Professor Kearney On Nsw Marine Parks .. A Report

[creafield]

On Thursday 31st October 2008, I attended Professor Kearney’s speech at the NSW Fisheries Research centre, Cronulla. This is my account of the seminar.

The seminar started at 4pm. There were between 50 and 60 attendees. Most were DPI Fisheries staff, about 10 or so Rec anglers, including a few luminaries and holders of prominent positions. Jack Tait drove from Batemans Bay just for the seminar and drove home that night. A significant number of MPA staff, including Brendan Kelaher, Manager of the Batemans Marine Park, plus a senior Policy adviser to DECC on MPAs. Also there appeared to be a few Green conservationists. I was told there were a few scuba divers as well.

Bob is a very good speaker, with a slightly pugnacious delivery style on this subject, which sounded good to my ears .. perhaps not to the MPA however.

The speech was exactly as delivered, with the attached document (14 pages), and should be carefully read. After he finished speaking there was a Q & A session.

Dr Kelaher asked Bob if it was true that the reason he was opposed to the Batemans Marine Park was because he had lost his favourite jewfish fishing spot. Bob replied “that he was unimpressed with the inference and for the benefit of Dr Kelaher, and anybody else who wished to think that was important he had never fished in the area now covered in the Batemans Marine Park, for jewfish or anything else.”

The issue here is not so much that Bob took exception to the suggestion that a self-interest such as this would bias his approach to the science of this public policy issue, but rather Dr Kelaher's inference that anybody who had a particular interest in any part of the Park, for example an angler who wished to fish in a certain spot they may have fished in for years, would be a biased commentator on the subject.

This is just yet another example of the vilification of fishers by the Marine Parks Authority that Bob describes in his seminar. There is no doubt the staff of the Marine Parks Authority and the Nature Conservation Council, National Parks Association and the Wilderness Society have an anti-fishing bias that is projected with considerable zealotry.

By making this statement Dr Kelaher confirmed that he holds the view that anybody who fishes would not be capable of unbiased comment, and really should not be allowed to defend their opposition to the loss of their favourite fishing spot.

In reality the supporters of marine parks cannot counter Professor Kearney's science, so they revert to personal attacks and innuendo as a way of manufacturing reasons why he should not be listened to. These actions also confirm that the so called 'consultation' by the Marine Parks Authority does not extend to listening to, let alone taking notice of, anybody who has a real interest in the park that is contrary to the closing of huge areas to fishing. Clearly to the Authority the science is irrelevant.

Next Dr. Kelaher stated that he had been misquoted in the Sydney Morning Herald piece on BMP, which Bob mentioned in his speech (page 12). He claimed the quote that Bob mentioned on Page 12 of his speech should have been “What we know is that Biodiversity will likely increase in sanctuary zones”.

To my ears Dr. Kelaher’s correction absolutely begged the question .. “Why would the SMH print his true statement, when it sound so profoundly incorrect when talking about a warm and fuzzy thing like a Marine Park?” Also the cynicism of Minister Firth in the “Northern Star” newspaper stating how good Marine Parks would be to “preserve (the) recreational fisher’s future” being printed shortly after the Richmond River fish kill.

A question from the DECC rep was rather obscure, suggesting that MPAs were only “one tool in the toolbox”, and he went off at a tangent discussing his own question before Bob could get to it. He did say one thing which was outlandish in that anchoring is banned in Sanctuary Zones as well as fishing, shell collecting etc. He was picked up on anchoring and was surprised that it was not .. certainly in Batemans Marine Park. It is quite OK to drag your anchor all the way across a seagrass Sanctuary Zone, but put a hooked line in the water .. $550, thank you very much!

Bob tried to answer this question by giving the analogy that the MPAs were rather like a screwdriver trying to cut down a tree, which was nice and succinct.

There was about 1 hours Q&A’s, however two questions bothered me. One was a female, who knew her stuff on Underwood’s paper (page 6 & 7), was quite aggressive when stating that it would cost a fortune to individually work out which areas were safe to trawl, rather than adopting the “thousands of papers” vilifying trawling as the status quo and accepting that. Bob answered this question very carefully and made the valid point that Underwood’s paper was specifically on NSW, specifically on a sand substrate (not rocky reef), specifically was on the Clarence River, and specifically on Prawn trawling, whereas all her data was from overseas and on different substrates.

Bob claimed the Marine Parks Authority was trying to get all rec. fishers on side by claiming “Trawling is bad and we are good”. The claimed improvements in Batemans MP, because NSW Trawling has been removed, would also have been substantially helped by the $250mill Commonwealth buyout of Commonwealth waters (>3nm) as well. After the meeting I heard her accusing Bob of “not allowing the people adjacent to Batemans Marine Park to enjoy their Marine Park” .. she was really quite aggressive. (anyone know her, could I get her name please)

Another was from a fellow with a white T shirt and cap (anyone know him, could I get his name please) who claimed the truth behind the massive size of tarpon in the “spillover” from Merritt Island (Cape Canaveral) Refuge (Callum Roberts, U of York) was proof that MPAs worked. Bob explained the answer, however it was fairly complex and he did not understand it ... I do not think he was a scientist.

