Recfishwest ABC article
On the ABC online news this morning, a quote
Recfishwest chief executive Andrew Rowland said the lobby group "supported the science and need to take action" but that the recreational sector was being hit unnecessarily hard by the proposal.
Do we really support the science? We don't need to "take action" if the science is wrong.
Once again Recfishwest, think about it and get it right. The science is wrong, the data is old, the sampling is out of date and insufficient, where is the sampling for the 70% of our coastline that is hardly fished offshore because of lack of boat ramps. These areas act as as natural reserves for fish stocks. We always will have fishing pressure in the Metro and nearby area with the majority of the popoluation. This area will represent the most affected area with fish stocks, and according to my own sampling there isn't a problem with stocks of snapper at all, and there is no shortage of large dhufish either. There are less dhufish than areas outside the metro area, but this area is fished a lot more. We need thorough sampling done in lots of areas outside the metro region.
Please Recfishwest, challenge them on the science, they use the same data, same "scientists" to arrive at different results for the 2019/20 report and the 2021/22 report. This shows how weak there conclusions are. Get your own scientists to challenge the report. PLEASE.
Mick C
Posts: 607
Date Joined: 26/12/13
Agree
I have been “banging on” about the errors in the sampling strategy for recreationally caught fish, and hence the catch estimates, since I read the technical report but very little is mentioned about this in any correspondence I have seen in opposition to the proposal. The comment by the Recfishwest CEO “trusting the science” is disappointing to say the least (although the point about needing to assess the economic and social impacts is certainly valid).
I wrote this post a while back, sent off my letter but don’t believe it has been published. I added a comment where in the private sector if you were proposing a change as significant as this, you would have to commission an independent scientific review to properly examine the certainty of the report data and its conclusions. http://fishwrecked.com/forum/my-letter-editor
I note also the comment by Nathan Harrison that mature species were lacking in the assessment, and this is a major issue of concern. My concern is how this conclusion is made from surveys at ramps, an onerous survey procedure for a small percentage of “selected” recreational fisherpersons, and the send us your skeletons program. In relation to the first points, how is it known the sample is representative? My observation is that it is only a relatively small proportion of people successfully catch the larger fish. The logistics of getting the large fish frames to Fisheries, and the concern of how the data may be used, has probably prevented many of the larger frames being donated.
As I said in my letter, to trust the science it has to be right. I don’t have a high degree of faith in the data being right, and there doesn’t seem to be an appetite by the representative bodies to demand an independent review.
Ability is what you are capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it - LH.
wagyl
Posts: 219
Date Joined: 08/03/09
I hate conspiracy theories
but I cannot help but wonder what has brought on this total about face on fishing stocks, and with such urgency and very little debate.
Jim
Posts: 1336
Date Joined: 05/05/06
Also the obvious blatant
Also the obvious blatant hypocrisy of gov/fisheries in building the outer harbour in snapper spawning grounds, the illegal fishing on the reefs up north. The conflict of interest recfish has by being funded by the government that is bringing in these demersal changes. The only way I see things possibly changing is voting out McGowan and recfish members voting out current Recfish management. Recfish supporting the science is a nail in the coffin of recreational anglers.
Bend over