My mum works for a Liberal Member and straight off the bat I shot off an angry email to her, her boss is a keen fisho too and has commented in private that Norman Moore has signed his own death warrant and wont see re-election for the next term.
Fuck these pricks anyway, my car caught on fire, needs an engine rebuild, by the time I get the beast back on the road so I can tow the boat again hopefully this shit would have been sorted out.
I have never caught a size snapper, dhui, mulloway or any other prize fish. Although I go out and enjoy it, 95% of the time I catch squid, whiting and herring.
Something needs ot be done, and again and agin we agree.
What this is saying is 'making people pay more money isnt going to help the stocks situation'
i for one am not against there being longer closures.
But the question needs to be asked, is it something can be be done in regions? or longer time brackets, or even lets say 2 closures a year for 2 months each??
Maybe we need to create a consensus on what 'us' the recreational people think is appropriate??? and most benficial?
I would prefer that they made it fair, eg A statewide license fee as opposed to targeting those in the mid region as it is discrimination. Also reduce the fee to a level comparable with other states and an "umbrella license" available for those who target abalone, crays, marron, inland, fresh water and salt.
My main thing is the cost, I dont mind having a license but $180 for boat owners is crazy. Especially on top of Skippers Tickets (What a joke, Ive been asked for mine once since that started and the waterpig didnt even wait for me to get it out of my wallet), boat rego, trailer rego, carpark fees, car license.
I would like to see the umbrella licence maintained where it is now at around $80 per year which I think is reasonable. $6.66 a month.
And Normal fishing licences (no cray, abalone, marron) say around $40-50 per year per angler regardless of shore or boat.
If these new regulations seem over the top, what do you think is reasonable?
I cannot understand why we have no tag system and it is not even proposed. Maybe i am missing something, but it would seem to me to be the ultimate user pays system. It worked in Shark Bay, why would it not work off perth. I can handle a fishign licence state wide of say $30 or even a boat licence of $180 that covers anyone fishing from that boat, then you can recoup it off your deckies. If that went back in to policing bag limits properly and better research we might get a sustainable resource, but the present proposal does nothing to stop the catch rate.
second last paragraph...."Labor has suggested a longer closure of fisheries to protect stocks"
round and round we go
I think you hit the nail on the head Jody. At the end of the day if the metro non -commercial zone population crashes in the next decade of decision making with species like Dhufish the recovery will be painfully slow. Its all well and good paying $30 only for a licence but the extraction has to be sustainable and allowed for population fishing increase in that decade. The $150 demersal licence is only for people who fish more than say the 4 days of a day licence. Otherwise its buy a day ticket.
Why there hasnt been compulsary diaries checked at ramps with on the spot fines for lack of integrity is up to the people who wont release information of the decision making for possibly good reason not entirely against fishers rights.
Is there a solution? A max 10 Dhus per year for the top end extractors? After all people have to learn to share and have sustainability. Theres probably a reason why that hasnt been introduced. At the end of the day if there is a complete crash it could be a decade of complete closure to fishing as it may take 3 decades for a complete biological crash of Dhufish to regain a breeding biomass.
When the captures stop its usually the critics that vanish into thin air but that wont help the situation.
Some prevention is better than what will happen if prevention doesnt happen.
Please dont shoot the messenger but all civil constructive criticism welcome.
I'm all for the two month ban and make it longer say to end of February, be honest fellas, not every day is a good fishing day in these months, old fart and I prefer March through to even June. 5 month ban with $30 fishing license for boat and land based seems fair, we all know what is caught and not regulated on the rocks, beaches at groynes and marinas, fisheries don't seem to bother there, only seem to target boat traffic why? Herring, Gardie's, Taylor (on the endangered list) Skippy, whiting, blowies (Ha) snapper,sting ray, sharks (some on the endangered list), flounder, flathead, yellow fin bream, squid, occie, cuttlefish, mullaway, dhuie fish (some places,) salmon, Spanish mackerel (some places) the list gones on what the lando can catch and not be regulated (except for the snapper, dhuiefish, baldie? & Taylor) Yet fisho's that boats out has to get a license, to be fair both land and boat fisho's for a license.
Could also reduce the bag limit or have a boat limit regardless of how many on board.
Due to the governments inability to recognise the tax input of recreational fishing and allocate some of that money to fisheries enforcement and research. I feel that some form of fishing license is a necessity to quarantine the money for fisheries enforcement and research. However this license should be only about $20 but should be applied to all rec fishers not just boat fisherman in the metro area.
As far as the vulnerable 5 go. I see some sense in closed seasons if they can accurately determine the prime breeding periods. However if this is the way to go, then this closed season should be applied to both ameture and proffesional fisherman.
I see a lot of sense in a tag system for demersals with the tags applied for when renewing your fishing license. This would immediately show the researches that not everyone who fishes chases the V5. Perhaps combined with some form of basic log book i.e. date fish caught and length. All unused tags and log books to be handed in when applying for next years fishing license. This would give some accurate catch data over a 2 year period and I am sure would show that rec's do not catch anywhere the tonnage of V5 as is stated.
Some one just told me the member for Scarbourough said on radio today she supports the regs, if thats true thats the craziest thing i have heard in my life, her husband ownsa string of tackle shops does not he ? Whats she want to do send him broke ?
that 6 month closures are going to do far more damage to the tackle trade ,boat builders and the like .Also be prepared for your insurance on your boats to raise as well if we all put our boats in to lay up for 6 months out of 12 the insurance co will still have profits to make.If the closures go from oct to march you can kiss a fair few fishing towns goodbye like jurien and lancelin that are already in decline from drops in cray take and rec fishing on school hols.On the plus side after putting all those people out of work the ones that complained over a pi@sy little $150 dollars can feel happy that they can afford another 3 cartons of beer to drink while they sit on thier boat in the driveway dreaming of what could of been.
I have said it heaps of times half the bag limits simple realy , this would half the yearly catch ,and that go's for the whole of WA I would be happy getting one dhuie each .
