North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

Ron I have still missed the answer. They clearly wanted to limit the take of division three fish to a cumulative all species combined maximum ppl of 12 for each person for boats with 5 - 7 people as per their publication below. In my opinion the legislation does not reflect that, in listing the amount of each division 3 fish you can have, it states you can take you general ppl of 15 each provided you don't have more than the prescribed limit individually of any of the specified division 3 fish.
Eg 12 snapper 8 jew 20 trout 20 tricky snapper 15 stripy snapper for 5 POB (5x15 =75). For 6 POB add the other 5 stripy snapper and 10 red emporer (6x 15=90). 7 POB add the other 10 red emporer and 5 tusk fish (7x15=105). In trying to simplify it in the act they have actually made it more complex. Though I haven't yet been able to phrase it on paper to satisfy the intent they seem to want in the handbook.

Hi Andy

Forget the multiplication maths. Forget the information brochure. Forget that document above.

The numbers of allowable at-risk fish is determined in the table as straight numbers and is not a calculation.

In the legislation they are referred to as "specified fish".

If you and 4 mates went fishing for golden snapper you'd all be committing an offence if there were 13 or more goldies on board.

Looking for specified fish would be the first thing inspectors would look for. These are vessel limits.

Then they'd look at personal bag limits for species other than specified fish.

Say 12 goldies were the only specified fish that were on board.

Divy up 12 goldies between 5. Assume 3 would have 2 each, 2 would claim 3 each. That's 12. The vessel limit is ok. The personal limits are OK.

The first 3 would be OK to have another 13 non-specified fish each providing each non-specified species didn't exceed the personal bag limits for that species.

The last 2 would only be able to have another 12 non-specified fish each subject to the personal limits once again.

Your fishing party would therefore be able to have 75 fish of mixed species.

For 7 people the total fish allowed would be 105 (7 x 15) but the mix would be different due to the 12 limit of goldies.

In that example there are 12 goldies ( vessel limit for 7 people) for 7 fishermen so 6 could have 2 goldies each with 13 other non-specified fish and 1 fisherman with 0 goldies but 15 non-specified fish.

Other options for the distribution of the 12 goldies would give different non-specified fish numbers.

Add in more numbers for other specified species and we have different combinations.

There may be vessel limits for non-specified species which further impact on combinations.

Take a calculator or accountant with you when you go chasing specified (at-risk) species.

That's the outcome of the legislation but I don't know if that was the intention of any public discussion before the introduction as I haven't seen it.

Ron we are halfway there. 5 POB can have 75 , 6 can have 90 and 7 can have 105 signed and agreed. All can only have 12 goldies. Why can't they just start on the rest of the division the table. Why do they need to make any numbers up with fish other than division 3 table fish. Where do they say 4 x the limit in the act. They just give numbers of individuals of different species no cumulative bag over or under the general posset limit.

Where do they say 4 x the limit in the Act.

Exactly. They don't. They simply give a number in the table in Reg 46BAC. That avoids/or should avoid any confusion.

However, the Depts Media Centre couldn't help itself in its translation to "fisherman speak" for a nice colourful brochure. Confusion has ensued.

Division 2 is about PERSONAL limits while Division 3 is about VESSEL limits and Division 3 prevails over Division 2.

Vessel number restrictions of specified species ( in this case "at-risk" species as its described) are the starting point for any headcount towards the personal permitted number (GPL as its described).

The vessel with you and your 4 friends is only allowed to have 12 goldies on board. You can split those goldies up between the 5 of you so that nobody has more than their personal limit (3) for themselves (somebody might have none).

If the vessel limit of specified/at-risk species is OK AND the personal numbers are within the limits, each person can make up the GPL to 15 with other fish.

If other specified/at-risk species are caught then another vessel limit calculation followed by a personal limit divvy-up for that species is necessary before proceeding to make up numbers towards the max number of 15 each.

The vessel limits for "at-risk" then place another layer of protection over those particular species where large numbers of anglers are present on a boat.

Say you have 20 people on a boat. The vessel limit ( the starting point for any headcount) for goldies is then 24. If there are 25 goldies on the boat then 20 people have committed an offence of having an excess of 1 goldie each.

That sure focuses the mind of everybody on board to ensure that nobody else does anything to exceed any vessel limit.

Stop press!

I believe that the question is:

Can my 4 friends and I catch our individual 15 GPL by a combination of only specified/at-risk fish?

My view is yes you can providing that you all stick firstly to the vessel limits that apply to all 5 of you collectively and secondly to the personal limits that apply to each of you individually.

