WA fishing Possession limits

[Guest fishum]

How things have changed....http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/media/in ... 000&mr=550Possession limitsMr Harrison said from today the general finfish possession limit would now apply to a person's principal place of residence and this change was in effect across Western Australia.Quote: Q. What is a fillet or piece of fish? Answer:- A fillet or piece of fish is any part of a fish other than the head or tail. Q. Are heads and tails included in the possession limit? Answer:- No ? you can have as many heads or tails as you like. Q.Are fish frames included in the possession limit? Answer:- Yes ? they are considered to be a ?piece of fish'. Q. Is a fish with its head and tail removed considered a piece of fish? Answer:- No ? this is defined as a ?trunk' and counts as a whole fish in your possession limit. Q. Is my bait included in the possession limit? Answer:- If you have purchased your bait (or other fish) and can show proof of purchase, it is not included in the possession limit. If you catch your own bait, specific ?baitfish' families and species are excluded. Species excluded are hardyheads (Atherinidae), pilchards and scaly mackerel (?mulies') (Clupeidae), anchovies and whitebait (Engraulididae), garfish (Hemirhamphidae) and mullet (Mugilidae). All other fish are included within the possession limit.

[niftrev 2]

In my opinion we South Australians should all have real concerns about this one. Our government and Fisheries are looking at imposing possession limits on recreational fishers here in the near future. I for one hope there not this harsh.What do they really mean?Well if this possession limit regulation was implemented here in South Australia and you're a single person and live by yourself and you caught either of the following These are just examples1. 2 x 12.5 kg snapper2. 1 x 25kg Mulloway or 2 x 15kg Mulloway3. 1 x 25kg Samson fish 4. 1 x 25kg Yellowtail kingfish5. 1 x 25kg tuna etc.and you already possess any fillets of the smaller commercial species like King George whiting, garfish, etc in your freezer (possession) you would then be exceeding your possession limit and be liable to prosecution.I can only say this nonsensical regulation leaves me completely dumb-founded. About all I can say is if this is to be implemented here, I?m sure glad I?m married with two children.According to the media release our humble little herring (tommy) cannot even be stored and latter be used as bait.

Q. Is my bait included in the possession limit? Answer:- If you have purchased your bait (or other fish) and can show proof of purchase, it is not included in the possession limit. If you catch your own bait, specific ?baitfish' families and species are excluded. Species excluded are hardyheads (Atherinidae), pilchards and scaly mackerel (?mulies') (Clupeidae), anchovies and whitebait (Engraulididae), garfish (Hemirhamphidae) and mullet (Mugilidae). All other fish are included within the possession limit. If you have purchased your bait (or other fish) and can show proof of purchase, it is not included in the possession limit.

Of course if you have receipts and the fish have been commercially caught you can have any quantity. What a joke!I believe most fishers are sensible when it comes to storing fish. I don't want to eat fish that has been frozen for a long time.In my opinion this isn?t about sustainability, this is just another push by the commercial sector to grab a greater share of the resource. regards niftrev[/color:2ztrkouu]

[Guest dabilda]

Spot on Niftrev. At the end of the it all comes down to "money" where any gov't body is concerned.We as "rec fishers" (supposedly) contribute nothing and that is exactly what we recieve in return.Bring on the licences I say......... Let all rec fisho's know they have a voice and provide avenues for them to use it, all backed by "OUR" money. It's the only way those beauraucratic morons will ever be forced to sit back and take notice. I know this is a whole new topic, but without it things will just continue as they are.The other option is we all get behind and support desalination plants........ that way in 5 - 10 yrs possession of fish will be a thing of the past. How can anyone possess something that does not live in the area and therefore can't be caught.