I think most people would prefer this option (well, i'm sure the guys that rape the ocean might not).
Unfortunately though, I dont think halving the bag limits will halve the catch. It would only do so if people were most of the time being limited by the limits and not the natural limits. E.g. say you catch on average 1 snapper and 1 dhuie per trip, when allowed 4, then decreasing it to 2 means its not half the number of fish taken (you'd average less fish per trip because you wouldnt get more than 2 fish a trip bringing up the average).
Combining it with size limit changes as Paul mentioned might help though. I just wonder how the real figures work out?
Though, if we go with a combination method: We reduce bag limits, we increase size limits a little, flat low license for all fishermen (proceeds used only for fishing-related), education (for better release/handling and for encouraging people to take less) as well as changes in commercial catches (and improvement of methods/rules- e.g. throwing dead fish overboard is pointless).
I recon that would be a lot more holistic solution, better to all, and better for the fishery. Though, this is the government we're dealing with and they dont like complicated solutions, even if they are effective (e.g. take road safety- instead of increasing education and skills, they just chuck speed cameras everywhere)
Ahh but one thing you don't address with that model is that fisheries were supposed to be attepting to curb peak usage.
At least by halving the bag limit, people that bag out all the time, will now be bagging out with less fish. Guys like me that can't catch fish down here aren't making a dent anyhow and the proposed fee structure just makes it more expensive for me to do so.
didnt they nearly half the rec fisho's bag limits last year paul?? or do you want it to be 2 cat 1 fish per person?. they should half the dhufish bag limit to 1 per fisho, and a boat limit of 4 max... maybe even 2. add to that a 4 month closure.
Two people on the boat four cat 1 fish two dhuies two others that is still a good feed of fish,same going up north 20kg down to 10kg pr person. even up the size limit on the dhuies to 550-600mm. i personaly think its to late and the old dhuie in ten years will be few and far between.
1. Tighter bag and boat limits. (this will reduce the total take of fish)
2. Compulsory log books for both land and boat based fishos. (this will give some concrete data on whats being taken, how much and where so future policy is based on something real)
3. An across the board license of $50 for both boat and land based like they have in VIC, NSW etc. (this will fund more research and hopefully policing)
No Brendon it is as simple as that,your right on the money there ,I think most fisho's go out for a feed,and just to get away from the rat race,so a feed of fish is a bonus,I love my fishing and i also love a feed of fish ,but i would not complain,if the limits were halved. or a small license fee was introduced. Closed seasons we can dive ,catch a few whiting or herring,No matter what is introduced there will always be people not happy,I for one will go with the flow and what will be will be .
i agree with huggy b,roberta and also paul g,these are all great comments,also like 2 add raise dhufish size limit to 700mm and snapper to 600mm,also have an overall licencence for every body that fishes shorebased and everybody at 60 dollars anualy,im sure we can live with this,but everybody 2 their own,im also happy that some polititions might not support norman moores fishing license
i think Paul G would still catch fish as well as long as they dont keep flattening my land marks in order to build houses.I had a guy onboard about a year ago that took me straight to his old ground using just the sounder and compass.Heaven forbid we need to learn how to read maps and nav markers and compasses again what are me neanderthal man.
mmmmmmmmmmm intresting then everyone would scream safty ,how did we ever catch fish without them or get home after fishing. would work but will never happen.
I remember cuey in wangler stating that the gps would be the end of the demersal fish when it first came out.
I am still mainly a shore fisho, mainly out of perth when i get the time, so am probably a little biased. The best thing about fishing down south or up north is that 80% of the coast is unfishable to us providing a massive no take zone for fish. Even if i hammer a certain ledge everytime i head north or south the kms either side of me are unfishable protecting the fish.
If the gps was banned, would stocks go back to how they were before the gps?
Would boaties go back to floating around with a sounder trying to line up land marks, or give up fishing totally?
How did people catch fish before it? Oh thats right, there were far more fish around back then because there was no gps and their grounds wern't constantly hammered. It used to be hard to repeatedly hammer or locate a spot.
Poida i think most fisho's would still do ok ,yes it would decrease the catch rate for sure but it wouldn't take to long to get the land mark sust out ,i will take more than baning gps to bring the fish stocks back to what they were if ever.
Not the sounder jesus the gps and now the sounder ,might as well throw the flairs and lifejackets over the side to .no more prety pics on the box, Its all geting to hard might just sell the boat and take up golf.
Another article in todays West Australian, about the fishing proposal's debacle, after reading the articles,I am still amazed, by the smugness and arrogance of the Fisheries Minister. See the Editorial written on page 20, makes for interesting reading.
I’m not fussed which way it goes but I have a burning question I would like answered. If it’s about depleting stocks why is there a commercial sector still targeting these species that are at such a high risk? I understand armatures take there fair share which is for personal consumption are being penalised but those exploiting the resource for financial gain can continue .Like people who pay the ridiculously high prices to purchase these fish we as anglers also pay a high price to catch our 4 only fish so is it about money or protecting our recourse.
Bill.
The fish resource is for everyone, someone who doesn't fish should have the same right to a dhuie as I do as a fisherman. If they don't fish they have a right to buy one. If you ban pros from taking the V5 you need to ban rec's also.
I think most people don't understand why the high licensing fee's were introduced. They are set high to achieve two things. One, and the most important is to reduce the number of anglers fishing. Here's a prime example how it would work... Say a guy works shift, he has a day off during the week, he wants to go fishing, his normal fishing buddy can't go, so he needs a deckie. He call's around to his mates and gets a guy who doesn't fish much. They go out and catch some V5. If the license system was in, all of a sudden the guest has to pay the extra 1 day fishing license and needs to get it the day before, so he says no can't be bothered, so now the boat stays parked for the day. 2 x 6 hours on the water = 12 fishing hours not fished. Bingo you reduce the number of hours fished. Less number of hours fished = less number of fish caught. Thats their thinking.
