices give confidence that they transperantly disclose how they conduct surveys and then consistently reference this data in future reports. As an example, here is the 207 page 2017/18 paper that is used as the source of truth to inform the recreational component of the reports currently being used to inform the demersal propoal www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr297.pdf Along with detailing their methodology, the authors state that estimating recreational catch is challenging.
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Thanks for that Selthy, that
Thanks for that Selthy, that is very odd that big Donny boy is pushing so hard when theres a new report about to come out. Could the fish stocks be that fucked that we need to ban all fishing rec/commercial and stop an outer harbour being built?
I had a little read of that and it looks look it's a guesstimate from a few cameras at metro boat ramps and some phone calls! I probably haven't read enough of it yet but couldnt find anything about being out in the real world checking eskies at ramps, speaking to the fishers at the ramp, and dropping cameras into the ocean.
tot
Posts: 1150
Date Joined: 31/01/10
Has it been mentioned
how many pro's there are in the west coast bioregion? Honest question that I dont know the answer.
Reverse cycle a/c supply and install - Ducted and wall splits
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
No idea mate but having a
No idea mate but having a look around the commercial boats have 4 zones in the same region the rec fishers have 1! They aren't allowed to fish in metro which is lancelin to south of Mandurah?? (How south I'm not sure) and the rest is a free for all. Looks like the peasant recfishers aren't smart enough to be able to work out multiple zones like the commercial boats can!
wagyl
Posts: 218
Date Joined: 08/03/09
Really pissed off
I am 72, retired, like my fishing and only really go out on fine days now. I average about once every 2 weeks. By 2030 I will be 80, so my demersal fishing, which I do year round apart from the current ban, is stuffed. I am limited to fine days, when I'm not looking after grandkids, for about 3 months a year. How about people over 70 are exempt??
Pete F
Posts: 310
Date Joined: 07/01/18
I feel for you, but many are
I feel for you, but many are in the same boat. Work week days and have commintments most weekend young children etc. I am lucky to get out fairly often but still only fish for demersals as required. I don't think the ban will reduce my recreational catch but it will kill my beach and kayak tour business.
Fisheries took the lazy option, basicaly the cheapest one to enforce. There were many other routes they could have taken with far better long term benifits and far less pain for everyone.
Exempting over 70's cost them money and hard to enforce, they would not know if someone else on the boat caught fish etc. Plus then many others would agrue why them and not me for many reasons.
Cheers
Bodgy 79
Posts: 264
Date Joined: 04/08/22
lol I should be exempt to
lol I should be exempt to !! Work 13 hours a day 5 days a week and can't get out much either
timboon
Posts: 2924
Date Joined: 14/11/10
For me and my opinion means
For me and my opinion means fuck all but....
I find the current system to be pretty flawed and IMO couldve been improved easily with some tweaks...
For starters I think its bullshit they would have any idea at all on tonnage taken...
In the twenty + years I've been fishing the SW ramps I HAVE NEVER EVER ONCE been checked by fisheries!!!
Where I come from in SA its almost a given, daily!!
I have once had an encounter with a volunteer doing some research but that was about 15 years ago and nothings since so how the fuck do they know what is coming out of the ocean!??
I feel as though an ammo quota system should have been in place instead of what we've currently had ( for a few reasons )....
Lets just hyperthetically say each lisence has a bag limit within each zone, I am just throwing numbers up here so don't shoot me down but say each lisence is allowed 10 pink, 10 dhu per year....
Log your catch via text before coming in to a phone number that collects the data ( size, species and ramp ) and also you must jaw tag that fish with your lisence no. on it....
I know there will be people that take their ten kids out but thats their perogative and not the norm...
Currently the way it has been has been pretty shit if you haven't been able to get out for ages and then you get onto the fish and have to head back after a couple of drops only to miss the next time...
I don't begrudge the blokes with lots of time and a boat that can fish most weather but its certainly pretty limited with a dingi, kids, business etc etc etc ( obviously thats just my perspective )....
Not trying to sound like poor me here but I think the current system has been pretty shit....
Anyway the horse has bolted and time will tell but it still fucks me off no end...
I heard recently that 80% of the fish purchased in Aus is imported so where the fuck does the majority of our wetlined/netted fish end up???
Rant over....
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Glad to hear someone else say it
Likewise, I have done 100s of fishing trips in Geographe bay, crabbing, beach fishing, boating since the 70's and have not once been checked by fisheries.