[spog61 0]

Here?s another way off looking at it, as pointed out by a compliance officer some time ago.Currently the department does not have the tools to successfully convict suspected rec fishers of commercial enterprise, i.e. unless they catch them in the act of actually selling their catch or get the recipient to testify they have very little chance of achieving a conviction. With the implementation of a possession limit any alleged offender found to be in excess could be deemed as having a saleable amount & therefore prosecuted accordingly.This officer also allayed my fears that such a scheme would be a further harassment to the general fisher public because it would be impossible to effectively enforce & police.I have in the past had arguments with some of these ?shamatures? who for some perverse reason believe it is their god given right to exploit this resource for financial gain & what disappoints me most is the fact that quite a few of these were ex pro?s some of which had already been adequately compensated by the buy back scheme. These people are cheats & contribute nothing to the management of the resource, they avoid licence & indorsement fees levied upon compliant pro fishermen, they draw negative attention to genuine rec fishers & they impede the effective management of the resource by not reporting catch & effort figures as required by the pro?s & voluntarily submitted by us recky?s through various surveys.If this is the true agenda then I consider myself in favour of such legislation. Again it is the few that stuff it up for the rest.Cheers, Spog

[niftrev 2]

G,day spog I understand your concerns and respect your point of view but, I?m not in favour of possession limits. Do you really think possession limits will stop the unscrupulous shamatuers non licensed ProfessionalsThese blokes are already illegally selling their catch and as you stated some are ex-commercial fishers.

the fact that quite a few of these were ex pro?s some of which had already been adequately compensated by the buy back scheme.

These blokes are in the know and that is why they are rarely caught. These blokes aren?t going to be that stupid as to freeze hoards of fish and keep them on their own premises. Even if they did, there are ways of getting around it. I?d imagine it?s not that hard to obtain some genuine receipts from other sources for the sole purpose of having stored frozen fish. When it is legal to have any amount of fish in your possession as long as you have receipts, it?s not that hard to cover your arse.If these loopholes were tidied up, these same non licensed fishers would just sell their catch direct to whoever, if need be anyway.You stated that professional fishers are compliant,

they avoid licence & indorsement fees levied upon compliant pro fishermen,

not so, I think you will find there is illegal activity by the commercial fishing sector too. Are you not aware not so long ago a big name licensed pro was caught snapper fishing during the one month snapper ban.While there are no responsible total allowable catch limits on the commercial sector for fin fish, the fact that they can catch and freeze as much as they like and yet have a total disregard for the biomass of all species I?m sorry but I can?t buy this. On the grounds of the above I refuse to accept that this is the way we must go when there are many other things that could be put into practice first.It?s time the commercial sector accepts that they too have a responsibility in looking after our wild fish resources instead of thinking they can just keep taking a larger share of the pie. Quit simply recreational fishers have had regulations that were said to be management parameters that would ensure fish for future generations when in reality all they have done is sustained the commercial fishing sector. All our commercial fish are fully fished or overfished. Do you really think that possession limits will arrest the depletion of our fish stocks? More than 80 per cent of the world?s fisheries are at risk from Overfishing. Do we want to follow suit or do we want a healthy and abundant fishery. The solution is within our grasp we must improve fisheries management practices (impose RESPONSIBLE TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH LIMITS on the commercial fishers) and decrease the political and economic pressure that has lead to this overfishing.niftrev

[Ranger 48]

if this possession limit regulation was implemented here in South Australia and you're a single person and live by yourself and you caught either of the following These are just examples1. 2 x 12.5 kg snapper2. 1 x 25kg Mulloway or 2 x 15kg Mulloway3. 1 x 25kg Samson fish 4. 1 x 25kg Yellowtail kingfish5. 1 x 25kg tuna etc.and you already possess any fillets of the smaller commercial species like King George whiting, garfish, etc in your freezer (possession) you would then be exceeding your possession limit and be liable to prosecution.

I'd like to have ANY of the above in my freezer as a single guy, and I'd be a VERY happy chappy! Let's face it, how many fillets can a guy eat? In fact, as a married guy I can now double that quantity (4 x 12.5kg Snapper, 2 x 25kg Mulloway, 2 x 25kg sampsons, etc, etc) but I'd then have to buy another freeezer to keep it in! 50kg of fish, I'll be sick of it in no time! {SMILIES_PATH}/tongue.gifSo as a married guy with 2 kids, I can have 8 x 12.5kg Snapper, 4 x 25kg mulloway, etc, etc, but then I'd have to buy at least 2 more freezers, and my kids would hate me for force feeding them fish until they leave home! 100kg of fish in the freezer! {SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gifWe are recreational fishermen who fish for fun and a feed. I recon, if 25kg of fish per person isnt enough, there's something drastically wrong, and they SHOULD be considered as commercial quantities.Ya rarely NEVER find more than 25kg of fish in my freezer, even if I include my bait in with it, and I don't wanna eat fish that's been frozen for months on end, coz I've got so much of it in the freezer.If these limits aren't acceptible, can I ask, how much DO you people keep at any one time, and how much do you think you should be able to keep in ya freezer at any one time? 50kg per person, 100kg per person? On that subject, how much do you consider to be a commercial quantity? 25kg, 50kg, 100kg, 1000kg?In regards to the Tommies being excluded from exempt species, are Tommies considered a common baitfish in WA, or in the west do they concentrate more on mackeral, gar and pilchard as bait?

