pdf 3.5 meg - Fishers For Conservation

Transcription

Fix our Fisheries! The science and fishery management
considerations underpinning the need in North Queensland to
control fishing effort by region and to introduce net free zones
(NFZs)
This report presents a series of articles by the author which were published in the popular fishing
press between 2012 and 2014. It is intended as an easy-read, simple summary, in layman’s terms, of
the science behind the need for better management of gill netting in North Queensland.
Minor editorial changes have been made to the articles to bring them up to date.
A bibliography has been appended, listing 18 of the most relevant scientific and other published
specialist reports. These clearly indicate significant management change to the ECIFFF is
biologically, legally, economically, socially and morally long overdue.
The bibliography provides brief summaries of some of the most relevant scientific findings and
conclusions presented in each publication which point to the need for urgent action by Fisheries
Queensland which of course must be supported by strong political leadership.
The report is prepared pro bono as an independent background document for the Minister for
Agriculture and Fisheries, the Hon. Bill Byrne. It is also intended for free circulation on social
media to improve awareness of the need to “FIX OUR FISHERIES” as soon as possible.
By
David C. Cook
1
BSc (Hons ), Post Grad Dp Tropical and Temperate Fisheries Management (ODA, UK)
Retired Coastal Fisheries Specialist (Indo-pacific)
Contact: davecook@bigpond.com
Date: 21 April 2015
Contents (Ctrl+click to follow link) & Summaries of Articles
Foreword
............................................................................................................................3
STOP PRESS: Statement from Fisheries Minister Hon. Bill Byrne on NFZs ......................... 5
Article 1.
Barramundi size limits & big old fecund females (BOFFS) ......................... 6
Explains the features of the biology of barramundi that render the species particularly
susceptible to overfishing under the present fishery management regime. It shows how
heavy human fishing pressures, concentrating on the larger individuals, inevitably lead to
declining maximum sizes reached by individual fish. The prospect is raised of FQ overseeing
an intergenerational crime if they allow the present management regime to continue.
Article 2.
Threadfin at risk of localised extinction? ................................................... 10
Threadfin share similar features of their biology with barramundi but worse still, they die
quickly in gillnets; most undersize and BOFFs cannot be released alive when caught in nets.
Also they are not protected by a closed season over their entire breeding period, spawning
runs and aggregations are targeted by netters. Like barramundi and possibly other species,
they have discrete populations limited to given estuary systems and adjacent turbid waters
near the coast. With uncontrolled fishing effort, local stocks may be lost forever.
Article 3.
Is the inshore fishery of NQ sustainable? .................................................. 12
A once-rich fishery with similar species to NQ was wiped out in Hong Kong but the area still
has a “sustainable” fishery of very small fast maturing species. Concerns are raised that
current levels of gillnetting in NQ risk eliminating some of the same species that were lost to
overfishing in Hong Kong. It also warns that the 2014 Queensland gillnet buyback program
alone is insufficient to solve our problem of overfished, depleted inshore fish stocks.
Article 4.
A closer look at our inshore fishery ........................................................... 18
The implications of “sustainable” are discussed. In QLD the administration is unable to
control who fishes where and by how much. They fail to provide any incentive for fishers to
husband a given area. Allowing part-time commercial netters risks subsidising heightened
levels of overfishing when full-time fishers would have pulled out because of poor returns.
Proof is given that 4 vulnerable species are targeted during their spawning period by netters.
Article 5.
Misinformed, misguided and downright unsustainable. ........................... 23
Gillnet management is discussed and technical terms are explained in readily
understandable language, including effort creep, CPUE, hyperstability, serial stock depletion
and the use of previously discarded species. A question is posed: “when is unsustainable
assessed as ‘sustainable’ by the authorities?” Think "garbage in, garbage out".
Article 6.
Gillnetting in the GBRMP: urgent change recommended ......................... 29
Three basic concepts are presented: (i) inshore stocks in NQ are limited to relatively small
sizes because coastal catchments are relatively small in comparison to Asia's; (ii) gillnetting
is operating at unsustainable levels relative to stock size: bigger boats and more nets per
operator will make matters much worse; (iii) focus must change from right-of-access by
netters to recovery of fish stocks. Recommendations include regional management of fishing
effort, no part-timers, some net free zones and introduction of recreational fishing licences.
Article 7.
Regular claims by the commercial sector: comebacks & concepts ........ 35
Underlying truths demolish the often heard claim that our inshore fishery is working at below
its potential in relation to fish stocks and markets because of unnecessary restrictions. Far
more benefits will be gained by communities if local stocks are allowed to recover and
managed for the benefit of those communities. Result: more fish caught with higher returns
to communities and more fresh seafood becoming available. Continuing as we are will mean
Fix our Fisheries! The science and fishery management considerations underpinning the need in North
Queensland to control fishing effort by region and to introduce net free zones (NFZs).
21.04.2015
2
continuing loss of jobs and more seriously depleted inshore fish stocks, risking irreplaceable
loss of local populations, thereby repeating mistakes of collapsed fisheries the world over.
Article 8.
Grey mackerel sustainably fished? ............................................................ 40
Covers the collapse of the Bowen grey mackerel fishery following heavy netting of Raywards
Reef as documented by De Lacey. Other areas are listed where stocks of grey mackerel,
apparently local to the area appear to have been decimated by netting. The GBRMPA
vulnerability study on grey mackerel and the Poseidon study on grey mackerel are
summarised. A summary of a letter to the then fisheries minister is given.
Article 9.
Minister McVeigh’s admission a shocker! ................................................. 47
A letter in reply (see above) from the LNP fishery minister admits, quote: “stock status is
determined for the whole state, not by region, although there may be some regional
impacts on some stocks”. The shocking and unacceptable implications are discussed.
Fundamental flaws in FQ’s “Framework for defining Stock Status” are identified. Potential
solutions are outlined and a further request is made to the minister.
Article 10.
Concerns over Minister Mcveigh’s 2nd reply on grey mackerel ................ 51
An explanation is given of how grey mackerel are being placed at risk of the same level of
serial depletion of stocks as was suffered by the North Atlantic cod fishery towards the end
of the last century. The competencies of FQ staff who decided that grey mackerel are fished
according to the principles of ecologically sustainable development are challenged. The
problem is discussed at greater detail than in previous articles.
Article 11.
At long last, a review of fisheries management in Queensland ............... 55
The announcement of a review of QLD inshore fisheries is greeted with enthusiasm and
relief. It is noted that adequate time must be allowed for the review and there will be
insufficient time to complete it to the required standard before the election due in early 2015.
Article 12.
The proposed Fisheries Review: congratulations cancelled?.................. 58
The unexpected short period of 14 days for advertising the Review consultancy and for
prospective consultants to lodge their tenders is strongly criticised and certain rumours are
aired. The minister’s reply is summarised and his concerns addressed. He states that he will
“complete a framework for fisheries management prior to the next election. Queenslanders
will then have the opportunity to decide if they wish to support the proposed framework or
not”. Almost 3 months after the 2015 State election there are still no indications of the
results. What is holding up the release of the Review as promised by the previous minister?
Article 13.
Is GBRMPA failing our fish? Draft Strategic Assessment rejected .......... 63
The draft Strategic Assessment by GBRMPA, available for comment over the Christmas break until
31 January 2014 fell short of required standard. It demonstrated clearly that the information relayed to
them from various LMACs and their own vulnerability assessments on e.g. grey mackerel and
threadfin, is ignored. The article gives only an outline of GBRMPA’s omissions; a full response to the
Draft is available at: www.FFC.org.au, and http://bit.ly/1iEYegt. This led to my resignation in despair
from the Douglas LMAC after 7 years of dutiful, regular attendance including a period as secretary.
14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 18 scientific papers, fisheries status reports and independent studies
with summaries of their key relevant findings and conclusions ............................................................ 66
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 77
21.04.2015
3
Foreword
Until recently we thought the battle was won, that we, as the “Smart State” had progressed to the third
stage of events as described by 19th. Century Philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
third it is accepted as being self-evident."
Just before the State elections in 2012, it appeared all fisheries sectors had accepted as self-evident
the fact that gill netting of our coastal fisheries was unsustainable at current levels, that inshore fish
stocks were depleted, gillnetting was becoming increasingly unprofitable and gillnetting effort required
to be reduced by around 50%.
Now the urgent need for net free zones (NFZs) in small, limited key areas is again strongly opposed
by the propagation of misleading misinformation and exaggerated claims. There have been calls from
the commercial sector “Where is the Science?” The reply is:”What you don’t look for you don’t find.”
Here finally is the science, in easy-read format, presented under one cover with key references.
Worse still, erroneous claims from some in the commercial sector are supported by the political
opposition, apparently for misguided political expediency. After all, they had full access to the findings
of a 2014 review of fisheries management in Queensland before losing the election (Articles 11 & 12).
A commercial fisher has been quoted by the press as describing me as a “radical ratbag who only
wants to keep the Douglas Shire grey mackerel for him and his mates”. I was described as something
similar in an article in the QSIA magazine and I have even attacked by an ex-QF fisheries manager as
having produced a fake photograph for a poster promoting one aspect of sustainable fishing.
Perhaps, since I have been attacked by both sides in what now risks degenerating into a conflict
between recreational and commercial fishers, I am actually taking a carefully considered middle
course to promote what we have to promote: sustainable fishing for all sectors, recreational, charter
and commercial, providing lasting benefits to local communities.
In 1980, Former Fisheries Advisers to the Overseas Development Administration of the British
Government, Dr Dennis Hall and Dr John Stoneman, selected me out of a “short list of six very strong
candidates” for a national scholarship on full government salary to undertake two years of postgraduate study of tropical fisheries management for developing Commonwealth Countries.
Thirty five years on, I find myself responding to the mismanagement of a gillnet fishery run only to
third world standards within the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In this respect
Queensland retains a fisheries management regime more akin to a developing third world country
rather than the self-proclaimed “Smart State”.
As I demonstrated in my written defence of the erroneous claim that I had faked a photograph about
bycatch, the level of technical knowledge of fisheries in Far North Queensland held by certain
fisheries administrators in the South-east is apparently low. In Article 9, I detail how their ‘Framework
for determining stock status’ is fundamentally flawed and grossly inadequate.
It almost seems that we may require a generational change before the ingrained but misguided beliefs
held by those in the commercial and administrative sectors who still cannot accept the science and
the logic, finally leave the sector. But we cannot afford to wait that long; by then it will be too late.
Because of the lack of checks and balances in the management of coastal fisheries in Queensland,
we are at risk of losing discrete local populations of certain species of our inshore fish. When this
happens an intergenerational crime will have been allowed, if not committed, by our fisheries
administrators. A class action may need to be taken out against the state (as in USA, see Article 5).
Why are more fisheries professionals not speaking out? The answer may be lack of awareness,
apathy or simply that they have mortgages to pay. Jobs in fisheries are few and far between. Having
been in the system for around 30 years, I am aware of the pressures on people to tow the line if they
are to progress in their chosen field, whether with government or as private consultants.
My wife and I wish our grandchildren and community as a whole, to have a good chance of “catching
a feed” of decent sized fish from our inshore waters in days to come. My mortgage is paid off, I’ve
retired from paid fisheries work and so do not have to kowtow to anyone.
I have a conscience and what is right under my nose here in Far North Queensland, is “self-evident”.
21.04.2015
4
STOP PRESS
Statement dated 16 April, 2015 from ALP Fisheries Minister Hon. Bill Byrne
Impact of net-free zones on availability of fish will be limited
With one-on-one consultation under way with commercial fishers in the three new net-free
fishing zones proposed by the Palaszczuk Government, the Minister for Agriculture and
Fisheries says it is time for scare tactics to cease.
“For a number of months now there has been an orchestrated campaign of misinformation
from some of those who are opposed to the establishment of the net-free zones,” Minister
Byrne said.
“There are some wild accusations out there, but the reality is that between 2012 and 2014
the average annual catch from the net-free zones proposed for Cairns, Mackay and the
Capricorn Coast/Fitzroy River was 7.5% of the 4,325 tonnes total east coast net catch in
Queensland.
“Log book returns suggest that only 60 licence holders spent at least one day net fishing in
the proposed zones between 2012 and 2015 out of 412 net licence holders eligible to fish
there.
“It is important that everyone involved in this process has a sense of perspective and an
understanding of the facts. “There is no proposal to exclude commercial trawling, crabbing or
line fishing from the zones.
“So while we expect that some commercial fishers will be affected, the impact on commercial
fishing, and the availability of locally caught fish and seafood, will be limited.
“In Mackay, the average take of all species in the proposed zone is a mere 0.64% of the total
east coast catch. “On that basis there will not be a shortage of fish at the local shops.
“The net-free zones were an election commitment and recognition that there is an
opportunity to boost recreational fishing which is already worth $400 million to the
Queensland economy.
“Of course, removing certain types of net fishing is done from the locations where
commercial fishing occurs. “That’s why we are focused on consultation first, and action
based on that consultation.
“I believe that once the zones are established in these three strategic areas, there will be
significant benefits to local economies through tourism linked to recreational fishing and
charter fishing.”
Member for Mackay Julieanne Gilbert said she hoped the release of facts would ease public
fears about the availability of local fish. “I have no doubt that the proposed zone will be a
boon to our tourism industry and now consultation with commercial fishers is under way I
hope the scaremongering will stop,” she said.
“It is clear to me from the statistics that once net fishing has been banned from the zone, the impact
on fish supplies will be negligible.”
Adrian Taylor
Senior Media Advisor
Office of the Hon. Bill Byrne MP
Minister for the Agriculture and Fisheries and Sport and Racing
21.04.2015
5
Article 1.
Barramundi size limits & big old fecund females (BOFFS)
The writer of an “Ask Fisheries” letter printed in April 2012’s edition of a North Queensland
recreational fishing magazine made some really good points, e.g. “Why take barra over 100
cm in size when they are such valuable members of the breeding stock and often not really
the best eating?” The writer also noted that having a bag limit of five fish is a joke. Most
people would not challenge the latter observations as it would be an absolutely outstanding
day for any angler to land five legal barra in one day in the heavily fished waters of North
Queensland, at least until you go well past Cooktown.
Big Old Fecund Females (BOFFs)
I was disappointed with the response from the government fisheries manager who displayed
an apparent lack of detailed knowledge of fish biology. He missed a golden opportunity to
explain some important but inconvenient
facts
about
barramundi
biology
and
fisheries management. These were highly
relevant to the final questions posed: “Are
barra of 120 cm still viable brood stock?
Do they add to the fishery or are we just
protecting really big predators already
approaching the end of their lifespan?”
Records show that barra used to reach
180 cm and are said to have been
“common at 120 cm”! Those were the
days!
It is highly likely that any barra at 120 cm is what is known in fisheries management terms as
a BOFF – a Big Old Fecund Female, a highly valued member of the spawning sisterhood.
Fecundity is the term for how many eggs or offspring an animal produces. It is a generally
accepted principle in fish, that for most species, larger individuals spawn proportionally more
eggs than smaller females of the same species. This is summed up in the mermaid and
scales diagram1 above which has done the round of fisheries management circles for years.
The mermaid is holding up scales showing one red snapper on one pan and then a great
pile of red snapper in the other pan. Obviously the total weight of all the smaller fish is far
1
This one taken from Plan Development Team, 1990, The potential of marine reserves for reef fish management
in the US Southern Atlantic. NOAA technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-261, 40p.
21.04.2015
6
greater than the one fish in the other pan. The strange thing is that the scales balance. The
reason is because the mermaid is measuring fecundity.
The numbers given in the mermaid sketch are based on an American red snapper, quite
similar to our Nannygai. The fecundity of one 62 cm (12.5 kg) female American red snapper
in one year is around 9,300,000 eggs, same as 212 females at 42 cm length (1.1 kg each).
Something similar has been shown for barramundi, in short, what the Fisheries guy should
have mentioned in response to the very important questions, was that the more barra
BOFFs around to spawn huge numbers of eggs, the better.
Survival of barra from egg stage to maturity
Don’t be confused into thinking ‘well if they lay that many eggs, we don’t need many females
to replace the wild fish we catch’. That is not at all the case! That may only apply in
aquaculture, where conditions for survival are maintained as nearly perfect as possible. In
the wild, survival rates from a single spawning to adult fish, as far as I am aware, have rarely
if ever been measured for commercially-fished species in the wild – that’s probably one for
the too-hard basket!
In practice, with increasingly unfavourable conditions these days, survival of individuals to
spawning age from a single spawning event of 9 million eggs by one fish may be as little as
zero. It’s a tough life as a larval or undersize fish that must first survive in the fishery for
several years as a male! (See later.) The more BOFFs in the system the better, presumably
up to certain undetermined limits.
Sizes of barramundi in the fishery
The response to the original question posed in the
magazine should also have mentioned another very
good reason for having a maximum as well as a
minimum legal size limit for keeping captured fish
which rarely gets an airing. This is summed up by a
similar old diagram to the one above, showing the
effects of fishing in contrast to natural selection in the
wild.
In the “Wild” it is fish eat fish – dangerous to be small
and the bigger you are, the more chance you have of
surviving. So it is most advantageous to be large.
21.04.2015
7
If there is no fishing by humans, the larger a fish is, the more chance it may have of
surviving. As discussed above, fish reaching a large size are likely to leave more offspring
than small fish.
The opposite occurs in an intensive commercial and recreational fishery where normally,
the biggest fish are targeted. There is an advantage for the species to breed at a small size,
i.e. get at least one lot of spawn away before they are taken by the fishery.
There is likely to be a natural variability in maximum size and also size at first spawning
amongst individuals of any one species. If all or most of those fish with the genes for late
spawning and the biggest size are killed off before their first spawning, it is suggested that
this will account for a gradual reduction in average size of fish in the fishery.
So there we have two very good reasons to forget about trophy fish hunting and let the
BOFFs live to spawn another day. A third critical reason is because ALL the big barramundi
are likely to be productive females as described below.
Sex change
The third issue fisheries managers must contend with in NQ is that the minimum legal take
barramundi size in the East Coast fishery is currently 58cm, sometimes being quoted as “the
length at first breeding”. Well hold on, a whole lot of sperm floating around without eggs is
not going to do much good! All the small barra over 58 cm are males.
Barra do not mature as adult females until the age of 6 to 8 years, and only after undergoing
a sex reversal change, having previously been males. By the time they undergo the sex
change they are normally over 85cm in length. Even some commercial netters with whom I
have spoken have said they were unaware of this rather startling and most inconvenient fact.
This means all, or virtually all barramundi legally caught in the fishery at lengths between 58
to 84 cm are males. The implication is that in order to spawn, a barramundi must survive as
a “legally-takeable” fish in the fishery for a number of years before ever reaching the life
stage when they can spawn.
Finally there is a fourth aspect of their biology that it is vital to appreciate if stocks are to be
managed at sustainable levels. Scientific studies have shown there are at least six distinctly
different, non-mixing genetic stocks or populations of barramundi in Queensland.
The discrete nature of the genetic stock is proof of very little if any immigration of barramundi
from different regions whether as adults, eggs or fry. It is therefore unlikely that the
population would be restocked naturally with fish specially adapted to that locality by
migration from any neighbouring region.
21.04.2015
8
Restocking with barramundi fingerlings from fish farms is unfortunately not a good option
because of the likely inadequate genetic make-up of the fingerlings. The simple answer is
that good fisheries science does not consider affordable restocking from fish farms a
satisfactory solution to overfishing of natural populations. It is of course an excellent
proposition for stocking impoundments such as Lake Tinaroo.
Queensland’s current inadequate management of inshore fisheries effort allows a serious
risk of overfishing of any of the six or more stocks in QLD to the level of localised extinction,
When, not if, this occurs to a given stock, Queensland Fisheries will have allowed what
amounts to an intergenerational crime against that local community which would have lost
their locally specialised barramundi stock, possibly forever.
The implication of this is that the Queensland State government is legally required to ensure
responsible and sustainable fisheries and hence prevent such overfishing from occurring in
the first place. The State will be laying itself open to a class action by the public, as indeed
was successfully carried out in the USA, if they allow continuing stock depletion.
In regions where numbers of barramundi are down and fishing pressure is significant, FQ
need to take a long, hard look at a range of management alternatives required to ensure the
locally observed, on-going depletion of barramundi stocks is halted and indeed reversed in
view of the above most inconvenient and relatively recent scientific findings.
The issue is how to ensure sufficient males survive in the fishery for a number of years long
enough to eventually undergo their sex change and join the BOFF sisterhood. This requires
regulation of fishing effort, still a complex task which FQ have failed to effectively address.
Fishery managers’ nightmare
Barramundi may be a dream fish to catch but they are a nightmare to manage once their
numbers drop to dangerously low levels. In short it is essential that FQ introduces as soon
as possible, state-of-the-art management for this species in any region where barramundi
have significantly declined.
This must include appropriate management of the overall netting effort. This is likely to
require removing licences from part-time netters and restricting genuine full-time fishers to
their own local region. This would then give them the incentive to carefully husband, rather
than overfish the resources they are permitted to exploit.
Net Free Zones (NFZs)
The introduction of at least some Net Free Zones (NFZs) in key locations, particularly around
important urban centres would be an excellent start and go a long way to preventing the
21.04.2015
9
already steep decline in Barramundi numbers witnessed in such areas from progressing to
localised extinction and so prevent what is described above as an inter-generational crime.
Article 2.
Threadfin at risk of localised extinction?
Did you know that king threadfin along the east coast of Australia used to reach 1.7 metres
length and weights of around 45 kg? The species is of course restricted to our estuaries,
lower sections of our rivers and over the adjacent muddy sea bed of our inshore waters from
the Cape York down to Brisbane and also along the shores in the estuaries in the Gulf of
Carpentaria.
Scientific studies indicate that at 82.5 cm, the king threadfin in the above photograph would
have been around 6 to 8 years of age. This individual was the largest caught in the Daintree
Region that year (2013) by a local gillnetter following the start of the barramundi season. As
shown, she was bearing half formed roe suggesting she would have spawned probably in
late February or March, well outside of any netting closure.
Changing sex
Like barramundi, most king threadfin change from male to female as they grow older: i.e.
they are protandrous hermaphrodites. Interestingly, researchers have shown that the size at
which they change sex varies from region to region.
Believe it or not, most king threadfin of the size in the above photograph would be too young
and too small to change to female in some regions such as the Fitzroy. Studies by David