Summarizing the seminar and Prof. Kearney’s paper

1. Bob has loaded the bullets, somebody has to have the financial backing to fire them ... could I suggest a legal opinion on zoning within Marine Parks, from an SC or QC. This MUST be done. Estuaries and Beach sanctuary zones MUST be fought. The VERY strong point that Bob makes is that Rec and Commercial fishers have been banned from 20-25% of Estuaries and Beaches, for absolutely NO demonstrable gain, either practically or even theoretically. This has cost recreational anglers millions of dollars, with NO compensation. This has cost NSW seafood industries millions of dollars, with a pittance compensation. This has cost the NSW public much less access to fresh NSW fish.

2. Rec fishermen HAVE to work together with Commercial fishermen. He made the interesting point that if, hypothetically, all commercial fishers disappeared and ALL our fish was imported, the move by the Greens and Conservationists to ban fishing ALTOGETHER would be made a lot easier. Who would take sympathy on a SPORT that kills defenceless fish?? As it stands now NSW IMPORTS about 90% of all its fish .. interstate and O’seas.

3. Marine Parks are no more than fisheries allocation exercises that will NEVER protect biodiversity. This is particularly so in beaches and estuaries. The only thing banned in MPAs is fishing

4. The Marine Parks Authority by deliberately deleting the data and documentation relating to ocean beaches from their paper on “Benefits of MPAs 2008” have committed scientific fraud. As far as I am concerned this is the worst sin in science, and I will be working over the next few months to work out who did this.

5. Bob Kearney makes, and has always made the point that well designed marine parks are a necessity for Australia. Not simply as a requirement for Comprehensive, Representative and Adequate areas set aside, but as useful tools in the protection of marine biodiversity.

6. Legal opinions need to be sought on a variety of issues. We have several “expert witnesses” who are absolutely disillusioned with the MPA and, dare I say it, the majority of DPI (Fisheries). This is for the near future, and should be organized by national fishing bodies.

Philip Creagh

Marine_Park___EMAIL_GROUP_2008_10_30____47a_KEARNEY_presentation_Cronulla_Who__s_being_Hoodwinked_2.doc

Edited November 14, 2008 by PIN

[Boban]

Thanks for that Phillip.

I read Professor Kearney's presentation paper and while it makes absolute sense, I get the feeling that despite his logic and reason, the MPA and their allies are winning the real war. That is the feeding of crap to the masses.

The only thing that I think will have any impact on this situation is a change of government and a new way of thinking that does not rely on faith based statements. One might draw an analogy to religion here. There is no telling some people that the will not go to heaven with 72 virgins waiting for them...

On the point of a legal opinion from Senior Counsel, I don't see the point. Like any misapplication of legislation, what will inevitably follow (even if you are successful) is amending or new legislation to ensure compliance and the desired outcome. I think resources would be better spent on lobbying the opposition and informing people on a local level as to what is happening to their local area, holiday destination and state in general.

When you read Hansard, the views expressed by Firth and McDonald leave you with no doubt that their minds are made up. There are votes in Marine Parks as far as they are concerned. Remember that is all they are interested in, staying in power (and on a personal level, staying in Parliament) if they can.

Cheers

Mitch

Edited November 2, 2008 by Boban

[Ross Hunter]

Thanks for that Phillip.

I read Professor Kearney's presentation paper and while it makes absolute sense, I get the feeling that despite his logic and reason, the MPA and their allies are winning the real war. That is the feeding of crap to the masses.

The only thing that I think will have any impact on this situation is a change of government and a new way of thinking that does not rely on faith based statements. One might draw an analogy to religion here. There is no telling some people that the will not go to heaven with 72 virgins waiting for them...

On the point of a legal opinion from Senior Counsel, I don't see the point. Like any misapplication of legislation, what will inevitably follow (even if you are successful) is amending or new legislation to ensure compliance and the desired outcome. I think resources would be better spent on lobbying the opposition and informing people on a local level as to what is happening to their local area, holiday destination and state in general.

When you read Hansard, the views expressed by Firth and McDonald leave you with no doubt that their minds are made up. There are votes in Marine Parks as far as they are concerned. Remember that is all they are interested in, staying in power (and on a personal level, staying in Parliament) if they can.

Cheers

Mitch

Mitch,

Thanks for the advise The marine park issue has had me upset since its inception As fishermen we do not make enough noise about these things, but allow a bunch of Greens who have never fished in their lives but instead run off with emotional drool to dictate the terms to us recreational fishos. ( who pay a licence fee and opperate under Fisheries bag limits to fish NSW waters)

Areas like Yaccabah ( a 2 mile stretch of sanctuary zone that fish pass through on their migratory travels ) I saw boats getting fined for fishing accidentally in these zones at $550.00 per angler on board, by marine parks officers.

I am arranging a meeting soon with Duncan Gay, National Party and Fisheries Shadow Minister Frazer to see if we can arrange a moritorium on marine Parks, if and when the Libs win until a scientific study is carried out.

Duncan Gay promised me this in writing before the last election,but they did not get into power.

Marine Parks are not needed for recreational anglers working under fisheries bag limits but we still pay our $30.00 per annum to Fisheries who do not want to comment and who do not govern the areas, it reaqlly is a joke and an insult to rec anglers.

