I drafted a submission to the Recfishwest Expert Working Group on behalf on my fishing club a few months ago.  The content was discussed at length in a committee meeting and the letter was drafted, subjected to peer review/approval and then submitted.

I was having a recent debate about the issues and referred back to that submission.  On review, it might be good text for persons to use as a “form” letter to be sent to politicians, etc?

I have modified the original text and included a draft below  Any feedback before potential release for further use would be appreciated.  Modifications to include the proposed state wide changes might be worthwhile? 

Initial issues raised in opposition are that: a maximum size limit is not practical because of barotrauma; and extended bans around breeding are required so that breeding age fish are not caught leading up to the season.

Thanks for any feedback.  I genuinely believe this would be a poor decision and could be done better, irrespective of any conflict of interest that I may have. 

Mick

*************

Date

Person

Person Address

Dear Person,

I, (Name) do not support the DPIRD proposed 8 or 9 month fishing ban for demersal scalefish in the West Coat Bioregion.

I make the following submission whereby I:

1.       support fisheries management that appropriately conserves the resource in a sustainable manner for future generations;

2.       believe the current fisheries resource in Western Australia is generally healthy, when compared to other fisheries in Australia and around the world;

3.       acknowledge research should be ongoing to assess local fish stocks, and this research should inform political decisions;

4.       note the significant error bounds surrounding the current recreational catch estimate due to sampling methods that are not precise, and are subject to significant error (the 95% Confidence Interval for the recreational catch estimate provides for a large range);

5.       question conservative long term management decisions, that have large social and economic consequences to key stakeholders, that are based on data that requires expert review to properly inform the process;

6.       believe that social and economic impact assessments should be caried out prior to the decision;

7.       acknowledge that barotrauma occurs when demersal fish are captured from depth;

8.       note that the severity of barotrauma varies dependent on the depth of capture, the species caught, the rate of retrieve to surface, and methods of post capture release (PCR);

9.       support a public information campaign aimed at minimising barotrauma when catching and releasing fish;

10.   support a revision of fisheries regulations that:

a.       consider appropriate size limits for demersal fish that are captured from depth;

b.       provide for maximum size limits so that “breeding age fish” are preserved in the population as far as practicable, with consideration of PCR survival probability in the specific situation; and

c.       review total demersal fish bag limits with the aim of minimising upsizing.

11.   suggest that any proposal to increase closed seasons for demersal fishing must align with the biological requirements of breeding fish to maximise resource recovery.

Should you have any questions or matters for discussion please contact (Name) via (Name Contact Number or Email Address).

Yours faithfully,

(Signature - Name)