Welch and colleagues have shown that by the time King threadfin in the Fitzroy region have
reached 1.14 metres in length they will be on average 9.7 years old and only 50% of them
will have taken the plunge and changed to females.
The implication is that most have to survive for around ten years before being old enough to
spawn. At least in North Queensland, this makes a mockery of the present legal size limit of
21.04.2015
10
60 cm. if, as the Fisheries administration claims, this limit is based on the need to “let fish
spawn at least once before you can catch and keep them”.
It would be interesting to learn whether they spawn at much smaller sizes towards Brisbane
where the fishing pressure may well be more intense than in NQ.
Netting of spawning aggregations
King threadfin aggregate to spawn at traditional sites around estuaries both during and
outside of the barramundi season. This means that their spawning aggregations and
spawning runs can be targeted by gillnetters, both offshore and inshore netters, before the
fish have the opportunity to spawn.
Small, localised populations vulnerable to extinction
The scientific studies reveal more disturbing findings. Welch and 10 other co-researchers
show that the species, at least after recruitment, do not move between isolated estuary
systems where these are separated from other estuaries by stretches of clean water and
sand, rock or reef .
There is therefore a high risk that if one area is allowed to be fished out, the local gene pool,
uniquely adapted to the local conditions, may be lost forever. Thousands of years of
adapting to the locality will be squandered including their “genetic memory” and learned,
passed down experience of the locations of suitable spawning sites and spawning runs.
Fisheries management of gillnetters in Queensland is so inadequate that netters from
anywhere on the East Coast are free to target any small isolated spawning aggregations,
which are usually adjacent to estuaries, in any area along the entire coastline open to
gillnetting. There is still no effective means of limiting their range of operations or their catch.
Quite simply there are no adequate checks and balances in place to avoid the risk of the
species being fished to local extinction in any given area other than in Net Free Zones
(NFZs).
It is a similar story for their smaller and less colourful cousin, the blue threadfin.
Their vulnerability to gillnets is such that they die within a few minutes of being meshed. Bait
netting and prawn drag netting also take substantial numbers of juvenile threadfin from
around 6 to 10 cm. There is little chance of releasing these alive from a prawn drag netting
whether or not they become enmeshed. The vast majority of juvenile threadfin hauled in by a
drag net / bait net, in my experience, simply do not survive the trauma.
21.04.2015
11
The need for regional management and Net Free Zones
All this is a sad reflect on the “Smart State’s” fisheries management regulations and the
claims that the East Coast Inshore Finfish Fishery (ECIFF) is managed along sustainable
lines.
Recent scientific findings such as those just discussed, clearly demonstrate a need for
regional fisheries management, probably even on a local catchment basis and a need for
Net Free Zones (NFZs) around at least a selection of estuaries.
Currently king and blue threadfin rank second to barramundi as the species with the largest
annual gillnet take. But without adequate checks and balances on these clearly very
vulnerable species, for how long will they remain this plentiful and how long before the more
vulnerable of populations are progressively wiped out? Indeed, how many localities have
already had their local populations of the species wiped out? We do not know because the
research effort as a result of limited funding has been inadequate.
In the author’s opinion it will be eventually seen as an intergenerational crime if the
authorities fail to introduce the very necessary checks and balances required to halt and
reverse the ongoing decline of many of our very vulnerable inshore species.
Such management measures will almost certainly have to include NFZs (Net Free Zones)
on the most vulnerable of spawning and nursery grounds.
The public is still waiting to learn how does last year’s Review of Queensland’s Fisheries
Management respond to this dilemma? Did the consultants ever get to dig this deep?
For more information about research findings on threadfin, both king and blue, Fishers for
Conservation has posted the main research report on King (and Blue) threadfin on their
webpage. This can be quickly accessed at: http://bit.ly/OJTkom.
Article 3.
Is the inshore fishery of NQ sustainable?
A friend was in a meeting on marine matters in Cairns recently when the Chair said that if he
heard the word “sustainable” again he would crack up. He said different people imply
different things when they use it and it had become just another overworked buzzword.
I could see where he was coming from – as a fisheries officer in Hong Kong in the 1990’s I
observed an inshore fishery that some thought could keep on going for ever. It targeted
abundant small, fast-growing, fast-maturing anchovies and sprats in nutrient rich coastal
waters.
21.04.2015
12
There was always plenty of these small pelagics. They bred so fast people just assumed the
fishery would be sustainable. The catch was sold off the back of the boat direct to the
mariculture industry (see photos below) and, until I came along, had slipped under the radar,
never having been examined by the authorities.
The method was pair trawling, two boats towing a large net over muddy bottom in inshore
waters. Interestingly China did not permit that method in their adjacent coastal waters but to
my consternation the British authorities in Hong Kong had just turned a blind eye.
Fresh from working in the relatively pristine waters of PNG, I learned there were no detailed
records of the recent catches from Hong Kong waters. I suggested to my employers, the HK
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, maybe we should take a look at what the pair
trawlers and indeed other boats in local waters were catching.
Just for a trial run, we boarded a pair-trawler as it completed hauling its net. We found they
were using a 1.2 cm stretched mesh cod-end (bag at the end of the trawl net).They were
catching just about everything in the water column from under two centimetres in length and
larger. They fished in inshore waters down to depths of around 3 metres so nothing was
spared.
My onboard samplings of catches revealed landings were not just small pelagics but
juveniles of larger pelagics such as trevally and also juveniles of bottom dwelling commercial
species including bream, grouper, croaker, golden-thread and several others. This bycatch
had never previously been examined. Naturally the mariculture people never complained
about a little variety in the fish feed they bought.
So even if fishing the anchovies and sprats was “sustainable”, what was this method doing
to numbers of larger fish in local inshore waters – if indeed there were any left? Where were
the breeders, the parents of the fingerlings of commercial species I found in the bycatch?
21.04.2015
13
A wonderful old book, published in 1940, which I found in our library archives, illustrates 8
fish species that were common in Hong Kong waters and the local markets at that time at
over three feet in length and several more which were common at over two feet. These
included barramundi, then locally called sea bass which was “common any size up to 5 ft 6
inches”!
It seemed to me to be a good idea to find out how these were surviving the pair trawl fishery.
I drew up a project to sample the commercial catches of all types of fishing vessels whilst
they were fishing HK waters. The good old Hong Kong Jockey Club came up with the
funding so we bought a dinghy, a 40 hp outboard and got started.
My team of two Cantonese technicians and I buzzed around the waters of the New
Territories on the dinghy one day a week, over several months and went alongside or
boarded a total of 105 fishing boats whilst they were actively fishing.
21.04.2015
14
We recorded their commercial catches and interviewed the skippers. We covered smallscale gillnetters, handliners, longliners, and cage trappers mostly using dinghies and also
boarded various larger trawlers.
We never encountered any fish over 50 cm in length in those 105 commercial catches!
You’ll find this hard to believe but the more common species we sampled averaged out at
lengths of around 10 to 15 cm – four to six inches in the old lingo. That included one species
of grouper which we also get here in FNQ, the brown-barred rock cod also known as the
brown coral cod (see below, showing ripening roe).
This species, also common on inshore reefs in FNQ, is sexually mature in Hong Kong
waters by one year old at around 10 cm in length and transforms to a hulky male before
reaching 20 cm! It never reaches Queensland’s minimum legal size for rock cod, so despite
fully mature fish being excellent eating, they are afforded 100% protection, much to the
frustration of my wife, who keeps catching and having to release them!
The 1940 Hong Kong fish book says that in addition to barramundi, king threadfin “reaches 6
ft” and jewfish “common size 3 to 4 feet”, a migratory mackerel was “common at 2 to 3 feet
and reaches 5 feet”. Where were these fish? According to the fishermen we interviewed, the
answer was simple, there just weren’t any left. They had long since been fished out.
The skippers we interviewed considered any juveniles of the larger species that were in the
bycatch must have drifted in on the current from nearby Chinese waters, where, you will
recall, inshore pair trawling was not allowed.
The trawlermen were not particularly bothered by the presence of bycatch fingerlings as they
considered they had a “sustainable” fishery and were paid good money by the mariculture
industry for anything they caught.
21.04.2015
15
The small boats may also have had a “sustainable” fishery as they targeted those few small,
fast maturing species such as rabbitfish, rockfish and brown-barred rock cod that abound in
Hong Kong’s nutrient rich waters along the rocky coastline, out of reach of trawlers.
The small boat owners made their money by delivering live, plate-sized fish, (we are talking
small plates here) in large numbers direct to selected restaurants or their nominated buyers.
Ours became the pilot study for a subsequent much larger one that indicated virtually all the
large fish illustrated in the old book I found in the archives had become locally extinct
throughout Hong Kong waters. Despite this, Hong Kong still had flourishing fisheries that
appeared “sustainable” despite the absence of these previously preferred species.
My conclusion from that experience was that if you are going to describe whether a fishery is
sustainable you need to include a description of what species and stock levels you wish to
maintain.
In North Queensland, most of us who have fished in the same estuary or adjacent inshore
waters over many years have witnessed an on-going decline in availability and sizes of our
larger fish. Even a boom and bust cycle in the case of grey mackerel.
Are we going to be satisfied with eventually being able to catch just bream, flathead and
whiting? If not, we are going to have to make a real effort to halt and reverse the decline we
are observing.
Last year (i.e. 2012) at this time, just before the election, state politicians appeared to be
listening to those of us who have been pointing this out for years.
They finally accepted there were too many gillnets in use. Overnight, after years of denials, it
became politically correct to recognize that the Queensland east coast inshore gillnet fishery
was in trouble, and by implication, not operating “sustainably” (despite a recent assessment
by the Feds in Canberra that it was).
So much public pressure had built up prior to the election that something had to be done.
Authorities being in denial no longer cut the mustard: the pollies laid down the law and a
gillnet buyback was announced.
LNP proceeded with phase one of the gillnet buyback; but at the end of it all, and the
expenditure of the $9 million allocated, will we have a sustainable inshore fishery? As we
have just seen, firstly, that of course largely depends on what you mean by “sustainable”.
Secondly, unless limits are placed on where individual fishers fish and total catches in any
given locality are tailored to the productivity of that locality, there will be ongoing risks of
localised extinction of the most vulnerable, larger species.
21.04.2015
16
It goes without saying that in North Queensland no-one wants any estuary or region to lose,
like Hong Kong did, any of our key iconic species, which incidentally just so happen to be the
very species Hong Kong used to share with us.
As recognized above, even after the 2014 buyback of gillnets, the danger of localised
extinctions of the more vulnerable species will continue. Have collated local observations up
and down the coast and reviewed some recent scientific findings, my conclusion is that there
will still be serious risks to some larger fish species in many areas unless significant changes
are made to the east coast inshore fishery.
A summary of some of the recommended necessary changes are explained in more detail
in one of our reports at: http://www.ffc.org.au/Grey_Mackerel.html, namely “Bones of
Contention: improved management of inshore fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park would benefit fishing and tourism sectors in FNQ” conveniently located by
using this URL http://bit.ly/1n0zoNj.
Other reports such as “A Review of Concerns relating to the offshore gillnet fishery in
the inshore waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in relation to the Guidelines
for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries, with recommendations for
early intervention” available at: http://bit.ly/1gWjf43, outline the major significant risks to all
our larger inshore species as a result of inadequate control of gillnetting. One of the more
obvious is allowing unrestricted netting of spawning fish.
Any doubting Thomases who challenge the availability of scientific evidence to back up our
published concerns or indeed the level of community angst in North Queensland about
declining stock levels and overfishing should refer to our report: “A community campaign
for sustainable inshore fishing.” It includes the main points from 18 references, available
at: http://bit.ly/1eohAGh, and also in the bibliography to this compilation of articles.
Local populations of threadfin, grey mackerel and fingermark and probably even barra and
others will remain at risk after buyback of gillnets is complete unless important changes are
made to the management of our inshore fishery.
In 2012 I wrote to the Hon. John McVeigh, Minister for DAFF to recommend 12 management
changes. A copy can also be found on the above website.
In the next article, as a follow-up to what we have discussed here, we shall take a closer
look at what the risks to fish stocks are under current management. In Article 6 we shall look
at what needs to be done to ensure the fishery is set on a sound course towards
sustainability at acceptable species composition and stock levels.
21.04.2015
17
Article 4.
A closer look at our inshore fishery
In the previous article I asked the question “Is our inshore fishery sustainable?” I was
referring in particular to the east coast commercial gillnet fishery. Under present regulations
and management, and given the failing health of our coastal ecosystems, I concluded that it
was not and used the example of how Hong Kong, despite still having an abundant fishery
based on small fish, and almost certainly due to inadequate fisheries management, has lost
all its larger inshore species. Many of these were the same species as are still found in the
inshore waters of NQ.
I also noted that findings from recent studies suggest that gillnetting risks causing the further
decline of at least some of our NQ best-known inshore fish, possibly to the point of local
extinction in some areas.
These conclusions do not imply that Queensland’s gillnetters themselves are at fault in any
way. Rather if there is any fault to assign, it lies squarely with the out-dated regulation and
management of the fishery.
Once we put some important facts on the table it is fairly obvious that some big changes are
necessary before the gillnet fishery could ever be properly certified as truly ‘sustainable’.
In this article we shall take a closer look at a number of issues on which I base these
conclusions. I trust that gillnetters will recognize that most of these refer to matters
beyond their control, unless they do the right thing and demand appropriate change.
Sustainable Fisheries
As a bit of a teaser I did not define what I meant by ‘sustainable fisheries’ last month. If you
look up the term you will find a number of definitions. For our purposes let’s not get too
bogged down with all the different definitions, but let’s cut to the chase.
Basically a sustainable fishery is one where the numbers and sizes of the fish involved do
not decline significantly over the years as a result of the fishing activities, the ecosystem and
their components are not damaged because of the fishing, and it causes no other adverse
impacts on current or future generations. Sure, there are still some shortcomings with this
description, but I trust you get the picture.
I suggest all the issues I raise below do need to be adequately addressed by the authorities
before the east coast gillnet fishery could be classified as sustainable by any competent,
independent and non-government authority.
Issues
Who fishes where?
21.04.2015
18
One of the most outstanding issues placing even the best-intentioned gillnetters between a
rock and a hard place is that gillnetters can set their nets anywhere along the East Coast
open to general gillnet fishing. This means that any attempt by local netters to look after local
resources is pointless when “out-of-towners” can come in and take the lot.
As authorities have no way of managing who fishes where and how much, current
regulations reward a "take it before someone else does" mentality. You can argue that this
also may be the case when a number of local netters compete with each other whilst fishing
the same area.
Biology
The authorities knew nothing about some critical aspects of the biology of inshore fish
species when the current fisheries regulations were developed. Recent findings regarding
the life cycles and movements of threadfin salmon and grey mackerel, for example, require a
review of the regulations and the necessary changes made.
Whilst there are seasonal fishing closures to protect spawning reef fish, there are no
closures, other than for barramundi, to protect other inshore species from gillnets whilst
spawning. I personally cut open and photographed all four species shown in this series of
articles and found them all to have developing roe, indicating spawning would have taken
place outside of the barra closure.
As far as is known, each of our larger inshore species comes together to spawn in schools
or ‘runs’ at predictable sites and times in relatively turbid inshore waters where they can
easily be netted. It is during these times that they are at the greatest risk of being overfished
21.04.2015
19
by gillnets. After spawning, the schools may break up as individuals or smaller groups and
spread out over much larger areas and so are more difficult to overfish.
There is nothing to legally stop the majority of gillnetters along the east coast of Queensland
turning up to fish a single spawning run for any of the four species and netting the entire
school before they spawn. And of course having nets dropped on them at intervals whilst
preparing to spawn is unlikely to be very good to their sex life!
Local, non-mixing populations
That sadly is not even half the problem. To complicate matters, species such as grey
mackerel and threadfin, just like barramundi, have recently been shown to live in separate
(non-mixing) localised populations occurring at intervals along the East Coast.
As an example of how this comes about, neither king nor blue salmon appear to venture into
clear water or over ‘clean’ sand or rock. This restricts their wanderings to particular estuary
systems and adjacent muddy waters separated from other estuary systems by ‘clean’ sandy
or rocky seabed.
Genetic studies have shown populations from separate estuary systems have been isolated
from each other for probably thousands of years, indicating there is not even transfer of eggs
or larval fish between them. For all we know, the same may be true for other inshore species
such as grunter, tripletail, queenfish, fingermark and permit, none of which have received the
same level of study.
If populations on spawning runs are ‘netted-out’ before they have had the chance to drop
their eggs, their numbers, just as for barramundi, will therefore not be topped-up by
immigration from other areas. Again, this may lead to long-term local depletion and even
extinction of that local population.
The collapse of the Bowen grey mackerel fishery on Rayward’s Reef in the 1970’s may well
be the first recorded case of the commercial extinction of one such localised population. It
took 40 years for good catches of greys to be made in the area but it is unknown hether they
21.04.2015
20
were of the same stock. In true boom and bust fashion, they ere again flogged by the gill
netters. Will the stock survive this time?
The apparent partial-collapse of the Douglas Region grey mackerel 2008 – 2010 could have
been total collapse if the out-of-town offshore netters had not heeded the local public outcry
and left the fishery alone after the 2007 season. It is predicted that now there has been a
partial recovery, bedlam will break loose if the netters return to the Douglas Shire grey
mackerel.
The complication of fish stocks being made up of different, non-mixing and undefined
regional populations turns into another Fisheries manager’s nightmare when we learn that
most individuals of key species such as barramundi and king threadfin do not become
female until over 80 cm in length at over seven years of age.
The minimum legal sizes for these species, as well as for e.g. grey mackerel, are well below
the size at first spawning – a big no-no in any fishery hoping to be described as sustainable.
It doesn’t stop there. As we all know, different species mature at different sizes. Four inch
gillnets are allowed in the fishery and are also used illegally. These can be expected to kill
countless numbers of undersized larger species. Undersize threadfin, for example, die
quickly in gillnets and bait nets, invariably before they can be released.
I’ll never forget the day my family and I meshed about 200 fingerling queenfish when drag
netting for bait – all died during or after their release. I’ve never used a drag net since. As
immatures of other larger species are also bound to die in quantities in both commercial bait
nets and recreational drag nets, it is hardly surprising that many of our inshore species are in
decline, even before we consider influences of changing environmental and ecosystem
conditions.
Part-timers
21.04.2015
21
As part-time commercial fishers may earn most of their income from other sources they can
subsidise their fishing to a high risk level over the long-term. Cashed up from other work,
they can afford to keep on netting when catches have fallen so low as to make it pointless
for fulltime fishers to continue.
Some part-time fishers have also apparently earned a reputation for only ‘pulse fishing’ when
the resource is most easily caught in good numbers, e.g. at the start of the barramundi
season, when the stock may still be gathered near the mouths of estuaries, or when other
fish are on spawning runs and therefore most vulnerable to overfishing.
Part-time gillnetters therefore also risk spoiling the fishery for full time fishers by taking the
cream that would otherwise keep fulltime fishers going throughout the season, flooding the
market with a glut of fish at peak seasons, resulting in reduced prices at such times.
Size of the fishery
In North Queensland our rivers are short (e.g. Daintree 120 km) and catchments small in
comparison to the size of Australia simply because the mountains come fairly close to the
coast in these parts. This translates into smaller nursery areas for juvenile fish and fewer
large inshore fish in and around our estuaries in comparison to the much longer rivers, larger
catchments and larger estuaries along much of Asia’s more nutrient rich coastal waters.
Whilst there may be an opportunity for a well-regulated, small-scale gillnet fishery in NQ, our
inshore waters certainly do not appear to have the potential to sustain a medium-sized or
industrial level gillnet fishery involving roving gillnetters moving up and down the East Coast
in addition to the local netters.
Way forward
Fisheries Queensland carried out a buyback of gillnet endorsements and fishing licences in
2014 with the aim of reducing gillnetting by around 50%. Even if this target was achieved,
many doubt whether this fishery could be certified as genuinely sustainable until the fisheries
regulations are amended to address the issues raised here.
In the following article I discuss how the authorities still manage to deny what to many
observers and participants in fishing in North Queensland recognize as ‘self-evident’. Article
6 examines what some of these changes should be and how they could benefit both those
gillnetters who remain in the fishery after the buyback and also recreational fishers.
21.04.2015
22
Article 5.
Misinformed, misguided and downright unsustainable.
If Australia’s fisheries are supposed to be amongst the best managed in the world, how
come it is so hard to catch a decent sized fish in our estuaries or off our beaches these days,
in comparison to say 15 to 20 years ago?
From what is discussed in the previous article, it would appear that gillnetting in our east
coast inshore finfish fishery (the ECIFF) is one of the worst managed fisheries in the country.
Despite government assurances that the fishery is sustainable, all the indicators point
towards the very opposite being the case.
By law, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act) the federal government must certify that all fisheries from which product is
exported is “... managed in an ecologically sustainable way”. In this article I discuss how
Brisbane and Canberra can possibly be so misinformed and misguided as to get it all so
wrong? How can they ignore or deny the ‘self-evident’?
The saying ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but not all of the people all of the time’ springs to mind. And you’ll be familiar with
another old saying: ‘set a thief to catch a thief’.
Well I have worked in various aspects of tropical fisheries research, development and
management for over 25 years for various government and other fisheries agencies. I have
also fished some of the most un-fished as well as some of the most overfished regions of the
world. I have come to know only too well the political pressures on bureaucrats and the
mistakes they can make when assessing the health of a fishery.
Let us take a look at the pitfalls the bureaucrats must avoid when considering the ECIFF in
the future, provided they are backed by the political will to do a proper job. If the political will
is lacking then why don’t we create it?
I shall also take the opportunity to explain here some important fisheries management jargon
for crucial but simple fisheries management concepts.
Dodgy Data
No jargon just here – there are also no incentives, no carrots and few sticks, checks and
balances in the ECIFF to ensure fishers accurately report their catches. To make matters
worse, little or no effort is made by the authorities to validate the majority of logbook records.
The result is that logbook data is considered by many, both in authority and industry alike. to
be of such poor quality as to be misleading. Inside sources claim many logbooks have a
remarkable level of under-reporting whilst in other cases there may even be over-reporting.