Spot on Darryl. If it costs too much to go fishing, then people won't fish and then theres less pressure on the fishery. Sure its making it hard for those that can't afford it, but its a start because the dept realise that cutting the bag limit and increase size limits won't reduce the amount of EFFORT. That is the biggest factor, how to reduce the number of people fishing because the boating population is way too large to sustainably fish a small area.
You think about it, on the busiest days there are in excess of 400 boats at Woodmans point, say as an average they all get one dhuie (some get more, some get none) of an average of 5kg. That dhufish takes 6 years to get to that size and has probably reproduced once (maybe twice) and a less amount of eggs than a large fish. (large reproductive males and female will be caught as well) Now that it has been killed, its going to take another 5-6 years for its offspring to get to the same size and be able to reproduce. You do that every weekend for however many years and the law of diminishing returns isn't hard to figure in this scenario.
As for the compulsory log book idea, not going to happen in my opinion, but it may. The reason for that is the validity of the information contained within, how many threads do you see on here, I caught this, have no friggin idea what it is, but I kept it anyway. Having stood at the ramps and getting people to tell me what they caught and then looked through their esky, I can tell you that the accuracy of their reporting would make the research completely invalid. I guess its where my skepticism of the RAP log book program comes in, sure its data, but how accurate is it realllllly...... Yes, northern species are a bit harder and there's less confusion in the metro, but for the average fisho that just goes out and wets a line, well....
The comparison of shore based to boaties, not even in the same league.. But here's a question for you to think about, how many times have you seen the red shirts (research) on the beaches or rock groynes........... $$$ .......
I think regardless of which side of government were in power that you would be getting this same fee structure and the only reason you didn't get it from labor a little while back was because there was an election looming. Something needed to be done and its getting done, whether you like it or not, you can't NOT realise that too many people fishing with fewer and fewer fish reproducing = only one outcome.
Bill's point really does make you wonder though, how vulnerable areas can still have a $ amount placed on them to supplement market demand..
I also agree with Paul that possession limits need to be cut statewide, it won't be long before the northern waters are in a similar predicament to the metro. I watched someone 'process' 42 category 1 fish the other day (6 people on their boat) - tell me thats not generous!! I saw them out the next two days as well........
If they got on average more than 2.8kg of fillets off per fish they would be over their legal limit though. The max limit of fillets is designed to prevent people from bagging out on different days, but like all laws I guess it only works if its policed.
It would be interesting if the legal limit of fillets for the west coast region was 10kg. So anyone on a northern trip can only take back 10kg. I bet there would be a lot of fuss if that came into effect. It is a bit saddening the mentality that for some, when you go north you need to get your fillets first, then you can focus on having fun. (Nothing illegal in doing that though)
Its definately not feasible to check everyone (its also not needed, and would be a waste of resources to check everyone). Not something I am specifically suggesting though.
The problem is that if no-one is checked, then anyone can get away with it. I guess it would be like drink driving. Police cant and dont check everyone (and its competely infeasible to do so), but by randomly checking people, the people know that there is some chance they will get caught. I dont know how many people keep too much fillets at there home or how often people are checked. I do wonder if theres many people out there who think "its ok to keep more fillets, because no one will check my home". It might not be common enough to worry about, but it does make you wonder whether is or not?
Hear what your saying Adam, but i dont agree with all the points.
In particular the log book.
Most people (and i say most, not all) can tell what a snapper is, or a dhu fish is, or what a baldchin groper is, which are some of the main species that need to be looked after.
I dont think the log book would be used as a way of revenue raising, by fining people who dont use them, or a way to regulate the number of fish caught, but more about the data it can produce.
There is a lot of talk lately about the lack of data in regards to the V5 fish, and even more now, the deeper species like bass groper and harpuka.
It is important to gather as much research data as possible to understand how much of the fish stock is being captured, not used by recreational fishermen. I think by law the commercial fishing sector have to report on there catches and is publically available and reviewed, yet the recreational sector does not? this doesn make any sense.
As you said, 400 boat on a busy day from woodman point, but how could you gather accurate data from these 400 boats??
Your right, how long is it going to be until the northern waters are in th same situation under heavy pressure from over fishing.
If the reasoning behind intoducing a license was simply to limit the number of people fishing, then why not just ban recreational fishing for a certian period? it doesnt make any sense. The main driving force behind the licenses is to raise money for whatever reason it would be used for, its to raise money.
I have no issue with this, except the value like most others.
Victoria has had fishing licenses for 15-20 years now, of which the value now is about $60 - $65 a year. As to where Mr moore wants to start at $180 a year. 3 times the value.
There population far out weighs ours, but yet they have still managed to provide a sustainable fishery for the recreational fishing sector.
Next cab off the ranks is what is the money going to be used for?? to supply more boats and more fisheries officers to try regulate these new rules?? how much money would be left to help research data, and provide solutions to help rebuild the damaged fish stocks???
As its been said before, out of the whole recreational fishing sector, 10% catch 90% of the fish, will introducing a license prevent these people from getting there fish?????
Well, I guess the red shirts (research) gather the research from those days that there are 400 boats out and are trained in data collection, analysis of fish species etc. It is all done randomly as to what days its done on, what ramps to be at and where so the data is validated.
I guess the problem with allowing rec fishers to do it is if the fisherman has his own agenda and wants to 'play' around with the data then it again removes the accuracy and theres no way for the people analysing that data to know what is real and whats not. Personally I think its better to have limited accurate data rather than huge amounts of data with questionable accuracy, the fundamentals of science I guess?
If you do the maths, it works out that you only need to sample a small percentage of the population to get a high confidence it will be some accuracy. For 95% I think it works out to something like 500 (this is for say, a yes/no question in a large population).
Though, the problem is that the above only works with a representative sample. I.e. if you dont pick non-randomly, you'll skew the data.