It's politics and votes by a weak Labour party who rely on Greens preferences that hopefully are going down next election.

I hope we can convince the Fishermen this time to read Bob Carney's report and save our inshore reefs and areas from the rediculous situation we find them in at present.

Marine Parks are doing little to improve fish stocks whilst beach hauling of tonnes of mullet, bream, blackfish and long tails is allowed "willy nilly" on any given day by commercial netters. Where are you now you dumb arse greens ..Try looking at the real problem "Tonnage verses Kilos' Commercial verses Recreational.

Sometimes I get so frustrated by politics and people who have no idea.

Ross Hunter

[pjbink]

I was at the meeting and spoke to Prof Kearney. He doesn't regard our estuarine fish stocks as under any threat from fishing.

As to rec verses pro, the rec take actually equals or exceeds the pro take for a lot of popular fish. It doesn't make much sense then to demonise commercial fishing - its only a small step from that to tar rec fishing with the same brush!

[Ross Hunter]

I was at the meeting and spoke to Prof Kearney. He doesn't regard our estuarine fish stocks as under any threat from fishing.

As to rec verses pro, the rec take actually equals or exceeds the pro take for a lot of popular fish. It doesn't make much sense then to demonise commercial fishing - its only a small step from that to tar rec fishing with the same brush!

Billfisher ,

I cannot believe that rec fishos take 500 tonne of mullet or 150 tonne of bream or hundreds of tonnes of blackfish Someone's feeding you some crap.. Recreational angling comes no where near the take of those species...... Who's side are you on?

Proffesor Kearney suggested that we are in good fettle in the eastuaries but I do not agree with that either.

Let's keep our feet on the ground and get it right.

[pjbink]

Survey of Recreational Fishing in

New South Wales (NSW DPI)

Comparisons between the recreational and commercial catches in NSW

(table 1) indicated that the fisheries were geographically distinct. Species

forming the bulk of the commercial catch were generally taken from coastal or

offshore waters, while the major portion of the recreational catch was taken

from estuarine waters. Both groups of fishers harvested about 200 species of

fish, but the total recreational catch was about 30% of the total commercial

catch. About 6 of the prominent species harvested by both fishing groups

were taken in greater numbers by recreational fishers. These species were

generally common estuarine species taken in metropolitan waters where the

number of recreational fishers and their fishing effort was greatest. These

results were anticipated and were consistent with the information provided by

earlier small-scale studies.

Table 1. Harvest of NSW recreational fishing catches compared with an

estimate of NSW commercial fishery landings (grouped species).

Harvest of key species by fishing sector

Recreational (kg) Commercial (kg)*

Whiting 394,081 1,181,793

Flathead 886,824 496,335

Bream 728,752 365,383

Garfish 22,672 97,875

Tailor 252,736 190,675

Aust. salmon 221,977 790,143

Snapper 116,967 273,159

Trevally 87,530 273,884

Leatherjackets 107,966 117,034

Wrasse/tuskfish/gropers 52,373 69,810

Luderick 280,130 503,600

Mackerels 128,627 443,567

Cod (various) 8,133 35,835

Catfish 94,222 28,965

Mulloway 273,703 63,796

Morwong 139,929 429,606

Tuna/bonitos 844,480 1,000,500

Sharks/rays 60,186 441,090

Yellowtail kingfish 180,003 137,349

Prawns (saltwater) 104,833 2,346,976

Blue swimmer crab 154,831 165,461

Squid/cuttlefish 65,717 824,183

Mud crab 30,000 135,144

Lobsters 7,398 120,000

*data derived from a range of Commonwealth and State sources. Other

species data based on a 5 year average of ocean fishery landings into NSW.

Edited November 3, 2008 by billfisher

[Ross Hunter]

Survey of Recreational Fishing in

New South Wales (NSW DPI)

Comparisons between the recreational and commercial catches in NSW

(table 1) indicated that the fisheries were geographically distinct. Species

forming the bulk of the commercial catch were generally taken from coastal or

offshore waters, while the major portion of the recreational catch was taken

from estuarine waters. Both groups of fishers harvested about 200 species of

fish, but the total recreational catch was about 30% of the total commercial

catch. About 6 of the prominent species harvested by both fishing groups

were taken in greater numbers by recreational fishers. These species were

generally common estuarine species taken in metropolitan waters where the

number of recreational fishers and their fishing effort was greatest. These

results were anticipated and were consistent with the information provided by

earlier small-scale studies.

Table 1. Harvest of NSW recreational fishing catches compared with an

estimate of NSW commercial fishery landings (grouped species).

