North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

Gagey wrote:Oh Nomad, and people think I'm cynical

If that was done at the 1st meeting, they wouldnt need to have the second!

Well

The goalposts sure are changing fast.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/n ... 94/s3.html

As things are starting to settle down and clear thinking is starting to return, the Minister's little helpers have been busy changing the damned regulation that has been at the centre of the problem.

Reg 10A has been amended within the last couple of days. Look up the link.

Anybody who sits down to play poker with the Minister's reps won't be playing with a full deck.

The amendment looks strange as its actually the instructions to the parliamentary drafstman on which new words to insert and which old words to omit to create the new law.

What's currently on the legislation database is the new version of Reg 10A and what's on the link are the changes.

If u combine the 2 you'll have the old version of 10A (which everybody was hopping up and down about).

If you went to such a meeting now, you'd be arguing your case against matters in the regulation that no longer exist while the Dept reps would be talking about the new Reg 10A.

This exercise has definitely not been a shafting exercise. Nobody in Govt is that smart.

Its pure Keystone Cops.

Better sharpen the pencil Tristan.

I still don't see anything about the duration of the protection areas. Remember that they're temporary only.

If that was done at the 1st meeting, they wouldnt need to have the second!

Gee your harsh on poor old AFANT. Imagine expecting them to do thing properly.....sacrilege!

Not really aimed at AFANT but the govt.
These high level meetings should (will) have recorded minutes for this very purpose. then you dont get the current poop fight. just check the minutes (assuming they were digitally recorded before being transcribed)

I think your assumption that this would be regarded as a high level meeting is a bit off.
In the overall scheme of things I wouldn't think it would register a blip on the radar.
Like I have said before I am sure the outcome will be total lock out of these area's just going the long way around.

I asume that any meeting with govt has minutes taken. It did in nsw when this type of stuff was talked about. We used to use voice recorders more than 30 yrs ago

Ron I can't sort out what they are doing / achieving with this retrospective change to the act but it bodes no god coming of it. In lay and term what does it mean.

The way the government has acted in this instants and other broken promises is a slap in the face for recreational fisherman. We need to get our poop together and ensure the government takes note of what we say. A lot of unhappy fisherman around at the moment.

Hi Andy

It looks like the new Reg 10A is an attempt to tighten up on activities in the Protection Areas.

There will still be access to a Protection Area by Offshore Net and Line Fishery licensees if they have approval from the Fisheries Department Director.

Any approval by the Director will be subject to conditions relating to the amount of any fish taken. Type of equipment used or method of use is not mentioned in the approval clause. Merely amount of fish.

In addition there is an introduction of the terms under way and making way.

Under way means not fixed to the bottom or other object and making way means under power/sail (words to that effect)..

That means no anchoring or drifting through the zone even with engine running if you have any fish or amateur fishing gear on the boat. If you don't have amateur gear or fish and your boat isn't registered, you can anchor or drift around all you like.

Similarly for vessels of the specified licence type.

However, if a vessel is not one of the 4 specified licence types, then nothing changes for them under this revamped version. Providing they are operating under the terms of whatever type of licence they do have then they're still free to operate there.

That's my take on it.

What doesn't make sense is why the Minister's little helpers have done this at this time considering the user and media reaction that the Minister has been trying to grapple with already.

My understanding is that the Minister's representatives were going to sit down and consult further with all affected parties to nut out a solution.

This un-announced change to the very subject that caused the problem is like poking an ant's nest with a stick.

Why do it in the middle of a bunfight?

I'd have thought that the smart thing to do would have been to include these changes in the further consultation process so there were no surprises. There's enough suspicion around as it is.

These tactics are pretty dumb. Hence my reference to the Keystone Cops (The Fisheries Dept).

Never attribute to malice or forethought that which can be adequately explained as stupidity. Or words to similar effect.

It might be as easy as leaving one last Lego block on the table so they have something left to bagain with when they sit down at the table and AFANT thrash them to within an inch of their life with a warm lettuce leaf. whatever the reason is a no brainer to be simple , like the authors I guess, as opposed to the wording.

Nice article in the Darwin Sun today ,page 30. About pros in closed zones

"I would respectfully suggest It is time for some in the recreational sector to show some humility and work on the solutions to the problems they have caused "

I'll formed attack on our well managed industry (NTSeafood Council)

People (AFANT meant) just grandstanding

One thing is for certain the commerxial sector is hands down winning the public perception battle.

