quote:

This is an overview of commercial fisheries management measures that have already commenced to achieve the necessary reductions in catch for demersal scalefish in the West Coast Bioregion.  

These management measures have involved bringing the previously open-access wetline fishery on the West Coast under formal management (through a management plan) and establishing a closure to commercial line and net fishing in the Metropolitan area (being an area of approximately 14,000km2, extending north south for 120 nautical miles from around Lancelin in the north to near Myalup in the south, between the shoreline and the 250m depth contour).

The commencement of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish (Interim) Management Plan 2007 (WCDSF Plan) on 1 January 2008 has;

. seen permits issued to the holders of Fishing Boat Licences that meet the criteria set out in the WCDSF Plan,

. restricted access to the WCDSF to those operating under a permit (it has also introduced prohibitions relating to the storage and transport of demersal scalefish, possession of fishing lines and selling of and dealing in demersal scalefish, for those persons that are not authorised under a WCDSF Permit), and

. introduced a comprehensive set of management arrangements for the commercial fishers operating under the WCDSF Plan, including, but not limited to, restricted access by Area/s of the Fishery , Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) requirements, fine-scale daily/trip statutory reporting of catch and effort, and gear restrictions.

Most significantly, the commencement of the WCDSF Plan has reduced the number of boats potentially able to be used for line fishing for demersal scalefish on the West Coast from approximately 1,250 to 60, and more or less overnight put an end to the market in (potentially unreported) and largely unregulated sales of demersal scalefish by occasional wetliners.

The Department is preparing to introduce the second stage of the WCDSF Plan on 1 January 2009, including (among other things) the allocation of entitlement and further VMS requirements.  The allocation of entitlement will result in each permit specifying the level of effort (in fishing time) that is permitted under that permit, and thereby result in fishing effort within each Area of the WCDSF, and the WCDSF more broadly, being capped, to limit catches to the prescribed Total Commercial Catch (TCC) settings for each Area of the WCDSF.  

Having introduced the Metropolitan Area commercial closure for the two commercial fisheries that have the most interaction with demersal scalefish (the WCDSF and the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery [WCDGDLF]), the Government is currently in the process of buying-out approximately one third of the entitlement for the WCDGDLF to ensure balance remains between entitlement (fishing effort) and the remaining open "fishable" areas of the WCDGDLF.

On the back of the recent introduction of measures in the WCDGDLF to reduce effort by approximately 40%, these measures will make a significant contribution to the demersal scalefish sustainability objectives.

quote:

already downloaded the one involving creel census.... can't find that list in the download version of the document.....

quote:

where is the list?

quote:

it might be appended in the hardcopy version.

quote:


What is the complete list of species that are regarded as demersal scalefish for both commercial and recreational purposes in the area under review?

quote:

watch the pro's lose FA

quote:

The Department is preparing to introduce the second stage of the WCDSF Plan on 1 January 2009, including (among other things) the allocation of entitlement and further VMS requirements.  The allocation of entitlement will result in each permit specifying the level of effort (in fishing time) that is permitted under that permit, and thereby result in fishing effort within each Area of the WCDSF, and the WCDSF more broadly, being capped, to limit catches to the prescribed Total Commercial Catch (TCC) settings for each Area of the WCDSF.  

Having introduced the Metropolitan Area commercial closure for the two commercial fisheries that have the most interaction with demersal scalefish (the WCDSF and the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery [WCDGDLF]), the Government is currently in the process of buying-out approximately one third of the entitlement for the WCDGDLF to ensure balance remains between entitlement (fishing effort) and the remaining open "fishable" areas of the WCDGDLF.

quote:

After all the criticisms about how the stock situation got to this critical stage, I would suspect that people responsible will be keen to avoid any further criticisms of any lack of action....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terry Fuller

quote:

already downloaded the one involving creel census.... can't find that list in the download version of the document.....

Don

That's because it is in the other reference I suggested you should read.

quote:

where is the list?

Appendix 3, State of the Fisheries Report.

TerryF
=====
{/quote]

Got it, thanks Terry. Most comprehensive and illuminating. Probably should have been a reference item in the paper quoting it in connection with indicator species.
Thanks again,
Don 

_____________________________

nil desperandum!

(in reply to Terry Fuller)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terry Fuller


I can't recall seeing any published details of those advantages/disadvantages with particular application to WA wetline fishing, (it might be somewhere) but I know that suggestions about using a quota system received on the Wetline Review were not accepted.

Yes, effort control can allow overcatch in any one year.