Harvest of key species by fishing sector

Recreational (kg) Commercial (kg)*

Whiting 394,081 1,181,793

Flathead 886,824 496,335

Bream 728,752 365,383

Garfish 22,672 97,875

Tailor 252,736 190,675

Aust. salmon 221,977 790,143

Snapper 116,967 273,159

Trevally 87,530 273,884

Leatherjackets 107,966 117,034

Wrasse/tuskfish/gropers 52,373 69,810

Luderick 280,130 503,600

Mackerels 128,627 443,567

Cod (various) 8,133 35,835

Catfish 94,222 28,965

Mulloway 273,703 63,796

Morwong 139,929 429,606

Tuna/bonitos 844,480 1,000,500

Sharks/rays 60,186 441,090

Yellowtail kingfish 180,003 137,349

Prawns (saltwater) 104,833 2,346,976

Blue swimmer crab 154,831 165,461

Squid/cuttlefish 65,717 824,183

Mud crab 30,000 135,144

Lobsters 7,398 120,000

*data derived from a range of Commonwealth and State sources. Other

species data based on a 5 year average of ocean fishery landings into NSW.

Billfisher,

Exactly what I said Blackfish twice as many as recs and where is the mullet and long tails.. 6 out of 30 or so by recs and I do not believe their figures. It's still tonnage versus kilos in the species I mentioned. Stop reading the crap that these drones produce and it will be a better world for all of us. At least they are doing one good thing and that's beating the recs in leatherjackets.

Ross

[Boban]

Billfisher,

Exactly what I said Blackfish twice as many as recs and where is the mullet and long tails.. 6 out of 30 or so by recs and I do not believe their figures. It's still tonnage versus kilos in the species I mentioned. Stop reading the crap that these drones produce and it will be a better world for all of us. At least they are doing one good thing and that's beating the recs in leatherjackets.

Ross

That's exactly what I was thinking Ross.

What gets me is how they calculate the Recreational catch. My daughter caught two fish that were kept for the table on the weekend before last in the harbour. Im wondering if they (DPI) know what they were. It has to be guesstimation at its best. The pro catch as I understand it is recorded and reported.

If you read the Professor's report in full you will see that he is not a fan of Fisheries management in its present form, so your concerns are probably supported by the Professor albeit not specifically. You will see that he is not against prawn trawling in the Clarence, and he outlines why he holds that view. It makes sense to me. I very much doubt that he would support the practices of longliners and things such as kingfish traps.

I very much like the statement he made about 'its not from a lack of effort on the part of the pros' when referring to the pro trawlers trying to exploit the resources. On the whole, I don't think the pros would take too much comfort in the views of the Professor.

I wouldn't get too worked up Ross, I think a change will come soon enough.

[Ross Hunter]

That's exactly what I was thinking Ross.

What gets me is how they calculate the Recreational catch. My daughter caught two fish that were kept for the table on the weekend before last in the harbour. Im wondering if they (DPI) know what they were. It has to be guesstimation at its best. The pro catch as I understand it is recorded and reported.

If you read the Professor's report in full you will see that he is not a fan of Fisheries management in its present form, so your concerns are probably supported by the Professor albeit not specifically. You will see that he is not against prawn trawling in the Clarence, and he outlines why he holds that view. It makes sense to me. I very much doubt that he would support the practices of longliners and things such as kingfish traps.

I very much like the statement he made about 'its not from a lack of effort on the part of the pros' when referring to the pro trawlers trying to exploit the resources. On the whole, I don't think the pros would take too much comfort in the views of the Professor.

I wouldn't get too worked up Ross, I think a change will come soon enough.

Boban,

I do hope you are right I do get worked up over some of the figures that are fed to us when I know that on one central coast beach 50 tonne of mullet and 30 tonne of blackfish was netted by one net hauler in one month and us recreational anglers are treated like common criminals by the Greens lIke Eco Net who do not take the time to get the facts right but run off with emotional crap...I am a greeny at heart we have not killed a marlin for 13 years We work under bag limits on our boats and set an impeccable standard for others to observe and it does annoy me when these groups challenge. It also annoys me that NSW Fisheries have addopted a no comment attitude to the Marine Park issue....crap politics.

[pjbink]

Billfisher,

Exactly what I said Blackfish twice as many as recs and where is the mullet and long tails.. 6 out of 30 or so by recs and I do not believe their figures. It's still tonnage versus kilos in the species I mentioned. Stop reading the crap that these drones produce and it will be a better world for all of us. At least they are doing one good thing and that's beating the recs in leatherjackets.

Ross

I think what you said was that you don't believe recs catch hundreds of tonnes of luderick. The survey shows they do 280 (verses the pro's 504). Longtails would come under tuna and bonito I think (where the recs catch a similar amount to the pro's). Mullet weren't included probably because they are not a significant angling species (very hard to catch with a hook and line). If they were as easy to catch as flathead or tailor there is not much doubt the rec take would be up there with the pro's! You have neglected to mention bream this time and the report shows rec's catch twice as many as the pro's.

If you count the no of species were the rec take is similar to the pro take or exceeds it then you get 10 out of 30. None of the 30 are a case of kilos vs tonnes which would imply the pros taking several orders of maginitude more than the recs.

If you find these no's hard to believe then do the sums on 1 million anglers in NSW vs the 1200 pro fishermen. If each rec catches on average 10 kg a year (eg one fish per month) that equals 10,000,000 kg or 10,000 tonnes!

If you have some credible information which will invalidate the DPI figures then by all means let me know, but it seems that you just don't like what they are saying.

