Archived page, Wetfish Review - Preliminary Response

Fisheries Research Reports No's 117 (recreational boat fishing) and 118 (commercial wetline fisheries)

The following comprises a preliminary response to the consultative process described in Fisheries Management Paper No 135, Protecting and Sharing Western Australia's Coastal Fish Resources, (the Wetfish Review).

Recfishwest has already provided a direct response to Fisheries Management Paper No 131 and an associated earlier paper, Fisheries Management Paper No 126, dealing with estuarine and embayment fisheries. These responses will not be repeated here. Similarly, Recfishwest will provide separate responses to the papers released most recently, Fisheries Management Papers No's 134, 135 and 136 which comprise the Wetfish Review discussion papers.

Rather, this letter deals with our considerations concerning the above mentioned research reports.

Firstly, Recfishwest wishes to congratulate Fisheries WA on it's issuing of these two very important papers. For a long time, there has been far too little known regarding the catch and impact relationship between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors and these reports go a long way to providing a satisfactory benchmark for future resource sharing decision making.

However, we would like to make some observations and raise some concerns regarding the findings and associated conclusions drawn.

Research Design

We acknowledge the difficulties generally, in the absence of appropriate structural arrangements, of obtaining accurate recreational fishing data and also the limitations acknowledged in the research design of report 117. However, we strongly support continuing research to quantify recreational costs and benefits in order to supplement gaps in the data and to help minimise the possibly very large sampling errors arising from the 'bus route' methodology.

For instance, the lack of evening catch data almost certainly means a significant underestimation of snapper catches since, for example in Cockburn Sound, much of the effort is conducted 'after dark'.

Similarly, it would have been useful to extend the catch data with beach creel surveys in order to obtain an estimate of total effort and catch for those species targeted by both shore and boat anglers.

Also as an example, and admittedly by making some assumptions, it could have been possible to extend the herring findings described on page nine of report 117 by adding catch data from creel surveys previously undertaken at other population centres and attempting to conduct some extrapolations assuming relative stock population densities. Similar extrapolations could have been done for other species with data gaps.

Also useful would have been the inclusion of the realistic range of the findings. For instance, instead of simply putting the annual catch of a species at, say 20,000 kg's, an estimated 'confidence' range of say 15,500 to 22,500 with 20,000 as the best 'point' estimate would have provided a much better feel for the data. As it is, the putting of seemingly absolute figures, (acknowledging the qualifications elsewhere in the report of sampling limitations) conveys a misleading picture of accuracy.

Dhufish Stocks

There is a theme expressly made in report 118 and repeated elsewhere in the Wetfish Review papers that dhufish stocks are not, overall, at risk even though it is acknowledged that local depletions are occurring and that there has been a significant 'ramp up' recently by rock lobster boats wetlining for reef fish. Recfishwest would be extremely interested in being provided with the data or assumptions underlying this theme.

All our anecdotal information from fisherpersons who target jewfish, and who often have many years of experience, tells us that catch figures are steadily dropping. We consider, that in the absence of any data presented by Fisheries WA to the contrary, the responsible position would be to acknowledge the serious possibility of the local depletions transforming into general depletion. Similarly, we have repeatedly requested Fisheries WA to give very serious research attention, in consultation with key stakeholders, to implementing adequate management measures to ensure that a general stock collapse is prevented.

Rock lobster Fleet Wetlining for Reef Fish

Recfishwest views with extreme concern the recent increase in effort by rocklobster boat fishers wetlining for reef fish particularly given our concern that dhufish (and also perhaps baldchin groper) stocks are particularly vulnerable.

Thus we view with alarm the rather misleading statement at page three, executive summary, that "the rock lobster fleet still only took seven percent of the total wetline catch". While this is technically true, this is simply because only a very limited number of species are targeted. For those species so targeted, particularly dhufish, this fleet's impact is disproportionally large and increasing, based on the report data. This observation should be sending the alarm bells ringing and should have been given much more emphasis in the report. It also ignores the likely under reporting of wetfish catches which have traditionally been part of a "cash economy" for rock lobster boats.

The impact of the rock lobster fleet on stocks per se and impacts in terms of resource sharing implications demand close attention. It is Recfishwest's position that effective management efforts need to urgently be put into place to significantly rationalise and ultimately reduce or eliminate the wetlining capacity of the rocklobster fleet.

The Minister, in a letter to Recfishwest of 21 October 1998 assured us that any catch history, including the rock lobster fleet, taken after 3 November 1997 would not be considered in the allocation process.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.