[Guest dabilda]

if this possession limit regulation was implemented here in South Australia and you're a single person and live by yourself and you caught either of the following These are just examples1. 2 x 12.5 kg snapper2. 1 x 25kg Mulloway or 2 x 15kg Mulloway3. 1 x 25kg Samson fish 4. 1 x 25kg Yellowtail kingfish5. 1 x 25kg tuna etc.and you already possess any fillets of the smaller commercial species like King George whiting, garfish, etc in your freezer (possession) you would then be exceeding your possession limit and be liable to prosecution.

I'd like to have ANY of the above in my freezer as a single guy, and I'd be a VERY happy chappy! Let's face it, how many fillets can a guy eat? In fact, as a married guy I can now double that quantity (4 x 12.5kg Snapper, 2 x 25kg Mulloway, 2 x 25kg sampsons, etc, etc) but I'd then have to buy another freeezer to keep it in! 50kg of fish, I'll be sick of it in no time! {SMILIES_PATH}/tongue.gifSo as a married guy with 2 kids, I can have 8 x 12.5kg Snapper, 4 x 25kg mulloway, etc, etc, but then I'd have to buy at least 2 more freezers, and my kids would hate me for force feeding them fish until they leave home! 100kg of fish in the freezer! {SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gifWe are recreational fishermen who fish for fun and a feed. I recon, if 25kg of fish per person isnt enough, there's something drastically wrong, and they SHOULD be considered as commercial quantities.Ya rarely NEVER find more than 25kg of fish in my freezer, even if I include my bait in with it, and I don't wanna eat fish that's been frozen for months on end, coz I've got so much of it in the freezer.If these limits aren't acceptible, can I ask, how much DO you people keep at any one time, and how much do you think you should be able to keep in ya freezer at any one time? 50kg per person, 100kg per person? On that subject, how much do you consider to be a commercial quantity? 25kg, 50kg, 100kg, 1000kg?In regards to the Tommies being excluded from exempt species, are Tommies considered a common baitfish in WA, or in the west do they concentrate more on mackeral, gar and pilchard as bait?

The way I read that was you could have any "1" of those options................ not allmeaning.........you could have1. 2 x 12.5 kg snapperand nothing else.............. or you could have2. 1 x 25kg Mulloway or 2 x 15kg Mullowayand nothing else............. etc etc.Did I read it wrong?Oh!! you could have your daily catch (bag limits) over and above that in your possession.

[spog61 0]

Absolutely agree Niftrev,The resource greatly lacks sound & fair management, unfortunately we've yet to have a government with the balls to tackle it head on.

Do you really think possession limits will stop the unscrupulous non licensed Professionals

Absolutely not!, but it would be another weapon in the Dept's arsenal & if it meant just one more conviction I would class it as justified.

I think you will find there is illegal activity by the commercial fishing sector too.

I know this for a fact as I once worked as a decky on a power haul boat with hook indorsements & that is why I used the word "compliant"! again it's the few (quite a few) stuffing it up for the many!Quotas on finfish for pro's is the way to go & is way way over due & also the penalties handed down to professionals who transgress are far too inadequate, after all, it is their core business and there should be no excuses for not fully understanding & therefore complying with the relevant regulations.Of course I am looking at the possession limit concept idealistically & reserve full judgement until or if a draft hits the table, same with the rec fishing license/permit. It?s good to see these subjects being broached & debated in advance on a decent platform such as this forum.On ending, I personally don?t get to accumulate too much fish in the freezer, by the time I give Mum, Dad, outlaws & the neighbour who tends the garden & pets while we?re away a feed or two of fresh fish I?d be lucky to be in excess of a 6 fillet limit. {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifCheers, Spog

[Ranger 48]

The way I read that was you could have any "1" of those options................ not allmeaning.........you could have1. 2 x 12.5 kg snapperand nothing else.............. or you could have2. 1 x 25kg Mulloway or 2 x 15kg Mullowayand nothing else............. etc etc.Did I read it wrong?