I think for most people, the reason they distrust the above is partly from not understanding how the mathematics of statistical sampling works, but from also thinking they arent being done often enough, or accurately enough (too small a sample size can throw off results of course). Its pretty hard to counter that when most people have never even been questioned on what they've caught. If you can go out hundreds of times and never be checked, if you've hardly ever seen a red shirter then you're probably not going to be very confident that they're getting accurate data.
It would be interesting getting a hold of how often such studies are done, how often they are done and what the protocols are.
I agree on the last point (as long as the limited data isnt too limited).
Hey everyone, Great debate about the licenses a few points from my opinion about data collection.
1, Adam 400 boats from woodman point, yes, 400 dhuies, probably not. Reasons, of those 400 boats I would suggest that at least half of them would be under 18ft long, with many being tinnies going for squid, herring and whiting. Most of these boats (I have a quintrex 4.2 with 40hp Johnno) cant effectively fish for these v5 species. I fish the back of Carnac for king george whiting and might get a snapper but we simply dont go deep enough for dhuies as its generally pretty uncomfortable getting out to the 5 fathom bank out the back of garden island.
2, Data collection, Why not prioritise the sampling to bigger boats? If I was a research officer and I had the choice of bothering a 12ft tinnie or a 20ft kevla cat with bloody rocket launchers with 7 boat rods I would think if the V5 were what you really needed data on it would be a simple choice. Hlokk I understand your point about skewing the data too.
I also almost always launch at cockburn, I understand that this may not work at hillaries where apparently smaller boats can get amongst the bigger fish, but horses for courses.
3, I also think this licence needs to be for all fisherpeople, shore or boat, metro, south or north not just biased towards the mid coast and boat.
4, bag limits, im all for reducing them, afterall I have never caught any of the V5, so what does it matter for me?
5, the revenue raised from these licenses MUST go back into research, facilities and fishing related issues. If fisherpeople are going to be stung for their money, Ill be buggered if I see the money spent on speed cameras or something else terrestrial based.
For the number of dhuies pulled in a day. For 150t a year (west coast bioregion - recs approx), it works out to 411kg/day (on average). If the average fish is 5kg, thats 82fish/day on average. If there are 150 fishable days, then its around 200/day. Thats on average for 150 days though. If a lot of boats were out one day, then more than the average would be caught. If it was a fishable day then but a weekday, then less boats would be out. The average works out the same. Just need to know how many fishable days, and then you can figure out how many per fishable day on average (I guessed the rec catch based on 45% of the total catch, using commercial catch (the other 55%) at 166t for 2006/2007 financial year)
Re 2: If they do that sampling, you'd certainly get more dhuies recorded as being caught, but if you didnt specify what the population sample was accurately, you could run into problems. Just need to then avoid unscrupulous (or uninformed people) saying well X dhuies/boat/day, and there are Y boaties so there are X*Y dhuies/year caught. (comparing catch of 5m+ boats multiplied ALL boats).
5: Thats what the suggestion was. 100% of the fees go into a trust which only gets spent on fisheries related things. Though, whether the money will actually go into the trust, and whether it will be spent wisely is a another issue. The money from rego fees and petrol tax is supposed to go to the roads, but it doesnt.
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15665
Date Joined: 29/11/05
scarborough
I wonder if the other member to cross the floor might be someone in the scarborough electorate.............
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Bodie
Posts: 3758
Date Joined: 05/11/07
i was thinnking the same
i was thinnking the same thing :P
11,000 on the petition.. thats bloody good work!!!!
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Liberal Party
My mum works for a Liberal Member and straight off the bat I shot off an angry email to her, her boss is a keen fisho too and has commented in private that Norman Moore has signed his own death warrant and wont see re-election for the next term.
Fuck these pricks anyway, my car caught on fire, needs an engine rebuild, by the time I get the beast back on the road so I can tow the boat again hopefully this shit would have been sorted out.
I have never caught a size snapper, dhui, mulloway or any other prize fish. Although I go out and enjoy it, 95% of the time I catch squid, whiting and herring.
What are they in danger of?
Shorty
Posts: 1549
Date Joined: 10/05/08
Looks like Moore has two
Looks like Moore has two chances of passing this now,,Buckleys and none.
Jody
Posts: 1578
Date Joined: 19/04/07
Hmmmm
second last paragraph...."Labor has suggested a longer closure of fisheries to protect stocks"
round and round we go
TWiZTED
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15665
Date Joined: 29/11/05
good point
Good point Jodes, one way or another something is going to happen. You either pay up or close up. What would you prefer?
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Bodie
Posts: 3758
Date Joined: 05/11/07
But this is what the artcle
But this is what the artcle is saying....
Something needs ot be done, and again and agin we agree.
What this is saying is 'making people pay more money isnt going to help the stocks situation'
i for one am not against there being longer closures.
But the question needs to be asked, is it something can be be done in regions? or longer time brackets, or even lets say 2 closures a year for 2 months each??
Maybe we need to create a consensus on what 'us' the recreational people think is appropriate??? and most benficial?
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Pay up or close up
I would prefer that they made it fair, eg A statewide license fee as opposed to targeting those in the mid region as it is discrimination. Also reduce the fee to a level comparable with other states and an "umbrella license" available for those who target abalone, crays, marron, inland, fresh water and salt.
My main thing is the cost, I dont mind having a license but $180 for boat owners is crazy. Especially on top of Skippers Tickets (What a joke, Ive been asked for mine once since that started and the waterpig didnt even wait for me to get it out of my wallet), boat rego, trailer rego, carpark fees, car license.
I would like to see the umbrella licence maintained where it is now at around $80 per year which I think is reasonable. $6.66 a month.
And Normal fishing licences (no cray, abalone, marron) say around $40-50 per year per angler regardless of shore or boat.
If these new regulations seem over the top, what do you think is reasonable?
