Time is running out to comment on proposed rules that will discriminate against NSW holiday fishos

[krill]

Submissions close on 31 July in relation to the proposed severe tightening of many POSSESSION limits for fish in NSW. In NSW, "bag limits" are defined as "possession limits" so apply to your home fridge/freezer or anywhere else, not just the "bag" you make bring home from a day's fishing. The upcoming review of possession limits is at:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/info/review

I would emplore all holiday or country saltwater fishos to visit the site and provide their opinions on the unviably low proposed possession limits. For instance, it will be illegal to have:

* More than 2 kingfish in possession

* More than 5 snapper in possession

* More than 5 mowies in possession

* More than 5 duskies in possession

* More than 10 sand/tiger flathead in possession

*More than 20 of any type of fish in possession, including species which only grow to small sizes, like school whiting

While many coastal fishos look at these numbers and think "why would anybody need more than 5 snapper a day" they fail to see that most fishos who like to catch and eat their own fish and can only make it to the coast once or twice a year would not bother with the major expense of boats, tow vehicles, fuel, accommodation and tackle if they can only bring home 5 snapper for a whole trip.

Who has more impact on a stock? A person who goes fishing every two weeks and catches 3 snapper an outing (75 snapper per year) or a fisho who can only make it to the coast once a year for a couple of weeks and brings home 10 frozen snapper under the existing rules?

In states like Victoria, bag limits are defined as fish in possession "on or near water". This IS NOT the case in NSW. Possession applies anywhere. Yet the discussion document continues to use misleading terms like "daily bag limit" to dupe fishos into agreeing with the changes.

The existing rules already discriminate against holiday or country fishos. The proposed changes will increase the discrimination to the point where going fishing to eat the fish you catch will be a complete waste of time.

Many on this site will be aware that simultaneously with announcing this review, the NSW fisheries minister moved to allow commercial fishos to net UNLIMITED QUANTITIES of flathead and other species such as mowies. Rec fishos were ropable and the stink caused a backflip, for now.

The general proposed limit of 20 fish total (there is no such limit at the moment) is another kick in the teeth for holiday fishos. It also makes no ecological/environmental sense either.

Specific limits should apply to specific stocks based on scientific management.

If a 20 fish total possession limit is in place, it will be impossible to go on holiday and have a family feed of small delicacy fish such as:

* Eastern school whiting (which we export frozen by the boxload to Japan)

* Garfish

Who is going to take home 20 school whiting or garfish (which would only be one meal for a family) if it is then illegal to possess a single other fish! These fish are PROLIFIC and sustainable to eat.

It will be illegal to take 20 school whiting and 2 flathead home frozen for a feed, in circumstances where both species are readily caught, but if you have a big enough boat to get to the shelf it will be legal to catch 2 x 15kg blue eye and still catch another 18 fish of other species. So what's the management message? Target rarer blue eye rather than sustainable bread and butter fish. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

If species need management, manage the species scientifically. Arbitrary combined limits do not achieve any sensible conservation outcome, and as demonstrated, may have the opposite effect and make people target bigger more important breeding fish.

Generally, fisheries management should be on the basis of SCIENCE and not survey. For instance, what is the point in surveying a land based fisho about the possession limit on leatherjackets found in inshore and offshore waters. These fish are in plague proportions, but you would only know that if you had a boat, so what relevance would a non-boat fishos opinion be of the fishery? Indeed, how many members of PETA will be visiting the survey site and pretending to be fishos?

Anyway, rant over. If, like me, you find these proposals offensive and just another big hit on top of all the blows rec fishos are copping like marine parks and supertrawlers get to the review site in the next few days and let them know what (and why) these changes mean to you. But spare a thought for those of us who do not have the luxury of living 10 minutes away from a boat ramp and want to eat fish we catch ourselves as rec fishos have been doing sustainably for the past couple of hundred years. It's our culture under attack.

[yakaboutaustin]

I have join the fight. thanks for the info and links.

happy fishing

yakaboutaustin

[Scratchie]

I have submitted my thoughts too!

Cheers scratchie!!!

