NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Talk about bungled boat ramps, net buybacks, marine no-go zones, mining disasters etc here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Craig Ingram
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:21 am

NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by Craig Ingram »

The Northern Territory government has released the long awaited 2009-2010 recreational fishing survey it can be found on the NT fisheries website http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Fisheries/index. ... %20Fishing


Craig Ingram
Executive Officer AFANT
User avatar
ghound
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:57 pm
Location: Bee's Creek

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by ghound »

Intresting

30538 people went fishing in 2009-2010.
How many paying Members did AFANT have in the same timeframe?.
I think I was a member then............... until I went to the AGM and most of the members were charter operators, safari lodge operators etc all with a finacial interest. Not many amatuers in the bunch really.

Ghound
User avatar
Finatic2
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by Finatic2 »

Thats a lot of data. Happy to have contributed to it
Fish stories told here....some true !!!

When in doubt...exaggerate !!
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by AM »

Fair bit in this I am about 75% through it and will make a few comments when complete.
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by AM »

OK I have had a fairly reasonable look through this doc and a few key points have stood out for me. I have possibly misinterpreted some of the data as a bit of it was contradictory in places (for me) and some of it was just more than I could actually absorb, I have found some of the finding a bit incongruous with the option 1 and 2 recommendations, but anyway here we go. I will put the page for reference before the point that caught my interest. I don’t expect to get into a debate on line with the authors (who will be checking this thread) but where to them the data gives a different point to what I have taken, a PM would be appreciated.

Page lll . If 58% of fish get released it seems a bit unlikely to hang the main thrust of fisheries management policy on changing this many fishos ethos. I know you have to start somewhere but a more diverse response may well be worth considering for the amateur sector.

Page IV . NT residents spend 51milion dollars annually on fishing related purchases, and on page 74 the market value of their boats is 194 million dollars. I suggest taking a bit more notice of the amateur opinion on the charter boat vessel limit, in short user pays and already is.

Same page. The percent of NT population that fished has DROPPED 29% from previous survey, clearly the inference is however that the population increased and hence so has the problem but I couldn’t find any reference to the amount of increase in the paper. It doesn’t read so well for me if we are relying on its contents as the primary catalyst for the reg changes.

Page 3 Comments regarding comparative catch data and the previous survey year being a “best year” anecdotally strike me as a bit of a cop out. The survey is a survey and the result the result surely.

Page 4. Interesting stuff with the zones. To date my 90% of my fish have come from the west coast zone to the south of South Peron Island where low pressure is reported. That will change with new limits in place.

Page 21 Interesting stuff with three ways that effort is calculated , days, events, and hours, quite in depth stuff I would like to read more of a summary of what the authors are taking out of this data now I have had the chance to read it a little as well.

Page 23. I know this is a big effort but I thought the sample may have been a bit bigger that 3086 households out of more than 58800. That said I didn’t offer to help, and in truth didn’t even know it was being done.

Page 29. Advises that minor shifts in dynamics can have a big impact on catch’s. This makes sensebut will also be the case with negatives such as concentrating effort on very local waters where 75% of fish are already being taken. Put it another way with 75% of the catch being taken so locally the closed area thing would be a good place to start instead of making it more popular to fish there?.

Page 33. From the data 75% of fish are caught in local or semi local waters where day trips would be the norm. Only 25% of fish are taken where single day trips are more impractical. I find it illogical in the extreme to discourage more dedicated fishers from these remoter waters in favour of fishing more locally in areas already under enormous pressure.

Page 34. Of the total catch in the case of Tropical snapper and Emperors , they make up 25% of the catch alone, of which 58% are released? ?. Many thousands of these fish would be returned to the water as they were deemed too small and as yet I am not convinced that it is a fait accompli that all these fish would die if returned to the water. Hence my support of a size limit, as well as part of the control package.

Page 40. Most of these snapper species are targeted by less than 10% of the fishermen hence high release rate! This must surely add to the case for a size limit and that there is little logic in including these species in a max 5 of combined limit strategy.

Page 47. Bit surprised that 25% of the barra caught are caught SW of Cape Ford. A lot of people must go there but only to catch barra as reef fishing is quite good.

Page 133. Very surprised that more Golden Snapper are landed at Dundee ramp than Tricky Snapper.


So at the time of writing these are the points that I have taken out of the results, some are just of interest but some find me questioning some of the control strategies proposed even more.
Any other opinions?
User avatar
passenger279
Seadog
Seadog
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:34 am

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by passenger279 »

Hey AM, just a couple of things that don't sit right with me about what you say here, I haven't read the data and don't plan to but anyway;

Page III; Too hard? This is never a good enough reason not to do something.

Pg 23; 5% of a population is a huge effort for any study. Human medicines get released on much much much less evidence.

Pg 33; Even if all of those fishers who catch 25% of the fish move in closer to Darwin (very doubtful) the maths is still in favour of the fish around Darwin (and hugely in favour of the fish further afield). As 50% (reduced limits) of the current 100% of fish taken in the NT is still much less then the 75% of the current bag limits. (So currently 75% of total effort is around Darwin = new limits make 50% of the total number now and that's only IF everyone starts fishing around Darwin - not likely).