Simon C
Posts: 801
Date Joined: 01/05/07
tag system
I cannot understand why we have no tag system and it is not even proposed. Maybe i am missing something, but it would seem to me to be the ultimate user pays system. It worked in Shark Bay, why would it not work off perth. I can handle a fishign licence state wide of say $30 or even a boat licence of $180 that covers anyone fishing from that boat, then you can recoup it off your deckies. If that went back in to policing bag limits properly and better research we might get a sustainable resource, but the present proposal does nothing to stop the catch rate.
saltatrix
Posts: 1081
Date Joined: 30/03/08
second last
second last paragraph...."Labor has suggested a longer closure of fisheries to protect stocks"
round and round we go
I think you hit the nail on the head Jody. At the end of the day if the metro non -commercial zone population crashes in the next decade of decision making with species like Dhufish the recovery will be painfully slow. Its all well and good paying $30 only for a licence but the extraction has to be sustainable and allowed for population fishing increase in that decade. The $150 demersal licence is only for people who fish more than say the 4 days of a day licence. Otherwise its buy a day ticket.
Why there hasnt been compulsary diaries checked at ramps with on the spot fines for lack of integrity is up to the people who wont release information of the decision making for possibly good reason not entirely against fishers rights.
Is there a solution? A max 10 Dhus per year for the top end extractors? After all people have to learn to share and have sustainability. Theres probably a reason why that hasnt been introduced. At the end of the day if there is a complete crash it could be a decade of complete closure to fishing as it may take 3 decades for a complete biological crash of Dhufish to regain a breeding biomass.
When the captures stop its usually the critics that vanish into thin air but that wont help the situation.
Some prevention is better than what will happen if prevention doesnt happen.
Please dont shoot the messenger but all civil constructive criticism welcome.
Angling tourism is worth $10 billion to the Australian economy - 90000 jobs; more than any sport; spread the word
roberta
Posts: 2773
Date Joined: 08/07/08
To be quite honest
I'm all for the two month ban and make it longer say to end of February, be honest fellas, not every day is a good fishing day in these months, old fart and I prefer March through to even June. 5 month ban with $30 fishing license for boat and land based seems fair, we all know what is caught and not regulated on the rocks, beaches at groynes and marinas, fisheries don't seem to bother there, only seem to target boat traffic why? Herring, Gardie's, Taylor (on the endangered list) Skippy, whiting, blowies (Ha) snapper,sting ray, sharks (some on the endangered list), flounder, flathead, yellow fin bream, squid, occie, cuttlefish, mullaway, dhuie fish (some places,) salmon, Spanish mackerel (some places) the list gones on what the lando can catch and not be regulated (except for the snapper, dhuiefish, baldie? & Taylor) Yet fisho's that boats out has to get a license, to be fair both land and boat fisho's for a license.
Could also reduce the bag limit or have a boat limit regardless of how many on board.
Ginger Tablets Rock
Matt T
Posts: 875
Date Joined: 19/11/07
Sam C
Sam C - I rekon the tag system is the best idea yet. Tony H posted an explanation of how they do it in South Africa that really made a lot of sense.
Barrd Up
Posts: 75
Date Joined: 25/10/08
Due to the governments
Due to the governments inability to recognise the tax input of recreational fishing and allocate some of that money to fisheries enforcement and research. I feel that some form of fishing license is a necessity to quarantine the money for fisheries enforcement and research. However this license should be only about $20 but should be applied to all rec fishers not just boat fisherman in the metro area.
As far as the vulnerable 5 go. I see some sense in closed seasons if they can accurately determine the prime breeding periods. However if this is the way to go, then this closed season should be applied to both ameture and proffesional fisherman.
I see a lot of sense in a tag system for demersals with the tags applied for when renewing your fishing license. This would immediately show the researches that not everyone who fishes chases the V5. Perhaps combined with some form of basic log book i.e. date fish caught and length. All unused tags and log books to be handed in when applying for next years fishing license. This would give some accurate catch data over a 2 year period and I am sure would show that rec's do not catch anywhere the tonnage of V5 as is stated.
Shorty
Posts: 1549
Date Joined: 10/05/08
Some one just told me the
Some one just told me the member for Scarbourough said on radio today she supports the regs, if thats true thats the craziest thing i have heard in my life, her husband ownsa string of tackle shops does not he ? Whats she want to do send him broke ?
allrounder
Posts: 1853
Date Joined: 10/11/08
i think she knows
that 6 month closures are going to do far more damage to the tackle trade ,boat builders and the like .Also be prepared for your insurance on your boats to raise as well if we all put our boats in to lay up for 6 months out of 12 the insurance co will still have profits to make.If the closures go from oct to march you can kiss a fair few fishing towns goodbye like jurien and lancelin that are already in decline from drops in cray take and rec fishing on school hols.On the plus side after putting all those people out of work the ones that complained over a pi@sy little $150 dollars can feel happy that they can afford another 3 cartons of beer to drink while they sit on thier boat in the driveway dreaming of what could of been.
So tell me have you got your info from years on the water or hours on the internet?
Colin Hay
Posts: 10407
Date Joined: 23/10/07
I am pretty sure I heard him say the same thing
on radio when they were first announced Colin
Moderator. Proud member of the Fishwrecked "Old Farts". Make sure your subscribed to Fishwrecked Reeltime http://fishwrecked-reeltime.com/
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
I have said it heaps of
I have said it heaps of times half the bag limits simple realy , this would half the yearly catch ,and that go's for the whole of WA I would be happy getting one dhuie each .
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
hlokk
Posts: 4293
Date Joined: 04/04/08
I think most people would
I think most people would prefer this option (well, i'm sure the guys that rape the ocean might not).
Unfortunately though, I dont think halving the bag limits will halve the catch. It would only do so if people were most of the time being limited by the limits and not the natural limits. E.g. say you catch on average 1 snapper and 1 dhuie per trip, when allowed 4, then decreasing it to 2 means its not half the number of fish taken (you'd average less fish per trip because you wouldnt get more than 2 fish a trip bringing up the average).
Combining it with size limit changes as Paul mentioned might help though. I just wonder how the real figures work out?
Though, if we go with a combination method: We reduce bag limits, we increase size limits a little, flat low license for all fishermen (proceeds used only for fishing-related), education (for better release/handling and for encouraging people to take less) as well as changes in commercial catches (and improvement of methods/rules- e.g. throwing dead fish overboard is pointless).
