arpie Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Hi guys Yet ANOTHER recreational fishing survey is going to be done - and just check out how they are going to do it! http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/info/survey-2013-14/faqs INCREDIBLY STUPID!! THey have a database of most NSW fishos (fresh & salt) and could easily randomly pick 20,000 to survey - but no, they want to randomly pick 20,000 houses across the state in the hope of finding 6000 that may fish - so they can gather 'accurate' information on fishing time spent & catch & release rate ....... so that THIS information will be used in formulating Recreational Fishing Policy in the future! ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!! I have already sent my email to Jeff.murphy@dpi.nsw.gov.au and recommend that you do as well - outlining how stupid it is to do the survey that way, when t here would be thousands of active fishos MORE THAN HAPPY to record their catch rate over the next 12 months for an accurate record! I have suggested that if they DON'T use their existing database of KNOWN fishos to gather the 20,000 random (or 6000 'chosen') participants, then they should put the invitation to participate up on all the most popular Fishing and Kayak Fishing sites, to at least get people who WANT to participate, not someone randomly chosen who may fish once a year!! Don't let this one go by without it giving at best, an accurate indication of fishing in NSW. There are in excess of 7 million people in NSW & future fishing policy may be determined on just 1000 people's results on each of the main 6 forms of fishing in NSW ....... Bass, Cod & Trout for Freshwater & Estuary, Lake/Bay and Offshore for Saltwater. Be heard! cheers Roberta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameldownunder Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Hi Roberta I understand that with the way they conduct the fishing survey, the voices of the hardy fishermen and fisherwomen are not as loud and heard as they should be. But if you look at what the purpose is: The survey is designed to provide reliable estimates of: 1)fishing participation rates of NSW and ACT residents among various subgroups (e.g. age, gender, area of residence) 2)state-wide and regional annual catch (harvest and release), fishing effort (days and hours fished) and catch rates for many popular species 3)other recreational fishing-related data (e.g. boat ownership, fishing club membership) 4)fishers' awareness and opinions on various fisheries-related issues one could say that the way they are doing it makes sense. If you only ask harcore fishos you won't get a representative answer to 1, 3 and 4 I suppose most if not all members here know the fishing rules, as we keep ourself updated, but most occasional fisher don't. For example: as a member of Fishraider, reading through the posts, you get to know all species. Occasional anglers don't. If you take the Fishraider members as representative for the general population, i would expect to see more boats parked on the roads. And yes I agree with you on point number two. If they really want to know what is being caucht, they should contact fishing clubs, and fishing sites like you mentioned, as I think that those you find the people who can claim the more significant part of catches. And to state Winston Churchill: the only statistics you can trust are the ones you have falsified yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arpie Posted March 19, 2013 Author Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) ......And to state Winston Churchill: the only statistics you can trust are the ones you have falsified yourself..... LOL It also depends on where they gather their '6000 participants' from as well - obviously people living closer to the coast, rivers & dams will be fishing more than those living in inner suburbia or the outer suburbs of Sydney ....... (many of whom wouldn't bother getting a licence as they may not fish that often) Those running the survey will get paid whether the information they gather is accurate or not! Ever seen 10 pamphlets the same in your letterbox? Someone dumping them all in one area, just to get them 'distributed' so they get paid!? It could happen! ...And yes I agree with you on point number two.......... and points 3 & 4, I would think, too. How many inner city folk would have the space to store a boat?? If they were doing a survey on snow skiing instead, I think they would be surveying people who live closer to the mountains & those attached to actual ski clubs, than door knocking suburbia Sydney in the hope of finding some random skier? It will be interesting to see how this plays out, to be sure, to be sure!! cheers Roberta Edited March 19, 2013 by Roberta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockfisherman Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Who actually comes up with these methods? They can't be that obtuse to belive its the best way of obtaining this data... I would say its an attempt to manipulate figures for an ulterior motive. Fishingphase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameldownunder Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Who actually comes up with these methods? They can't be that obtuse to belive its