❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses the impact of tuna fishing on shark populations, particularly dusky whaler sharks, and explores potential resolutions and discussions with both TunaWest and the Commonwealth government regarding shark catch management.
AnsweredQoN 241Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the status of school shark. (1) What impact is the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery having on shark populations? (2) Has there been any negotiation with TunaWest to resolve issues relating to shark catch in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(1) What impact is the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery having on shark populations? (2) Has there been any negotiation with TunaWest to resolve issues relating to shark catch in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(2) Has there been any negotiation with TunaWest to resolve issues relating to shark catch in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(1) What impact is the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery having on shark populations? (2) Has there been any negotiation with TunaWest to resolve issues relating to shark catch in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(2) Has there been any negotiation with TunaWest to resolve issues relating to shark catch in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(3) If yes to (2), what is the outcome of this negotiation? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(5) Has the minister initiated discussion with the commonwealth government to eliminate the catch of dusky shark in the southern and western tuna and billfish fishery? (6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(6) If yes to part (5), what are the outcomes of this discussion? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
(7) If no to (5), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
Hon JON FORD replied: The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
The answer is quite lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. I presume the Honourable Member’s questions in fact relates to dusky whaler sharks rather than school sharks which in WA waters are confined to the central portion of the Great Australian Bight. 1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
1. The Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (the tuna fishery) is a Commonwealth managed fishery and, under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements of 1995, there is a 20 shark per trip limit applying to the tuna fishers. In the initial phases of the tuna fishery’s development in the late 1990’s it operated primarily on the continental shelf and it is likely that, despite the 20 shark trip limit, the fishery inflicted a significant impact on stocks of dusky whaler sharks (through either taking them legally within the 20 trip limit, exceeding the trip limit and through mortality of hooked but released fish). Records of catches available for the fishery in that period do not discriminate between dusky sharks and other similar species (“bronze whalers”) but, in 2001, when species were first discriminated 484 dusky whalers (or 29.3% of the dusky whaler/bronze whaler group) were recorded (although it is likely that there was still a level of mis-identification). However, any sharks taken outside the legal limits are unlikely to have been recorded and the landing data do not reveal mortality of released sharks. In 2002 records show that 18 dusky sharks were landed and 154 were not retained. In the last year or so the activities of the tuna fishery have moved further offshore, away from the main areas of dusky whaler habitat. Furthermore, the levels of activity in the fishery have also decreased (for various reasons). There has also been a prohibition on the use of wire traces in the tuna fishery for a number of years, which has helped reduce the capacity of the longline gear to take species such as dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the Department of Fisheries considers that in its early years the tuna fishery is likely to have had a significant impact on dusky whaler stocks and, given the current state of those stocks, the Department remains very concerned about levels of fishing mortality on dusky whalers from all sources. 2. Yes. TunaWest, representing the State’s Commonwealth licensed tuna fishers, first approached the Department of Fisheries in December 2003 with a proposal to give up all access to dusky sharks and other continental shelf sharks in exchange for increased access to oceanic sharks (blue sharks, crocodile sharks and oceanic white tip sharks). The initial proposal from TunaWest also included proposed spatial separations to reduce interaction with the State’s recreational fishers. Initial discussions about this proposal included members from the recreational sector as well as commercial fishers but subsequently TunaWest later submitted a revised proposal dealing only with shark resource sharing issues related to the State’s commercial temperate shark fisheries. The State’s temperate shark fishers, through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), indicated their intention to form an industry association and negotiate directly with TunaWest. This was supported by the Department of Fisheries on the understanding that anything agreed between the State’s temperate commercial shark fishers and the Commonwealth tuna fishers would still need to be ratified by the State and Commonwealth Governments and would likely to be subject to consultation with other interest groups and stakeholders. So far these discussions have not taken place as the State’s shark fishers have still not formally created an industry association. 3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
3. See 2. 4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
4. Not applicable. 5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
5. No, however contact has been made with my Federal counterpart the Hon. Ian Macdonald to discuss shark sustainability and other crucial West Australian fishery issues. 6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
6. See 5. 7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
7. The issue of shark sustainability has recently been brought to my attention and is of great concern to me. I have directed my department to make this issue a priority and to this end I am advised that meetings between stakeholders are underway.
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.