❓ Hon Brian Ellis questions the Minister for Fisheries about the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Management Plan, specifically regarding the infrequency of creel surveys and the impact on monitoring fish stocks. The Minister acknowledges the issue and promises a detailed response, disputing claims of a 'panic decision'.
AnsweredQoN 783Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WEST COAST DEMERSAL SCALEFISH MANAGEMENT PLAN - CREEL SURVEYS
I refer to the minister’s sudden announcement giving local commercial fishermen only six weeks’ notice to cease operations. (1) Will the minister confirm that the most recent creel survey was in 2005-06, and that the previous creel survey was almost a decade ago in 1996-97? (2) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 33 that “A gap of almost 10 years between surveys does not permit changes in recreational fishing to be monitored or assess the impact of recreational fishing on targeted fish stocks”? (3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD
I refer to the minister’s sudden announcement giving local commercial fishermen only six weeks’ notice to cease operations. (1) Will the minister confirm that the most recent creel survey was in 2005-06, and that the previous creel survey was almost a decade ago in 1996-97? (2) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 33 that “A gap of almost 10 years between surveys does not permit changes in recreational fishing to be monitored or assess the impact of recreational fishing on targeted fish stocks”? (3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(1) Will the minister confirm that the most recent creel survey was in 2005-06, and that the previous creel survey was almost a decade ago in 1996-97? (2) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 33 that “A gap of almost 10 years between surveys does not permit changes in recreational fishing to be monitored or assess the impact of recreational fishing on targeted fish stocks”? (3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(2) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 33 that “A gap of almost 10 years between surveys does not permit changes in recreational fishing to be monitored or assess the impact of recreational fishing on targeted fish stocks”? (3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(1) Will the minister confirm that the most recent creel survey was in 2005-06, and that the previous creel survey was almost a decade ago in 1996-97? (2) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 33 that “A gap of almost 10 years between surveys does not permit changes in recreational fishing to be monitored or assess the impact of recreational fishing on targeted fish stocks”? (3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(2) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 33 that “A gap of almost 10 years between surveys does not permit changes in recreational fishing to be monitored or assess the impact of recreational fishing on targeted fish stocks”? (3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(3) Will the minister confirm that his discussion paper states on page 37 that the 10-year gap was due to “resourcing constraints”, and that “this information needs to be collected much more frequently, ideally on an annual basis”? (4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(4) Given that the panic closure may have been avoided if regular creel surveys had been undertaken, why did the Carpenter government fail to properly resource the Department of Fisheries to carry out this important research? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
(1)-(4) I will need to take the creel survey questions on notice. Creel surveys are done on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the question is quite complex. I will give the member part of the answer, and I will take the rest of the question on notice and give him a much more comprehensive answer. I dispute the assertion that this is a panic decision. As I stated yesterday, for quite some time we have known about, and have been watching, the decline in the fish stocks. Indeed, the previous minister introduced a wetline review, which was specifically targeting the management of the wetline stocks. In 2003, we halved the bag limits and personal possession limits for the recreational sector. Therefore, we have known for some time that the stocks have been in decline. We then undertook extensive research. That research required - because it is a predictive model - peer review, and that took some time. I was warned about that, as I said before, around 10 months ago. That has resulted in this decision. Happily, the wetline review gave us a range of statistical information about the overall position of the commercial fishing industry. Of course, we have also been carrying out predictive modelling with regard to recreational catches, and that has given us a pretty good picture of where we are heading. We recognise that there are gaps in the research. Therefore, part of the announcement yesterday was a $5 million research package specifically targeting these areas. In the end, we have an extraordinary scenario - the perfect storm - with good quality technology. We know that when we buy computers or computer software, by the time we get it home it will be out of date. That is how quick the technology is developing. It is no different in the fishing industry. The access to colour technology has nearly reached the stage that we can pick a fish on the bottom of the ocean. I think the only thing it does not tell us is what bait to use. Even more important is global positioning technology and ready access to reliable weather information. In the past, the lack of things such as certainty about the weather provided a certain level of protection for the fish species. These protections have now been taken away. We have taken this action now so that we can avoid a disaster in five years. That is what we are doing. There is no panic. There is just sound management. That may be unfortunate for some people. However, we are trying to minimise the impact of that. I will provide some further explanation with regard to the details that the member is seeking. There are never simple answers to these issues. One of the reasons that this is having a double-whammy effect is that the science has now just come through to show that barotrauma is fatal to jewfish but is not fatal to pink snapper. If pink snapper are pulled up at over 30 metres, they have a high survival rate. However, if jewfish are pulled up at over 30 metres, they will be dead; so, if they are released, it is a waste of the resource. Therefore, we need to change the management regime. We are learning more and more as we go along, and we need to react to that. That is what we are doing. I will give the member a much more detailed answer on notice. I thank the member for the question.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.