Edited November 4, 2008 by billfisher

[huntman]

The recreational fishing catch numbers comes from creole surveys which (similar to an exit poll in politics) check the catch of a certain percent of fishermen as they finish fishing, and they can fairly accurately work out the corresponding total amounts from that. While your daughter and her two fish might not have been sampled, someone else's daughter would have been, and that is how they generate the statistics. It is also commonly adopted practice to be very conservative on the numbers produced, and so actual counts could be a lot higher than the numbers here.

When you see figures in the paper saying 1,000,000 people watched dancing with the stars, they don't ask every person with a TV what they watched, they do a portion of the population which represents the known distribution of people and then use statistics to work out with 95% confidence what the total number would be.

You can dismiss scientific papers if they don't agree with what you consider to be correct, but then if you are going to do that you step into dangerous territory, because you allow others the liberty of doing the same, and then reports like the one in the original post are easily dismissable by the greens and other groups trying to work in marine parks because it doesn't agree with their values.

Bag limits are not enough to manage the fishery, because every year more and more people are fishing, so unless you keep shrinking them there is no way to be sure you have enough breeding stock left. Are marine parks the answer? probably not for a lot of the species I like to catch, but they are definately the trendy way of managing fisheries at the moment, so meetings like the one we have just had are an important part of the process for finding better ways to make sure we are properly exploiting the fish resources we have, while preserving them for the future too.

[Boban]

The recreational fishing catch numbers comes from creole surveys which (similar to an exit poll in politics) check the catch of a certain percent of fishermen as they finish fishing, and they can fairly accurately work out the corresponding total amounts from that. While your daughter and her two fish might not have been sampled, someone else's daughter would have been, and that is how they generate the statistics. It is also commonly adopted practice to be very conservative on the numbers produced, and so actual counts could be a lot higher than the numbers here.

It may surprise you that I have never met a fisheries inspector. Not once. Haven't even seen one and I consider myself to be a reasonably active fisherman. If that is the case when it comes to checking my licence and catch, then you can hardly expect an accurate survey to take place, especially given their financial constraints.

Simply saying 1,000,000 fisherman catching 10kg's a year is a ridiculous method or suggestion. Of the 1 million how many actually fish more than once or twice a year, and how much do you think they catch?

Compare that to a pro on the Hawkesbury who can net 500 bream in a session (and that's a fact). How long do you think it would take me to catch and keep that many bream. Take that another step and ask yourself, how many amatuers would it take to catch that many in a day.

I understand your point about science, but this method is as flawed as anything put forward by the MPA. If you want anecdotal evidence of pro's v amatuers, look at kingfish or the difference in fishing in rec. only waterways after the removal of pro's. While thousands of kingies are caught in our local waterways here in Sydney, there seems to be no shortage of kings around. Can the same be said when the pro's were targeting them?

Whilst it would be nice to be united in the battle against the MPA and their methods, I don't think our interests are the same. They simply cannot be where one relies on the fish to create an income and the other uses fishing as a recreational pastime.

[pjbink]

Simply saying 1,000,000 fisherman catching 10kg's a year is a ridiculous method or suggestion. Of the 1 million how many actually fish more than once or twice a year, and how much do you think they catch?

Well that's what the survey determined Boban! I converted it to weight to give an idication of how the figures of several hundreds of tonnes for popular species can come about. You seem to be in a state of denial that a million anglers catching kilos as individuals can end up as significant figure.

PS: a fish is just as dead if it is caught for recreation as it is if caught by a commercial fisherman.

From the report:

c) Recreational Fish Catch

Recreational fishers in NSW harvested approximately 13 million finfish (e.g.

bream, whiting, flathead), 1.3 million baitfish (e.g. pilchards, yellowtail),

500,000 crabs and lobsters, 16 million prawns and yabbies, 1.2 million

shellfish (e.g. abalone, pipi, oysters), 160,000 squid and cuttlefish and

300,000 miscellaneous species. About 200 species were reported in

recreational catches from NSW. However, it was likely that many of the more

obscure species were not correctly identified. The harvest of the key

recreational species were reported with some confidence.

Edited November 4, 2008 by billfisher

[Boban]

You seem to be in a state of denial that a million anglers catching kilos as individuals can end up as significant figure.

PS: a fish is just as dead if it is caught for recreation as it is if caught by a commercial fisherman.

I have no problem believing that many people can make a significant impact. The figure I have a problem with is the number of anglers. Whether you like it or not, it is guesstimation, however confident they are.

You can prove me wrong on the numbers if you like as I am more than willing to admit that I am no expert in the area. It is the methodology I have a problem with, unless you can show me otherwise.

Most importantly, I think it would be safe to assume that these do not include fish taken from Commonwealth waters, that is 3nm out. Just the tuna count seems to make that obvious. I'd love to see the comparison to rec fisherman there. Ask Ross about the number of Snapper traps at Port Stephens that are in Commonwealth waters.

Whilst I could go to the ramp on a sunday and start counting fish and get a reasonable sample of people using this method, where I will eventually fail is the multiplication against anglers. I cannot think of a reliable method that would give me the raw data required to conduct such a survey unless the survey was undertaken every day of a given year from a vast number of locations. It is no good just doing it during summer or conversely in winter, or a so called average day because there is no such thing. Have you got any evidence to suggest that the sample was as comprehensive as I have suggested. If there were unlimited funds then this may well occur, but that is a dreamland scenario.

