http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/3/23/public-feedback-invited-on-reform-options-for-key-fisheries

Media Statements

Minister for Agricultural Industry Development and Fisheries

The Honourable Mark Furner

Friday, March 23, 2018

Public feedback invited on reform options for key fisheries
Queensland is a step closer to having a world-leading fisheries management system with the release of proposed reform options for several key fisheries.

Fisheries Minister Mark Furner said a range of options have been put forward in discussion papers for managing the trawl, crab and east coast inshore fisheries.

“A priority of the Queensland Government’s Sustainable Fisheries Strategy is to develop harvest strategies for these fisheries to ensure they are being managed to best practice standards, giving industry and the community certainty about their future,” Minister Furner said.

“The proposed reforms include things like splitting the management of some fisheries into regions, introducing quotas or limits on fishing days, improving fishing gear technology, reviewing fish size and possession limits and having temporary and flexible closures for fishing.

“The discussion papers have been developed with input from Queensland’s new fishery working groups which include stakeholders from commercial, recreational and charter fishing, conservationists and seafood marketers.”

Minister Furner said it was important to note that no decisions have been made about which reform options are preferred.

“Everyone with an interest in fishing is now invited to have their say and share their views on how these fisheries should be managed in the future,” Mr Furner said.

“Public feedback will then be given to the fishery working groups to provide advice on preferred reforms for review by the Sustainable Fisheries Expert Panel.”

The trawl fishery is Queensland’s largest commercial fishery, producing up to 6,100 tonnes of product worth $79.9 million each year and supports more than 400 fishers and seafood processors.

The East Coast Inshore Fishery is the State’s largest fishery by geographic size and also the most diverse, supporting a range of commercial, recreational, charter and Indigenous fishing.

Queensland’s crab fishery takes in the East Coast and the Gulf of Carpentaria, with mud crabs and blue swimmer crabs caught recreationally and commercially.

A discussion paper on reviewing management of the Coral Reef Fin Fish Fishery has also been released for public feedback. This includes options to provide fishers greater flexibility given the strong arrangements already in place through the quota system.

The discussion papers are open for public feedback until 5 pm on 20 May 2018 and can be viewed online at www.daf.qld.gov.au/sustainablefisheriesstrategy.

Stakeholders can also give feedback when Fisheries Queensland staff visit regional centres in April and May.

For more information, visit www.daf.qld.gov.au or phone 13 25 23.

Follow Fisheries Queensland on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (@FisheriesQld).

ENDS

Media – Tim Auguston 0417 768 626

Some initial thoughts. Not sure how to incorporate these generalisations into the feedback options available. I might put this forward as a more general fisheries management policy for the SPA.

Commercial fishing

Management of commercial fishing should not be targetted at maintaining jobs in the industry, but in maximising the efficiency of the industry and the revenue raised by the government. Fish should be viewed as a communal resource, with an expectation that commercial fishers pay for what they catch and only make enough profit to stay in business. If the allowable total commercial catch of a species can be captured at lower cost by fewer licence holders, the government should facilitate this. Restrictions on gear used should not be a mechanism for limiting total catch, unless no other appropriate mechanisms are available.

Interaction between recreational and commercial fishers

Fish stocks should be allocated in an economically rational manner, reflecting the value placed by recreational and commercial fishers on fish stocks (regardless of whether this value is actually monetised). This should apply to the total catch that is effectively allocated to each sector, as well as where and how the catch is obtained. For example, commercial fishers are generally able to travel longer distances, and do so mroe efficiently and safely, so recreational-only zones should be placed close to larger population centres where they can most easily be taken advantage of.

No-take zones

No-take zones are the most resilient fisheries management option available. They should be viewed as a way of managing the inevitable shortage of information about current stock levels and catch rates, as well as the deleterious effects of selective pressures from minimum sizes (eg, lowering growth rates), and the behavioural changes that fish stocks may undergo in response to a more broad and uniform fishing pressure (eg, learned avoidance). Highly 'responsive' fisheries management strategies, as proposed, have a significant downside in requiring recreational fishers to keep up to date with changing rules. No-take zones will reduce the need to rely on frequent changes.

