While I'm not a freezer filler at all, I wonder if this is the best solution and use of our license fees.
I'm sure many won't hesitate to continually upgrade their fish by chucking back smaller less undesirable dead fish on board.
Tourism will surely take a hit, although hardcore freezer fillers are probably self sufficient and don't add much to the local economy.
I appreciate the sentiment, making the rules simpler and protecting stocks against increasing populations, but i'm not sure about this possession rule.
I'm quite happy to trade off some possession limit for one thing - Re open the best two months of fishing, October/ November - ie no closed season. Without being controversial given the fact of the matter is that these two months aren't closed to the Commercial Sector all that is currently happening during that time is all "Vulnerable 5" are being taken by one collective stakeholder, the second collective stakeholder (Recfishers) are being eliminated from the equation.
If the Fisheries Dept puts a limit on the personal possession for any one angler at any given time then surely there is no longer a need to conduct seasonal closure (majority of Refishers know that the closure should be later in the season when the Dhufish come together for aggregation & spawning) as you are limited to the amount of fish that you can have. Hopefully this will also mean that since I own a boat and have say 4 people in my family my license would cover for 10kg per person who have access to the boat & that they would not need to hold a license to have access to "their 10kg" of fish.
On an interesting note if that's not the case and you get out two days in a row and luck falls your way (for a change) and you come back with a daily bag limit or slightly under what happens when the combined success of the two days fishing takes you over your possession limit? I find some of these blanket rules frustrating because of the nature of how they create inflexibilty. I am a law abiding person and wouldn't knowingly break rules/ laws for my own benefit.
Coming back to the first point, Isn't it time that Fisheries & the Minister who is responsible for this portfolio offer Recfishers a small reward for the diligence that as a collective group they have demonstrated in most cases?
Fisheries continue to espowse the term "Stewardship" of the resource, perhaps that requires redefining to "the limitation of a resource for one group for the supposed greater benefit of a larger group"? What are others thoughts
as his representives at a meeting barely 18mths ago, in Bunbury, said there would be NO changes until ther was a "5" year study done on the Recreational side to ascertain what condition the fishery is in.
Well it now seems the fishery in "Some parts" of the state are in dis-repair so the whole state has to cop it sweet.
championruby
Posts: 459
Date Joined: 20/01/11
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/doc
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/mp/mp252/fmp252.pdf
While I'm not a freezer filler at all, I wonder if this is the best solution and use of our license fees.
I'm sure many won't hesitate to continually upgrade their fish by chucking back smaller less undesirable dead fish on board.
Tourism will surely take a hit, although hardcore freezer fillers are probably self sufficient and don't add much to the local economy.
I appreciate the sentiment, making the rules simpler and protecting stocks against increasing populations, but i'm not sure about this possession rule.
Perry Home
Posts: 434
Date Joined: 07/10/10
Trade Off - Less Possession for removal of Closed Season
I'm quite happy to trade off some possession limit for one thing - Re open the best two months of fishing, October/ November - ie no closed season. Without being controversial given the fact of the matter is that these two months aren't closed to the Commercial Sector all that is currently happening during that time is all "Vulnerable 5" are being taken by one collective stakeholder, the second collective stakeholder (Recfishers) are being eliminated from the equation.
If the Fisheries Dept puts a limit on the personal possession for any one angler at any given time then surely there is no longer a need to conduct seasonal closure (majority of Refishers know that the closure should be later in the season when the Dhufish come together for aggregation & spawning) as you are limited to the amount of fish that you can have. Hopefully this will also mean that since I own a boat and have say 4 people in my family my license would cover for 10kg per person who have access to the boat & that they would not need to hold a license to have access to "their 10kg" of fish.
On an interesting note if that's not the case and you get out two days in a row and luck falls your way (for a change) and you come back with a daily bag limit or slightly under what happens when the combined success of the two days fishing takes you over your possession limit? I find some of these blanket rules frustrating because of the nature of how they create inflexibilty. I am a law abiding person and wouldn't knowingly break rules/ laws for my own benefit.
Coming back to the first point, Isn't it time that Fisheries & the Minister who is responsible for this portfolio offer Recfishers a small reward for the diligence that as a collective group they have demonstrated in most cases?
Fisheries continue to espowse the term "Stewardship" of the resource, perhaps that requires redefining to "the limitation of a resource for one group for the supposed greater benefit of a larger group"? What are others thoughts
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Norman Moore retires at the next election
Why would he care?
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
He should care
as his representives at a meeting barely 18mths ago, in Bunbury, said there would be NO changes until ther was a "5" year study done on the Recreational side to ascertain what condition the fishery is in.
Well it now seems the fishery in "Some parts" of the state are in dis-repair so the whole state has to cop it sweet.