[LeoB]

Submissions close on 31 July in relation to the proposed severe tightening of many POSSESSION limits for fish in NSW. In NSW, "bag limits" are defined as "possession limits" so apply to your home fridge/freezer or anywhere else, not just the "bag" you make bring home from a day's fishing. The upcoming review of possession limits is at:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/info/review

I would emplore all holiday or country saltwater fishos to visit the site and provide their opinions on the unviably low proposed possession limits. For instance, it will be illegal to have:

* More than 2 kingfish in possession

* More than 5 snapper in possession

* More than 5 mowies in possession

* More than 5 duskies in possession

* More than 10 sand/tiger flathead in possession

*More than 20 of any type of fish in possession, including species which only grow to small sizes, like school whiting

While many coastal fishos look at these numbers and think "why would anybody need more than 5 snapper a day" they fail to see that most fishos who like to catch and eat their own fish and can only make it to the coast once or twice a year would not bother with the major expense of boats, tow vehicles, fuel, accommodation and tackle if they can only bring home 5 snapper for a whole trip.

Who has more impact on a stock? A person who goes fishing every two weeks and catches 3 snapper an outing (75 snapper per year) or a fisho who can only make it to the coast once a year for a couple of weeks and brings home 10 frozen snapper under the existing rules?

In states like Victoria, bag limits are defined as fish in possession "on or near water". This IS NOT the case in NSW. Possession applies anywhere. Yet the discussion document continues to use misleading terms like "daily bag limit" to dupe fishos into agreeing with the changes.

The existing rules already discriminate against holiday or country fishos. The proposed changes will increase the discrimination to the point where going fishing to eat the fish you catch will be a complete waste of time.

Many on this site will be aware that simultaneously with announcing this review, the NSW fisheries minister moved to allow commercial fishos to net UNLIMITED QUANTITIES of flathead and other species such as mowies. Rec fishos were ropable and the stink caused a backflip, for now.

The general proposed limit of 20 fish total (there is no such limit at the moment) is another kick in the teeth for holiday fishos. It also makes no ecological/environmental sense either.

Specific limits should apply to specific stocks based on scientific management.

If a 20 fish total possession limit is in place, it will be impossible to go on holiday and have a family feed of small delicacy fish such as:

* Eastern school whiting (which we export frozen by the boxload to Japan)

* Garfish

Who is going to take home 20 school whiting or garfish (which would only be one meal for a family) if it is then illegal to possess a single other fish! These fish are PROLIFIC and sustainable to eat.

It will be illegal to take 20 school whiting and 2 flathead home frozen for a feed, in circumstances where both species are readily caught, but if you have a big enough boat to get to the shelf it will be legal to catch 2 x 15kg blue eye and still catch another 18 fish of other species. So what's the management message? Target rarer blue eye rather than sustainable bread and butter fish. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

If species need management, manage the species scientifically. Arbitrary combined limits do not achieve any sensible conservation outcome, and as demonstrated, may have the opposite effect and make people target bigger more important breeding fish.

Generally, fisheries management should be on the basis of SCIENCE and not survey. For instance, what is the point in surveying a land based fisho about the possession limit on leatherjackets found in inshore and offshore waters. These fish are in plague proportions, but you would only know that if you had a boat, so what relevance would a non-boat fishos opinion be of the fishery? Indeed, how many members of PETA will be visiting the survey site and pretending to be fishos?

Anyway, rant over. If, like me, you find these proposals offensive and just another big hit on top of all the blows rec fishos are copping like marine parks and supertrawlers get to the review site in the next few days and let them know what (and why) these changes mean to you. But spare a thought for those of us who do not have the luxury of living 10 minutes away from a boat ramp and want to eat fish we catch ourselves as rec fishos have been doing sustainably for the past couple of hundred years. It's our culture under attack.

G'day

I also find some of the "justifications" like rec fishers illegally selling their catch quite offensive. I hope everyone has entered submissions, as this affects us all.

Cheers Leo

[Formosan]

well said Krill. pity there isnt an option that says violently oppose. Our future is under attack. Please act guys.

[bharris]

I come from from the younger generation and I think the changes are over due i think the days of freezer filling are gone two oversize kings is pleanty.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2

[~alan~]

If it means more fish I'm all for the changes. Sure in some situations commercial fishing has major impacts etc etc, but I think as rec. fisherman we could take the higher ground and say "the fish don't care who is killing them so we will do our part at least in maintaining stocks". Also, I don't think there is a monotype of impacts from commercial fishing/recreational fishing across every system e.g.

Granted this research is a little bit old (1994), but with rec. fishing on the rise and commercial fishing getting license buyouts you would expect similar trends today if not greater. Still that is not to say just because there are less commercial fisherman that there are less fish being taken by them. Quantity may actually be higher per commercial fisher person and/or boat for all I know.

[krill]

I come from from the younger generation and I think the changes are over due i think the days of freezer filling are gone two oversize kings is pleanty.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2

You're missing the point. If you live on the coast you can catch 2 kings every day of the year. But if you come from an inland area and have to travel to the coast on holiday, you can't concentrate your fishing into a shorter period and catch anywhere near the same amount. The person from the country is being discriminated against.