21.04.2015
23
A classic illustration of this was a couple of years ago at a public meeting in Mossman, when
an offshore gillnetter warned us not to close the inshore waters to netting of grey mackerel.
He predicted that if we did, a number of other netters would simply enter false figures in their
logbooks and demand compensation. That is how “flexible” some in industry consider their
data!
Effort Creep
This, the first real bit of jargon, covers the type of difference experienced between a night’s
catch by say, a one-man dinghy, using hand-hauled nets in the old days and his catches
today after he has up-graded to say a much larger more powerful live-aboard boat.
He may now be using 1200 m of hydraulically hauled nets and, thanks to the effort saving
haulers, can work them more effectively and for 24 hrs a day rather than just overnight.
Much better, more effective, less labour-intensive technology results in higher catches for
less effort - this is known as effort creep.
Over the years, catches were reported as catches/boat/day. No allowance was made for
size of boat or the ever-increasing use of a wide range of ever-improving technologies.
In the above photograph there are two commercial gillnetters; the dinghy on the right has its
commercial fishing licence number blanked out but its operator gillnet fishes only from
dinghies, laboriously and slowly hand-hauling a couple of 100m nets. Unsurprisingly he now
has a bad back. The red and white drum netter in the background, in marked contrast, uses
a relatively massive hydraulic drum winch, visible on the rear deck, to effortlessly and quickly
haul up to 1200m of net in one go. As soon as the net is hauled it can be re-set, and this
continued throughout the 24 hr cycle. When fishing, e.g. for grey mackerel on their spawning
grounds this can be continued until their cool storage facilities are full.
21.04.2015
24
The catch data is/was still recorded as catch per boat per day. This is an inexcusable state
of affairs, where no allowance was made for differences in catch potential between the two
sizes of boats. This is not the fault of the fishers themselves. It is however a sad reflection on
the quality of fisheries monitoring undertaken by the authorities.
Whilst some well-meaning netters may be returning good data, effort creep is another
reason why it is fatuous to directly compare modern day logbook data with older data.
Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) and hyperstability
When accurately compiled, the records just mentioned are known as Catch per Unit Effort
(CPUE). The unit of effort must take into account the size of the boat, the means of net
hauling, length, depth, mesh and material of the net used, the hours it is set and so on. You
would be forgiven for assuming that good CPUE data could help indicate whether fish
numbers are relatively constant or declining. Certainly some authorities appear to make this
assumption.
Be warned, as fisheries managers of countless collapsed stocks throughout the world have
witnessed, managing fish based on this assumption can prove disastrous if the fish are
netted as they gather in schools to breed. This is because of the often over-looked risk
known in fisheries jargon as hyper-stability.
Hyperstability is the misleading appearance of stability in target fish populations as
suggested by steady annual catches before an eventual sudden collapse. What actually
happens is like this: it is like taking the same amount of money out of your fixed bank deposit
every year when your withdrawal is more than the interest earned for the year.
How long you can keep withdrawing that same amount of cash will depend upon the starting
size of your deposit and the size of your withdrawal. One thing is for sure: you cannot
sustain the same withdrawals forever and will certainly run out of cash one day.
Those of our inshore species that can be netted during spawning (and that’s just about all of
them, other than barramundi provided the spawning closure dates are appropriate of course)
are susceptible to this type of a collapse. Grey mackerel and king threadfin may be
especially vulnerable when fished by the big drum netters such as the ones shown here.
Serial Stock depletion
This is more fisheries jargon for another very simple concept. A state-wide fishery may be
recording fairly consistent catches from year to year, (and remember there is no way of
determining whether the data returned are wildly out) whilst the big netters move from area
to area report ‘steady’ catches. There is no way of knowing if they are systematically fishing
21.04.2015
25
down a series of different stocks to part-depleted levels before moving on, resulting in serial
stock depletion. This is hardly sustainable management.
Use of previously discarded and/or unrecorded species
One grey mackerel netter told me that he, like several other boats fishing in the same area,
discarded and dumped about five tonnes of dead Queenfish in a beach cave during one
season alone, back in the late 1990’s. In those days no-one bothered to keep queenfish so it
was all wasted and went unrecorded.
Nowadays when netters can’t fill up with barra, threadfin or greys, they keep all species they
catch, including previously discarded queenfish and other lesser-known fish. These often go
unrecorded at the species level but now contribute to total tonnage recorded when
previously they did not. This may mask the real level of decline in some species.
It is equally a cause for concern to discover that over 50% of landings in e.g. the Trinity Inlet
fishery Cairns, were recorded as “Other Species” without any identification. How can a
fishery possibly be run sustainably when data collection standards are so low?
When is unsustainable ‘sustainable’?
Because of dodgy data and effort creep, the use of previously discarded species, and
failure to record a large proportion of the catch to species level, comparing the catches of
yesteryear with those of today, unless great care is taken, will provide a considerable level of
misinformation. Because of the risks of serial depletion, hyperstability and dodgy data,
any assumption that reports of steady annual catches indicate evidence of a sustainable
fishery is simply misguided.
When a fishery that is clearly unsustainable to those who know their stuff, but is mistakenly
assessed by authorities as sustainable, if it is not politics then it is presumably a case of
‘garbage in garbage out’. The authorities simply do not have the ability to see what is ‘selfevident’ to others.
If the authorities consider I am being somewhat harsh by this assessment I need only refer
them to the Independent assessment of ECIFF by guys who do know their stuff, namely
Gunn, Mere & Stevens. Their report dated 2008.10.31, and available at the time of writing at
http://bit.ly/MwRENo. Being a government-funded assessment, the team were naturally not
quite as blunt as this writer but nevertheless listed a range of changes that needed to be
made to the fishery before they would consider it to be approaching the standard required of
a “sustainable fishery”. Most of these changes, as I understand it, have still not been made;
whilst some, such as a beefed-up onboard observer programme, were introduced but later
dropped by the previous government because of the funding implications.
21.04.2015
26
Scientific proof
By now I can hear certain advocates for the industry bleating the inevitable “Oh but you
cannot say it is unsustainable without solid scientific proof”.
Our reply is that there is now sufficient scientific and historical knowledge as listed at
http://bit.ly/1eohAGh
2
to justify a ban on netting of spawning aggregations of larger, inshore
predatory fish.
Both the industry and the authorities have failed to collect data of the quality necessary to
record baseline levels for the fishery and subsequent trends in fish numbers so it is now
difficult to establish what levels current stocks are as say, a percentage of the once unfished
stocks. This is where the oral history from old timers is highly valuable and needs to be
collected and collated before they pass on.
There is also insufficient knowledge of the sizes of different stocks of the same species, how
many species are separated into discrete stocks and the locations of the boundaries of
various stocks.
We do not have sufficient indicators of the relative abundance of different populations of
various species and no long term CPUE data uncorrupted by effort creep. This is all of real
concern.
When some scientific data, such as baseline figures of abundance for different stocks, are
lacking and will never be obtained, the precautionary principle requires us to use the next
best available information for fishery management purposes. Some of this lies in the records
and memories of those who have, over the years, witnessed firsthand the decline in
abundance of inshore fish.
We must never let the authorities or industry dismiss the observations of experienced senior
recreational fishers as “anecdotal and therefore worthless”. It is the best ammunition
recreational fishers have. Only persistence will ensure the authorities will eventually give due
consideration to such community observations but only provided people never give up.
Where is the proof commercial fisheries are sustainable?
We also need to point out that the boot should be on the other foot. There needs to be a
paradigm shift, just as there was in the USA when recreational fishers combined forces with
the conservation lobby to take out a class action against the USA government for failing to
conserve heavily depleted and commercially extinct fish stocks.
2
and also in this collection of articles and especially in the papers mentioned in the bibliography given at the
end
21.04.2015
27
The outcome of that was that to continue operating, the USA commercial fishing industry is
required to demonstrate that it is making good progress towards targeted resources being
“fished and managed in an ecologically sustainable way”.
We also need to give more publicity to the need to encourage the public to apply pressure to
achieve this by refusing to buy fish that is not certified by an independent authority such as
the Marine Stewardship Council, as being sustainably caught.
Additional information
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities holds
the outcomes of all fisheries assessments carried out under the EPBC Act; available at:
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries, select ‘Queensland Managed Fisheries’. Further
information can be obtained from: The Director, Sustainable Fisheries Section, DSEWPAC,
Canberra; email: sustainablefisheries@environment.gov.au; Tel: (02) 6274 1917.
If you are interested in the technicalities of deciding whether a given fishery is sustainable or
not, visit the Marine Stewardship Council at www.msc.org. Under “Documents” you can find
their ‘MSC Fishery Standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing’.
Finally for more information on the matters raised in this series of articles or to support the
campaign to stop gillnetting of grey mackerel, visit Fishers for Conservation at
www.ffc.org.au/Grey_Mackerel.html
Above: Grey mackerel coming aboard: Queensland fisheries regulations still permit gillnetters, such
as the one above, to operate huge hydraulically powered drum net haulers holding up to 1200m of
nets over grey mackerel spawning grounds during their spawning season in the World Heritage
GBRMP, adjacent to the boundary of the World Heritage Daintree Rainforest coastline. This is the
only area in the world where two World Heritage areas meet.
21.04.2015
28
Article 6.
Gillnetting in the GBRMP: urgent change recommended
I have heard a number of recognized fisheries experts say that management of gillnetting in
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is so far behind the rest of Australian fisheries as to have
slipped, in some respects, to Third World standards. Sadly, I have to agree.
Experienced inshore fishers in NQ know that there are not nearly as many large fish left in
our estuaries and adjacent waters as there used to be. In some areas we now rarely, if ever
catch large individuals of some of the species that used to be common. This was recorded in
a community survey of the oral history of fishing in the Douglas Shire by James Cook
University staff about five years ago. For some reason the results were never made known
to those who gave up their time to participate. Questions remain as to why this is the case.
Environmental factors have a lot to answer for but probably the major contributor to low
numbers of large fish in many areas is overfishing by gillnets, especially netting of spawning
aggregations or “runs”. Unfortunately the scientific studies to test this claim have never been
done and now the proverbial horse has well and truly bolted. Of course, once a species
becomes overfished, any further fishing of that species in the area, whether recreational or
commercial, contributes to overfishing, unless it is catch and release.
Facts raised in these articles purely on fish stock and management issues speak for
themselves. They indicate that the authorities urgently need to restructure the gillnet fishery
to reduce the risk of a number of iconic species eventually disappearing from our catches.
Photo: Dead dugong which appeared on the morning of a gillnetter’s departure at the site where his
large boat had been fishing for three nights in World Heritage waters. When found by Dr Tony Ayling
it was very fresh and apparently drowned. Photo: D Cook, 36 hrs later. Looking on: concerned local
traditional owner David Solomon and son, with local charter fisher.
21.04.2015
29
Add to this the impact gillnets can have on dugong (see below) as well as turtle and inshore dolphin,
then add the anger, social conflict and loss of social and economic opportunities caused by undermanaged gillnet overfishing and it is hard to fathom why the community has allowed this to continue.
It is time for the bureaucrats and politicians to take this topic out of their too-hard baskets
and put in the hard yards before time runs out on our fish. In this article we shall look at how
the fishery should be restructured for the greatest benefit to local communities, the industry
and fish stocks alike.
These recommendations have been developed during discussions between various NQ
fishing networks and will go a long way towards helping the fishery reach required standards
of sustainability (see previous article and www.msc.org).
More details are contained in the previously mentioned report The Bones of Contention, 3rd
Ed. prepared for and presented to Fisheries Minister, Dr John McVeigh, by Paul Aubin and I
(http://bit.ly/1n0zoNj).
As to the cost of the process, well it should eventually pay for itself and prove to be a great
long-term investment. But how can we put a price on the value of unique populations of
barra, king threadfin, grey mackerel and iconic rare and threatened species such as dugong,
in our World Heritage GBRMP?
Once they’re gone they are gone forever. This would be to our lasting shame. How could we
ever explain to our grandchildren why we failed future generations in light of the knowledge
that we have so readily available?
Above: Nowhere have I seen a greater need for recognition of the small size of some local stocks
than when I photographed the two large drum netters shown above working the small grey mackerel
spawning grounds off the Daintree Coast in 2007.
21.04.2015
30
Three basic concepts
All stakeholders need to take onboard three basic concepts if they are to understand the
need for change in this fishery.
Firstly there are solid physical reasons for our NQ East Coast inshore fish stocks being so
small in comparison to our land mass and why these stocks are already depleted, yielding
catches at a fraction of their real potential. The watershed with the Gulf of Carpentaria
catchment is just 8 to 100+ km from the Barron River and Daintree coastlines!
In my professional opinion, the most likely reason for the lack of grey mackerel on their
Douglas spawning grounds 2008 to 2010 was because they had been overfished by large
net boats in 2006 and 2007. Local fishers, including two professional mackerel line-fishers,
were fuming. The local pros were also heavily out-of-pocket for the next three years.
These big drum net boats are just too big and too efficient for the size of the resource in that
area. As our river catchments are so small in FNQ we can support coastal resources more
akin to a small island rather than a continent such as Asia (see Article 7).
The second concept is that gillnetting is already operating at dangerously unsustainable
levels. Allowing bigger boats, more and better nets and opening up areas previously
closed to gillnetting is flogging a dead horse.
Rather we must focus on achieving a truly sustainable fishery and enabling fish stocks to
recover to be maintained at more profitable levels. You can get more interest from $100,000
in the bank than $30,000. Our breeding stock is our capital, flog that and soon you will be
earning no interest. What chicken farmer kills all his chooks and expects to have the same
number of eggs the following year?
Above: Conditions vary widely between regions; the Daintree River shown here is only 120 km in
length with a relatively small area of mangroves and so can be expected to support only relatively
small levels of resources.
21.04.2015
31
Thirdly, the concept of right-of-access by any gillnetter to fish almost anywhere netting is
permitted along the entire east coast must be kicked into touch once and for all, for reasons
explained in previous articles. Our fish belong to the public, not just the pros and right now
we are failing to ensure the conservation of our fish stocks.
Regional management
The most-needed change is for the east coast of Queensland, distance around 2,000 km in
a straight line north to south, to be divided into an appropriate number of fishery
management bio-regions where management of fishing in each region is tailored to suit local
conditions. In The Bones of Contention, Paul and I suggest nine such regions.
Sound fisheries management plans, aiming to deliver optimum community benefits, should
be developed for each region. Commercial fishing effort should be tailored to the sustainable
requirements of communities in each region.
The plans should include where, when, how and by whom commercial fishing may be
conducted in each region. They should also have various simple input controls such as
maximum permitted number of fishing licences, number and lengths of nets, mesh size,
maximum size of boat, number of days that may be fished and so forth, for each region.
Spawning closures and more Net Free Zones (NFZs) would probably also be required.
Each gillnet licence should be restricted to only one region or part(s) of a region and VMS
(vessel monitoring system) should be used whenever nets are set.
Only when gillnetters are satisfied with who else is permitted to fish on ‘their’ grounds to an
agreed management plan, will any form of resource stewardship be likely.
Net Free Zones (NFZs)
We are presently allowing suburban estuaries and adjacent coastlines to be overfished. As
gillnets can take the most fish for the least return in such areas and do the most collateral
damage, whilst spoiling it for so many, this is economic folly and socially divisive.
Now more than ever there are strong social and economic reasons for areas fished heavily
by the recreational sector to be managed as Recreational Only Fishing Areas (ROFAs) or at
least (gill-) Net Free Zones (NFZs).
Recreational fisheries management plans should be developed for each NFZ aimed at
allowing fish stocks to recover to optimum levels.
21.04.2015
32
Recreational Fishing Licences (RFLs)
ROFAs and NFZs come at a cost. Revenue can be secured by following the successful
examples of other states and introducing annual recreational fishing licences (RFLs) for
working adults.
If rec licences cost about the same as a slab of stubbies and helped you land more and
bigger fish closer to home, then this has to be a good deal.
Commercial fishing licences
Commercial fishing licences should be held only by fulltime commercial fishers. They are
intended as tools for sustainable management. Regrettably Queensland has allowed them to
morph into tradable items such that they can no longer serve their intended function.
Specialist legal advice is required here but, in view of obvious threats to sustainability, there
should be compulsory buyback of all under-used licences and symbols and no further private
trading of these.
Prawn and bait drag nets and small mesh gill nets
Prawn, bait nets and small mesh gillnets, including illegal amateur unlicensed gillnetting
which is claimed by some to be rapidly increasing to serious levels in FNQ, are killing
millions of fingerlings and undersize larger species every year, regardless of how much care
is taken. As shown by the pilot studies I have conducted, and shall present separately at a
later date, formal funded studies to quantify the slaughter of juvenile commercial and other
key ecosystem species by dragnets are crying out to be done. Only in Queensland and
various Asian countries would this level of mis-use of small mesh drag nets be permitted.
The use of small mesh gillnets and recreational drag nets on fish nursery grounds, in NQ at
least, should be banned and seasonal closures of nursery areas almost certainly need to be
introduced for commercial bait netting.
Netting of grey mackerel
There is still no gillnetting spawning closure for grey mackerel, a species having an unknown
number of non-mixing populations along the East Coast. The continued gillnetting of the
easily accessed inshore spawning grounds of different, non-mixing populations under a
single total allowable commercial catch quota for the entire East Coast, as at present, places
whole populations at high risk. This is Australian fisheries management at its worst.
An adequate management plan for grey mackerel, including a ban on netting their spawning
grounds, is urgently required to reduce the risk of further loss of local populations.
21.04.2015
33
By catch of shark
Hammerhead sharks often die in nets set for grey mackerel, as shown below, and may have
their fins exported for shark’s fin soup. From March 2013 all hammerhead sharks are CITES
Schedule II species, meaning a special permit from CITES is required for export of their fins.
They are the ‘must-see’ shark for most scuba divers, being totally protected in NSW, but are
now rarely seen whilst diving the GBR. Suba diving visitors to the GBR often leave
disappointed.
The inevitable killing of shark, which also die quickly when meshed in gillnets, is another
very good reason to halt netting of grey mackerel at lkeast in those areas, such as the
Douglas Region, where stocks of grey mackerel have been shown to be vulnerable to boomand-bust gillnetting. Just ask any SCUBA diving visitor to the GBRMP how disappointed they
were not to encounter hammerheads.
It’s politics, stupid!
After years of banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain the science to FQ, it
finally dawned on me that it would be only be the politics and not the science that would
bring about change.
There are real benefits to be gained from continuing gillnetting reform beyond the present
buyback phase. That is why everyone should make the effort to create the political will for
reform and do that now.
One last question for you: How can GBRMPA and Fisheries Queensland claim to be
upholding the World Heritage biodiversity values of the marine park whilst allowing many
inshore fish populations to remain at high risk of local extinction? Their field staff members
are increasingly aware of the problem.
21.04.2015
34
Obviously cages at the top need to be rattled! It is up to us to insist the relevant upper-level
managers actually earn their salaries and re-evaluate the content of their too-hard baskets.
What can you do? Well for starters, how about explaining to your friends, your local fishing
club, political candidates and even your GBRMPA Local Marine Advisory Committee (LMAC)
members why we have to restructure the gillnet fishery and what needs to be done? It is in
everyone’s interest. This series of articles contains all the verifiable ammunition you need!
Article 7.
Regular claims by the commercial sector: comebacks & concepts
(This article was written in 2012 so some statements may be a little out of date. See also STOP
PRESS, page 5, a statement dated 16 April, 2015 from ALP Fisheries Minister Hon. Bill Byrne)
A few factors are currently allowing authorities the luxury of avoiding the need to take the
necessary firm action to save our inshore fish. These include apparent public lack of
awareness, public confusion, lack of organisation, displaced baseline perception, fear of
retribution and bullying tactics, and finally, the claims made by a few in the commercial
fishing lobby who are opposed to halting the depletion of our inshore fish stocks.
Public confusion is likely to be partly due to the smokescreen that has been created by a
series of inaccurate claims by a vociferous few in the commercial lobby as to the supposedly
“damaging” consequences of meddling with our inshore fisheries.
This article dispels five of the main fears perpetuated in such claims. It gives you the
ammunition necessary to support your own views that something must be done to allow our
fish stocks to rebuild before it is too late. Let’s take a look at these claims.
Claim 1: “There have been no declines in fish numbers, our catches are steady and
sustainable; recreational fishers just want to destroy commercial fishing and have all
the fish for themselves”.
Reply
Recreational and charter fishers, fishing the same inshore waters for many years, all find
that their catch rates and sizes of fish caught have fallen significantly. They cannot all be
wrong. It would be foolhardy to ignore these obvious signs of overfishing.
Recreational fishers do not wish to destroy commercial fisheries but to ensure that
commercial inshore gillnet fishing stops destroying the recreational fishery and, in the longer
term, does not destroy itself by destroying fish stocks.
Concepts
21.04.2015
35
Prior to fisheries collapses the world over, commercial fishers have been the last to
recognize the signs of overfishing. They have the most efficient fishing gear and so miss
early warning signs experienced by small-scale fishers using less efficient gear.
Gillnet fishing targets the resource at ‘traditional’ localities including bottlenecks along
spawning runs and where they congregate to spawn. It is only when fish return and spread
out over their home grounds that the problem is noticed by those who have fished them here
for years: the charter and recreational fishers.
The authorities have no means of measuring the size of our NQ fish stocks, nor the numbers
of young fish joining the fishery every year. They therefore cannot predict how much fish can
be sustainably caught in any year. Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are based on guesswork
and “dodgy data” and in any case are virtually non-enforceable.
Claim 2: “Catches in Asian fisheries are far larger than ours because of too many
restrictions on our fishers”.
Photo: The majority of the above fish on this East Timor stall being inspected by this writer would be
either undersize and/or not acceptable to most Australian markets, the largest fish being displayed is
a species protected in Australia
21.04.2015
36
Response: You can’t compare Queensland’s catches with those of Asia (see above
photograph) for two simple reasons:
i
The Australian market takes large fish mostly for fillet and steaks whereas many
Asian markets take almost all sizes of fish. Whilst many smaller species sold in
Asia are also present in NQ waters, markets for them are lacking;
ii
Inshore waters along the East Coast (of Queensland) have lower levels of
nutrients, generally speaking, than Asia’s and so can only produce smaller
quantities of fish.
CONCEPTS
Anyone who proposes Claim 2 is either being deliberately mischievous or else has a
simplistic view of fisheries, displaying an ignorance of:
i
differing markets for fish in Australia and Asia, and
ii
differences in productivity of their inshore waters.
Background to (i):