I recon that would be a lot more holistic solution, better to all, and better for the fishery. Though, this is the government we're dealing with and they dont like complicated solutions, even if they are effective (e.g. take road safety- instead of increasing education and skills, they just chuck speed cameras everywhere)
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Ahh but one thing you don't
Ahh but one thing you don't address with that model is that fisheries were supposed to be attepting to curb peak usage.
At least by halving the bag limit, people that bag out all the time, will now be bagging out with less fish. Guys like me that can't catch fish down here aren't making a dent anyhow and the proposed fee structure just makes it more expensive for me to do so.
offroad fisher
Posts: 51
Date Joined: 09/06/09
didnt they nearly half the
didnt they nearly half the rec fisho's bag limits last year paul?? or do you want it to be 2 cat 1 fish per person?. they should half the dhufish bag limit to 1 per fisho, and a boat limit of 4 max... maybe even 2. add to that a 4 month closure.
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
Two people on the boat four
Two people on the boat four cat 1 fish two dhuies two others that is still a good feed of fish,same going up north 20kg down to 10kg pr person. even up the size limit on the dhuies to 550-600mm. i personaly think its to late and the old dhuie in ten years will be few and far between.
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
callum
Posts: 417
Date Joined: 29/10/08
yup
i think that the simple solution would be cut the bag limits,
how much fish can you eat?
thats just my silly teenageer opinion though
happy fishing
HuggyB
Posts: 2515
Date Joined: 03/08/08
I think its pretty easy
The way I see it, the following should occur:
1. Tighter bag and boat limits. (this will reduce the total take of fish)
2. Compulsory log books for both land and boat based fishos. (this will give some concrete data on whats being taken, how much and where so future policy is based on something real)
3. An across the board license of $50 for both boat and land based like they have in VIC, NSW etc. (this will fund more research and hopefully policing)
But maybe I'm looking at it too simplistically??
The Terrorist - coming to a fishing spot near you.........
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
No Brendon it is as simple
No Brendon it is as simple as that,your right on the money there ,I think most fisho's go out for a feed,and just to get away from the rat race,so a feed of fish is a bonus,I love my fishing and i also love a feed of fish ,but i would not complain,if the limits were halved. or a small license fee was introduced. Closed seasons we can dive ,catch a few whiting or herring,No matter what is introduced there will always be people not happy,I for one will go with the flow and what will be will be .
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
saltatrix
Posts: 1081
Date Joined: 30/03/08
Wonder how much bait was
Wonder how much bait was sold to boat fishermen to go V5 fishing last month? Not that much would probably be the answer.
Angling tourism is worth $10 billion to the Australian economy - 90000 jobs; more than any sport; spread the word
allrounder
Posts: 1853
Date Joined: 10/11/08
i bought 10 blocks
got 8 left but still bought them.
So tell me have you got your info from years on the water or hours on the internet?
joe amato
Posts: 731
Date Joined: 21/12/08
i agree
i agree with huggy b,roberta and also paul g,these are all great comments,also like 2 add raise dhufish size limit to 700mm and snapper to 600mm,also have an overall licencence for every body that fishes shorebased and everybody at 60 dollars anualy,im sure we can live with this,but everybody 2 their own,im also happy that some polititions might not support norman moores fishing license
poida
Posts: 234
Date Joined: 08/08/05
ban the gps
A wopping big fine (10g+) for any kind of gps system found on a boat with fish on board should fix the problem
Awaiting flogging
allrounder
Posts: 1853
Date Joined: 10/11/08
No gps would not effect me
i think Paul G would still catch fish as well as long as they dont keep flattening my land marks in order to build houses.I had a guy onboard about a year ago that took me straight to his old ground using just the sounder and compass.Heaven forbid we need to learn how to read maps and nav markers and compasses again what are me neanderthal man.
So tell me have you got your info from years on the water or hours on the internet?
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
mmmmmmmmmmm intresting then
mmmmmmmmmmm intresting then everyone would scream safty ,how did we ever catch fish without them or get home after fishing. would work but will never happen.
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
poida
Posts: 234
Date Joined: 08/08/05
gps banned
you are probably right
I remember cuey in wangler stating that the gps would be the end of the demersal fish when it first came out.
I am still mainly a shore fisho, mainly out of perth when i get the time, so am probably a little biased. The best thing about fishing down south or up north is that 80% of the coast is unfishable to us providing a massive no take zone for fish. Even if i hammer a certain ledge everytime i head north or south the kms either side of me are unfishable protecting the fish.
If the gps was banned, would stocks go back to how they were before the gps?
Would boaties go back to floating around with a sounder trying to line up land marks, or give up fishing totally?
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Haha GPS is a safety device,
Haha GPS is a safety device, it will never happen.
poida
Posts: 234
Date Joined: 08/08/05
gps, fish locator or safety device
Much more of a fish locating device i imagine.
How did people catch fish before it? Oh thats right, there were far more fish around back then because there was no gps and their grounds wern't constantly hammered. It used to be hard to repeatedly hammer or locate a spot.
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
Poida i think most fisho's
Poida i think most fisho's would still do ok ,yes it would decrease the catch rate for sure but it wouldn't take to long to get the land mark sust out ,i will take more than baning gps to bring the fish stocks back to what they were if ever.
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
saltatrix
Posts: 1081
Date Joined: 30/03/08
Haha GPS is a safety device,
Haha GPS is a safety device, it will never happen.
Ban sounders then
Awaits bigger flogging
Angling tourism is worth $10 billion to the Australian economy - 90000 jobs; more than any sport; spread the word
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
Not the sounder jesus the
Not the sounder jesus the gps and now the sounder ,might as well throw the flairs and lifejackets over the side to .no more prety pics on the box, Its all geting to hard might just sell the boat and take up golf.