Even in the past decade, many times returning to the Geographe Marina where they have the large Fisheries boat plus their smaller one penned.
Whereas, I have had many checks by Marine & Safety.
If our WA Fisheries truly wanted to get a proper picture of our stock levels, improve recovery and find out what actual effect our recreational fishing has on stocks, they would push for several marine parks.
If you have a marine park of let's say no more than 10 square kilometers (or about 2nm x 2nm) in depths of 40m+ in which all fishing was banned all year round, then this would allow proper stock recovery. Fisheries scientists would then be able to measure stocks in these areas and compare against nearby areas that are fished.
The current methods of assessing stocks and estimating biomass and populations make little logical sense to me.
Their own reports often state that stock levels are affected by environmental factors like wind, current and temperature on the larvae.
For all we know, recreational catch restrictions could have virtually nothing to do with our current stock levels.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
The numbers ... again
Below is a list of the last 8 Annual Reports from our WA Fisheries showing West Coast (WC) Demersal and Dhufish catches.
I chose specifically Dhufish catches because they typically account for about 50% of our recreational demersal catches and they are generally speaking our target species.
In summary, for those 8 years, combined sectors (Commerical, Recreational and Charter);
4,363 of allowed 5,600 tonnes of Demersals were caught.
1,016 of allowed 1,456 tonnes of Dhufish were caught (*NB Excludes 2015/16 due to missing Dhufish data from annual report).
The data shows that if one looks at the Recreational (including Charter) catches there have been some years where the allowable catch has been slightly exceeded.
But for those same years, the commercial allowable catch is under, as is the combined total allowances for the WA Fishery.
I present this data because it clearly shows that the catch rates (and target recovery benchmark limits) for WC Demersals and Dhufish have been well within the targets set by our WA Fisheries since 2010.
So why would we continue to trust and abide by their poor science and support further catch restrictions which by evidence of their own history have not worked.
Note that the following allowable catch and recovery benchmarks were established back pre-2010 when the 2005/06 catch rates where cut by 50%;
Total Allowable WC Demersal catch or recovery benchmark: 700t (Commercial allowable catch: 450t & Recreational allowable catch: 250t)
Total Allowable Dhufish catch or recovery benchmark: 208t (Commercial: 82t & Recreational: 126t)
2020/21:
Total Demersal: 514t (of 700t)
Commercial: 247t (2019/20) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 231t (2017/18 210t-253t)
Recreational (Charter): 36t (2019/20)
Total Dhufish: 186t (of 208t)
Commercial: 55t (2019/20)
Recreational (Private): 123t (2017/18)
Recreational (Charter): 8t (2019/20)
2019/20:
Total Demersal: 553t (of 700t)
Commercial: 271t (2018/19) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 231t (2017/18 210t-253t)
Recreational (Charter): 51t (2019/20)
Total Dhufish: 178t (of 208t)
Commercial: 43t (2018/19)
Recreational (Private): 123t (2017/18)
Recreational (Charter): 12t (2018/19)
2018/19:
Total Demersal: 537t (of 700t)
Commercial: 244t (2017/18) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 231t (2017/18 210t-253t)
Recreational (Charter): 62t (2018/19)
Total Dhufish: 178t (of 208t)
Commercial: 43t (2018/19)
Recreational (Private): 123t (2017/18)
Recreational (Charter): 12t (2018/19)
2017/18:
Total Demersal: 569t (of 700t)
Commercial: 248t (2017/18) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 266t (248-285t 2015/16 & 2016/17)
Recreational (Charter): 55t (2016/17)
Total Dhufish: 166t (of 208t)
Commercial: 39t (2016/17)
Recreational (Private): 113t (2016/17)
Recreational (Charter): 14t (2016/17)
2016/17:
Total Demersal: 523t (of 700t)
Commercial: 256t (2016/17) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 211t (193-230t 2015/16)
Recreational (Charter): 56t (2016/17)
Total Dhufish: 171t (of 208t) (Sustainable-Recovering)
Commercial: 44t (2016/17)
Recreational (Private): 113t (2015/16)
Recreational (Charter): 14t (2016/17)
2015/16:
Total Demersal: 480t (of 700t)
Commercial: 283t (2015/16) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 152t (139-166t 2013/14)
Recreational (Charter): 45t (2014/15)
Total Dhufish: ???t (of 208t) (Sustainable-Recovering)
Commercial: 63t (2015)
Recreational (Private): NA (Not Availabe/reported)
Recreational (Charter): NA
2014/15:
Total Demersal: 591t (of 700t)
Commercial: 396t (2014) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 152t (139-166t 2013/14)
Recreational (Charter): 43t (2013/14)
Total Dhufish: 156t (of 208t) (Recovering)
Commercial: 62t (2014)
Recreational (Private): 81t (2013/14 75-87t)
Recreational (Charter): 13t (2013/14)
2013/14:
Total Demersal: 596t (of 700t)
Commercial: 395t (2013) (allowable catch: 450t)
Recreational (Private): 159t (2011/12)
Recreational (Charter): 42t (2012/13)
Total Dhufish: 159t (of 208t) (Recovering)
Commercial: 72t (2013 or 2012/13)
Recreational (Private): 74t (2011/12)
Recreational (Charter): 13t (2012/13)
Jim
Posts: 1322
Date Joined: 05/05/06
It must be too hard for
It must be too hard for fisheries to get actual data direct from the fisherman's boat. Ive been checked around 10-15 times in rocko and everytime I've asked 'has anybody caught much today?' they have have said no. You would think if they are seriuos they would be logging the catch of each boat checked. Maybe they do but creel surveys are easier.