The GBRMP has many potentially edible fish which the North Queensland market
ignores, e.g. anchovies, herrings, scads, short-bodied mackerel, bullet, frigate and
other small tuna, fusiliers, red bass, paddletail, 10 small species of rock cod and
several small snapper species and monocle bream, such as the ones shown here on
sale in East Timor, below, are not acceptable on the Queensland market.

Most large predatory fish are overfished in Asian waters leaving higher densities of
their prey for Asian fishers.

The combined percentage of coastal /inshore landings contributed by the above
small fish (undersize and unsellable in Australia) to some Asian fish markets is likely
to be in the order of 80% (my estimate based on personal observations at a number
of Asian fish markets).
Background to (ii):

Fish stock size in inshore waters is usually proportional to the levels of nutrients in
their waters in unfished and even in fished situations, given good management. In
many inshore waters, these nutrient levels are usually roughly proportional to the
length of the local rivers and the size and fertility of their catchments. NQ rivers are
short, in order of 150 km and catchments small. Hence maximum production
potentials are also much lower than around the estuaries of mighty Asian rivers.
21.04.2015
37
Photo: A portion of an Asian fish market stall, mostly snapper, all of which are below legal
size in Australia.
As there is also little upwelling of nutrients from the depths in NQ inshore waters, local
inshore waters are more like those surrounding an island than a large continent. The main
rivers of FNQ have catchments approximately 0.1% of the Yangtze and 0.26% of the
Mekong. It is unrealistic to expect Asian levels of catches in NQ inshore waters.
Claim 3: “If we reduce netting, local people won’t be able to buy fresh local fish”
Response

A very short-sighted view: current netting levels are unsustainable. If we do not allow
fish stocks to rebuild, there soon will be insufficient fish left to sell at affordable
prices! End of story!

Provided all mackerel are line-caught only, freshly caught reef fish and mackerel from
the GBRMP and from the Northern Territories, arguably, can go a long way to supply
the demand from upper-end markets in NQ. Proper management of gillnetting could
eventually lead to even greater sustainable catches by fewer gillnetters.
CONCEPTS
21.04.2015
38

This is a simple issue of sustainability of species at required stock levels; if we do not
restrict netting soon, the industry may soon be seriously compromising local food
security.

The majority of people do not buy local fresh fish either because it is unavailable or is
too expensive. Most buy on price and imported frozen fish is usually around half the
price of fresh local fillet.

Much locally-caught fish is exported to high-end overseas markets or sent to
Brisbane or Sydney markets for as high a price as possible.

Regulating for all commercial mackerel fishing to be line-only, rather than “boom-and
bust netting” will rebuild a sustainable line fishery for mackerel. This and sustainably
line-caught reef fish can supply the high-end local market with top quality, freshly
caught local produce whilst we are rebuilding inshore fish stocks.
Claim 4: “Closing areas to gill netting will put many people out of work”.
Response

The number of people put out of work will be small. Because current levels of
gillnetting are unsustainable in many areas, anyway eventually the risk is they will be
out of work in these areas as resources continue to be overfished.

Displaced, genuine full-time fishers must be adequately compensated such that they
do not return to the fishery.
CONCEPTS

Removing netting from around larger urban areas will allow stocks to quickly rebuild
in these areas and attract more recreational and charter fishing, thus boosting the
economy through more tourism, sales and eventually leading to MORE not less jobs.

The authorities own figures indicate only a small number of inshore net fishers are
fulltime. Many are part-time fishers. These provide the highest risk to fish stocks as
they may subsidise overfishing by their other income.
CLAIM 5: “Past closures of inshore gillnetting areas by GBRMP’s RAP reduced
gillnetters’ catches, forcing them to fish further afield”.
Response

GBRMPA paid millions to compensate fishers and other affected businesses for the
Representative Areas Program (RAP) closures. Some licences were bought out in
entirety and their owners were not expected to return to fishing. However some
21.04.2015
39
bought licences from other regions and continued netting in their home area. This
contributed to the overfishing of our depleted inshore fish stocks.

Claim 5 recognizes there are more licences than allow an acceptable level of
profitability from fishing in given areas. The solution is to reduce the number of
gillnetting licences and netting effort, develop regional management and hence
competition amongst netters. This should soon increase catches and profitability.
CONCEPTS

The GBRMPA zoning map shows a smaller percentage of inshore waters was made
green and closed to gillnetting in NQ, less than the 30% of offshore reef closures.

RAP’s zoning is considered necessary for maintaining ecological sustainable
development, including the tourism industry, in the GBRMP.

RAP caused changes in the industry but generous compensation was paid to cover
potential industry losses and inconveniences (but not to recreational fishers!).