the best way of obtaining this data... I would say its an attempt to manipulate figures for an ulterior motive. Fishingphase The result might look something like this "Our survey shows that only a small percentage of the population is fishing, and out of those only a minimal amount of fish is taken. We can therefore conclude that introducing additional marine parks has minimal or no impact to the general population, and should therefore be implemented" Aaaarrhhgggggg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockfisherman Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Who actually comes up with these methods? They can't be that obtuse to belive its the best way of obtaining this data... I would say its an attempt to manipulate figures for an ulterior motive. Fishingphase The result might look something like this "Our survey shows that only a small percentage of the population is fishing, and out of those only a minimal amount of fish is taken. We can therefore conclude that introducing additional marine parks has minimal or no impact to the general population, and should therefore be implemented" Aaaarrhhgggggg Yeppp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I think they know what they are doing Roberta and others - it's the way proper surveys are done and its all been peer reviewed.. PS: the last one showed that NSW anglers do take a significant amount of fish. I have never heard anyone suggest a low catch rate justifies marine parks?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arpie Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) .....I have never heard anyone suggest a low catch rate justifies marine parks?!!.... Ummmm ..... why did they bring them in then? But it can go towards reducing the catch limit! ...NSW anglers do take a significant amount of fish.... Surely no where NEAR as much as the Pros take out with netting? The last time they did a Recreational Fishing Survey, they brought in paid fishing licences for everyone & also marine parks! Call me cynical, call me naive ..... Couldn't have put it better myself! Roberta Edited April 1, 2013 by Roberta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 .....I have never heard anyone suggest a low catch rate justifies marine parks?!!.... Ummmm ..... why did they bring them in then? But it can go towards reducing the catch limit! The argument is that conventional fisheries management has failed and we need to try something different. We have started to make some headway in refuting this. My point is that it is hardly helpful if we turn around and make the same sort of unscientific arguments when it suits us. ...NSW anglers do take a significant amount of fish.... Surely no where NEAR as much as the Pros take out with netting? Well yes, for the popular species like snapper, kingfish etc. In the case of mulloway the recs take a lot more than the pros. Remember that there are only 1000 pros in NSW and 1.000.000 rec fishermen so this should be hardly surprising. The last time they did a Recreational Fishing Survey, they brought in paid fishing licences for everyone & also marine parks! The rec survey was done well before the marine parks were even suggested. I have nothing against the paid fishing licences. Call me cynical, call me naive ..... Couldn't have put it better myself! Recreational Fishing Nigel Telegraph.jpg Roberta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockfisherman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) .....I have never heard anyone suggest a low catch rate justifies marine parks?!!.... Ummmm ..... why did they bring them in then? But it can go towards reducing the catch limit! ...NSW anglers do take a significant amount of fish.... Surely no where NEAR as much as the Pros take out with netting? The last time they did a Recreational Fishing Survey, they brought in paid fishing licences for everyone & also marine parks! Call me cynical, call me naive ..... Couldn't have put it better myself! Roberta Why would a low catch rate justify marine parks? If there's not that many fish being caught, they can say why do rec fisherman need all that space to fish, IMO if they do introduce more sanctuary areas it will obviously reduce the availability of a pass-time that keeps many people occupied, which in turn (don't laugh now) will increase crime... Teenagers get bored, if they can pick up a rod with their mates and head down to the water with a pack of prawns that will keep them out of trouble. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of councils who have to deal with fishermans filth on ferry wharves, leaving bait and crap all over the place, eg Rose bay ferry warf, I find myself picking up after ignorant types (you know who you are) picking up their left over pilchards and rubbish after they've caught they're 10 or so yakkas so we don't lose the Privelidge of accessibility to a place that supplies yakkas in good numbers. It could just be an avenue for them to restrict certain parts. Personally I'm all for reducing bag limits, especially bread and butter species, taking 20 adult species today means taking 100 tomorrow, ie those 20 could have multiplied to who knows how many if they weren't taken, not to mention the 20 that the next next guy took and so on It's obvious there's something fishy