Eureka I have managed to explain my reading of the way the act has been written. I am not certain if the problem is that it has been over simplified or over complicated when it converted to legislation. There is no need to keep recalculating as you go it is just a straight count up to the general possession limit for each person on board, you just be carful not to exceeds the division 3 specified limits on the individual species on that table on your way there.

Try it this way 5 on vessel and they start fishing, go straight to the division 3 table, lets start at the top for clarity, they can put in their esky 8 jewfish, AND 20 cod, AND 20, coral trout AND 12 goldies, AND 12 mangrove jack, BUT only 3 of the allowable 20 red emperor to take them to a total of 75 fish or 15 fish each which is the new general possession limit, but all their catch is from division 3. Where do they say "4 times "anywhere in the act they just give numbers of different species where does the act compell you have any division 2 fish if you can get the general possession limit without exceeding any individual speices limits from division 3 table.

The handbook in screen shot above in saying "a maximum of 4 times" seems to point towards the authors assertion being that those 5 anglers can only have 60 of their fish comprised from division 3 in any combination and they must then get the remaining 15 of fish not specified on the division 3 at risk list.

This is what I find irksome that the promotional stuff says it a bit different to the act.

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh with my assumption of the intent of the handbook phrasing,they do say " the balance of the GPL can be made up of other fish" those other fish can still be division 3 fish. Maybe they aren't as sneaky as I thought. Might explain why they haven't emailed any info yet.

Like blowflies this AFANT mob only around for the good stuff.
You would think after 5 pages they would have poked their head in for a ruling or an explanation
methinks they are all out of fingers and toes!

Should have asked at the meeting jimmy. Maybe next year if I am not in the clink already.

Andy
If you take along the accountant with his calculator just to get the numbers right, you might consider taking along a lawyer as well for when the accountant doesn't get the numbers right.

Chasing yellowbelly in Qld's Nogoa River as a kid was such a simple life.

I understand this discussion originally centered around the commercial coastal line fishery targeting spawning aggregations of black jewfish but has now morphed into a discussion about bag limits. Thanks for stepping in and clarifying this Ronje. After reading 5 pages of this I am still scratching my head wondering how this got to 5 pages of discussion without someone calling fisheries to clarify confusion over bag limits and wording?

Ghound, weren't you at the AFANT AGM? I know Steve Matthews from fisheries explained bag limits very clearly and was happy to answer any questions

No I didn't end up going to last years meeting now that you mention it I also didn't go to

Ballet association of the NT AGM
Red wine association of Katherine Gala ball
Bird watchers association car wash
German whale watchers AGM

Must be something in that? Lucky Ronje is around to clarify everything...... might have went to ten pages.

My apologies ghound, I distinctly remember reading on the forum you were going to attend the AGM.
There's always next year I guess.

I'm nothing if not memorable

tristan.sloan wrote:I understand this discussion originally centered around the commercial coastal line fishery targeting spawning aggregations of black jewfish but has now morphed into a discussion about bag limits. Thanks for stepping in and clarifying this Ronje. After reading 5 pages of this I am still scratching my head wondering how this got to 5 pages of discussion without someone calling fisheries to clarify confusion over bag limits and wording?

Ghound, weren't you at the AFANT AGM? I know Steve Matthews from fisheries explained bag limits very clearly and was happy to answer any questions

Point taken re the explanation at the meeting and I was indeed at that meeting. My problem at the meeting was that I was dumbstruck that the 5 to 7 and the over 8 brigade ( charter boats ) were still able to take 15 fish for every person they had on board thus regardless of composition 15 punters x 15 fish is still pretty much business as usual. I thought before the meeting bombshell it was a straight out max 8 x 15 no matter if you had 115 people on board. The problem with asking steve for his opinion (and I will contact him as soon as I have the detail) is its going to be just that, his opinion. His heart is in the right place and we are fortunate to have him but listening at the meeting I see that the heart position seems to be out on his sleeve a little as he is understandably passionate on the matter. The truth of it would be that Steve didn't write the legislation final draft but I warrant he had a very heavy hand in the promotional material which leaves me wondering about the idiological position of the answer that will come from the department. But realistically if he allows that answer to be on the record let's see what it is before any further dissection or criticism. The other thing I hasten to point out I didn't bring any names directly into this disscussion as to the reflection of fisheries position , it may not be something he can comment on.
As to the topic morphing they have a habit of that but to get the cards on the table this is precisely where I was hoping the wind would take the ship we sure weren't going to breath life back into the slaughtered jewfish. I can live with whatever changes they make I just want to be clear what they are and have them applied unilaterally to rec and FTO sectors. Thanks for your help with making contact Tristan.
PS don't worry about Ghound you won't win him over but you have a moved the bar up a lot further than any of your predecessors were ever able to.