RAP has the potential to introduce a high level of sustainability, robustness and as
much certainty as possible to an irreplaceable but vulnerable icon. Love it or hate it,
all sectors need to accept and adapt accordingly. Unfortunately some fishers
supplying the coral trout live fish industry are openly flaunting the law.
CONCLUSION
The above responses to exaggerated claims by some advocates of commercial fishing are
offered to counter the main misinformation presented to our politicians over the years.
Elections (this was written in 2012 prior to State Election) are looming, the time to act is NOW.
Pressure your candidates to obtain the necessary election promises to recognize current
levels of overfishing and rebuild fish stocks.
Bob Katter’s Australia Party has already responded to these concerns and promises to close
inshore waters around urban areas to gillnetting, if they get into power.
Article 8.
Grey mackerel sustainably fished?
“The Greys never returned”. These are the final words in the article on fishing for grey
mackerel in Ralph De Lacey’s book ‘The North Queensland Fishing Eldorado’ published in
2005. The author spent years as a commercial gillnet fisherman in North Queensland. The
book is factual and well worth a read.
21.04.2015
40
De Lacey describes the grey mackerel gillnetting fiasco that occurred from 1969 to 1971 out
of Bowen. He records the legacy of unmanaged gillnet fishing of grey mackerel to serve as a
stern warning to anyone with an interest in our coastal fisheries.
Those chilling words, “The Greys never returned” instantly sprung to my mind when I learned
our Fisheries Minister, John McVeigh, announced last month that he had changed the
declared status of the east coast fishery for grey mackerel from ‘undefined’ to ‘sustainably
fished.’
There is a very strong political incentive for all species in our fisheries to be, at least on
paper, certified as ‘sustainably fished’. This is because for an export permit to be issued for
any Australian fishery, the law requires that fishery to be ‘managed in an ecologically
sustainable way’.
There may well be a big difference in meaning between the two terms, depending on the
definition of ‘sustainably fished’. You can imagine a fishery under nil management and with
huge resources. If only a few people are fishing it, under the most basic of definitions, it may
well be declared ‘sustainably fished’ even if the fishers are breaking all the guidelines that
our federal government has set for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries.
I am concerned that something similar is happening in the modern day grey mackerel
fishery. But first, let’s see what we can learn from the Bowen experience of 40 years ago.
Collapse of the Bowen grey mackerel
De Lacey records that a huge school of grey mackerel used to gather at Rayward’s Reef,
near Bowen, every year between mid June and early September. By 1968 numbers of boats
trolling for the greys had reached over 20.
He recalls that the “fish caught when they first arrived had partially formed roe and when
they departed (in early September) this roe was fully matured.” In the Douglas Shire the
greys are also carrying ripe roe during early September as shown in the above photograph.
21.04.2015
41
De Lacey says up to and including 1968, the line trollers could catch all they could handle
and many up-graded their catching, handling and freezing facilities. In 1969 one fisherman
started using gillnets.
De Lacey writes (then) “... We all acquired nets and bigger freezers... The shift from line
fishing to net fishing ... created many problems for the Bowen fishermen. ... it was possible
to catch a tonne or more fish in an hour... the biggest problem was not catching them, it was
filleting and freezing them.”
Apparently by early September 1969 the fish were almost ready to spawn, “and as usual
they all disappeared at once, as if on cue.” When the greys arrived back on 16 June 1970
they were met by even more mackerel gillnetters than previously.
He states “By early August there were miles of nets permanently anchored across this small
reef” catching huge amounts of greys. Then, from mid-August 1970, for the first time ever,
no more mackerel were caught for the rest of the season.
In June 1971 when greys arrived back on Rayward’s Reef, De Lacey records there were so
many gillnetters waiting for them that he jokes “every piece of net in NQ was set across
Rayward’s reef”.
The fishing lasted just 20 days before catches fell to zero and “The greys never returned.”
Apparently no large schools of greys returned for the next 30 years or more. De Lacey
concluded that the greys had simply learned to avoid the area.
Recent findings by a fish research team, led by fish biologist, David Welch, indicate a far
less obvious and most alarming explanation is actually more likely.
Welch and team have debunked, once and for all, the claim that a single population of grey
mackerel migrates up and down the entire Queensland coast.
The team found that there are significant differences in the chemical composition of the
otoliths (ear bones) and also the species of body parasites between grey mackerel caught
around Townsville and those caught around Mackay.
This indicates there are at least two separate, non mixing populations of greys on the east
coast, each returning to their own home ground to spawn. This is a common, though often
overlooked feature of many fisheries, known as philopatry.
Fisheries managers, such as those in FQ with their flawed ‘Framework for determining stock
status’ who overlook the self-evident, place entire local populations of certain species at risk
of long-term or permanent depletion, much to the disadvantage of local communities.
21.04.2015
42
Allan Petersen of Home Hill, as a 20 year-old back in the 1960’s, was shown how to rig his
mackerel lines by Ralph De Lacey. He has fished the area ever since. Allan provided me
with a signed statement recording his fishing for mackerel in the area. He confirms greys
were virtually absent from the Bowen area after the collapse until 1983 when he began to
get one or two in several days mackerel fishing each season. Prior to the collapse he used
to catch around 10 greys in just two hours trolling.
Much has been written about serial depletions of fisheries around the world involving
philopatric populations. Experience suggests it is most likely that the local grey mackerel
population of the Bowen area was simply wiped out by the unrelenting pressure of too much
gillnetting on their spawning grounds.
In recent years, I am informed, some sizeable catches of greys have been made out of
Bowen. Were these from Raywards Reef? I do not know, would anyone familiar with the
fishery please let me know?
There are concerns from other areas that netting has been responsible for local depletions of
grey mackerel, e.g. Keppel Bay from 1987 and more recently in Llewellyn Bay near Sarina,
and Douglas Region, after just two seasons of “offshore netting” in 2006 and 2007.
For the whole story on the near collapse of the Douglas fishery see my report written in 2008
“The possible collapse of a grey mackerel population and the decline of a grey mackerel
fishery in the GBRMP” available on www.ffc.org.au at http://bit.ly/1gjHwzD. The figure above
records the falling catches from 2002 to 2006, of a Douglas Shire commercial line fisher
targeting grey mackerel with approximately consistent effort each year, over the five years.
In 2007 his landings, despite similar fishing effort, were similar to 2006, i.e. about 2% of
2002 landings which he considered then as an “average year”.
The local grey mackerel line fishery is of considerable importance to the community both
from recreational and economic perspectives.
21.04.2015
43
Heeding the concerns of an outraged community, as expressed in several news articles in
the local press, on radio and local television, the big gillnetters have not returned to fish what
some, myself included, consider to be a small local stock. The story, so far has had a happy
conclusion with stocks partially recovering from the 2006-2009 collapse and many locals
again highly value their seasonal catch of grey mackerel, as shown below.
The local grey mackerel fishing grounds of the Douglas Shire had been fished sustainably by
both commercial line fishers and recreational fishers, including an annual influx of grey
nomads to the two local caravan parks, for over 40 years. They are not prepared to sit back
and observe another “boom and bust” session by any other itinerant netters. Some locals
have even threatened physical violence if this was to occur.
Should this sad state of affairs ever eventuate and we witness violence between netters and
combined forces of pro-liners, locals and grey nomads, it will be vital to record on camera
and video for the international press and UNESCO, just how far weak governance has
allowed the management of fisheries to sink, not just in “The Smart State” but in the the
GBRMP, immdediately adjacent to the only area in the world where two World Heritage
Areas meet. Sorry folks, but that is the sad reality.
Photo: A Douglas Shire local displaying her catch, a fine grey mackerel. The local population (of
greys) is highly prized by many locals and visiting grey nomads alike and they are not prepared to sit
back and allow another boom-and-bust onslaught of netters on their local pre-spawning aggregations.
GBRMPA Vulnerability Assessment
Love them or hate them and their Green Zones, at least someone in GBRMPA is doing
some great work. On their website you can find what they call a ‘Vulnerability Assessment’
(VA) of grey mackerel stocks in the GBRMP.
21.04.2015
44
Their Grey Mackerel VA notes that fishing of spawning aggregations as a high-risk activity
and recommends the potential impacts of targeted fishing of grey mackerel aggregations be
considered in any stock assessment of the species.
Their VA notes there are further indications there may also be other smaller local
populations at the “embayment scale”. It recommends the possible existence of other local
populations should be considered when undertaking stock assessments and the risk of
localised stock depletions be taken into account.
It also recommends the continued development of fishery management processes that
engage stakeholders at a local or regional scale: spot on!
The VA recommends regional management of fishery stocks to address “the separate and
distinct stocks of grey mackerel that are becoming apparent”. GBRMPA summarises that
grey mackerel on the east coast are “highly exposed and highly sensitive to commercial
fishing having a high residual vulnerability when spawning aggregations are fished
commercially.”
Fancy language aside, GBRMPA are spot on with this assessment! How can our Fisheries
Minister ignore these crucial findings?
Poseidon ARM Scoping study
A scoping study of the Douglas Shire grey mackerel fishery was undertaken in 2008 by
independent international fisheries consultant, Richard Banks, Director, Poseidon Aquatic
Resource Management Pty. Ltd. At the time of writing the original article (2013) this was
available at www.consult-poseidon.com/fishery reports.
The study concludes that “the management authorities ... are required by Law ... at the very
least to undertake a participatory risk analysis evaluation ... it would point to significant
concerns in respect to commercial gill netting in the Douglas Shire area, and damage to
economic well being of the local economy if left unchecked.
There is therefore no reason to wait for scientific evidence to demonstrate that a
management problem exists ...”
NSF Review of Concerns
In 2010 co-ordinators of the Network for Sustainable Fishing compared the performance of
gillnet fisheries in the GBRMP against the 17 ‘Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable
Management of Fisheries’ published by the Federal Government. The fishery fails all 17
guidelines! This report is also available
at www.ffc.org.au, the direct link is
http://bit.ly/1gWjf43.
21.04.2015
45
The greatest risks are posed by the big offshore gillnet boats and other roaming netters that
travel up and down the coast looking for aggregating schools of pre-spawning species like
grey mackerel, threadfin and fingermark. The sustainable alternative is to stay on their local
patch and carefully match their catching efficiency to the productivity of local resources.
Above: Grey or Broad-barred king mackerel show distinct broad bars and some spots which fade
when landed. This one is in the recent average Douglas Region weight range of 3 - 4 kg, down from
an anecdotal historical average of 7 kg.
2013 Request to Minister McVeigh
I wrote to Minister McVeigh and Fisheries Queensland on 22 July 2013 in far more detail
than space allows here, regarding the minister’s recent statement on the grey mackerel
fishery.
Given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I requested Minister McVeigh, to please
explain why his advisers consider the grey mackerel fishery to be ‘managed in an
ecologically sustainably way’. I also requested to be informed as to who provided the advice
and whether they have any formal qualifications in fish stock assessment or fisheries
management.
21.04.2015
46
And, never to miss a good opportunity, I also asked, with respect, if he had been advised
about Queensland’s pressing need for regional management of our inshore commercial
fishing industry and the need to halt roaming and part-time commercial fishing?
Articles 9 and 10 cover the most unsatisfactory response from the Minister on grey mackerel
and explains my outstanding concerns to his attempts at denying the self-evident.
Article 9.
Minister McVeigh’s admission a shocker!
LNP Fisheries Minister, John McVeigh’s reply, received after my last article went to press,
contains a shocking admission.
His reply was to my letter challenging his July press release that grey mackerel are
“sustainably fished”. I had written on 22 July 2013 providing him details of the findings of
various studies indicating grey mackerel can in no way be considered as “being managed in
an ecologically sustainable way” as is required by law.
Above: This was one of the largest greys landed by Douglas Region commercial line fishers in 2012,
a monster at 111 cm length and 8.9 kg, well above the average size of 3 – 4 kg. She is showing wellformed roe by 28 August
Admission: regional stocks at risk
It disappoints me to report back that the Minister’s advisers failed to address any of the
crucial reasons given for the need to ban the gillnetting of grey mackerel spawning
aggregations.
However, the sobering news is that finally we have a shocking and perplexing admission in
black and white. Minister McVeigh admits in his letter: “Stock status is determined for the
whole state, not by region, although there may be some regional impacts on certain
stocks”.
This admission is one that no Queenslander should allow to be swept under the carpet.
21.04.2015
47
The words “regional impacts” are the key. In the previous article, I summarised Ralph De
Lacey’s account of the impacts of three years gillnetting out of Bowen, 1969 – 1971 when
the fishery collapsed and “the greys never returned”, at least not for about 30 years.
Similar regional depletions or “impacts” are recounted by others along the coast for mackerel
species as far south as the once huge, but now missing schools of spotties from Moreton
Bay prior to 1984, from Shoalwater Bay in the late 1970’s, and grey mackerel from both
Llewellyn Bay and Douglas Region, 2006-7, to name a few.
By any reasonable definition, it is surely self-evident that any fishery which allows this to
occur cannot be legally classified as being ‘managed in an ecologically sustainable way’.
Has FQ seriously not woken up to the self-evident need to manage fisheries based on the
breakdown of their regional fish stocks rather than on a state wide, single stock mentality?
Apparently not, at least as of July 2013.
By international standards, the present management of the grey mackerel fishery, and
indeed the entire east coast gillnet fishery belongs back in the 1970’s.
Process challenged: ‘Framework for defining stock status’ grossly inadequate
The Minister also kindly sent me FQ’s ‘Framework for defining stock status’, a document
describing the process used to determine the status of different fish stocks in Queensland. I
find this to be grossly inadequate, far too simplistic for the job at hand.
If reviewed by appropriate fisheries specialists, e.g. from CSIRO, interstate and overseas
fisheries agencies, or the Marine Stewardship Council, I consider most qualified and
experienced fisheries managers would also find their ‘Framework ...’ to be fundamentally
flawed and inadequate for any fisheries as complex as our east coast multispecies fishery.
The Framework fails take into account vital management considerations previously
discussed in these articles. These include philopatry, where Queensland “stocks” of a
number of important inshore species are actually composed of separate, non-mixing
populations, i.e. an unknown number of local “stocks”.
Full local extinction of such local stocks may follow when what remains of spawning runs
continue to be targeted by large scale netters or even by part-time netters who subsidise
their fishing by paid employment. These are the “regional impacts” off-handedly referred to
by the Minister in his response.
Further fundamental flaws in the Framework are that it fails to insist that the implications of
other important and identified biological and data-related considerations are taken into
consideration.
21.04.2015
48
DAFF scientists challenged
The Minister states that 21 Fisheries scientists and two specialist fish stock assessment
scientists participated in a workshop earlier this year concluding 31 species, including the
greys, were sustainably fished in Queensland.
We therefore are obliged to publically question the standard of fisheries scientists in FQ. Are
these people formally trained in Fisheries Science or, as is often the case, do they just have
general biological science degrees and work in fisheries administration?
Presumably FQ has moved on from the days recounted by well-known contributor to one
well known NQ fishing magazine, namely Dave Donald? Dave informs me he once had a
senior fisheries manager in FQ tell him in front of other fisheries management advisory
committee members that his understanding of sustainability was ‘as long as one commercial
fisher is making a living from a fishery, it is still sustainable!’
Dave recalls a few other MAC members “were absolutely gobsmacked by such a statement
from someone who was actively running many of the states fisheries!”
Box ticking exercise
Sadly all the evidence points to Minister McVeigh’s declaration that grey mackerel are
sustainably fished being the result of an unacceptable and unfounded, box-ticking exercise
by those in FQ, oblivious to what is self-evident to those in the distant North. The trouble is
there are not nearly enough boxes in this assessment and FQ appear have successfully
pulled the wool over the Minister’s eyes for political or other short-term job security reasons.
The Solution
The inshore fisheries of the “Smart State” are probably the worst managed fisheries in the
entire country. The result is we have depleted inshore resources with both the inshore
commercial and recreational fisheries performing at a fraction of their potential.
Fisheries Network members up and down the country tell me that FQ is allowing “regional
impacts” to continue not only because of outdated management, but apparently because of
the inherited departmental culture.
To turn this around and achieve real economic benefits and greater sustainable catches in
both sectors, we need radical management change. Once stocks have been allowed to
rebuild, this would be of significant economic benefit to each fishing sector as well as to
tourism and related local industries.
We need regional management with an appropriate level of stakeholder involvement at an
appropriately fine scale. Co-management whereby different sectors sit down together and
21.04.2015
49
try and hammer out solutions is definitely not the answer, just a proven recipe for inaction
and maintenance of the status quo (see 14.13).
We need a ban on netting of spawning aggregations and at bottlenecks on breeding
migration runs. We also need more net free restrictions (NFZs), including restrictions on bait
netting by both sectors in areas of special recreational and fisheries conservation
importance.
Request to Minister
On behalf of network members, and in the interests of the transparency mentioned in the FQ
Framework, I replied to the Minister on 3 September 2012, requesting he instructs his
fisheries scientists to make public the full details of the review of the grey mackerel fishery
and inform us where we can access the information, including the following:







their risk assessment;
the triggers used for management decisions and the basis for these;
why the single total allowable catch (TAC) of 250 tonnes was chosen, how it is
enforced and why there is just one TAC when the presence of more than one stock
has been proven;
details of any Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects (SAFE) carried out;
their estimates for bycatch numbers of dugong, inshore dolphin, turtle, protected
sharks; manta rays, etc and significance given to these;
the number of regional populations suspected for grey mackerel and other species so
far, and how the sustainability of each population is ensured;
the level of confidence given to the commercial logbook data and what steps are
taken to validate this data.
Where to now?
At the time of writing this, the honeymoon period following the 2012 State election was well
and truly over. Regional networks needed to start building up the pressure leading into the
next election.
One approach would be to follow the lead taken in the USA in the 1990’s when
recreational fishing sectors networking with environmental groups won class actions
against their governments in the courts.
The charges were along the lines of failing to adequately protect the nation’s fishery
resources. The government lost its case and was forced to take remedial action.
For example, all commercial fisheries in the USA are now required to show they are
managed in a sustainable manner. Apparently the benefits to the commercial and
recreational sectors as well as to the environment have been significant.
21.04.2015
50
NSW has gone along somewhat similar lines and now has much better recreational fishing
as a result of recreational fishers challenging state government and a number of fishing
havens have been established where gillnetting is banned.
It appears that Queensland inshore resources may well need volunteers to start the ball
rolling for a class action against the “Smart State” and indeed help fund such an action.
Article 10.
Concerns over Minister McVeigh’s 2nd reply on grey mackerel
The Network for Sustainable Fishing remains in deadlock with Fisheries Queensland (FQ)
regarding whether grey mackerel can currently be considered “sustainably fished”.
In September 2013’s issue of a popular NQ fishing magazine (as in Article 8), I challenged
Queensland Fisheries Minister, Dr John McVeigh, that the species does not merit this
recently awarded status. In that article I also presented a summary of the reasons I gave to
the minister why, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act 1999 and
its supporting documents, grey mackerel should not be listed as fished in an ecologically
sustainable way, as indeed is required by law.
My article in October’s issue (Article 9 of this series) covered the Minister’s first reply which
did not adequately address the concerns I raised with him.
In view of failed or depleted mackerel stocks in a number of areas, I urged all
Queenslanders to stand up for their rights regarding our need for healthy inshore fisheries.
We need to take much firmer action to pressure government for adequate regional fisheries
management. I suggested we consider the possibility of a class action in the courts against
the State for failing to adequately manage the fishery.
In October’s article (9) I also listed a number of direct questions regarding the recent
assessment process for grey mackerel. Minister McVeigh has, in his most recent letter,
ensured fairly comprehensive answers to my questions.
Sadly his answers still fail to put my concerns to rest. The minister is not a fishery
management specialist; he is totally reliant on receiving the appropriate advice. This comes
from a combined total of “23 professional aquatic scientists” (note: not fisheries scientists)
with “a combined 450 years of experience in fisheries science/management”. He states “22
had science bachelor degrees ... and eight had doctorates”.
It may well be significant that Dr McVeigh did not specify any of his team having degrees or
post graduate qualifications or doctorates in the highly specialised fields of fisheries
management or stock assessment. Is that where the problem lies? A Fish Biologist may not
be qualified as a Fisheries Biologist or a Fisheries Scientist, there is a big difference.
21.04.2015
51
Whilst I do have post graduate if rather old qualifications in fisheries management, I do not
consider myself a fisheries scientist. I am however convinced that competent and suitably
specialised independent expert analysis given access to accurate data would confirm FQ
have got it wrong regarding the sustainability of the current netting of grey mackerel.
The big picture
In a nutshell, the history of other fisheries throughout the world suggests that concentrated,
un-managed netting of aggregating, pre-spawning and spawning fish, on all their spawning
grounds, is a recipe for stock collapse.
In some past instances of major stock collapses there has been very little prior warning that
the fishery was heading for trouble. Warning signs were often picked up by only a few fishery
managers and because they were hotly contested by the industry lobby, politicians inevitably
failed to take the decisive actions necessary to save the stock. Some disastrous collapses
have followed these industry denials and political inaction.
The collapse of the cod fishery off the east coast of North America is a classic example.
Three well-researched Penguin books, two by Mark Kurlansky, the other by Paul Greenberg,
give fascinating layman’s accounts of the history of this fishery.
The collapse of the fishery threw thousands of people permanently out of the industry. The
industry had failed to allow for the fact that the fishery was actually composed of many nonmixing stocks of the one species. It was wrongly assumed, at the time, that there was just
one stock moving progressively offshore in response to heavy fishing pressure.
It now appears that different non-mixing stocks of Atlantic cod existed in different areas
according various factors such as latitude, currents, bottom type and distance offshore.
These individual stocks were progressively overfished as skippers moved to larger more
efficient boats and roamed the ocean, wrongly assuming they were searching for the same
stock that was “learning” to avoid previously overfished grounds.
In the Queensland grey mackerel context, the risk of stock collapse is high as the fishery is
only based on a number (at least two, probably more) relatively small, non-mixing, regional
inshore populations. It appears likely that a case can be made that managing them as if
they were one stock amounts to negligence and/or incompetence.
When grey (or spotted) mackerel or indeed any other fish species fails to return to traditional
spawning grounds, as a number of regional areas have experienced, the reason may not be
that they have “learned” to avoid the area. It is quite possible that, as with the Atlantic cod
(and herring and Atlantic mackerel) stocks have simply been fished out.
21.04.2015
52
When it comes to gillnetting of grey mackerel, FQ is unable to regulate who fishes which
stocks, where and by how much. QLD’s single TAC allows different stocks to be serially
overfished as the years go by.
Ecologically Sustainable Development
The Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 includes the principles of ecologically sustainable
development (ESD) in its objectives. These include ensuring fisheries resources are
managed in an ecologically sustainable way, ensuring optimum community, economic and
other benefits can be obtained from fisheries resources and ensuring access to fisheries
resources is fair.
There is just no way all this big picture stuff, mentioned above, adds up to management
according to the principles of ESD, regardless of how the minister’s team of fisheries
advisers wish to wave their “trick sticks” as suggested by Dave Donald in his tongue-incheek but thought-provoking article ‘Sustainable fisheries management, dream or nightmare’
(NQ Fish & Boat, November 2013. p14.).
The devil is in the detail
The devil is in the detail ... and the assumptions. A number of the answers provided by the
minister to my queries are based on data not available to us. There is no way of assessing
whether certain conclusions are legitimate.
The minister’s response does however contain a number of assumptions which do deserve
closer examination and indeed demand a strong challenge.
The figures the Minister provides show that catches of grey mackerel have progressively
fallen from 2009 when a total allowable catch (TAC) of a “precautionary” 250 tonnes of greys
was introduced after a massive peak of about 450 tonnes in 2008-09. Indeed they have
never even come close to reaching the “precautionary” TAC of 250 tonnes.
The assumption made by FQ is that these lower catches are the result of the introduction of
the quota, poor weather and limited targeting of grey mackerel (lower effort levels). No
evidence is given to support these assumptions and no reasons are given as to why netters
reduced their targeting of the species.
Was the weather on the inshore fishing grounds in 2008-09 all that better than in the years
that followed? Is an annual catch of less than 200 tonnes in 2010-11 the result of a
“precautionary” cap of 250 tonnes or simply because insufficient schools of grey
mackerel could be located to allow fishers to reach the quota?
21.04.2015
53
The justification for the assignment of the stock status as sustainably fished includes FQ’s
extraordinary statement “the level of biomass being harvested and the low amount of fishing
pressure being applied indicate the stock is unlikely to become ... overfished”. Considering
there are a number of different stocks of greys and that FQ have absolutely no idea of the
biomass of any stock, or even how many there are, or where they spawn, and as mentioned
above, cannot control where and when netters fish, this statement is absurd.
Catch rates high
The figures the Minister provides show that catch rates for netting of greys remained high in
2009-10 and 2010-11. As indicated in Article 5, this is not necessarily a sign of a healthy
fishery when aggregating stocks are targeted.
As explained in Article 5 under ‘hyperstability’, unlike a fishery based on a widely dispersed
stock, an overfished fishery based on aggregated stock can display good catch rates right up
to the unexpected collapse of the fishery. As explained in the same article, continuing high
catch rates may also be the result of ‘effort creep’ i.e. improvements in skills, knowledge,
technology and ‘serial overfishing’ the discovery of new stocks and/or spawning grounds
when old grounds have been depleted.
Second year students
The breakdown of the age of the greys caught by the industry in some areas show that
proportionally more fish in their second year of life are being caught in relation to the older
fish. This certainly fits into the line fishery catch in our local Douglas Region, where fish of
around 3 to 4 kg are now in the majority. The exceptionally large 8.9kg ‘monster’ shown in
the previous article was one of the very largest caught by local pros in 2013.
Anecdotal information indicates that prior to netting of Douglas grey mackerel, the average
weight of individuals caught was around the 7 kg mark. Such a drop in average size is a sure
sign of a fishery under significant pressure and likely to be a warning sign that the fishery
needs to be managed with extreme caution. This is not happening.
Overseas studies indicate some species when migrating apparently rely on the older, more
experienced individuals to lead the schools. If heavy fishing continually reduces survival
rates, there is the danger our second year grey mackerel being left without their leaders, and
possibly unable to reach their traditional spawning grounds.
Titanic Problem
The minister’s most recent letter points out that as an inshore species, grey mackerel are
vulnerable to habitat loss, reduced water quality and climate change impacts. He suggests
21.04.2015
54
that “the stewardship for addressing the issues you have raised rests with people such as
yourself and your network membership. ..... Your Network members could also contact their
local NRM group to become involved in action helping to make on ground improvements to
important coastal habitats to mitigate environmental influences impacting on coastal areas.”
Many of us are of course already volunteering our time in such areas. At a recent GBRMPA
Local Marine Advisory Committee meeting, I commented that such remedial work can be
likened to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it ploughs on towards the iceberg.
From a regional standpoint, being aware that we have separate regional stocks, the gillnet
fishery based on grey mackerel (or threadfin, or barramundi) is the Titanic and she is
heading straight for the iceberg that is stock collapse. Only a timely change in course will
reduce the severity of regional impacts, not just to grey mackerel stocks but probably to most
of our large inshore species.
If climate change, loss of habitat, water quality and the inevitable impacts of port dredging
and dumping are making stocks less resilient, then all the more reason to manage our
inshore fisheries with far more precision and caution.
Much better fisheries management and adequate control of gillnetting netting effort at a
regional level is urgently required if grey mackerel and indeed our entire inshore fishery are
ever to be managed in an ecologically sustainable way.
Article 11.
At long last, a review of fisheries management in Queensland
Someone up there was listening! On 6 March 2014, Queensland Minister for Fisheries, Dr
John McVeigh announced the “Can-do” LNP State Government “will commence a full review
to overhaul fisheries management in Queensland to modernise and simplify our systems.”
Mr McVeigh said “We need to:
 cut the red tape that is strangling the sector.
 protect our fisheries resources,
 provide the flexibility for industry to prosper,
 ensure recreational and traditional fishers have reasonable access to the resource,
 ensure the interests of the environment and
 ensure our lifestyle is maintained.
Dr McVeigh hit the nail on the head by saying that former governments kept this in their “Too
Hard” baskets. It was amazing how long Labour managed to turn a deaf ear. And didn’t they
pay for that at the ballot box in 2012!
Let’s just take a step back for a moment and remind ourselves of exactly why we need a
Fisheries Review. Then we’ll take a quick look at some of the concerns discussed since this
announcement.
21.04.2015
55
Why we need the Review
Above: This roe-bearing king threadfin, netted in the Douglas Shire, would not be big enough to
spawn in some other regions e.g. the Fitzroy. They used to reach 170 cm and 45 kg. Unless we have
management changes to gillnetting, localised populations are at risk of extinction.
The king threadfin is a classic example of a species at high risk from our current inadequate
fishery regulations and practices. It is one of a number of inshore species living in nonmixing localised populations (philopatry) in discrete estuary and adjacent turbid inshore
water systems, separated by expanses of clear water and clean sand, rock or reef. When
overfished, such stocks may never recover. Are we prepared to allow that to happen? We
can’t even be sure whether this has already happened to some species in some areas.
Inshore finfish resources are currently heavily depleted. Industry agreed in 2012 that the
resource cannot support the present numbers of gillnetters, never mind the existing latent
effort. Reducing effort alone through the ongoing voluntary gillnet buyback will not solve the
problem as there is still no means of controlling localised effort in all but a few areas.
Local gillnetters cannot manage ‘their’ fishing grounds as out-of-town netters and part-timers
having other sources of substantial income may move between regions. This forces a “takeit-while-you-can” mentality. Cashed-up part-timers risk subsidising netting of overfished
stocks to extinction.
Most large species like our king threadie are slow maturing. Some species must survive as
males for several years in the fishery years before changing to females. They are restricted
to inshore waters. Inshore fish are killed at all stages from fingerling size upwards in drag
and cast nets, beam trawls and four inch gillnets, many used irresponsibly and illegally.
Minimum legal sizes for barramundi, king threadfin, blue threadfin, queenfish, mangrove
jack, fingermark and grey mackerel are well below sizes at first spawning. Several species
21.04.2015
56
spawn outside the barra closure when spawning “runs” are targeted by gillnetters. This
inevitably leads to stock depletion.
A feature of our inshore fishery is that when populations are depleted, commercial catches
may remain high for a limited period whilst recreational catches decline significantly. This is
explained by two overlooked reasons: hyperstability and serial overfishing (see Article 5).
History records hyperstability and serial overfishing as lulling many overseas commercial
fishers, managers and politicians into false senses of security prior to some spectacular
resource and industry collapses.
Figure 1: Last-century technology did this to an offshore resource that peaked at 800,000 tonnes.
Without effective control, what hope is there for our tiny, divided inshore resource in 21st Century?
The collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishery, as shown in the above graph, was the result of
the serial overfishing of spawning aggregations of localised (philopatric) populations. The
decline was masked by hyperstability and the relentless search for new populations which
ended in the 1980s ... when there were no more virgin populations left to plunder. Annual
catches dropped from 800,000 tonnes to zero in 25 years.
Thus an intergenerational crime had been committed to the lasting detriment of food security
in North America, purely as the result of politicians failing to act on the right advice.
21.04.2015
57
You can imagine the socio-economic chaos that this caused, all because some fisheries
managers did not understand the biology of their fishery whilst industry and policy makers
refused to listen to the scientists who were doing the research.
Fisheries Queensland is repeating these last-century mistakes, allowing gillnetters and the
general public to ‘sleepwalk into the future with apparent total disregard for the above
converging catastrophes’. Queensland’s review of fisheries management is the opportunity
for the great wake-up call the state government so desperately needs.
Common concerns
In 2014, Queensland has a 1970’s fishery. The Review needs fresh independent minds
having broad specialist experience of tropical fisheries management elsewhere. We must
use the smartest and most appropriate expertise to set our beloved State on course for a
vibrant fishing sector at all levels. Inevitably some of these skills must come from outside
Queensland, even from overseas.
In addition to new appropriate skills and experience, appropriate terms of reference,
adequate funding and plenty of time are the essential ingredients for a viable Review.
As to progress, all that is needed is that prior to the next State election we have a
demonstrably suitable TOR, adequate funding and a first class team of internationally
recognized experts signed up to undertake our Review. This “Can-do” government must
get it right!
Article 12.
The proposed Fisheries Review: congratulations cancelled?
The proposed and long overdue full review of Queensland’s fisheries management,
announced on 6 March 2014, is of utmost importance to all Queenslanders who wet
a line now and again.
In the previous article we looked at why the review is necessary. I hope that was
preaching to the converted, and ‘self-evident’ to anyone who has fished the same
stretch of inshore waters for the last 20 years or more!
So we happily gave Fisheries Minister Dr John McVeigh a huge rap for his can-do
approach and taking this thorny subject out of the too-hard basket. We applauded
his decision for the review to be done by those whom he promised would be
“independent of the Queensland Government and have no private financial interests
in the fisheries sector in Queensland”.
21.04.2015
58
After that article had gone to print we were shattered by the short timescale
government had allocated to the process. No advertising, no fanfare, just an
Invitation to Offer (ITO) made on the Public Works website: closing date for
acceptance of offers 7 April, award of contract 13 May, commencement date: 19
May, completion date: 30 November 2014. Phew!
I make no apologies for describing this on our Facebook page SustainableFishing as
“sneaking out their call for tenders”. Two weeks for consultants to discover the call
for tenders in the first place, get to grips with the scale of the work, put together and
cost their proposal is unrealistic.
To assume that the best consultants for the job are all sitting around doing nothing
and will be able to start the project within ten weeks of publically announcing the
review is, in my book also unrealistic.
My email system ran hot as soon as this news was out as various network coordinators up and down the coast started to query the process. “They must have
someone lined up. What happened to the level playing fields that LNP has been
talking about?”
I do not know who started the process but names were mentioned as to who is on
the preferred list. Whether there is any truth in those claims I have no idea, the fact
remains that names have been mentioned. I simply passed on that information, but
not the names. When the successful bidders for the Review were finally announced
we were delighted to discover that the gloomy predictions of our sources were
wrong. The chosen team appeared to be competent and up to the task at hand.
After we made our concerns public, Minister McVeigh provided a detailed response.
A summary of the most important points are as follows.
The Minister’s response
“1. The review will be headed by an independent consultant - this is the clear
commitment that I made at the announcement of this review - a review Sir that I
initiated, no one else. Since the announcement the Deputy Director General of
Fisheries and Forestry Mr Scott Spencer has so far ensured contact with consultants
from regions including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, as well as
having sought advice from other jurisdictions in Australia. We are endeavouring to
secure an independent professional consultant.
21.04.2015
59
2. The Government's Invitation to Offer (IFO) via eTender is hardly a process of
'sneaking out calls'.
3. As foreshadowed in my public statement of 23 March the IFO was released on 24
March with the time frame for submissions of 14 days. I can confirm that given
delays in hearing back from some of them over the past week, Mr Spencer has
secured
an
extension
for
another
10
days
until
17
April.
4. As noted in my media statement on 6 March announcing the fisheries
management review, over the next nine months, the review will examine our entire
approach to managing the fishery, and will be guided by a Ministerial Advisory
Committee. I have outlined that the program will include this timeframe so that we
can complete a framework for fisheries management prior to the next election.
Queenslanders will then have the opportunity to decide if they wish to support the
proposed framework or not.
The review of the Act, which will be a long laborious task, can then commence. It
would be all too easy for me as Minister to simply kick the issues of fisheries
management reform off into a timeframe that is beyond the next election- in other
words put it in the too hard basket as many have done before me.
5. I take the suggestion that a consultant has already been selected even though the
IFO process is under way as an absolute insult. I heard your comment on ABC radio
April 9 that you know who the preferred consultants are - perhaps you would like to
let me know as that is news to me. I invite you to make contact with the CMC should
you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claim. Transparency in the
process is fundamental and standard procurement process in any IFO.
6. I must remind you and others that our review is underway because we see
significant shortcomings with the way in which commercial, recreational, environment
and indigenous fishing interests were managed under the former Labor Government
in Queensland.
7. A substantial budget will be available for the review.
8. The net buy-back program is overseen by an industry advisory committee for
whom I have the highest regard. With respect I'll continue to take their advice on
how the funds allocated for that program are best invested on behalf of the industry.
21.04.2015
60
9. This is a genuine attempt by the Government to undertake a broad ranging review.
I do not underestimate how difficult that task will be.”
Response to the Minister
The critical point made by the Minister is his perceived political need expressed in paragraph
4, to “complete a framework for fisheries management prior to the next election.” We all
want to see the job done well, but those of us outside of the political arena have our severe
doubts as to whether the time frame proposed by him is realistic. This has certainly proven
to be the case. As of mid April 2015, we still have not been informed of the outcome of the
long-awaited review.
As a biologist and qualified fisheries and natural resource manager I deeply regret that what
should be treated as a once-in-a-generation resource-centred project is delegated to a
position of political expediency.
We had hoped a much more realistic timeframe could have been allocated to the entire
process. The danger is that the best people for the job will not be free to commence work
next month, unless of course they have had substantial prior warning.
The Minister implies the review of the Fisheries Act will commence after the present
consultancy finishes, presumably as a Phase 2 and under a separate consultancy. That at
least is a relief.
His statement that the (new) director of Fisheries has been contacting in advance a variety
of overseas consultancy companies is helpful. As a non-fisheries person, the director
presumably has no vested interests, no related baggage, but does have a history of
resource management. Apparently he is prepared to listen to those with an informed point of
view. So that is good for starters.
The stand out line for me in the above of course is that the Minister says I have added insult
to injury by repeating the fact that there are a number of emails circulating with the claim that
certain people have been named as preferred candidates.
Here is an excerpt from one such widely circulated email: “I have been informed through the
unofficial grapevine that one of the ‘anticipated and attractive’ tenderers for this job is a
person / persons with a history of commercial fishing advocacy in Queensland”.
Obviously I did not provide names as I, the mere messenger, had no means of checking the
authenticity of such claims. I merely passed on the information that names have been
mentioned in a number of network emails I had received. Thankfully, as mentioned above,
21.04.2015
61
the team selected for the consultancy did not contain any of the names put forward by our
sources.
If the Minister chose to be insulted because I brought to his attention what a number of
people claim to be true, then that is his choice. Personally I should have expected him to
have welcomed the heads up. At least he has had an opportunity to squash the rumour.
I suspect Dr McVeigh was more offended by the “Yes Minister” quote I made on Facebook
than the information I passed on. (Younger folks may not recall that UK TV sitcom of the
1980’s. It was about life in the British Government and how politicians are manipulated by
the bureaucracy). As a government officer for over 20 years it pushes all the right buttons
and has me in a gut wrenching combination of laughter and tears: it is so true to life.
Provided FQ did a great job of contacting all the best interstate and overseas fisheries
consultants well in advance, the offending ‘Yes Minister’ quote is withdrawn for the time
being3. In the interests of transparency and a level playing field, it would have been helpful if
the Minister had published the list of consultants contacted in the way he describes above.
Conclusions
The ITO states that “The fundamental rationale of fisheries management is to manage
people, not fish.” I disagree, what a public service attitude! One of the tasks is certainly to
manage people, not fish, but the fundamental rationale is to ensure we have a
sustainable fishery at acceptable resource levels. Ultimately this review must be about
how we should make optimal use of our fisheries resources, now and into the future.
Dr John McVeigh was a brave and ambitious man to take on this review on in the first place.
If he had pulled it off successfully and within the allotted timeframe, he would have achieved
a resounding and historical victory for everyone: those of us who like to wet a line and enjoy
catching a feed of fish now and again and indeed for all in the commercial sector. As feared
that did not eventuate.
When this went to press I recommended giving the Minister all the support we can to get the
job done successfully. I promised no more offending ‘Yes Minster’ jokes from me, at least
not for the time being! As a post script to this article, Minister McVeigh eventually failed to
produce the results of the review as he implied he would prior to the 2015 election, possibly
as a result of the then Premier’s announcement of an early election.
3
As this series of articles are being compiled, it seems as if “Sir Humphrey” has indeed secured a small victory:
the review still had not been released as at 21 April 2015.
21.04.2015
62
Rapidly heading towards mid 2015, perhaps there will yet be a need to revive an appropriate
“Yes, Minister” scenario? I hope not. Labor, in their election manifesto, specifically promised
to release the Review’s findings as soon as possible. What is holding this up?
Article 13.
Is GBRMPA failing our fish? Draft Strategic Assessment rejected
Unless it had a hidden agenda, GBRMPA in 2014, appeared to be setting itself up to fail our
inshore fish and even its own staff for the next 25 years. In the process it would also be
failing all of us having interests in inshore fishing, amateurs and pros alike.
And we are not talking about the Abbott Point dredge spoil dumping issue. Unfortunately this
sensational decision has hogged the marine park media limelight over these last few weeks
(early 2014). It has allowed something else to slip back into the GBRMPA closet almost
unnoticed. If we allow a certain process to proceed unchallenged, it may result in more
damaging consequences to our inshore fish numbers than the dredge spoil dumping issue
itself.
A much less headline-grabbing event: the closing date for public comment on the draft
versions of GBRMPA’s two major planning documents has been overlooked by the media.
GBRMPA say the final versions of these reports will lay the foundations for their activities for
the next 25 years.
Their ‘Strategic Assessment’, at a hefty 600 pages, outlines all the issues they consider
need to be taken into account when formulating and carrying out their plans for the future. It
would be tempting to assume these 600 pages would cover all the major issues facing the
Park’s managers and its stakeholders, right? Dream on!
I came to grips with those documents only two days before the closing date for comments,
31 January. I’d been side-tracked by Christmas and New Year festivities, family and the
fantastic fishing weather during the allotted consultation period. But I did manage to make
my submission at the eleventh hour, see www.FFC.org.au, and http://bit.ly/1iEYegt.
Direct management responsibility but no ‘authority’
Tucked away in those 600 pages is the admission that “the Authority has a direct
management responsibility to ensure use of the Marine Park is ecologically sustainable”. It
follows therefore that GBRMPA must ensure that fish extraction from the park is sustainable.
The question is: do they have the necessary knowledge and power to put theory into
practice? Causal observations and content of their planning documents would suggest the
answer is a resounding “No” to at least one of those two issues.
21.04.2015
63
Fisheries Queensland has the direct hands-on function of fisheries management. To live up
to its charter, GBRMPA must address any serious sustainability issues facing marine
resources in the Park. This raises the question of whether the federal Authority can have any
“authority” over under-resourced, State-run FQ.
The answer is that the Authority clearly has no authority over FQ. You may well deduce from
what you read below that GBRMPA has decided, if they cannot tackle a problem head on,
then the best thing to do is to ignore it. Just leave it hidden and hopefully forgotten in the toohard basket. Not if we can help it!
Lip-service to consultation
So where does GBRMPA get the information to put into these planning documents? They
have always made a big thing about public consultation, at least ever since the public outcry
over green zones. That is what the GBRMPA-funded LMACs are all about.
For those unfamiliar with the LMACs, (Local Marine Advisory Committees) they are a series
of committees made up of GBRMPA-selected Marine Park stakeholders who meet regularly
at regional centres with GBRMPA officers to discuss important issues ... including fishing.
They are a fairly costly means of keeping in touch with communities, involving considerable
bureaucracy, staff time and travel, including flights and hotel expenses. Members select the
chair and secretary for each LMAC, subject to GBRMPA approval, who are paid a modest
retainer for their services.
Until February I had been a staunch supporter and committee member of the Douglas LMAC
for the last seven years, serving as secretary for some time.
At the very first LMAC meeting I attended back in 2006, a ‘Fishing Sub-committee’
comprising three other Douglas LMAC members reported back on their investigations into
local concerns about falling inshore fish catches. They also reported an increase in the
numbers of dead turtles and dugongs bearing suspicious wounds in the Port Douglas area.
This was all news to me at the time. They also reported that some community members
were pointing the finger at out-of-town gillnetters. Note I say out-of-towners, not our local
legitimate commercial gillnetters who do their best to manage “their” patch.
These out-of-towners included of course, the two big grey mackerel net boats using 600m
gillnets which targeted the Douglas Shire grey mackerel spawning grounds that year and the
next. The subsequent failure of the fishery for the following three years was much publicised.
Since that first Douglas LMAC report in 2006, there have been regular discussions between
various fishing networks along the GBRMP urban coastline. Concerns relating to depleted
21.04.2015
64
inshore fish numbers, poor management and inadequate enforcement have been formally
and regularly fed back to GBRMPA by Cooktown, Douglas and Cairns LMACs, as well as at
the LMAC Chairs’ Annual Meetings in Townsville.
As a reminder of what is available online, check: www.ffc.org.au/Grey_Mackerel.html#latest,
where far more is discussed than just grey mackerel issues, e.g. our “Bones of Contention,
3rd Ed.” at http://bit.ly/1n0zoNj, recommending measures to improve inshore fisheries
management and enforcement.
So when I browsed through GBRMPA’s Strategic Assessment and Planning Report I was
shell-shocked. There was no mention of concerns over depleted fish stocks, nor the thirdworld level management of gillnetting and no mention of the risk of localised commercial
extinctions as a result of netting spawning aggregations of species such as grey and school
mackerel, fingermark and threadfin!
GBRMPA has simply failed to acknowledge and address the concerns and identified threats
reported to them year in year out, by experienced and knowledgeable community and fishing
networks along the GBRMP urban coast and even their own vulnerability assessments on
key fish species. Their planning documents pay only lip service to public consultation. This is
completely unacceptable.
Who is making the rules?
After putting the strategic assessment reports down I felt like I had turned up to a match
involving my favourite footy team (Go the Cowboys!) and found that the players had not
made any attempt to score.
It was like Team GBRMPA had been scampering around the Strategic Assessment Footy
Pavilion passing the fisheries ball as if it was a hot potato because their board of directors
and the NRL had removed the goal lines!
At my last Douglas LMAC meeting, 13 February, 2014 our Chair tabled a letter he had
prepared for the Authority presenting similar concerns to mine. I then presented further detail
as dispassionately as possible before resigning from the LMAC in protest. Apparently my
seven years’ active participation at LMAC meetings and numerous reports received
sympathetically by the committee and fully supported by them can be ignored. It appears to
have been time wasted.
The problem as I see it is that the GBRMPA footy team do have their Jonathon Thurston and
Matty Scott equivalents at middle management levels. Like these great players, they are at
the mercy of their board of directors and their NRL equivalent. These presumably are the
Authority Board, Canberra bureaucracy and the Federal Minister for the Environment.
21.04.2015
65
Imagine how JT and team mates would feel if the Cowboys Board was told by the NRL to
remove the goal line from games this season! Who is pulling the strings at GBRMPA? There
should never be so much top-down control that their best and most knowledgeable team
players are forced to ignore crucial issues of sustainability.
All teams play best if backed up by great supporters. Remember those were just the draft
versions of those key reports. For your part, since you have read this far, you must have
some interest: so what can you do to help?
We need to insist that GBRMPA finally acknowledge and address our need for better inshore
fisheries management, including regional management, protection of spawning stocks from
netting, Net Free Zones and better enforcement.
At the time of writing (2014) this I noted that readers could still voice opinions by phoning
GBRMPA on 4750 0700, emailing them on info@gbrmpa.com.au and/or visiting them on
Facebook.
Footnote: So what eventually went into the final report? The sad fact of the matter is that I
found the draft so stressful because of their glaring omissions, including failing to mention
the findings of their own Vulnerability Assessments for grey mackerel and threadfin that I
never returned to the topic. This has probably been GBRMPA’s worst ever performance.
14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Key scientific papers, fisheries status reports and
independent studies.
NB: Use Ctrl + Click of mouse to go direct to summaries of their key relevant findings
Page
14.1.
Cameron, D. and Begg, G.A. 2002. Fisheries biology and interaction in the
northern Australian small mackerel fishery. ............................................................ 68
14.2. Anon. Fisheries of Qld East Coast, current state of knowledge, May 2005 ............. 68
14.3. Gunn, J., Meere, F. and Stevens, J.D. 2008. Independent review proposed
management arrangements for Queensland's ECIFFF.
.................................... 68
14.4. Macfadyen, G. & Huntington, T. Certification and Sustainable Fisheries. ................ 69
14.5. Banks, Richard. Poseidon ARM Pty. Ltd., 2008. Evaluation of prospective
management arrangements and control actions that could be applied to the
grey mackerel fishery in the Daintree (N. Queensland). 23p. .................................. 69
14.6. Welch, DJ, et al. 2009. Determination of management units for grey mackerel
fisheries in Australia. Final Report. ............................................................................70
14.7. Newman, S.J., et al. Stock structure of Grey Mackerel across northern Australia,
based on otolith stable isotope chemistry. ............................................................... 71
14.8. Charters, Robbie A. et al. 2010. The stock structure of grey mackerel in Australia as
inferred from its parasite fauna. ................................................................................ 71
14.9. GBRMPA, 2011. Vulnerability Assessment for the GBR: Grey mackerel. ............... 71
14.10. Broderick D., et al. Genetic population structure of grey mackerel in northern
Australia. .................................................................................................................. 72
21.04.2015
66
14.11. GBRMPA, 2012. A Vulnerability Assessment for the GBR: Threadfin salmon. ....... 72
14.12. GBRMPA, 2012. A Vulnerability Assessment for the GBR: Grey mackerel. ............ 73
14.13. Gutierrez, N.L., R. Hilborn and O. Defeo. 2011. Leadership, social capital and
incentives promote successful fisheries. .................................................................. 73
14.14. DPI&F. Annual status report 2010, East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery ................ 73
14.15. IUCN, 2012. List of threatened species .................................................................... 74
14.16. DPI&F, 2012. Grey mackerel fishery, East Coast. ................................................... 74
14.17. DSEWPAC, 2012. Assessment of the East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery. ......... 75
14.18. McPhee, Daryl, 2012. Future Management and Governance of the Queensland
East Coast Inshore Finfish Fishery .......................................................................... 74
14.1.
Cameron, D. and Begg, G.A. 2002. Fisheries biology and interaction in the northern
Australian small mackerel fishery.
Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (Projects
92/114 and 92/144.02), Fisheries Research Development Corporation, Canberra.
Key findings for grey mackerel: (i) from tagging studies they found no evidence to indicate
grey mackerel travel long distances; tagging of school mackerel support concept of a number
of (different) local stocks; (ii) female grey mackerel reach maturity between 651 and 700mm
FL (approx. 750-800cm Total Length.) [Comment: as at 2012 legal minimum length for grey
mackerel is still 15 to 20 cm less than this]
Key recommendations: ... (i) Mackerel species should be managed with utmost caution until
detailed stock assessments are made. (ii) need to develop a reliable indicator of stock
abundance, i.e. means of estimating independently of total landings whether stocks are
steady, increasing or declining (iii) the respective stock structures need to be taken into
consideration when formulating management arrangements. (iv) further research should
include investigating localised spawning grounds. Note large numbers of immature grey
mackerel were taken by smaller mesh gillnets. (v) Improve Qld commercial logbook program
as data collected is inadequate to monitor the fishery.
14.2.
Anon. Fisheries of Qld East Coast, current state of knowledge, May 2005
CRC Reef at:
www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing_fisheries/statusfisheries/inshoregreymackerel.htm;
Gives reported catch data for east Coast commercial inshore grey mackerel fishery for 16
years, 1988 to 2003, varying from about 55 tonnes in both 1995 and 2000, to maxima of
around 265 in 1990 and 235 in 2003. Average reported catch of grey mackerel over 16 years
prior to 2003 was around 135 tonnes. Prior to 1993 around 50% was caught outside the
GBRMP, by 2003 only about 15% was outside the GBRMP. [Comment: is this evidence of
serial overfishing of local populations?]
14.3.
Gunn, J., Meere, F. and Stevens, J.D. 2008. Independent review proposed management
arrangements for Queensland's ECIFFF.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
21.04.2015
67
This review is extremely critical of the management of the ECIFF and vindicated the concerns
of NSF expressed since 2007. The Review found the ECIFF to be characterised by:




a serious lack of validated and species-specific data on the fishery catch,
very limited knowledge of the sustainable levels of catch for most target, byproduct
and bycatch species,
inadequate fishery-independent data on the interactions with vulnerable and
protected species that are susceptible to gillnets, and
inadequate levels of precaution being adopted by DPI&F in the management
arrangements and the setting of catch limits for target species.
They found some significant gaps in a number of important areas which make managing the
ECIFF difficult.... and considerable scope to improve the management framework. The
reviewers encourage a review of policy and legislative settings. They noted that a delay in
providing a management response can be extremely costly to a resource or the
broader ecosystem.
The team noted documented localised depletion for some species and that depletions are not
always obvious when fishery “assessments” are based on aggregate data, as they have
been in the ECIFF. They state that in schooling species with local residency and/or those
that form seasonal spawning aggregations, the risk of localised depletion is high e.g.
grey mackerel.
They recommended exploring greater spatial management to be a priority and that DPI&F
should seek broad public and scientific input on the use of spatial management to reduce the
potential for localised depletion of key species and interactions with protected species such
as dugong, inshore dolphins and humpback whales
They noted that the current DPI&F approach does not allow the flexibility necessary to deal
with a fishery operating in a complex, dynamic, World Heritage listed ecosystem. They
concluded there needs to be a fundamental rethink of the management approach for the
ECIFF ... to reduce complexity, ensure sustainability of all species, and to take into account
significant spatial heterogeneity in the risks.
14.4.
Macfadyen, G. & Huntington, T. Certification and Sustainable Fisheries.
Available from: Poseidon ARM PTY Ltd. /United Nations Environment Programme.
91p. Previously available at: http://www.consult-poseidon.com/reports.asp Quoting
from their website:
“This document has been prepared by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd.
The document draws on a wide range of data and information sources provided in
Appendix A. It has also been complemented with the help of email and telephone
communication with various certification scheme managers, and with industry and
government sources, as referenced accordingly in the text. Survey questionnaires
were also completed with certified businesses in the supply chain and with certified
producers in a number of small-scale and developing country fisheries”.
14.5.
Banks, Richard. Poseidon ARM Pty. Ltd., 2008. Evaluation of prospective management
21.04.2015
68
arrangements and control actions that could be applied to the grey mackerel fishery in the
Daintree (N. Queensland). 23p.
Previously available on Company website for download:
http://www.consult.poseidon.com/reports/Evaluation%20of%20prospective%20management
%20and%20control%20actions_V4.pdf; . notes on the study currently available at:
http://www.consult-poseidon.com/asp/publicproject.asp?valueid=561 .
Poseidon, a well-known international fisheries consultancy company, (www.consultposeidon.com) was requested by NSF to ‘undertake a short scoping study to
evaluate the processes that could lead to the establishment of management
arrangements for the localised fishery in North Queensland, against best available
evidence. The report contains a review of best available data, including catch
information from local fishers and anglers. Poseidon also analysed the legislation
and consultative processes that can and should be applied to the fishery by the
Management authorities and undertook a risk analysis.
The report’s conclusions contain the following statements:
“The management authorities, including the Department of Primary Industry,
Queensland, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Parks Authority are required by Law
to apply the Precautionary Principle, or at the very least undertake a participatory risk
analysis evaluation in the event of any doubt as to the state of the stocks. Were the
principle to be subjected to the appropriate participatory process it would point to
significant concerns in respect to commercial gill netting in the Douglas shire area,
and a damage to economic well being of the local economy if left unchecked;”
“Precautionary principle management decisions are upheld when applied, providing that the
appropriate risk assessment mechanisms is used. There is therefore no reason to wait for
scientific evidence to demonstrate that a management problem exists. The prescribed
analytical process will already show that there is cause for concern.”
“The Department of Primary Industry and the Great Barrier Marine Parks Authority require
WTO/fishery accreditation for all fisheries from which product is exported. ... If applied, the
grey mackerel fishery under its current management regime is unlikely to secure a WTO.”
14.6.
Welch, DJ, et al. 2009. Determination of management units for grey mackerel fisheries in
Australia. Final Report.
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Pr. 2005/010, Fishing and
Fisheries Research Centre Technical Report 4, F&FRC, JCU, Townsville. 158p.
The paper reports on research to determine whether there are non-mixing populations of grey
mackerel in Australia. The results prove that there are at least four different genetic stocks
across N Australia, namely in WA, NW NT, Gulf of Carpentaria and Eastern Australia. Otolith
21.04.2015
69
isotopes indicated there are at least two stocks in Eastern Queensland. Parasite fauna
suggests a separation of east coast stocks somewhere between Mackay and Townsville.
Management implications indicate need for management of grey mackerel fisheries to be
carried out on regional scales finer than are currently in place. ... on the east coast managers
should at least monitor fisheries on a more local scale dictated by fishing effort and assess
accordingly. Stock assessments should also consider the stock divisions identified,
particularly on the east coast...”
“We also emphasise that where we have not identified different stocks does not
preclude the possibility of the occurrence of further stock division”
Recommendations incl: status of each stock to be assessed; potential for localised depletions
to be investigated, development of a reliable estimator of grey mackerel stock abundance
and/or harvest rates.
14.7.
Newman, S.J., et al. Stock structure of Grey Mackerel across northern Australia, based
on otolith stable isotope chemistry.
Environmental Biology of Fishes, 89 (3-4). pp. 357-367. "Proceedings of the 4th
International Otolith Symposium, 24-28 August 2009, Monterey, California"
From Abstract: ‘Stable isotopes in otoliths were used to determine the stock structure of Grey
Mackerel. Otoliths were collected from Grey Mackerel at ten locations representing much of
their distributional and fisheries range across northern Australia from 2005 to 2007. Fish from
four locations-Western Australia, Northern Territory and Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland east
coast mid and north sites and Queensland east coast south site had stable isotope values
that were significantly different indicating stock separation. The spatial separation of these
populations indicates a complex stock structure across northern Australia. Stocks of S.
semifasciatus appear to be associated with large coastal embayments. These results
indicate that optimal fisheries management may require a review of the current spatial
arrangements.’
14.8.
Charters, Robbie A. et al. 2010. The stock structure of grey mackerel in Australia as
inferred from its parasite fauna.
Fisheries Research, 101 (1-2). pp. 94-99.
Abstract: The scombrid Scomberomorus semifasciatus is an important component of inshore
fisheries in tropical Australia. Data on the parasite fauna of 593 fish from areas off northern
and eastern Australia were examined for evidence of discrete fish populations. The parasites
used..... Tukey Kramer pairwise comparisons gave significant differences in the abundances
of two or more parasites between fish from the east coast, the eastern Gulf of Carpentaria
and the remainder of northern Australia. Multivariate analysis gave further evidence of
differences and the results suggest that at least 4 populations of stocks of grey mackerel
occur along the northern and eastern coastline of Australia
21.04.2015
70
14.9.
GBRMPA, 2011. Vulnerability Assessment for the GBR: Grey mackerel.
Vulnerability assessment rated at ‘Medium’ noting particularly the potential for
localised depletion of spawning aggregations. Grey mackerel are targeted and valued by
both commercial and recreational fishers. The minimum legal size (MLS) for retaining grey
mackerel (60 cm total length (TL)) is significantly smaller than size at sexual maturity for
females (65-70 cm fork length (FL))1.For males, size at sexual maturity is 55-60 cm (FL),
which equates to a total length between 64 and 69.5 cm respectively1. This means that that a
MLS of 60 cm TL allows for the retention of a proportion of the immature male [Ed’s
comment: NB critical omission here, it should read ‘and female’ population: as females were
found to mature between 750 - 800 cm total length (650 – 700 mm fork length,) Cameron &
Begg 2002 whereas, Welch et al found that 50% of females matured by TL of approx 700 mm
total length which is still 10 cm longer than the legal minimum size resulting in the possibility
of significant proportions of the female population being taken before they ever spawn.]
Recent research indicates that grey mackerel exist in two discrete populations on the eastern
coast of Australia and there is further indication that there may also be smaller metapopulations within those populations at the embayment scale. This possibility presents
fisheries managers with further considerations when undertaking stock assessments and
developing management responses as intensive localised fishing pressure does have the
potential to cause localised depletions as experienced in the Douglas Region (2008-9);
There is significant year to year variability in grey mackerel catches which is likely to be
attributed to fishery-dependent factors as well as seasonal and environmental factors,
particularly rainfall variability;
14.10. Broderick D., et al. Genetic population structure of grey mackerel in northern Australia.
Journal of Fish Biology, Volume 79, Issue 3, pages 633–661, September 2011. The
Fisheries Society of the British Isles.
Abstract includes: ‘This study used mtDNA sequence and microsatellite markers to elucidate
the population structure of Scomberomorus semifasciatus collected from 12 widespread
sampling locations in Australia. Samples (n = 544). ... Combined interpretation of
microsatellite and mtDNA data identified four genetic stocks of S. semifasciatus’.
14.11. GBRMPA, 2012. A Vulnerability Assessment for the GBR: Threadfin salmon.
Appeared on their website in 2012 at:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/21747/gbrmpa-VA-ThreadfinSalmon-11-7-12.pdf
A detailed assessment which should be read in full, extracts include: “Considering the stock
structure of blue threadfin along the east coast stock, there are also indications that the
minimum legal size for blue threadfin may not be sufficiently precautionary to protect a
proportion of the breeding stock from harvest prior to first maturity. Recent research using
multiple methods (genetics, otolith chemistry, parasite abundance, life history and markrecapture data) shows that threadfins can be very long lived (20+ years) and exist as discrete
21.04.2015
71
local populations at spatial scales of less than 100 km. In parts of northern Australia, king
threadfin stocks are showing signs of overexploitation. These findings should be considered
when undertaking stock assessments and developing management responses as intensive
localised fishing pressure may have the potential to cause localised depletions in parts of
their east coast range. Threadfins die quickly when netted, so mortality of undersized
individuals as by-catch may be high. Catch records may significantly underestimate fishing
mortality, due to mortality of discarded fish.”
In short, the conclusion that can be drawn from this assessment is that both species are
highly vulnerable to overfishing and marked changes are required in their fisheries
management.
14.12. GBRMPA, 2012. A Vulnerability Assessment for the GBR: Grey mackerel.
Appeared on their website in 2012 at:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/21733/gbrmpa-VA-GreyMackerel-11-7-12.pdf
Again worth reading in full. GBRMPA give a vulnerability assessment rating of ‘Medium’ to
grey mackerel and note “particularly the potential for localised depletion of spawning
aggregations” and state that “Recent research indicates grey mackerel exist in two discrete
populations on the east coast of Australia and there is further indication there may also be
smaller meta-populations at the embayment scale. The possibility of embayment-scale metapopulations should be considered when undertaking stock assessments and the potential for
localised stock depletions.” (My comment: where there have been localised depletions as a
result of over netting of pre-spawning aggregations, those local fishers in such areas would
undoubtedly upgrade the vulnerability assessment from medium to HIGH.)
14.13. Gutierrez, N.L, R. Hilborn and O. Defeo. 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives
promote successful fisheries.
Nature 470, 386–389. At: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/abs/nature09689.html;
Their study of 130 co-managed fisheries throughout the world, including five in Australia,
found that certain conditions are necessary for successful co-management of fisheries. They
“found that the most important co-management conditions necessary for successful
management of fisheries are presence of community leaders, strong social cohesion,
individual or community quotas, and community-based protected areas. Additional key
attributes were enforcement mechanisms, long-term management policies and
influence of fishers in local markets.” They found that “Leadership was critical for
successful co-management of fisheries”
[Comment: Gutierrez, Hilborn and Defeo may have predicted that effective co-management
of the ECIFF under present conditions would be most unlikely as some most important preconditions for its success in Queensland are lacking. This will remain the case until major
changes are made to the ECIFF. Where there is significant conflict amongst commercial line
and net fishers and also between recreational and net fishers, the required “social cohesion”,
21.04.2015
72
including trust, is clearly lacking. It would be remiss of the authorities and politicians not to
recognize this key point.]
14.14. DPI&F. Annual status report 2010, East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery.
www.daff.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_SustainableFishing/2010_ECIFFF_ASR_Final.pdf .;
Presents past catches for Grey Mackerel - 2006-07, 350t (343, 7), 2007-08: 356t
(350, 6), 2008-09: 444t (438, 6), 2009-10: 193t (181, 12). The 2009 ASR gives
annual catches by year for 2006: 332 (327, 5), 2007: 332 (325, 7) 2008: 390 (386, 4)
tonnes. Note CRC gives 16 yrs data up until 2003 with landings between 55 and
265 tonnes approx., at an average of 135 tonnes per year. NB it also shows a
shift of majority of catch from S of GBRMP to within GBRMP.
14.15. IUCN, 2012. List of threatened species
www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/170337/0/biblio;
Lists the species as of least concern however stating that: ‘This species may be
threatened by targeted fishing in spawning sites’. Taken from the IUCN website: ‘The
biology of this species is virtually unknown. Along the eastern Australian coast, length of 50%
maturity is 67.45 cm fork length (FL) for males and 81 cm (FL) for females, and longevity is
estimated to be 12 years based on a growth study using otoliths (Cameron and Begg 2002).’
‘The commercial fishery fundamentally changed with the introduction of new conservative
quota management arrangements [Comment of 250t] in July 2009 [ Comment: but average
catch over 16 years to 2003 was 135 tonnes, how can 250t be classified as conservative
especially when a number of stocks are involved and there is no way of allocating catch
ceilings to the various populations and “sub-populations at the embayment level”??] so it is
not yet possible to determine regional catch trends and overall stock status (SS 2011).’ This
species is taken with others of its genus in a fishery in Queensland. The reported annual
catch has varied between 193–444 tons during 2006–2010 with the most recent catch (2009–
2010) 193 tons of which 181 tons were caught with nets and 12 tons by line (ASR 2011).
There seem to be at least four stocks or population management units of this species
(Charters 2010, Newman et al. 2010) complicating management (SS 2011).
14.16. DPI&F, 2012. Grey mackerel fishery, East Coast.
http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/28_18377.htm;
This web page stated: “There is uncertainty in the assessment of current catch trends and
stock status, given that the commercial fishery fundamentally changed with the introduction of
new conservative quota management arrangements on 1 July 2009. Only two years of
routine biological data (length of fish caught in the fishery) were available, which was
insufficient to assess trends.”
21.04.2015
73
4
Exploitation status of grey mackerel in the ECIFF is currently “Uncertain ”. The introduction of
a conservative commercial total allowable catch for this species that commenced on 1 July
2009 has meant that it is difficult to interpret the recent catch history for grey mackerel with
certainty. Adding to the assessment complexity, results of recent stock discrimination
research have suggested that there are two stocks of grey mackerel along the east coast,
with the split occurring somewhere between Townsville and Mackay (Welch et al. 2009). The
status of grey mackerel will remain 'uncertain' until a longer time series of commercial catch
history and fishery-dependent monitoring data (stratified for the two stocks) are available for
assessment.(However this was changed in 2013: see my articles in main text on grey
mackerel.)
14.17. DSEWPAC, 2012. Assessment of the East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery. Marine
Biodiversity Policy Branch, Canberra.
“This
document is an assessment carried out by the Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities of a commercial fishery against the
Australian Government Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries
nd
–2
Edition. It forms part of the advice provided to the Minister for Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities on the fishery in relation to decisions
under Part 13 and Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Minister for SEWPAC or
the Australian Government” Comment: see Article 5.
14.18. Daryl McPhee 2012. Future Management and Governance of the Queensland East Coast Inshore
Finfish Fishery.
Report Prepared for the World Wildlife Fund for Nature; [comment: Dr McPhee is Associate
Professor of Environmental Science, Bond University, Gold Coast, an authority on the
fisheries of Australia being author of the book Fisheries Management in Australia (2008)
The Federation Press 257pp.]
[My comment: an excellent report to prepare WWF leading up to their participation in the
Stakeholder Working Group for the 2012-initiated gillnet buyback scheme. Prof. McPhee’s
intimate knowledge of the ECIFF and fisheries management practices in general is evident
throughout. The conclusions and positions taken align strongly on most issues with those
presented over the years by NSF. Some points may need to be talked or worked through
before NSF can finalise their position on these but we are definitely in the same ballpark
(see Bones of Contention 3rd Edition at: http://bit.ly/1n0zoNj for more discussion).
4
At the time of writing, however this has changed, see Articles 8, 9 & 10
21.04.2015
74
The standard merits the presentation of entire executive summary here. The question arises
as to why WWF had to fund this report and not government? Certainly government would be
justified in refunding the consultancy fee to WWF.
WWF McPhee 2012 Report: Executive Summary