Pg 34 + 40; Really? You really still think fish that make a popping noise as they hit the surface from 15 or 20 or 50m of water, with their gut out their mouth floating on their side live? It just seems so very unlikely. Size limits make people throw back good eating fish with blown organs and frustrate anglers who are honestly there for a feed, not just the most most kg/bag limit they can get on every occasion.

Anyway, just a couple of points about your points haha :mrgreen:
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by AM »

c
passenger279 wrote:Hey AM, just a couple of things that don't sit right with me about what you say here, I haven't read the data and don't plan to but anyway;

Page III; Too hard? This is never a good enough reason not to do something.

Pg 23; 5% of a population is a huge effort for any study. Human medicines get released on much much much less evidence.

Pg 33; Even if all of those fishers who catch 25% of the fish move in closer to Darwin (very doubtful) the maths is still in favour of the fish around Darwin (and hugely in favour of the fish further afield). As 50% (reduced limits) of the current 100% of fish taken in the NT is still much less then the 75% of the current bag limits. (So currently 75% of total effort is around Darwin = new limits make 50% of the total number now and that's only IF everyone starts fishing around Darwin - not likely).

Pg 34 + 40; Really? You really still think fish that make a popping noise as they hit the surface from 15 or 20 or 50m of water, with their gut out their mouth floating on their side live? It just seems so very unlikely. Size limits make people throw back good eating fish with blown organs and frustrate anglers who are honestly there for a feed, not just the most most kg/bag limit they can get on every occasion.

Anyway, just a couple of points about your points haha :mrgreen:


Havent read it and dont plan to .... off to a great start there, could be all there is on offer at the dentist surgery one time.

Page III. Not to hard at all Passenger, just not enough to make a difference, a mult faceted stratergy is the way to go dont put all the eggs in the one basket (stop releasing any fish), was my point. the survey proves people will almost certainly still release unwanted fish and keep fishing.
Page 23 Fair call.
Page 33 Dont want to be wet blanket but halving the bag limit wont halve the catch. LESS THAN 1% OF THOSE SURVEYED CATCH (keep or release)THE CURRENT BAG LIMIT OF 30. LESS THAN 5% CATCH (keep or release)THE PROPOSED NEW LIMIT.
Page 34 +40 Maybey have a look at some studies on the internet. Cuddlescooper pointed me in the right direction here, do you think every other state in Australia has it so wrong with size limits. The one I read had the worst looking cases showing the best surviaval rates!!. Im just not so sure thats all, you may well have some infomation of unquestionable veracity aside from hearing popping noises, if so I am keen ro read it.
Thanks for giving another perspective to one from sombody other than mine from the dark side anyway. .... crawls away into the shadows to sharpen some hooks.

I did ask if anybody else had an opion I know but lets get a bit fairdinkum (on Australia day), an issue this big, and a 137 page survey report gets 5 responces and 1 that has no intention of reading it. they would be wondering why they bother.
User avatar
ghound
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:57 pm
Location: Bee's Creek

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by ghound »

Heres a thought

Why don't we make Shady Camp Live Bait only????
Probably cut the fishing pressure by 80% overnight. Because as we know the coloured shirt brigade wouldn't know how to throw net to catch said bait
Imagine the barra and salmon that would be down there then........

80 pound handlines only as well because as we know coloured shirt brigade girly hands wouldn't be able to handle that either.

Still not sure what our asscociation will be yet AM. But I have ordered the "I fish and am not a tool" stickers so we are getting there. And yes your in

jimmy
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by AM »

I know you get these three posts confused Jimmy but try to keep on the right on thats the Shady camp thing man, not sure you want me in your camp with the bag limit one. :D
UncleD
Seadog
Seadog
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:15 pm
Location: Girraween NT
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by UncleD »

Why are live baiters so sensitive? Perhaps its the smell? There are some good sanitizing products around and they could have their own colorful shirts with hand lines and pilchards on them and perhaps wouldn't feel so inferior!

For the record, I fish (lures, live and dead bait....even rubbers) Sorry for the Red Herring.


....and thanks for the analysis. I can't stand reading details so appreciate the balanced opinion you present.
My Giddy Aunt!
User avatar
AM
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:33 pm
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by AM »

UncleD wrote:Why are live baiters so sensitive? Perhaps its the smell? There are some good sanitizing products around and they could have their own colorful shirts with hand lines and pilchards on them and perhaps wouldn't feel so inferior!

For the record, I fish (lures, live and dead bait....even rubbers) Sorry for the Red Herring.


....and thanks for the analysis. I can't stand reading details so appreciate the balanced opinion you present.



All good UncleD, your welcome and for the record I use "chloriclean' from Harveys. :D
User avatar
ghound
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:57 pm
Location: Bee's Creek

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by ghound »

sorry AM

I get a bit excited sometimes.........................
FTO's p..s off back to QLD!!!!

UncleD the only thing a rubber is good for is trying to ensure the population of QLD is kept to a managable level

Jimmy
UncleD
Seadog
Seadog
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:15 pm
Location: Girraween NT
Contact:

Re: NT recreational fishing survey 2009-10

Post by UncleD »

Been married for 17years......I forgot about party hats!
My Giddy Aunt!
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Fishing Politics”