That's correct, you read it right! I just didn't explain myself properly. I shoulda said:"2 x 12.5kg Snapper, OR 1 x 25kg Mulloway, OR1 x 25kg sampson, ORetc, etcBut I thought this made it clear:

Ya rarely NEVER find more than 25kg of fish in my freezer

[niftrev 2]

Howdy Ranger,Yes I agree that?s fair wad of fish, pretty reasonable if you have a family. What I?m talking about is the amount you can catch quite legally and within the size and bag limits already in place. My concern is that if you are single and you already have lets say 2kg of gar fillets, 2kg of King George whiting fillets, 2kg of snapper fillets, a whole 1kg flathead, maybe a whole small snapper for the weber, for when you have some guests over and then lets not forget your bait supply which could consist of say 2kg of Mackerel for bait, 2kg of tommies for bait, etc. What weight does that amount to umm 11kg + what ever size the snapper is for the Weber. I don't see that there is anything wrong with that amount except that it doesn?t leave much scope for your next fishing trip.I openly admit I am a seafood lover and as they say variety is the spice of life.Now lets just say for instance I'm a single guy, are you going to penalise me because of that.I think these possession limits stink and yes I do have grievances about possession limitsLet?s go through some scenarios.1. Imagine this single bloke, he doesn?t own a boat but fortunately his good mate Ranger does. Ranger rings his mate and asks him to go out with him and say?s we?re going down the Port river as I?ve heard reliable stories about some huge mulloway so thick their jumping into the boat. Excitedly he races around and gets all his gear ready as he?s never caught a big buttery in all his life, suddenly he then remembers sheet ?I?ve got all that fish in the freezer?. Is he to tell his mate ?nah sorry mate I can?t go?. ?I?ve already got my possession limit of fish in the freezer?. 2. Today I caught my biggest kingfish but I can?t take it home because I already have my possession limit in my freezer. It?s the only one I have ever caught, I wouldn?t have minded having some of that in the freezer. 3. The snapper are on. I?ve been waiting all year for this and I deliberately took my holidays at this time of year as this is my favourite form of fishing. I caught two whoppers today one was 15kg and the other was 17kg. I think I?m over the possession limit now and I can see the compliance officers waiting at the ramp. 4. My mate has a freezer next door and it?s filled to the brim with top class steak, lamb, pork and chickens he was able to get it all cheap while it was on sale. I don?t eat red meat so unfortunately my freezer is mostly empty space and as I?m only allowed 20kg of fish at any one time I?ll only freeze 10kg in case I want to go fishing tomorrow. 5. Jeez I?d love to go to the west coast and catch a couple of big mulloway and maybe a snapper or two and a bag of whiting. Oh that?s right I can?t do that because of those stupid b----dy possession limits. 6. I caught too many fish so I had better give it all a way. Is this generosity really going to help with sustainability?I hope you get the jest of my message; I don?t think I need to give you more scenarios. How long do you think it will be before these possession limits are changed and reduced further to even possibly a (per) household limit.This possession limit is solely about increasing the commercial sectors catch; it has nothing to do with sustainability of our fishery. Regards niftrev.

