North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

Prawn trawlers can't take anything but prawns ??
There was a thing a while ago where a decline filleted a fish on a prawn trawler and when they got back to the dock and someone went through the boat they tried to throw the book at them for one fish in there freezer !!

Trawlers used to have a couple of ton by catch limit for reef species but that was then taken off as skippers would deliberatly hit schools of goldies and other fish when the prawns were slow. Seems a bl..dy waist to me. Trawlers and drift netters for mac and shark are two forms of fishing that I wouldnt mind seeeing fall off the end of the earth. they fucck everything in there path.

well its not exactly rocket science to say say the stocks are getting smashed. you only have to look at close grownds like dundee jew reef and charlse point to realise its on the decline. rules and regs are the only way foward. learn to love em because cause without em the NT wont be worth fishing. I left the territory a few years back to return to QLD. stictist fishing guidlines ever!!!! but we are now catching big reds close to home in spots that were barren only 10 yrs back??? must admit I have changed my view on regs and closed areas

We ought to take a leaf out of their book and apply it to the territory before its too late.

mako wrote:We ought to take a leaf out of their book and apply it to the territory before its too late.

Mabey if we had as many access points to launch here it would work quite well

Have an expanded artificial reef sowing program BUT do not publicize the exact location of these new reefs. That would reduce the plundering of these reefs and give the fish a higher chance to grow and breed.

harmsey wrote:well its not exactly rocket science to say say the stocks are getting smashed. you only have to look at close grownds like dundee jew reef and charlse point to realise its on the decline. rules and regs are the only way foward. learn to love em because cause without em the NT wont be worth fishing. I left the territory a few years back to return to QLD. stictist fishing guidlines ever!!!! but we are now catching big reds close to home in spots that were barren only 10 yrs back??? must admit I have changed my view on regs and closed areas

There is very good science on how well closing areas locally within fishing zones from GB reef management area. I can't remember the exact figures that I was told but the may well be PMed to me for confirmation. DNA sampling by fin clipping fish from within green zones and from commercially line fish captures outside and adjacent to these green zones proves a extremely high evidence of recruitment of stock into open areas that has been generated from the closed area and emigrated into these more sparsely populated areas where harvesting from all sectors is permitted. The stumbling block here is that closures areas need to be numerous and surrounded by fishing zones that people use. Our current access problems intensely concentrate most effort on a few areas, a situation that seems to be getting worse in relation to blanket lock out areas and the simplistic nature of proposed changes. This strategy would be a good compliment to any changes and makes as much since to me at least as option 1 or 2.

AM wrote:

mako wrote:We ought to take a leaf out of their book and apply it to the territory before its too late.

Mabey if we had as many access points to launch here it would work quite well

we have one boat ramp to access waters from stange bay to gladstone. we sometimes travel 150kms by water to fish only 10kms from the mainland. I dont see what launch sites have to do with over fishing?? Darwin has heaps of launch site and heaps of options no matter the weather?

Points of access on the Qld coast when
compared to the coast as a whole here are very
numerous. The central coast example
around thirsty sound is an area where
lack of ramps and the tidal range would protect stocks a bit as well ,but good to see
them coming back.There are quite a few
access points at Darwin it is the rest of
the coast that is slim and therefore
concentrates the pressure more heavily.I
know what you mean about doing a few
miles though as I have only done one
trip this year chasing reef fish
less that 350km.


















































































y

fishfanatic wrote:Have an expanded artificial reef sowing program BUT do not publicize the exact location of these new reefs. That would reduce the plundering of these reefs and give the fish a higher chance to grow and breed.

Good idea for fish but not sure how it would go in terms of Danger to Navigation

Well last I've seen none of the artificial reefs around Lee Point or Fenton Patches have been of any danger to navigation

Lats wrote:

fishfanatic wrote:Have an expanded artificial reef sowing program BUT do not publicize the exact location of these new reefs. That would reduce the plundering of these reefs and give the fish a higher chance to grow and breed.

Good idea for fish but not sure how it would go in terms of Danger to Navigation

This is a long post on a subject that I have tried to keep up with on 4 threads while away for the past 2 weeks or so. I will post in the two main threads and hope the format turns out OK, it has taken a bit to put together. I have given it a lot of thought and read all of the provided info that I could find. There are a few sections of that info that will have unintended consequences that need to be considered, as well as having little effect on control of the harvest of snapper and jew in particular and nil impact on commercial take. The excerpts from the data are in italics and my points of concern follow each excerpt.
There is no doubt that control measures are needed and urgently. My considered suggestions are at the end of this Ronje length post. They will be hugely unpopular with some for sure, worse even than the fisheries options. But I guess if the changes don’t affect many people then they aren’t working are they, and there are aspects that will really affect me as well. However I will abide by the laws as usual and either do what is required within the laws to try catch the quantity of fish I deem I need for it to be an option for me, or change tacts all together and take up some other pastime.