Comparing catch rates between rec and commercial fishermen as the Seafood Council is doing is misleading and mischievous. The number of commercial fishermen this might affect is less than a hundred. The number of recreational fishermen is in the tens of thousands.

Suggesting that rec fishos need to show some humility and work on the issues they have caused is confrontational and insulting. Work on the issues they have caused? Get farked. The recreational fishermen didn't strip the oceans of fish you twat. Commercial fishermen did. World-wide fish stocks are in crisis due to over-fishing by the commercial sector. Recreational fishermen should work on solutions? We did. We accepted and respected the no-fishing recovery zones. Did the commercial sector?

I have always been a supporter of commercial fishermen and believed that with good management plans the two sectors can co-exist. But when the model the industry choses to press its point is based on duplicity and insults they can go to hell. You lost my support.

As for the government, whether they and/or the public service duped ppl on this issue or not is not really important in my view. Its that they appear to have duped them. On top of that the response of the fisheries minister has been rude and petulant. If he doesn't recognised that this is a shitstorm that his department created (that he needs to resolve with tact and diplomacy) then he shouldn't be in the job.

Actually....I think he shouldn't be in the job and will be voting accordingly.

“In the area of concern around Darwin commercial catches of Golden Snapper are capped at 4.5 tonne a year. Compare this to the over 90 tonne a year taken by the recreational sector and it is easy to see why we have sustainability issues with this species.”

“The blanket call for the removal of all commercial fishers that don’t target these at risk species from the management zones is simply nonsense and if enacted will impact on Territorian’s jobs for no valid reason. Despite having capped our catch in 2010, the closures still apply to any licences that target these species.” said Mr Fish.

“There is no valid reason to move out other commercial operators that do not target Golden Snapper, and claims to do so are simply smoke and mirrors to the real issue that unmanaged recreational catches of Golden Snapper has put localised stock at serious risk,” said Mr Fish.

(Source: Seafood Council website)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think Mr Fish needs to be taken to task over some of these figures. Its one thing to call "smoke and mirrors" to another sector....its another thing to actively do it yourself in the same written statement.

Commercial catches of Golden Snapper are capped at 4.5 tonne a year? Take a look at the graph below indicating commercial catches of Golden Snapper in the NT from 2000 to 2013. Does that look like 4.5 tonnes per annum? It actually looks more like an average of around 50-60 tonnes. And that's the logged take home catch. Not the bycatch which usually dies. (Source: Fisheries Research and Development Coorporation)

How about the recreational catch of over 90 tonne a year. A recent NT Gov survey indicated recreational fishermen took 80000 Golden Snapper during the 12 month survey. Half of those fish were released. Lets call them "bycatch" and assume they died. Using the same method as the commercial fishermen (and assuming an average weight of 1kg) this looks like 40 tonnes a year.....not 90.
(Coastal line fisheries Status Report 2012). Now divide those numbers by the number of recreational fishermen and the number of commercial fishermen. Rec fishos take a poofteenth of what the commercial guys take.

These figures were used in a paper by the Seafood Council to recommend to the NT Government to reduce the bag limit for recreational fishermen to 1 Golden Snapper and one Jew fish and to exclude them from Restricted zones whilst allowing commercial fishing in the same regions.

The primary argument for this was that there ought to be equity across the sectors (as recommended in the Government paper that was put out for consultation). Mr Fish argues that there should be equity in the restrictions being applied to amateur and professional fishermen. (Totally ignoring the fact that the Seafood Council are calling for access for themselves but for rec fishos to be excluded). But be that as it may, my question is Why. Why should there be equity. These are not the same groups. They do not have the same number of participants or the same reasons for being there.

If you want equity fine. But this is what equity looks like.
One recreational fisherman can travel 50 nm to fish for 5 golden snapper and 2 jewfish
One commercial fisherman can travel for 50 nm to fish for 5 golden snapper and 2 jewfish
Theres your equity

You don't like it then stop feeding out cr.p about the need for equity. They are different groups. The numbers of recreational fishermen totally overwhelm the numbers of commercial fishermen so their annual catch cannot meaningfully be compared.

bl..dy well written Mud
Couldn't agree with you more.