If I lived on the coast I could nip out each weekend and easily grab a bag of flatties and whiting, year around. My total annual catch will be big (hundreds). "Freezer" filled well and truly under current rules.

If I live 500km from the coast I can go down for a couple of weeks, fish every day and am only allowed to bring home one pathetic bag of fish good for a couple of meals.

Get it? These rules disproportionately hit holiday and country fishos. The exact demographic who are meant to be represented by the NATIONALS who have the fisheries ministry.

As for the king fishery specifically - have you seen the commercial boats of Eden and Bermi which will work the schools of kings relentlessly for cash. Reckon' the new bag limit applies to them? If recreationals agree to restrictions while the commercial take is relaxed, somebody is getting conned.

[bharris]

So just because you live some distance from the coast dose that mean you can fill your freezer? What you just did was give peta more ammo to fire back at us fisher people.all you have to do is go down to the basin and see what holiday makers do bag limit after bag limit of bream day in day out just so they can freeze there so called fresh fish cause its s long way back to yhe coast come on

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 2

Edited July 26, 2013 by kingfisher84

[Catchin Jack]

I don't "get it" Krill, rules are rules regardless where you live. I pay taxes and levies for things I don't use or benefit from but I still pay them, because I don't use or benefit from it should I be exempt? I don't think the tax man will make a special rule for me....get it?

[krill]

If it means more fish I'm all for the changes.

Here's the problem. You don't know that. The discussion paper contains NO SCIENCE. You have no guarantees that the commercial take will decrease and all indications from this government are that they want to INCREASE commercial exploitation. They have expanded, for instance, salmon netting and are succesfully being lobbied by the commercials who want to export large quantities of salmon and yellowtail to CHINA.

According to reports in the Milton Ulladulla Times, fish from the commercial fishermen at Ulladulla could soon be making its way to China after Chinese agriculture officials met with local fishing representatives last week.

...

While Mr Guan said there was a market for the top-end tuna already attracting premium prices in Japanese markets, he was also interested in low cost fish that could become part of the staple diet of the nation’s people.

Fishing businessman and co-op member ... said he was able to supply large volumes of low-cost Australian salmon and yellow-tail mackerel for the Chinse market, and even offered samples of cold-smoked Australian salmon.

How do you know you aren't bidding against yourself or that fish won't get bigger or more numerous because someone in China is going to have eaten it way before it reaches your hook?

How come when there real physical evidence of fish in plague proportions, like inshore/offshore leatherjackets there is never a review suggesting higher bag limits?

Up to date scientific investigation is needed as to who is doing what to fish stocks. This whole survey process is a pointless from a fisheries management perspective, and may well be a con which many fishos fall for thinking that ticking a few boxes is going to make them into a better fisho.

[~alan~]

Hi Krill - the bit of info that I attached is an extract from a scientific peer-reviewed journal. I just posted the abstract for ease of reading. There is definitely science to back it up. That is all.

[krill]

I don't "get it" Krill, rules are rules regardless where you live. I pay taxes and levies for things I don't use or benefit from but I still pay them, because I don't use or benefit from it should I be exempt? I don't think the tax man will make a special rule for me....get it?

"Rules are rules". This is profound and entirely meaningless. I am pointing out to other country/holiday fishos how the rules which are misleading described as "bag limits" instead of honestly being described as "possession limits" will hit them. If those country fishos are then motivated to give the government their opinion that is a good thing. What is their to get?

Anyway, I have got my point across, made reasoned arguments outlining the flaws in the proposed changes.

I get it that a lot of coastal fishos think they own their water they had no part whatsoever in creating and don't want to share. It's a natural human reaction. Doesn't make it right though.

Tight lines.

[krill]

Hi Krill - the bit of info that I attached is an extract from a scientific peer-reviewed journal. I just posted the abstract for ease of reading. There is definitely science to back it up. That is all.

Gawd come on are you for real? What relevance does a 20 year old paper about just two coastal rivers have to do with a wide ranging range set of measures covering benthic, pelagic and offshore fisheries across the whole state? The option was open for the Government to include scientific studies in the discussion paper. There are none. It's not about science, it is about what people "FEEL".

Apparently that is how we are now going to manage fisheries, by checking what people FEEL?

Unless, of course, you are a commercial fisher, in which case we will set policy by what you WANT.

[Catchin Jack]

And people wonder why posts get locked, that is all...get it.

There is already posts on this forum about this, search function is up top right if you want to find them and add sensible replies.