What about the anecdotal evidence I put forward. Is it so far fetched that there is an improvement in Botany Bay and an increase in the number of kingfish since the removal of the kingfish traps. There is no guesstimation there. Ask around and I think you will find some concencus on these two issues. And this is directly related to the pros.

In any event the figures themselves show that the pros are far more efficient than the recreational anglers. Will you now also be saying that the rec anglers are responsible for the numbers of Southern Blue Fin Tuna. As Ross said, it's a case of kilos vs tonnes.

Im not against having a commercial fishery, but on the same note, I'm not blind to their methods either.

Cheers

Mitch

Edited November 4, 2008 by Boban

[double pluggers]

Why would any body question the powers that be.If they tell us they are the facts surely they must be. They use the same surveys to tell us we have enough hospital beds, enough public transport,enough funding for public schools,ect ect.

[Boban]

Why would any body question the powers that be.If they tell us they are the facts surely they must be. They use the same surveys to tell us we have enough hospital beds, enough public transport,enough funding for public schools,ect ect.

Yes, didn't they halve the Hospital Surgery waiting list......

[Ross Hunter]

Why would any body question the powers that be.If they tell us they are the facts surely they must be. They use the same surveys to tell us we have enough hospital beds, enough public transport,enough funding for public schools,ect ect.

Double plugger,

That's a classic comment mate, half of these drones could not count past 6. Some people read too much crap and are easilly led on these matters Like The Dept of Wildlife's paper on approaching dolphins and whales If the drones got off their computors and went to sea they would realise that they actually approach us.......idiots that have no idea and they are running the circus.I remember when they did the recreation survey and interviewed anglers at boat ramps etc and I find their figures totally inaccurate and no one can convince me they are any way near correct.

I am a total sceptic on these issues and cannot be convince I guess it's like "A bloke told me up the pub so it must be right" There are those who may have other interests at heart that choose to believe them for political purposes or self interest of some kind.

All my observations and feelings come from many years as a proffesional fisherman myself. I have seen the thousands of fish caught in haul nets in Botany Bay over the years with the majority of by catch as they called it fed to the pelicans. I have seen thousands of tonnes of mullet, blackfish, salmon and bream caught on one beach alone over a season ..I have seen the tonnes of tailor netted off Frazer Island whilst on their spawning run I have seen the trawlers in Botany Bay kill millions of fry in their by catch over the years. I have seen the nets in Corlette at Pt Stephens catch hundreds of tonnes of blackfish and bream over the years..I have seen the kingfish traps decimation of the kingfish stocks in 5 short years and it was a group of us that had the traps banned by the Fisheries minister Bob Martin and 10 or 12 years later we are seeing some resurgance of small kings coming back. I have seen fish placed on the endangered species list in my time. I helped my friends hauled nets in my younger days and seen 10 tonne of longtails caught in one haul at Hathead and that continues today. I have seen 500 tonnes of yellowfin and bluefin being unloaded at the wharf in Ulladulla.. I am convinced that the oceans shark population has been reduced by up to 70% . DPI also used the charter boats yeild in their survey and this would show figures that are totally inaccurate.. Did they make an allowance for the the pros black market catch....no but they wouldn't do that would they!.

It will be and will never change as far as I am concerned "{tonnage versus kilos}. I guess that over 60 years of fishing it takes a little more than some DPI survey carried out by a bunch of volunteers to convince me that the ratio has changed.

The survey was run in summer from memory, when the fishing is better and naturally that would show higher catch per angler what about in winter when the yeild is less.

Any way Double Plugger I agree with your theory that our hostpitals and schools are going great ..after all it's in the survey

Thanks for making a great point...I have made my point and no one on this site is changing my mind but I respect their efforts to do so....so lets get back to the real issue getting a better deal from the Marine Parks regime or better still getting rid of them in total.

TONNAGE VERSES KILOS

[pjbink]

I thought the black market catch was amatuers selling their catch, Ross. In the old days before bag limits it was rife. People paid off their mortgages selling fish 'on the black'. I don't see the relevance of past commercial practices either. The fact is that 80% of commercial fishermen have been removed from the NSW fishery since the 1990's (only 1200 left) and most fish are being caught at their historic lows commercially. I'm not sure what your observations of big hauls proves either. Most fish stocks can handle 20-30% being taken out each year. Maximum sustainable yield is reached when 30 - 40% of the unfished population is left. We as anglers would prefer a bit lighter fishing than the MSY but it is expecting a bit much to not tolerate any decline. Fish grow faster at the MSY due to changes in the population dynamics. Recruits benifit from less predation and less competition for food. Most of our fish are fast growing and there is not much risk in winding back fishing pressure if signs of overfishing occur. As Prof Keaney pointed out our fish stocks in NSW appear to have great resiliance with respect to fishing pressure. In any case NSW imports 90% of it's seafood!

I haven't seen much respect shown here for scientific method. The methods used in the angling survey weren't dreamed up by some politician one day. They have rigor and have been proven over time. I don't think it will do us much good being like the know- nothing greens who seem to have reached the state of enlightenment of 'just knowing' everything.