Bend over
Shark1
Posts: 1084
Date Joined: 21/05/12
rofl average fisheries
rofl average fisheries officer i've met had a hard enough time using a tape measure
now u want them to fill out forms - that means they wouldnt be able to sit in their car in the A/C waiting for the next boat
good idea though - me and mates have wondered about it as well, why dont they, happens in QLD
davewillo
Posts: 2258
Date Joined: 08/09/16
We had some smart-arsed
We had some smart-arsed female fisheries officer say our fish looked small at the Jurien ramp one time. These fish were well over legal size. I asked if she really thought we were that stupid! I showed her that and then she asks for my licence. I didn't have it on me and she starts getting into me about it. Other officer just said to bring it to the fisheries office that afternoon. Maybe get the pricks who really do the wrong thing!
PGFC member and lure tragic
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
We had two shall I say ahem
We had two shall I say ahem pretty hot fisheries girls check out our catch at Gnaraloo, she was very impressed with the size of my Rankin ;) and invited her back to hut to check out my big Red. She knocked me back, can never work out why
Love the West!
davewillo
Posts: 2258
Date Joined: 08/09/16
Let them know I'll be in
Let them know I'll be in Exmouth next week Andy and probably keeping undersized fish
PGFC member and lure tragic
Bodgy 79
Posts: 264
Date Joined: 04/08/22
Yep same,they've looked in
Yep same,they've looked in me ice box at walpole a few times and only ever poked a fish or two( maybe to see if there dead or not) but no measuring,counting,questions or fuck all. Just hanging round the water soaking up the overtime I guess
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
Could get spiked by a fish
Could get spiked by a fish and it becomes a workplace injury
timboon
Posts: 2924
Date Joined: 14/11/10
In SA they were so paranoid
In SA they were so paranoid about Abs and Crays you were guilty until proven innocent....
Anyway fuck em....
Lets see how this impacts coastal towns and businesses all over this region if they keep this ban on for too many years. Lets see how many locals go under instead of otherwise having a decent income from fisherman, either locals or holidayers towing their boats around the coast and enjoying some outdoor rec time....
Fat little playstation kids in ten years just getting fatter....
Moondog
Posts: 131
Date Joined: 25/06/18
It's the impact on those
It's the impact on those small coastal businesses that really fucking angers me. For myself it's not so much about catching fish it's about leaving those people and there cool little towns to do what they've been doing for however long. Those people want to protect there resource, they understand there resource and they share it with others along the way and a lot of us are the lucky ones that go up or down to visit every now and then.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Some more numbers
From the early 1980s to 2005 the Commercial sector averaged over 200 tonnes of Dhufish per year.
Ranging from about 150t to 280t per year.
Now imagine if the same methods of stock assessments were being done then as they are now.
That is, the WA Fisheries scientists would be estimating Recreational and Charter catches and adding estimated released mortality numbers.
(NB: In the 2007 frr163 report p45 they show a 2000/01 Recreational phone diary survey which resulted in estimates of over 650 tonnes of Dhufish caught just by Rec fishers.)
So how can our Fisheries possibly explain how our Dhufish stocks are now be in danger when all of our fishing sectors combined have been apparently averaging less than 150t for the last 12 or more years (including allowances for released mortality).