The scale of no-take zones should reflect the typical distance travelled, such that there are smaller zones close to population centres and in rivers and estuaries, and large zones offshore. This will also assist enforcement, as it it easier to monitor smaller no-take zones that are easy to observe. As with recreational-only zones, they should also be relied upon more heavily close to population centres, where overfishing is more likely and where it is hard to monitor total catches.

No-take zones should also take into account fishing methods that are naturally restricted to a small number of locations, such as rock fishing, spearfishing, and shore based fishing in general. There should preferably be no impact on shore based fishermen from no-take zones, so as to reduce the need to incur expenses (boats) and to share the resource more evenly among recreational fishers by counteracting the natural 'arms race' that generally enables those who spend more money to catch more fish. This will also reduce the effort required by recreational fishermen to comply with laws, as the large majority of more casual recreational fishermen without boats will have less need to inform themselves of the location of no-take zones. No-take zones should, where possible, be placed immediately adjacent to popular shore based fishing locations to maxmise the spillover benefit to shore based anglers.

Selection of sites for no-take zones should be focusses on fisheries management and resource allocation considerations, rather than attempting to measure ecoligical representativeness.

There should be an initial target of 20% by area of no-take zones.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

Minimum sizes

Minimum sizes should be abandoned wherever it is practical in favour of alternative management strategies. Larger total biomass extraction will be possible if smaller individuals are taken, and there will be a reduction in hooking mortality. As a lower priority, maximum sizes should also be avoided where possible in favour of other mechanisms, due to the increased temptation to cheat when one is caught, risks of hooking mortality, and the lower resilience of fish stocks under a regime that requires large breeding stock to exist in heavily fished areas.

Catch limits and maximum sizes contribute to the instability of fish stocks. This is because they provide good protection while stocks are high, but less protection when stocks are low.

Biomass targets

Biomass targets should be set by compromising the two goals of maximising total catches and maximising resilience of fish stocks.

"From their discussion paper it can be seen that they are not using marine parks to build up stocks"

Where?

Well, climbing out of a hole is good enough until they learn to build a pyramid.

Centuries of 'harvesting' the life of the sea as a resource with methods that have destroyed much long-term use - has brought things to a standstill in many places.
Time to start investing in 'Growth' and production of such resources. Stimulating natural activities like breeding and even controlled like Oyster, Seaweed, Mussel farms in our environment that would produce the highest of quality in renewable Aquaculture productions (but not at the high cost of long-term destruction for quick immediate $$ gain - which the Govt tends to allow just to create <short term for next election> jobs for their Employment Rate ego).

From what I'm reading from those reports is that things are working, getting better - but still a long way to go I think, especially in the ability to grow more than can be harvested.

2050 mark.

Pre-1970: Harvest = 95%
               Growing = 3%
               Misc = 2%

It's more like Harvest 50% now, with only some nations being the big contributor to this.
Ask Canada how their Big Harvest of over a century went, which pushed it to nearly making War with Spain over a Spanish Fleet of big fishing vessels doing its rounds 'near' Canadian waters not so long ago?

I think Aqua-culture could provide more revenue than inland  Farming, in the future very soon.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 8:03am:


According to your uninformed opinion and garbled articles marine parks are an 'ideal fisheries management tool' - yet they don't rate a mention in the discussion paper.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 10:59am:


Obviously they think fisheries management measures to reduce catch and effort will be more effective than marine parks.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 12:56pm:


Well don't you think that marine parks might have rated a mention if they thought they were ideal for fisheries management? Also one one of the other discussion papers on Qld snapper did mention them and said they didn't know what the effects of marine parks wuold be.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 1:20pm:


You can't have read it then. It clearly outlines the goals and the way they intend to reach them, taking on board public feedback already received:

"The Government has developed
this green paper based on these
commitments and consideration of
the recommendations of the MRAG
review and the community feedback
to that review".