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
Highlander
Posts: 151
Date Joined: 02/07/09
Another article in todays
Another article in todays West Australian, about the fishing proposal's debacle, after reading the articles,I am still amazed, by the smugness and arrogance of the Fisheries Minister. See the Editorial written on page 20, makes for interesting reading.
Jim.
fishing, that used to be free!!!!
Bill
Posts: 437
Date Joined: 24/03/07
I’m not fussed which way
I’m not fussed which way it goes but I have a burning question I would like answered. If it’s about depleting stocks why is there a commercial sector still targeting these species that are at such a high risk? I understand armatures take there fair share which is for personal consumption are being penalised but those exploiting the resource for financial gain can continue .Like people who pay the ridiculously high prices to purchase these fish we as anglers also pay a high price to catch our 4 only fish so is it about money or protecting our recourse.
BQ544
Posts: 360
Date Joined: 22/10/06
Bill. The fish resource is
Bill.
The fish resource is for everyone, someone who doesn't fish should have the same right to a dhuie as I do as a fisherman. If they don't fish they have a right to buy one. If you ban pros from taking the V5 you need to ban rec's also.
I think most people don't understand why the high licensing fee's were introduced. They are set high to achieve two things. One, and the most important is to reduce the number of anglers fishing. Here's a prime example how it would work... Say a guy works shift, he has a day off during the week, he wants to go fishing, his normal fishing buddy can't go, so he needs a deckie. He call's around to his mates and gets a guy who doesn't fish much. They go out and catch some V5. If the license system was in, all of a sudden the guest has to pay the extra 1 day fishing license and needs to get it the day before, so he says no can't be bothered, so now the boat stays parked for the day. 2 x 6 hours on the water = 12 fishing hours not fished. Bingo you reduce the number of hours fished. Less number of hours fished = less number of fish caught. Thats their thinking.
Highlander
Posts: 151
Date Joined: 02/07/09
BQ 544, Thats one of the
BQ 544, Thats one of the best explanations put in about these proposals, well said.
Jim.
fishing, that used to be free!!!!
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15665
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Yep
Spot on Darryl. If it costs too much to go fishing, then people won't fish and then theres less pressure on the fishery. Sure its making it hard for those that can't afford it, but its a start because the dept realise that cutting the bag limit and increase size limits won't reduce the amount of EFFORT. That is the biggest factor, how to reduce the number of people fishing because the boating population is way too large to sustainably fish a small area.
You think about it, on the busiest days there are in excess of 400 boats at Woodmans point, say as an average they all get one dhuie (some get more, some get none) of an average of 5kg. That dhufish takes 6 years to get to that size and has probably reproduced once (maybe twice) and a less amount of eggs than a large fish. (large reproductive males and female will be caught as well) Now that it has been killed, its going to take another 5-6 years for its offspring to get to the same size and be able to reproduce. You do that every weekend for however many years and the law of diminishing returns isn't hard to figure in this scenario.
As for the compulsory log book idea, not going to happen in my opinion, but it may. The reason for that is the validity of the information contained within, how many threads do you see on here, I caught this, have no friggin idea what it is, but I kept it anyway. Having stood at the ramps and getting people to tell me what they caught and then looked through their esky, I can tell you that the accuracy of their reporting would make the research completely invalid. I guess its where my skepticism of the RAP log book program comes in, sure its data, but how accurate is it realllllly...... Yes, northern species are a bit harder and there's less confusion in the metro, but for the average fisho that just goes out and wets a line, well....
The comparison of shore based to boaties, not even in the same league.. But here's a question for you to think about, how many times have you seen the red shirts (research) on the beaches or rock groynes........... $$$ .......
I think regardless of which side of government were in power that you would be getting this same fee structure and the only reason you didn't get it from labor a little while back was because there was an election looming. Something needed to be done and its getting done, whether you like it or not, you can't NOT realise that too many people fishing with fewer and fewer fish reproducing = only one outcome.
Bill's point really does make you wonder though, how vulnerable areas can still have a $ amount placed on them to supplement market demand..
I also agree with Paul that possession limits need to be cut statewide, it won't be long before the northern waters are in a similar predicament to the metro. I watched someone 'process' 42 category 1 fish the other day (6 people on their boat) - tell me thats not generous!! I saw them out the next two days as well........
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
hlokk
Posts: 4293
Date Joined: 04/04/08
If they got on average more
If they got on average more than 2.8kg of fillets off per fish they would be over their legal limit though. The max limit of fillets is designed to prevent people from bagging out on different days, but like all laws I guess it only works if its policed.
It would be interesting if the legal limit of fillets for the west coast region was 10kg. So anyone on a northern trip can only take back 10kg. I bet there would be a lot of fuss if that came into effect. It is a bit saddening the mentality that for some, when you go north you need to get your fillets first, then you can focus on having fun. (Nothing illegal in doing that though)
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15665
Date Joined: 29/11/05
resources
Imagine the resources required to check everyones individual possession in their homes. Not likely!! Can only really be done from a tip off.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
hlokk
Posts: 4293
Date Joined: 04/04/08
Its definately not feasible
Its definately not feasible to check everyone (its also not needed, and would be a waste of resources to check everyone). Not something I am specifically suggesting though.
The problem is that if no-one is checked, then anyone can get away with it. I guess it would be like drink driving. Police cant and dont check everyone (and its competely infeasible to do so), but by randomly checking people, the people know that there is some chance they will get caught. I dont know how many people keep too much fillets at there home or how often people are checked. I do wonder if theres many people out there who think "its ok to keep more fillets, because no one will check my home". It might not be common enough to worry about, but it does make you wonder whether is or not?
Bodie
Posts: 3758
Date Joined: 05/11/07
Hear what your saying Adam,
Hear what your saying Adam, but i dont agree with all the points.
In particular the log book.
Most people (and i say most, not all) can tell what a snapper is, or a dhu fish is, or what a baldchin groper is, which are some of the main species that need to be looked after.
I dont think the log book would be used as a way of revenue raising, by fining people who dont use them, or a way to regulate the number of fish caught, but more about the data it can produce.