With this in mind, the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries have recently provided a long-term management proposal to industry for its consideration.
The planned management approach for this sector includes:
1. Creating a Darwin zone of management that encompasses the greater Darwin area - including the Tiwi Islands, Van Diemen Gulf, Peron Islands and Anson Bay - within which commercial coastal line fishing access and effort is limited
2. Limit access to the Darwin zone to a small number of operators who have demonstrated significant catch history over the past five years in that area.
3. Manage the total commercial harvest within the Darwin zone via catch/effort allowances to achieve appropriate harvest reductions.
4. Restrict gear in the Darwin zone to limited hook and line methods to avoid any uptake of more efficient gear types such as large fish traps that are currently permissible but not used.


Some thoughts about this section.

Bullet point one states that there will be absolutely no reduction from current levels of commercial line fishing effort in the newly created zone that the vast majority of NT rec fishers fish in.

Bullet point two has two possible outcomes in addition to allowing current levels of effort and harvest to continue. If an “operator” is a licence holder his licence asset has just appreciated in value by a staggering amount. If an “operator” is a person who the holder can lease the effort to then a licence owner without history will have to employ one of the “small number of operators” with history in the fishery. IS THIS AN INVESTMENT WARNING OR WILL THE CONSULTATION PERIOD SEE A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LICENCED OPERATORS TRANSFERING INTO THIS FISHERY, IF SO, IT SHOULD BE ISSUED AS SUCH.

Bullet point three re confirms nil reduction of effort to what is presumably currently deemed appropriate.

Bullet point four again re confirms that no reduction to current effort will happen but as they can afford bigger operations now that the licence value has increased that they cant set traps.

All four points amount to a statement that guarantees the commercial line fishing sector that specifically target the species in question will be allowed to catch at least as many of the remaining (and looking forward newly recruited )stock as they harvest now. AM

The aim for the FTO sector is to establish an appropriately scaled and viable industry operating in the Darwin area to service residents and tourists that desire access to blue water fishing but do not have the capability to undertake the activity independently.
The planned management approach for this sector includes:
1. Creating a Darwin zone of management that encompasses the greater Darwin area - including the Tiwi Islands, Van Diemen Gulf, Peron Islands and Anson Bay - within which FTO fishing access and effort is limited to facilitate targeted management within the most impacted area without curtailing development opportunities in remote regions where the fishery remains viable.
2. Restrict the number of FTO licences able to target reef fish in the Darwin zone based on existing effort (to prevent any further expansion of effort).
3. If recreational possession limits do not contain FTO catches sufficiently in the future, separate boat limits specific to FTO operators may be required.

Some thoughts about this section.
Bullet point one talks about limiting commercial charter fishing effort in zone that the vast majority of NT rec fishers fish but allows new operations to commence in remote areas. I am interested in if these new remote operations are allowed to land their catch in the managed area if they travel back through with fish caught outside it?

Bullet point two re confirms that no new licences will be issued in the Managed Zone. I would suggest great news for a current licence holder as his licence asset has just appreciated in value by a staggering amount on the strength of this. IS THIS AN INVESTMENT WARNING OR WILL THE CONSULTATION PERIOD SEE A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LICENCED OPERATORS AS WITH THE SA SNAPPER CHARTER FISHERY.

Bullet point three states that provided the FTO’s don’t self report that their catch rates increase they will remain exempt from any vessel limit that is applied to the recreational sector.

So for the FTO operators in the new management zone it is an individual bag limit change but no vessel limit, other than the fact the value of there licence just multiplied exponentially. AM


“Many anglers themselves have noticed there is a problem. Popular fishing spots no longer have good catches, or have become less reliable grounds for species like golden snapper. While some fishers may feel things are okay because they can still catch their possession limit from time to time, the reality is that fewer big (and old) fish are being caught overall at these sites. Fishers are progressively moving further afield to find spots where catches are still good. All of the observations are that there is problem.”

While I don’t feel things are OK for golden snapper (or Jew), I generally do agree with the above passage regarding the effort migration towards remote venues. Also I am very interested on looking at the source quoted for this survey data; I searched on line but couldn’t find it.
I am particularly interested on how many of the participants did catch their 30 fish limit, or how many even caught a twenty limit or a 15 limit. Examination of these points would give some insight into how many fish will be saved by putting all eggs in the possession limit basket and how many fishermen will really be affected by what really is the soft minimum vote lost and public outcry, option. AM

Some thoughts about the bar chart showing Rec Commercial and FTO catch and release data.
Along with many others in the FFF survey I refuse to accept the information in this table as being correct.
I don’t believe it has been falsified by those collating the results, but let’s get a bit serious here, releases can’t even be sighted. Instead, based on my dealings with a very high percentage of them I firmly believe that many Rec fishermen would by nature, at the very least embellish their survey inputs and many cases simply over report. There are a lot of guys on here that don’t, but imagine if the survey team ran into several notable chaps that have drawn scorn for the same unbelievable rubbish on FFF over the last few years. Fishermen skite.
In direct contrast the reality is other two sectors have little to gain by reporting catches in their entirety other than a large increase in off water time expenditure and a likely impost of some time that that further reduces the living they make from the resource. For example is the fisheries log source data ever compared to the receipts that are issued from the sale of the fish, with the same check at the charter wharf by fisheries personnel rather than in house compliance checks.
This is only my opinion and is not directed at any individuals in any of the sectors other than the skites in the rec ranks. In view of that and of my suspicious nature I am not really that interested in how members did it or saw it done first hand in individual instances within the commercial and charter sectors. I am just interested in hearing from fisheries regarding how they did and do it ,and particularly in this in this case that they are now presenting as fact. AM