The sting is in the adjustments and potential cuts in the following year which could affect the viability of the operators.

The limited number of licenced operators who are left in the industry for the long term have a vested interest in sustainability and a viable industry.

That is quite different to the "open access" of the past, particularly when most of the operators KNEW they didn't have any chance of any future long term involvement, so a cynic could say some might not care about sustainability.

The decision to use input/effort controls has been made.

As already posted.... After all the criticisms about how the stock situation got to this critical stage, I would suspect that people responsible will be keen to avoid any further criticisms of any lack of action....

The proof will be in the commercial catch data from now on compared to the yearly TACC targets set by Dept of Fisheries, and the ongoing status of the stocks as shown by the research to be done.

TerryF
=====

quote:

im sure we will hear all about the enviromental factors which had an influence on it as well

quote:

Recfishwest Policy. Setting of Fish Harvest Levels.

Recfishwest recognises that the setting of sustainable harvest levels is an integral part of Integrated Fisheries Management.

However, for a number of reasons the harvest level set for a fishery will not necessarily be the maximum sustainable harvest level.

In some cases the stakeholders in the fishery may prefer a lower harvest level which would result in a greater stock level that includes larger and older fish.

In other cases the existing stock may be depleted and there is a need to reduce the harvest level for some time until the stock rebuilds.

• Sustainability is the most important criterion and in the case of any doubt about the available information the harvest should be set at a lower and conservative level.

• Stakeholders from each significant sector in each fishery should be consulted before the harvest level for that fishery is set.

• Recfishwest will endeavour to represent the views of recreational fishers in consultation on harvest levels and where necessary and appropriate will examine the possibility of spatial separation to meet differing objectives between and within stakeholder groups.

Background to Policy.

Sharing the fish.

Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) includes sharing the total allowable harvest level between indigenous, commercial and recreational users. Once the shares are decided, each group will be managed separately to ensure that they do not exceed their share.

An important decision for IFM is the determination of a total harvest level for each species of fish.

Harvest Levels.

In some places, this level is described as "the" sustainable harvest level, but any harvest level less than the maximum sustainable harvest level is still sustainable.

It is possible that the setting of the harvest level could be done in two steps:-

1. The Department of Fisheries could decide a "maximum biologically sustainable harvest level", and then

2. The actual harvest level, which reflects the needs of the sector at a lower biological risk .

Why set the actual harvest level different to the maximum sustainable harvest level?

As its name implies, the maximum sustainable harvest level takes so many fish that the numbers are unlikely to ever increase, many older and larger fish are likely to have been caught, and the average size will be smaller.

Many 'trophy' or Category 1 fish species are heavily fished, are relatively slow growing, have variable recruitment, are long lived, and are heavily affected by harvesting at the maximum sustainable level.

Recreational anglers want to have a good chance of catching a fish when they go fishing, and many might like the chance to catch a relatively large fish, or they might like to catch a number of reasonable sized fish. It's clear that not catching any fish, or catching only small or undersized fish is not in the interests of the recreational fishing sector.

The belief that they have a reasonable chance to catch a very large fish is an important motivation to many recreational anglers. These large fish are very important to genetic make-up and productivity of many Category 1 fish. Managing for the expectation of an encounter with these large fish requires deliberate strategies such as the maximum size limit for barramundi in the Kimberleys.

Keeping fish stocks higher than the biological reference point involves a deliberate choice to manage the fishery so as to catch and take less fish. Many fishers would agree that it is better to deliberately limit their take to only a small number of fish from a plentiful stock rather than their catch being limited intentionally as result of the stock being over-fished.

Differences between "Taking" and "Catching" of Fish.

"Taking" is the killing of fish, either deliberately to eat, or unintentionally through the mortality resulting from the fishing even if that takes days or weeks. Every fish killed reduces the population.

"Catching" is the activity of hooking, playing and landing a fish with all the enjoyment that gives. If this fish is handled properly and returned alive so that it has a very good chance of survival and future breeding, then the "catching" has not reduced the fish population.

Recreational anglers have worked hard on improving post-release survival of fish through better handling techniques such as the "Release Weight". However, anglers need to be aware of the mortality resulting from their catch and release activities. Actual harvest levels should include the total mortality of fish due to fishing activities.

Policy adopted by the Recfishwest Board 11 July 2007.

quote:

Some people don't know, some don't want to know, some should know (they have replied to my previous posts about the subjects) some can't be bothered reading the links, but they post opinions or statements anyway.