There is a lot of talk lately about the lack of data in regards to the V5 fish, and even more now, the deeper species like bass groper and harpuka.
It is important to gather as much research data as possible to understand how much of the fish stock is being captured, not used by recreational fishermen. I think by law the commercial fishing sector have to report on there catches and is publically available and reviewed, yet the recreational sector does not? this doesn make any sense.
As you said, 400 boat on a busy day from woodman point, but how could you gather accurate data from these 400 boats??
Your right, how long is it going to be until the northern waters are in th same situation under heavy pressure from over fishing.
If the reasoning behind intoducing a license was simply to limit the number of people fishing, then why not just ban recreational fishing for a certian period? it doesnt make any sense. The main driving force behind the licenses is to raise money for whatever reason it would be used for, its to raise money.
I have no issue with this, except the value like most others.
Victoria has had fishing licenses for 15-20 years now, of which the value now is about $60 - $65 a year. As to where Mr moore wants to start at $180 a year. 3 times the value.
There population far out weighs ours, but yet they have still managed to provide a sustainable fishery for the recreational fishing sector.
Next cab off the ranks is what is the money going to be used for?? to supply more boats and more fisheries officers to try regulate these new rules?? how much money would be left to help research data, and provide solutions to help rebuild the damaged fish stocks???
As its been said before, out of the whole recreational fishing sector, 10% catch 90% of the fish, will introducing a license prevent these people from getting there fish?????
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15665
Date Joined: 29/11/05
issues
Well, I guess the red shirts (research) gather the research from those days that there are 400 boats out and are trained in data collection, analysis of fish species etc. It is all done randomly as to what days its done on, what ramps to be at and where so the data is validated.
I guess the problem with allowing rec fishers to do it is if the fisherman has his own agenda and wants to 'play' around with the data then it again removes the accuracy and theres no way for the people analysing that data to know what is real and whats not. Personally I think its better to have limited accurate data rather than huge amounts of data with questionable accuracy, the fundamentals of science I guess?
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
hlokk
Posts: 4293
Date Joined: 04/04/08
If you do the maths, it
If you do the maths, it works out that you only need to sample a small percentage of the population to get a high confidence it will be some accuracy. For 95% I think it works out to something like 500 (this is for say, a yes/no question in a large population).
Though, the problem is that the above only works with a representative sample. I.e. if you dont pick non-randomly, you'll skew the data.
I think for most people, the reason they distrust the above is partly from not understanding how the mathematics of statistical sampling works, but from also thinking they arent being done often enough, or accurately enough (too small a sample size can throw off results of course). Its pretty hard to counter that when most people have never even been questioned on what they've caught. If you can go out hundreds of times and never be checked, if you've hardly ever seen a red shirter then you're probably not going to be very confident that they're getting accurate data.
It would be interesting getting a hold of how often such studies are done, how often they are done and what the protocols are.
I agree on the last point (as long as the limited data isnt too limited).
Bodie
Posts: 3758
Date Joined: 05/11/07
But it would be regulated
But it would be regulated yes?
IE: if pulled up by fisheries, or by someone at the ramp with a red shirt that the data in the log book needs to match whats in the esky??
But i guess it would be hard to manage...
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
checking boats
Hey everyone, Great debate about the licenses a few points from my opinion about data collection.
1, Adam 400 boats from woodman point, yes, 400 dhuies, probably not. Reasons, of those 400 boats I would suggest that at least half of them would be under 18ft long, with many being tinnies going for squid, herring and whiting. Most of these boats (I have a quintrex 4.2 with 40hp Johnno) cant effectively fish for these v5 species. I fish the back of Carnac for king george whiting and might get a snapper but we simply dont go deep enough for dhuies as its generally pretty uncomfortable getting out to the 5 fathom bank out the back of garden island.
2, Data collection, Why not prioritise the sampling to bigger boats? If I was a research officer and I had the choice of bothering a 12ft tinnie or a 20ft kevla cat with bloody rocket launchers with 7 boat rods I would think if the V5 were what you really needed data on it would be a simple choice. Hlokk I understand your point about skewing the data too.
I also almost always launch at cockburn, I understand that this may not work at hillaries where apparently smaller boats can get amongst the bigger fish, but horses for courses.
3, I also think this licence needs to be for all fisherpeople, shore or boat, metro, south or north not just biased towards the mid coast and boat.
4, bag limits, im all for reducing them, afterall I have never caught any of the V5, so what does it matter for me?
5, the revenue raised from these licenses MUST go back into research, facilities and fishing related issues. If fisherpeople are going to be stung for their money, Ill be buggered if I see the money spent on speed cameras or something else terrestrial based.
hlokk
Posts: 4293
Date Joined: 04/04/08
For the number of dhuies
For the number of dhuies pulled in a day. For 150t a year (west coast bioregion - recs approx), it works out to 411kg/day (on average). If the average fish is 5kg, thats 82fish/day on average. If there are 150 fishable days, then its around 200/day. Thats on average for 150 days though. If a lot of boats were out one day, then more than the average would be caught. If it was a fishable day then but a weekday, then less boats would be out. The average works out the same. Just need to know how many fishable days, and then you can figure out how many per fishable day on average (I guessed the rec catch based on 45% of the total catch, using commercial catch (the other 55%) at 166t for 2006/2007 financial year)
Re 2: If they do that sampling, you'd certainly get more dhuies recorded as being caught, but if you didnt specify what the population sample was accurately, you could run into problems. Just need to then avoid unscrupulous (or uninformed people) saying well X dhuies/boat/day, and there are Y boaties so there are X*Y dhuies/year caught. (comparing catch of 5m+ boats multiplied ALL boats).
5: Thats what the suggestion was. 100% of the fees go into a trust which only gets spent on fisheries related things. Though, whether the money will actually go into the trust, and whether it will be spent wisely is a another issue. The money from rego fees and petrol tax is supposed to go to the roads, but it doesnt.