Significant changes in the management regime and governance arrangements for
the Queensland East Coast Inshore Finfish Fishery need to be undertaken to ensure
that the economic performance of the fishery improves and the ecosystem impacts of
the fishery are reduced. “Business as usual” is not a viable option for the fishery as a
whole.

With money pledged for structural adjustment with a focus on the ECIFF,
there is an opportunity to significantly reduce effort in the fishery and this has
significant environmental benefits as well as improving the economic outlook for
operators that remain in the fishery.

Overall, management of the ECIFF needs to further reduce latent effort, but
also reduce active fishing effort. Both are necessary in order to make a difference
with respect to effort reduction. It is recommended that structural adjustment
expenditure focus primarily on removal of active effort and this should be prioritised
ahead of removing latent effort.

It is recommended that the Structural Adjustment Package (SAP) should be
administered by the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority. The design and
implementation of the SAP should be undertaken by an independently chaired panel
(SAP Panel) with the following expertise:
o
Queensland government officials with expertise in net fisheries;
o
one or two independent professionals with expertise in Australian net
fisheries;
o
a representative of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority;
o
a representative from the conservation sector;
o
a recreational fishing representative;
o
a commercial fisher with expertise in net fishing but with no direct or
indirect investment in the ECIFF; and
o

a legal person with expertise in business law.
It is uncertain how much latent effort remains in the ECIFF, and the amount of
latent effort also depends on how it is defined. To potentially address latent effort,
there are three options recommended:
o
compulsory acquisition of net fishing symbols that are deemed latent;
21.04.2015
75
o
a specific component of the buyback targeting latent effort, with the
total funds capped at a certain level (e.g. no more than 20% of the funds
should be available for the purchase of latent effort); and,
o

making symbols that are deemed latent non-transferable.
It is recommended that the targeting by the SAP of active effort focus on the
removal of both net fishing symbols and licence packages with active net fishing
effort.

It is recommended that a tender based approach (reverse auction) be used
as a basis for attracting bids to the SAP, and this is one of the most common
approaches to implementing a buy-back. “Value for money is the over-riding
determinant as to whether a bid is accepted or not; however, value for money in this
context is broader than just economic terms and can including prioritising the
purchase of active licences in high conservation areas (e.g. Dugong Protection Area
“B”).

A priority issue for the proposed SAP Panel is to ensure that a reduction in
overall fishing effort in the ECIFF does occur and effort removed does not become
reactivated in the fishery. This issue can in part be addressed by further considering
and addressing latent effort in the ECIFF, but also through specific provisions that
prevent re‐entry into the fishery. The fishing industry and the fisheries management
agency have a significant role in developing such provisions.

Ex‐post assessment of the SAP should be undertaken.

Regional management has a significant potential role to play in the future
management of the ECIFF; however, zoning of the fishery is critical to ensuring that
regional management can meet its potential.

Zoning of the ECIFF is required to provide a better approach to managing
fishing effort; allowing the tailoring of exact fishing practices to a local area to
minimise environmental impacts; and producing a greater level of social cohesion. It
is recommended that zoning of the ECIFF be pursued after the SAP is completed,
and that significant input from the industry and the fisheries management agency be
utilised in the design of zoning arrangements.

The report identified important deficiencies in terms of the spatial scale in the
information reported and the public disclosure of catch and effort in the ECIFF (and
Queensland commercial fisheries in general). To address
these deficiencies, the report recommends:
o
Catch and effort information on ChrisWEB be updated and kept
updated;
21.04.2015
76
o
Information on catch and effort in grids with less than five boats be
routinely made publicly available with a delay in public access to this
information to minimise concerns regarding “commercial in-confidence”; and,
o
Information be collected and reported at a finer spatial scale, with
investigations into cost effective and practical methods of electronic reporting
that can capture spatial information.

The report endorsed the concept of rights‐based fisheries management and a
move towards better defined and tradeable property rights in the ECIFF.

The report reviewed the overall applicability of an individual transferable
quota (ITQ) arrangement for the fishery, but considered it likely to be impractical and
not cost-effective. The challenges identified in the application of ITQ arrangements
for the ECIFF are common to small scale fisheries in general.

The report recommended using “net length” as a tradeable unit in the ECIFF
with initially trialling of this approach in the N2 (set net fishery). Initial allocation
should be based on a tender process but with a cap on the maximum number of nets
per symbol. After initial allocation, net lengths could be traded between operators
with mechanisms to reduce the amount net available overall in the fishery.

It is recognised that this is a significant potential change to the management
arrangements of the ECIFF and as such significant input from the fishing industry
and the fisheries management agency is required.

There needs to be a fundamental rethink into consultative and participatory
frameworks for fisheries management in Queensland, including but not limited to the
ECIFF.
Industry led initiatives to further modify net fishing apparatus should continue to be
encouraged; however the use of pingers is unlikely to yield conservation benefits.
Acknowledgements
To the many people who have contributed to the material presented here, many of whom are
in the Network for Sustainable Fishing (NSF), you been the inspiration to continue the
unrewarding task of documenting the failure of the authorities to manage our North
Queensland, east coast inshore fisheries along sustainable lines. You know who you are:
Thank you!
All along the North Queensland East Coast, the internet and social media have allowed a
number of like-minded, responsible experienced fishers to form e-networks promoting
sustainable fisheries in response to our declining inshore resources and FQ’s inability to
effectively manage these for triple bottom line benefits. Thank you for your encouragement.
21.04.2015
77
Social media will increasingly be used as the vehicle to drive the political will which is
needed to restore Queensland’s inshore fisheries to acceptable levels before we lose any
more local populations of our iconic species.
Particularly active in the drive for improving our fisheries are Fishers for Conservation,
www.ffc.org.au, where indeed many of this writer’s reports and articles are available and the
relatively recently formed Queensland Recreational Fishers Network. A visit to their
website http://www.qrfn.org will reveal a fund of useful material and excellent policy
recommendations.
QRFN is, quote: “a network of like-minded people and groups involved in recreational fishing
who share information, strategize and advocate regarding rebuilding Queensland’s depleted
and overfished fish stocks and moving the management of the state’s fisheries towards
world’s best practice.”
The NSF Facebook site has been somewhat neglected since Labor’s promise to release that
elephant-in-the-room, the 2014 Review of Queensland’s Fisheries Management, “as soon as
possible”. However our Facebook site continues to receive a steady stream of “Likes” at
www.facebook.com/SustainableFishing. You, the reader, are invited to contribute.
Action on our Facebook site is now being ramped up, especially in support of the need for
the three Net Free Zones promised by the Queensland State Labor Party prior to the 2015
elections. This collection of articles will soon be available for download via a Facebook link.
I hold a certain editor of a Mackay fishing magazine totally responsible for the style in which
the preceding articles are written. He sent the first articles I offered him back, saying they
were far too dry and sounded like government reports. Thanks for sticking with me, Lee!
I must also pay tribute to Dr Dennis Hall and Dr John Stoneman, Fisheries Advisers to the
then Overseas Development Administration of the British Government who, in January 1980,
offered me the train fare from Heathrow Airport to their office in London to attend an
interview for a national scholarship awarding a UK government salary. This would finance
post graduate studies in fisheries management for tropical countries over two years.
Drs Hall & Stoneman had earlier advised me in PNG, by telex in 1979, that they had
selected quote: “six strong, short-listed candidates for interviews” out of many candidates
from all over the UK. All I had to do was to fund my return airfares between West New Britain
Province, Papua New Guinea and Heathrow. I took the gamble and was rewarded by their
support. My obligation would be to return to work in fisheries in developing Commonwealth
countries for the ODA.
21.04.2015
78
We never dreamt that 35 years on I’d be spending my spare time promoting concepts
discussed during those ensuing ODA studies (1980 to 1981) but to the Smart State of a First
World Country, not a developing one, and in the only area in the world where two World
Heritage Areas meet.
Finally, to my long-suffering wife, Julie, and offspring, Mo and Tanya, my sincere apologies
for spending so much of my free time on these writings and the background research.
Thanks for not giving up on me (yet) but when the many truths discussed here finally
become self-evident to the authorities and industry alike, it will be worth it. Providing QLD
can finally establish the basis for a sustainable inshore fishery at acceptable stock levels, we
shall all be able to go fishing with a clear conscience.
21.04.2015
79

pdf 3.5 meg - Fishers For Conservation

Transcription

Similar documents

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.

The Distribution of Capture Fisheries Based Small Pelagic

Fourth of July - Family, Food, Fireworks and Fishing

Peter Walsh visits Melbourne Seafood Centre

connecting the dots - Wilderness Markets

A resolution requesting Hon. Edgardo A. Tallado, Governor and the

Finfish - Department of Agriculture

Famous Madam Heidi Fleiss` little black book will be for sale.

Sågarbo Herrgård Stuguthyrning