Seeing we are dealing with opinions I don't think there is anything wrong with the fishing in NSW. Actually I catch more than I did 20 years ago (partly because I am a better fishermen now). There are signs of improvement too. The kingfish recovery rolls on (and not just small ones either).

The green's love to see the pro and rec sector squabbling and finger pointing. They can then say that we are both just as greedy and irresponsible and can justifiy stepping in to 'manage' things by locking up large parts of the ocean in marine parks. It makes things look like there really is a problem when in fact all the problems of overfishing have/ are being addressed.

I brought up the issue of commercial take vs the rec as some anglers erroneously believe that they might benifit from marine parks and its worth losing 30-50% (or more) of their spots just to see the pro's excluded as well! The various MPA's are exploiting this sentiment by painting themselves as the 'good guys' who are restricting the pro fishermen.

PS: the NSW Coalition promised to buy back some commercial licenses in the last election as well as axe two marine parks and review the zoning of others with a favourable view towards angling.

Edited November 5, 2008 by billfisher

[Dreamtime]

Survey of Recreational Fishing in

New South Wales (NSW DPI)

Comparisons between the recreational and commercial catches in NSW

Recreational (kg) Commercial (kg)*

Tuna/bonitos 844,480 1,000,500

Some frightening National statistics for 2006 commercial catches of Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack and Yellowfin.

Albacore - 2,588 Metric Tonnes (Worldwide 102,346 Metric Tonnes)

Bigeye - 511 Metric Tonnes (Worldwide 117,115 Metric Tonnes)

Skipjack - Nil for 2005 & 2006 - last harvested in 2004 - (306 M T) - (Worldwide 1,538,792 Metric Tonnes)

Yellowfin - 2,050 Metric tonnes (Worldwide 401,791 Metric Tonnes)

That's more than 2.16 Million Metric Tonnes caught of these 4 species worldwide in 2006 alone!

[pjbink]

I have no problem believing that many people can make a significant impact. The figure I have a problem with is the number of anglers. Whether you like it or not, it is guesstimation, however confident they are.

You can prove me wrong on the numbers if you like as I am more than willing to admit that I am no expert in the area. It is the methodology I have a problem with, unless you can show me otherwise.

Most importantly, I think it would be safe to assume that these do not include fish taken from Commonwealth waters, that is 3nm out. Just the tuna count seems to make that obvious. I'd love to see the comparison to rec fisherman there. Ask Ross about the number of Snapper traps at Port Stephens that are in Commonwealth waters.

Whilst I could go to the ramp on a sunday and start counting fish and get a reasonable sample of people using this method, where I will eventually fail is the multiplication against anglers. I cannot think of a reliable method that would give me the raw data required to conduct such a survey unless the survey was undertaken every day of a given year from a vast number of locations. It is no good just doing it during summer or conversely in winter, or a so called average day because there is no such thing. Have you got any evidence to suggest that the sample was as comprehensive as I have suggested. If there were unlimited funds then this may well occur, but that is a dreamland scenario.

What about the anecdotal evidence I put forward. Is it so far fetched that there is an improvement in Botany Bay and an increase in the number of kingfish since the removal of the kingfish traps. There is no guesstimation there. Ask around and I think you will find some concencus on these two issues. And this is directly related to the pros.

In any event the figures themselves show that the pros are far more efficient than the recreational anglers. Will you now also be saying that the rec anglers are responsible for the numbers of Southern Blue Fin Tuna. As Ross said, it's a case of kilos vs tonnes.

Im not against having a commercial fishery, but on the same note, I'm not blind to their methods either.

Cheers

Mitch

The methods of sampling and statistical analysis are proven and well known Mitch (by the way I did some biology and statistics at Uni). With respect I don't think you know more than the scientists entrusted with this survey. I am sure they would have covered all the bases and from what I have seen the methodolgy appears sound. I am sure they want to protect their reputations and careers and would not put their names to anything shonky.

As to the examples of Botany Bay and kingfish. Yes kingfish nos are on the way up, mainly due to the removal of kingfish traps, but other measures such as the buy out of several dropliners off Sydney and the recent increase in legal size to 65 cm. But the traps have been gone for around 12 or 13 years now (and there are no plans to bring them back). So how is that relevant to todays fishing effort? You are not going to get the same bang by cutting back whats left of the pro effort.

Botany Bay is one of the State's 30 rec havens. I'm not against the rec havens by the way and fish a lot in Botany Bay. There have been some surveys done on rec catches before and after the pro buy outs, but I don't think that there are any that have been released for Botany Bay. Whether the fishing has improved much or not I don't know as I thought it fished well before it was a rec haven! Of the havens that have been surveyed some showed big increases in anglers catches and some showed not much difference at all. They haven't done too many favours for some other areas as some of the pro's bought out simply got into another fishery!

[pjbink]

Most importantly, I think it would be safe to assume that these do not include fish taken from Commonwealth waters, that is 3nm out. Just the tuna count seems to make that obvious. I'd love to see the comparison to rec fisherman there. Ask Ross about the number of Snapper traps at Port Stephens that are in Commonwealth waters.