going on (no pun intended) and they havnt revealed what the purpose is yet for two possible reasons, a) there is no purpose just yet if they reveal the purpose here will be a backlash... It's kind of frustrating sitting here speculating how they're gonna screw us in one way or an other, weather it be reduce the availability of fishing land or slug us with another levy, it's bullshit ( pardon me, but I'm annoyed ) , I know my hypothesising may have taken a weird direction in some places, but they're all possibilities, because let me tell you governments have done much stranger and dumber things. Fishingphase Edited April 1, 2013 by fishingphase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big Neil Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Hi everyone, truth is that "they" will manipulate the results of any survey to suit any perceived end result they want. It's called having a political agenda and is a waste of taxpayers money, no matter how it's carried out. Don't forget folks that not everybody who fishes takes the maximum bag limit of a species when they fish and therefore bag and size limits must be considered by" average". With regard to Marine Parks ,I would imagine they are there to reduce a perceived overall impact on certain fish species and therefore, if a survey was seen to support shortage of said species,' they' would look justified in creating more Marine parks. Like many other things in life there needs to be a balance between sustainability and the real needs for recreational value to millions of amateur fishos who. incidentally, put millions of dollars into the economy to support their sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchin Jack Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Why would a low catch rate justify marine parks? If there's not that many fish being caught, they can say why do rec fisherman need all that space to fish, IMO if they do introduce more sanctuary areas it will obviously reduce the availability of a pass-time that keeps many people occupied, which in turn (don't laugh now) will increase crime... Teenagers get bored, if they can pick up a rod with their mates and head down to the water with a pack of prawns that will keep them out of trouble. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of councils who have to deal with fishermans filth on ferry wharves, leaving bait and crap all over the place, eg Rose bay ferry warf, I find myself picking up after ignorant types (you know who you are) picking up their left over pilchards and rubbish after they've caught they're 10 or so yakkas so we don't lose the Privelidge of accessibility to a place that supplies yakkas in good numbers. It could just be an avenue for them to restrict certain parts. Personally I'm all for reducing bag limits, especially bread and butter species, taking 20 adult species today means taking 100 tomorrow, ie those 20 could have multiplied to who knows how many if they weren't taken, not to mention the 20 that the next next guy took and so on It's obvious there's something fishy going on (no pun intended) and they havnt revealed what the purpose is yet for two possible reasons, a) there is no purpose just yet if they reveal the purpose here will be a backlash... It's kind of frustrating sitting here speculating how they're gonna screw us in one way or an other, weather it be reduce the availability of fishing land or slug us with another levy, it's bullshit ( pardon me, but I'm annoyed ) , I know my hypothesising may have taken a weird direction in some places, but they're all possibilities, because let me tell you governments have done much stranger and dumber things. Fishingphase I'm with you on the reducing bag limits, but if they were to do that I also think commercial fishing limits should also be lowered a lot. Maybe instead of having a bag limit per fish they should have a bag limit per person no matter what species of fish you have caught, like 5 fish per person in total of fish caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockfisherman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Why would a low catch rate justify marine parks? If there's not that many fish being caught, they can say why do rec fisherman need all that space to fish, IMO if they do introduce more sanctuary areas it will obviously reduce the availability of a pass-time that keeps many people occupied, which in turn (don't laugh now) will increase crime... Teenagers get bored, if they can pick up a rod with their mates and head down to the water with a pack of prawns that will keep them out of trouble. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of councils who have to deal with fishermans filth on ferry wharves, leaving bait and crap all over the place, eg Rose bay ferry warf, I find myself picking up after ignorant types (you know who you are) picking up their left over pilchards and rubbish after they've caught they're 10 or so yakkas so we don't lose the Privelidge of accessibility to a place that supplies yakkas in good numbers. It could just be an avenue for them to restrict certain parts. Personally I'm all for reducing bag limits, especially bread and butter species, taking 20 adult species today means taking 100 tomorrow, ie those 20 could have multiplied to who knows how many if they weren't taken, not to mention the 20 that the next next guy took and so on It's obvious there's something fishy going on (no pun intended) and they havnt revealed what the purpose is yet for two possible reasons, a) there is no purpose just yet if they reveal the purpose here will be a backlash... It's kind of frustrating sitting here speculating how they're gonna screw us in one way or an other, weather it be reduce the availability of fishing land or slug us with another levy, it's bullshit ( pardon me, but I'm annoyed ) , I know my hypothesising may have taken a weird direction in some places, but they're all possibilities, because let me tell you governments have done much stranger and dumber things. Fishingphase I'm with you on the reducing bag limits, but if they were to do that I also think commercial fishing limits should also be lowered a lot. Maybe instead of having a bag limit per fish they should have a bag limit per person no matter what species of fish you have caught, like 5 fish per person in total of fish caught. That's a great idea, I think that would see fish supplies increase greatly, like back in the day 25-30 years ago when I would walk along the beach at laperouse and see flatheads hanging out in the shallows.Fishingphase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardgid Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 a combined bag limit of 5 fish is way too low people , this is not Queensland where your chance of catching a kilo fish is ten times better then Sydney , how many people will bother taking a boat out for 5 fish? i would not mind that if i had a house next to the water , or i was living walking distance from the surf/beach, but really lets get real ! a combined bag limit of 20 is very realistic , dont forget not all /sydney siders are making as much money as you lot, think what it would mean to a cleaner to spend money to go fishing so that he can bring back home five medium leatherjackets , i would rather pay a $150 fishing licence per year then have to put up with a 5 fish bag limit, and they can take that money and breed and release allot more fingerlings into the systems each year, or try one waterway only with this 5 bag limit only and see how many people will fish there , etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bharris Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 5 fish per person would be good stop all the meat fishers out there filling the freezers up with fish. Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mowie1 Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 (edited) Didn't we have a survey about proposed size, bag and other changes to fishing in NSW about 12months ago. Call me cynical but what happened. The answers they got they didn't like. I don't believe the survey will achieve a fair result. Show us the findings of the last survey. Edited November 23, 2013 by mowie1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telisn Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I don't think it really matters what info they gather. They always do what they want regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yowie Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 As I have posted before, a friend of mine works in Fisheries and thinks some of the researchers are f***wits, only interested in collecting the next pay packet. Some of the individual bag limits need to be lowered, but a combined bag limit of 5 is not reasonable. Why does someone need to catch 20 bream and 20 whiting in the one session, then head out the following day to catch the same limit, as some do while holidaying? Reducing the limits of these sought after species would be a better step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggs Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 you cant say the boat costs me this much to run so I must catch this many fishyou cant apply the principals of boat ownership cost to what you are entitled to take from the wildit will always be cheaper to buy fish from a co op or fish shop then to go get it yourself its a past time and hobby, if you need to provide fish for the family it is always cheaper to buy them its a $200 day to take my boat out diesel for ute tolls fuel oil bait lost tackle and that doesn't inc rego costs etc thats 5 kg of flathead fillets a combined bag limit of 5 fish is way too low people , this is not Queensland where your chance of catching a kilo fish is ten times better then Sydney , how many people will bother taking a boat out for 5 fish? i would not mind that if i had a house next to the water , or i was living walking distance from the surf/beach, but really lets get real ! a combined bag limit of 20 is very realistic , dont forget not all /sydney siders are making as much money as you lot, think what it would mean to a cleaner to spend money to go fishing so that he can bring back home five medium leatherjackets , i would rather pay a $150 fishing licence per year then have to put up with a 5 fish bag limit, and they can take that money and breed and release allot more fingerlings into the systems each year, or try one waterway only with this 5 bag limit only and see how many people will fish there , etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now