Anyone with any logic or common sense should be able to see that their science and numbers do not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
If our Dhufish stocks were able to survive that level of fishing for so long, why are our Dhufish stocks supposedly now in trouble with less than half the fishing pressure.
These proposals are agenda based.
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
From their July 2021 fmp305 report
In the WA Fisheries fmp305 report from July 2021, "West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource Harvest Strategy 2021-2025", they mention what I consider some very disturbing details.
- the report has further evidence of my belief that the WA Fisheries now has an Agenda 2030 focus and is retrospectively rewriting their own version of history and a narrative of a 20 year recovery plan designed to be completed by 2030.
- even if they are totally successful of recovering the stocks to some arbitrary levels they continually redetermine then they will still continue with stringent recovery benchmarks for another 10 years. That is, according to fmp305, they now give us no chance of relaxing new tough fishing rules until at least 2040.
This is part of this Recovery Plan they are retrospectively writing which includes Step 3, Build resillience plan for at least another one generation (being 10 years).
- on multiple occassions they mention that the next stock assessment for 2020 is not available until 2023. (eg. p17 Step 1 Aim: Initiate recovery (i.e. B>BLimit & F<FLimit) of all WCDSR indicators species by 2020 (B and F for 2020 will be available in the 2023 stock assessment) ).
- each time they redefine these arbitrary allowable catch targets, (eg. pre-2010 reducing demersal catch by 50% from 1,430t to 700t) they then use these new recovery benchmarks and new catch rates in their B & F calculations making it substantially more difficult for their formulas to show sustainable recovery levels without further triggering their limits to review their fisheries management and redefine even harsher new recovery benchmarks ... and so the circle tightens by design.
I also find it very disturbing that there appears to be nobody in this forum who is actively challenging the information I have been presenting.
I expect there are some things I have posted which are not accurate and I welcome any critical feedback (a great way to become better informed) especially on the topic of how the fisheries have been calculating their B & F (Biomass and Fishing Mortality) values and then using those numbers to estimate stock assessments which then lead to reviews and further restrictions to catch allowances (ie. recovery benchmarks). This is an area I find very dubious when attempting to digest the vague and lack of actual data in their publications.
still trying
Posts: 1020
Date Joined: 27/06/17
Surely you can see that the
Surely you can see that the numbers being used in the past were even more exaggerated than they are now I think that we all know these groups have never had any idea of actual numbers and just make them up on the day that their report needs to be handed in. It's unfortunate that these people aren't held accountable for their actions.
rather be fishing
BlueKiaser
Posts: 422
Date Joined: 22/04/15
Anybody know???
Can anybody (in particular those who have any faith in the WA Fisheries data) tell me within a +/- 1,000 tonnes what the current estimated Dhufish biomass (or mature population) is?
If our WA Fisheries are truly being transparent with their data and proposals, surely this number should be easily accessible.
I have very little trouble finding out what the allowable catches are for the Commercial and Recreational sectors for Dhufish for past and proposed future years, yet even though those numbers are supposedly calculated using the assessed and estimated Dhufish Biomass, I can not find that information anywhere.
Somebody, please educate me?
selthy
Posts: 286
Date Joined: 27/05/11
I've found DPIRD quite
I've found DPIRD quite responsive to questions asked in the right way. enquiries@dpird.wa.gov.au Maybe ask them.
uncle
Posts: 9353
Date Joined: 10/02/07
Got a letter back from
The shadow minister thanking me for signing the e petition against punches proposed bans
all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs
Saulty2
Posts: 644
Date Joined: 28/05/10
during this ban of ours
phoned around to see if i can get some craybait and it seems there are at least 2 companies 1 in freo sea l..es and beyond cat...o processing demersals every day including sunday ??? can get it for 25.00 for an esky full , or 20.00 if you bring your own container ... just wondering where is it being caught , without raping the ocean ,and they have the cheek to try and slap a 8-9 month ban on recs.? IMO pretty sure we are being treated like mushrooms.
Gman66
Posts: 55
Date Joined: 15/02/12
Fishing Ban
So, will all stakeholders that fish e.g. Recreational, Charter and Pro's be refunded for licence fees?
Acceptance is the key
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
yep either that or I just
yep either that or I just won't bother getting one, they will lose mass revenue.
Love the West!
Saulty2
Posts: 644
Date Joined: 28/05/10
labor & greens
have an agenda they they work to , its not their money - loosing out on revenue wont be a problem , imo only thing that may work is the ballot box