Table 2: NT trailer boat registrations in 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Year 2000 2005 2010
Under 5 metres 3 038 3 531 3 077
Over 5 metres 1 934 3 230 5 170
Total 4 972 6 761 8 184


Some thoughts about this table
Irrespective of if the data is correct or not (and I thought it would be more boats), there is no boat rego in the NT how would trailer registrations determine the difference between 4.9 and 5.1 meter boats. This brings the credibility of the data that has been presented, into quite a bit of question in my opinion. AM

So, down to the buisness. If it were up to me what would I see as the best course of action, based on what would address the snapper, jew issue and the overall reef stock problem that cant be denied.

• They are on the right track with the Darwin zone thing. Inside its boundary I suggest a 5 year moritorium on taking or landing (bringing ashore), snapper or jew from any user sector.
• Coastal line fishery in the zone would be over. Offer incentives to relocate outside the zone or buy back for only the ones with the 5 year history, remember they have told us there is only”a small number of operators”. Raise the money from a rec licence for a set number of years as required, or rego scheme.
• For other species I would go with the 15 possesion limit and x 3 vessel limit but it would be immeadiatly applied to Charter fleet.
• New charter operators cant be sustained in the zone, and the unfortunate truth is they will make a killing from the immeadiate apprecation in the value of their tranferable licence or right to fish in the zone.


Only as a very poor alternative to the above, I suggest the following additions to “option 1 as prposed by fisheries” in section 6 of their publication Northern territory Recreationsl Fishing Controls.

• Reduce the possession limit to 20. Reasoning is, for single day outings the reality is that there would be little differnce to fish killed between 15 and 20 given the amount of people capable of and actually catching 20 fish each in a single day. Hard cass with small fish mabye but they will break the rules no mater what you do.
• Close these mysterious areas (which I am have never been able to locate), where snapper and jew aggregate to all fishing over the monthes they do so, for a period of at least 5 years.
• Enforce these closures by arial patrols which would require a boat registration scheme to be introduced.
• Introduce a scheme where by rec and charter fishers could apply and pay a non refundable and substantial fee to register say 2 or 3 annual trips annually which exceed two days duration where the the vessel limit, but not the individual limit could be exeecded. Reasoning is this will allow harder core fishers not to be left with few alternatives other than to target easilly accessable areas with very high frequency on shorter trips, in the new world. AM

AM
You’ve made some very valid points there.
I agree that unless something is done now, we will be like all other areas where stocks are almost exhausted.
Then we will be forced to comply with draconian measures just because of our self-indulgence and short sightedness.
I've seen the results of rec fisho licencing and it works. Same with boat rego.
No, it’s not an assault on our way of life. The world won’t end if we are forced to register our boats or pay a nominal fee to get a fishing licence.
It will cost money to implement the changes and the money has to come from somewhere

nomad wrote:I agree that unless something is done now, we will be like all other areas where stocks are almost exhausted.

Thanks Nomad
How bout this one.
If you take Barra out of it I am not sure that the gulf between what we have here and all other areas is that great really, still a lot of fishing to be had elsewhere, but definitly a lot of tasty variety up here though. I just did a week driving along the NSW Coast Bris - Sydney through some old haunts and the place looks pretty healthy but also with pretty tough regs. We fished in Lake Macquarie (1.5 hrs from sydney) for a couple of hours at lunch time with my brother down there. We could see the car and trailer from the sandbank that we were wadding on and got 9 whiting up about 37cm, very tasty. Enough flathead for breakfast in an hour or so a few days later. Used about 500mm of fuel for the two trips. Another example is say Fraser Island offshore or Stanach Bay. Heaps of people do very well very close, heaps dont, and never ever will. I have fished for some years at Fraser Island (lived there for a while) and still have some mates there. I have never in countless days out, (and dont even know of anybody who has) fished further than 50km from the launch site at Waddy Point, and even that was a massive day out. Also I would concider that it would be very possible to get a very tidy bag just about anywhere offshore on the QLD coast (even metro off Moreton say) these days if your trip perameters were set at what I do here, say 2 nights three days on the water and were prepared for a 350 - 400km round trip.
Just somthing else to think about.

The big advantage is the fact the continental shelf is close by for fish to hide off on the east coast. Plus that huge reef....I forget the name... Perhaps its the great barrier or something.

The NT in close to Darwin at best has rubble patches but no real substantial systems. It has shallow and easy water to fish. I think NT waters are far easier to rape then southern waters. Even more reason for it to be heavily regulated.