[Ranger 48]

Trev, we seem to agree on a lot of things. Other times, you just have to accept that Ranger is always right! {SMILIES_PATH}/tongue.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifNah seriously, I do see your point, and I believe there IS room for this regulation to be tweaked, and that's one of the reasons why we need bodies to represent us as rec anglers.I think we'll both agree that possesion limits are important, to give fisheries the power to prosecute the rogues out there who do keep and sell commercial quantities, and those who could otherwise claim their catch is simply "bait".Myself, I believe as I've already stated, that 25kg is a good amount of frozen fish for any one person to store. The difficult part would be having to weigh all ya catches to ensure ya don't go over that limit.Given the scenarios you provided, I'm sure that if I got onto a decent 25kg kingie, any old frozen fish in my freezer would promptly be recycled through the mincer as burley, to replace it with the fresh catch, or another alternative is to keep your old frozen fillets, add your new catch to it up to the 25kg mark, and then give away or mince the excess for burley.As a family, that limit becomes 50kg, which surely overcomes this problem, coz I don't believe ANYONE would be freezing and storing over 50kg of fish AND bait combined.The bait on the other hand is another issue. As you mentioned, in WA there are exempt species to overcome the stored bait issue:

If you catch your own bait, specific ?baitfish' families and species are excluded. Species excluded are hardyheads (Atherinidae), pilchards and scaly mackerel (?mulies') (Clupeidae), anchovies and whitebait (Engraulididae), garfish (Hemirhamphidae) and mullet (Mugilidae)

Imagine if that were altered for SA conditions to include species WE consider baitfish, and the exempted species HERE were those such as: Pilchards, Whitebait, Slimey Mackeral, Garfish, Tommy Ruffs, Striped Trumpeters, Mullet and European Carp. For anything else you purchase (Bonito, Tuna, etc) ya just keep the receipt.Would the bait issue really pose a problem for us then?If I consider regulations to be over the top I'm normally one of the first to pick up the phone and have my say. In this instance, I believe they are heading down the right path although sure, for it to be introduced here in SA, there would be room for changes. I think overall though, we'd both have to admit, as far as rec fishing regulations go here in this state, we'd have to be leading the way and showing the other states how it should be done!

[niftrev 2]

Ranger posted

I think overall though, we'd both have to admit, as far as rec fishing regulations go here in this state, we'd have to be leading the way and showing the other states how it should be done!

Ranger, this may have been so if there were responsible T.A.C on the commercial sector, however there is not and I truly believe if recreational fishers stopped fishing altogether our fish stocks would still be depleting and be at risk, (although possibly at a slightly slower rate). As I have previously stated 80 per cent of the world?s fisheries are at risk. This simply doesn't happen if fisheries are properly managed. Recreational fishers have been regulated for a long time in this state now and I still don?t see any real significant improvement in the biomass of most of our marine scale fish. The SARDI Status Report backs up what I am saying as this report state?s all our commercial fish are either fully fished or overfished. Quite simply, since the recreational regulations were imposed upon us, all I have seen is a dramatic increase in the commercial fisher?s total annual catch. Since recreational fishers have been regulated the commercial fishers have had record catches on almost all of the commercial species. In reality the recs. have just given more of their share to the commercial sector. We are all aware that the marine scale fishery is a finite resource, a wild fishery that should be equitably shared according to the government. The problem I have at the moment is, I don?t believe we are having an equitable share.Sustainability does not mean take from one hand and give to the other.

[niftrev 2]