Cheers

Mitch

The footnote showed the following:

data derived from a range of Commonwealth and State sources. Other

species data based on a 5 year average of ocean fishery landings into NSW.

I'm not sure what species came under 'tuna'. A lot of the species on the list are only found within 3nm.

[maniak]

Hi Guys,

NSW Fisheries have an agreement with the Commonwealth which gives them jurisdiction over commonwealth waters adjacent to the NSW coast (Offshore General License or OG1) and catches are recorded to DPI and included in NSW catch statistics.

Maniak

[Boban]

The methods of sampling and statistical analysis are proven and well known Mitch (by the way I did some biology and statistics at Uni).

Then tell me what they are. I would like to know their methods and how it is that in the financial environment that they work within, that a comprehensive survey can be completed. I also did statistics at Sydney Uni in Pure Maths, but that adds little to the debate.

With respect I don't think you know more than the scientists entrusted with this survey.

I would hope not and said as much in my earlier post.

I am sure they would have covered all the bases and from what I have seen the methodolgy appears sound. I am sure they want to protect their reputations and careers and would not put their names to anything shonky.

You see, this is where you and I differ. This is a purely faith based statement. I would love for you to expand on this methodology you speak of.

As to the examples of Botany Bay and kingfish. Yes kingfish nos are on the way up, mainly due to the removal of kingfish traps, but other measures such as the buy out of several dropliners off Sydney and the recent increase in legal size to 65 cm. But the traps have been gone for around 12 or 13 years now (and there are no plans to bring them back). So how is that relevant to todays fishing effort? You are not going to get the same bang by cutting back whats left of the pro effort.

You just don't get it do you. They kill as much as they possibly can so that they can make as much as they can. What they did to kingfish was just one example. The pros are getting out because they can't make a living in most cases, not because they were forced out like they were in the rec havens. How is it relevant? Their attitude is what is relevant.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Boban

[huntman]

I am enjoying this discussion a lot, and it's good to be able to be informed and inform. Kudos to everyone so far for not resorting to name calling and insults as many of the public debates decend into.

Boban a few comments on what you have said from me... firstly the methodology - as you know in stats you can get a very very good estimation of the amount of fish caught using a two step process. Firstly a census to figure out how many total fishermen there are, and what proportion of them are "serious fishermen". This is the only part of the process that could be considered a gray area, or estimation, and as such scientists usually take a very conservative approach when determining the numbers so if their models suggest 2-3 million fishermen in australia with 10-12% being the "serious fishermen" they would generally work on numbers of 2 million fishermen with 10% being serious. This allows a greater confidence in the resulting numbers.

The second step is to interview a representative sample of the fishing population to get the data they need. Ross, interviewing in summer means they are more likely to get a bigger range of fishermen as winter time only the really really hardcore people who dont mind the cold would be fishing, and the numbers they get they factor in seasonal variation. The method is a lot more complex than going ok you caught 3 fish this week so that means 52x3 fish a year.

The methodology is written in the paper and can be read by anyone, check it out if you would like, but it has been peer reviewed, and is quite a well known paper, so even the smallest hole would have been challenged by now, so i would be very suprised if there was something dodgey in the methodology. I have read through the methodology on other creole surveys and they are generally pretty sound, and aware of the potential errors in estimation, as such they use modelling and conservative counts to try to get the lowest common denominator.

The other thing I wanted to say is that kingfish traps and banning of pro fishermen definately increases the catch for recreational fishermen because the pros ARE catching a lot of fish, but so are we! and if they banned recreational fishing from an estuary, and just let pros fish it, I think you would find they would have increased catches as well.

Lets hope it never comes to that, and that we can all be very vocal about the scientifically best solutions for fisheries management that will let our sons and daughters enjoy fishing, while maintaining the seafood industry in Australia and all the people it employs.

[pjbink]

Then tell me what they are. I would like to know their methods and how it is that in the financial environment that they work within, that a comprehensive survey can be completed. I also did statistics at Sydney Uni in Pure Maths, but that adds little to the debate.

I would hope not and said as much in my earlier post.

You see, this is where you and I differ. This is a purely faith based statement. I would love for you to expand on this methodology you speak of.

You just don't get it do you. They kill as much as they possibly can so that they can make as much as they can. What they did to kingfish was just one example. The pros are getting out because they can't make a living in most cases, not because they were forced out like they were in the rec havens. How is it relevant? Their attitude is what is relevant.

Huntman gave a good explanation of the methods Boban. There is nothing stopping you having a look at the report on the NSW DPI site either.

Of course they catch as much they can - but the management of fisheries allows for that. The traps were banned precicely because they were too effective. The no of pros is limited not by accident or because some can no longer make a go of it, but because the number of endorsments is limited by our fisheries managers (only 1200 now in NSW). There are other limits as well such as gear limits, trip limits and areas where they can't fish. These are called input reductions which limit their ability to catch fish - as opposed to output limits like quotas or TAC's. If the input limits are strict and you monitor the fishery then you don't necessarily need quotas which can be prone to error anyway (wrong estimates can lead to overfishing). In any event these days the recs catch more kingfish than the pros.