There appears to be more to this story than at first meets the eye[/size:xenx37q3]I decided to look up the word demersal[/size:xenx37q3] finfish species. There appears to be 388 species off Western Australia. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA demersal fish[/size:xenx37q3] is a fish that feeds on or near the bottom of the ocean or a deep lake in the demersal zone. Demersal fish are also known as bottom feeders or groundfish, and may be contrasted with pelagic fish.I guess the word demersal [/size:xenx37q3]is a significant part of the wording and I admit I should have looked up this word so that I had a good understanding of what it meant before posting. Most of what I have posted I adhere to, but I must recoup the 1x25kg tuna and so I apologise for including that fish as it is known as a pelegic species.After reading the link below I have a better understanding behind what the West australian government has done.http://www.westernangler.com.au/default ... cle&ID=260WA Government launches fishing package to save iconic fish for the future[/size:xenx37q3] Western Australia?s coastline between Lancelin and south of Mandurah will become an exclusive zone for recreational line fishing under a State Government move to avoid the overfishing of iconic fish such as dhufish and pink snapper. In making the announcement today, Fisheries Minister Jon Ford said the Metropolitan Fishing Zone would exclude all commercial line and net fishing of demersal finfish. Mr Ford said it was a significant measure that demonstrated the WA Government?s commitment to ensuring sustainability of fish stocks in a metropolitan coastal region. ?Creating this Metropolitan Fishing Zone is one of the world?s most innovative moves to make sure our grandkids can still catch these iconic fish in years to come,? he said. While the new Zone will exclude commercial take of demersal finfish (such as sharks and demersal scalefish), it will still allow various managed fisheries such as lobster and abalone. Demersal scalefish include iconic species such as dhufish, baldchin groper, pink snapper, red snapper and breaksea cod. The Minister said the Zone was part of a new ?fishing management package? that would impact on the whole State, particularly the West Coast Bioregion, which stretched from Kalbarri to Black Point near Augusta. ?This package will secure fish for the future in WA by preserving key demersal fish, which new research shows are at risk of collapsing,? Mr Ford said. ?New research which I?m releasing today shows that unless we take action now, stocks of key demersal fish will collapse within four to five years and these fish will all but disappear from our waters. ?Two of the ?at risk? species, dhufish and baldchin groper, are not found anywhere else in the world and WA has a responsibility to preserve them. ?I am committed to ensuring these iconic species don?t become a fond and distant memory to Western Australians. ?This would be a shocking legacy for Western Australians to bear, so we must take action now to guarantee future generations are able to fish for these species.? Features of the fishing management package announced today for the WA coast are: * Metropolitan Fishing Zone stretching from Lancelin 31S to south of Mandurah 33S. Excludes all commercial fishing for demersal finfish and is effective as of November. State Government funding of more than $5million has been allocated to buy out all commercial line and demersal gill-net fishers in the Metropolitan Zone; * New research that shows key demersal fish are under such serious pressure that stocks of these fish along the West Coast Bioregion could collapse within four to five years if action is not taken now; * More than $5.3million research funding over four years to undertake detailed monitoring of demersal fish catches by recreational and commercial fishers. This research will evaluate the effectiveness of management practices to rebuild these fish stocks; * Release of a discussion paper calling for the WA community to comment on the future management of recreational fishing of demersal fish. This discussion paper is the start of a process to determine a more effective long-term strategy before July next year; and * Interim fishing measures to protect ?at risk? demersal fish species, phased in from November until the new recreational fishing strategy is determined. These interim measures will be: o extending the closure to fishing for pink snapper in the Cockburn area; o extending the existing possession limit to place of residence throughout WA; o total protection for baldchin groper in the Abrolhos Islands; and o a limit of four Category 1 (high risk) fish per person on aquatic charter boats operating along the WA coast. ?Growing concerns about the sustainability of key demersal fish is based on evidence of escalating fishing effort, particularly by the burgeoning recreational fishing sector,? Mr Ford said. ?The number of registered recreational boats has grown rapidly as the State?s population continues to climb. Recreational fishers have also become more effective as they have quickly adopted new technology. ?In particular, global positioning systems (GPS) and high quality sounders have now become standard items on fishing boats and this has made recreational fishing much more precise and targeted.? The Minister said the commercial fishing sector had undergone considerable transformation in the past two years and the exclusion of commercial line and net fishers from the Metropolitan Fishing Zone recognised the significance of increasing fishing pressure in the metropolitan region. ?This action will provide immediate relief to fish stocks, but further action is necessary and the burden of responsibility cannot and should not be carried alone by commercial fishers,? he said. ?Recreational fishers in WA are to be commended for the way they have supported the existing management system based on bag and size limits, but it is clear that the problems we now face require new and innovative solutions. ?The research and discussion papers show we really need to focus on cutting back the fishing mortality of our key demersal scalefish species.? Mr Ford said interim measures were aimed at reducing the fishing pressure on key species until the consultation period was completed by July next year, when a more effective long-term management strategy would be introduced. The discussion paper, which marked the beginning of the consultation process, is called ?Fisheries Management Paper No. 225 - Managing the recreational catch of demersal scalefish on the West Coast?. This paper, and the Fisheries Research Report No. 163 on the stock status of key species, is available from the Department of Fisheries website at http://www.fish.wa.gov.auI hope this gives us all a better understanding of the new WA fishing Possession limits.regards niftrev