well this then becomes an exercise of statistics (mean trend) for which, of course, the greater the population is randomly surveyed the more realistic is the estimate
Pretty gross terms in my view but certainly a more affordable excercise in the short term
I still believe the tagging option to be more accurate and beneficial in the long term
I suppose a question of capital costs divides opinions

_________________
Il mio mare e i miei fondali sono quelli del golfo de La Spezia

Will people under the age of 18 have to pay the fee, or will it be like the recreational fishing licence?

_________________
I Didnt Stone It..- ..I Owned It

Irrespective of which method is chosen ( and trust me it will be the method which generates the most revenue), the end result will still be a SWAG......... Scientific Wild Arsed Guess. Guess being the operative word here. Spin will then take over. Historically, we never get more.
If the catch rate guesstimates are high, it will be deemed ( most likely ) that we hoardes of divers have no difficulty in securing our bag limits. This must stop before the species is wiped from the face (?) of the Earth. The end result willl surely be a bag limit reduction, a reduction in available fishing days or a maximum size limit.
If the catch rate guesstimates are low, it may be construed that with so many fishing, so often for so little that the damage has already passed the tipping point. So much effort for so little return must mean that there are fuck all crays left. This also will/may result in reduction or closure. We can't win.
Once again I feel that this will lead to us paying more to catch less stuff, less often. Let's be serious here and no offence is meant. The vast majority of divers in this state have a catch rate of one or two a year or less. Spin, however, will show that they have the POTENTIAL to capture 100 or more each. This is what will be looked at and I suspect (again) that the catch rate figure will come straight out of Fantasy Land, or some spin doctors arse!

Good question Dave, I have no idea, but I'll be asking the question. Ligure, the stats arent that simple. It will be done by people who do that sort of thing for a living. One thing that tags don't give you is the size or weight of the crays

yes ... they never are
and what's worse is that more often than not people make anything they want out of it (Spin)

_________________
Il mio mare e i miei fondali sono quelli del golfo de La Spezia

Your right Brett, 10% of divers take 90% of the catch. Another reason why it is important for whoever does the survey to narrow down the sampling pool to only people that are likely to take crays.
The way the results are interpreted might have a lot to do with constructive input from divers - the people that take the crayfish.
Whats the conspiracy theory about why the Government want to reduce recreational catches, and will do it regardless of what the data says? Why would they?

No-one mentioned conspiracy theory. What was mentioned was " historical fact ". I was a part of the last diver survey conducted over a prolonged period in the 90's. When asked the question regarding cray capture everyone , invariably lied so as not to have their ego shattered. The extrapolated catch number gleaned/predicted/guessed from this farce was gigantic. A lot of people out there would be quite surprised at how few Crays the perceived hard core guys actually get, particularly compared to the number they can POTENTIALLY capture. On average I may dive 300 days per year. I get a number of large beasts prior to Christmas for family commitments. I probably average one per month for the rest of the year, yet I am considered one of the hardcore Cray bashers. I will take a good cray as the opportunity presents. ( or whenever I feel like it.) Every fisherman is entitled to take Crays with a hoop net. I know guys with hoop nets, down the west coast, who catch more Crays than I. Are these guys going to be part of the count. ( I think not). I like the diary idea but only if you can find 500 willing participants, of all exprience levels, spread throughout the freediving, scubadiving and line fishing communities.

just read post from the top. (apologize)

(i haven't pulled a Vico cray this season.)

People seem to think that the Government have some agenda to reduce recreational catches eg .



I expect some sort of diary program would be a part of it, but to find 500 people to randomly sample, they need to know who to sample.

Yes, hoop netters would be a part of it, as it would be for anyone that takes crayfish.


I'm not sure how it would work, but I doubt there would be different types of endorsements like in Tassy.

Keep the comments coming, but the next question is - If they did bring in this endorsement, and there was a small fee associated with it to stop every angler ticking the box, how much should it be?

It has to be high enough to make people think hard about ticking it, but not so high as to piss everybody off. $2? 5$?

I agree with Brett 100%, playing with fire!

_________________
Like a farken underwater ninja!

The fish were blinded by overexposure to his pure awesomeness!

My Turn...

There are 117 rock lobster FAL’s in Victoria who landed 274 tonnes of Southern Rock Lobster in the 2009/10 season valued at $14,442,000.

• In ‘08/09’, 276 tonnes – valued at $14,405,000,
• In ‘07/08’, 357 tonnes – valued at $13,905,000,
• In ‘06/07’, 395 tonnes – valued at $15,613,000

Considering there has been a significant decline in total catch but a significant increase in total value, what are management authorities worrying about, revenue is still being generated...correct? Most of the FAL’s operate/fish in significantly deeper water than that of the recreational free/scuba/hookah divers and hoop netters, so how would the data gathered through this proposed study correlate to that of the commercial sector? Statistically speaking what would be the stat of weight caught by recreational fishers to that of commercial fishers, would this be the only real finding...if so, big deal! Personally speaking; rec fishers SRL catches are like a speck of dust compared to commercial fisher SRL catches that are like an overfull vacuum cleaner bag.

What about PPB Scallop data, why isn’t that important to management...($$$)? There was a significant decline in the fishery...closed...care factor...0. Shut down dredging to allow one hell of a dredge. I wonder if fisheries management recorded catch/by-catch data on the ‘Slut of the Netherlands’?

Classic how the most economically valuable fisheries are given priority management status and when there is a sudden decline in their stocks, rec fishers are a significant component.

Here are some variables for them to consider for recreational free diver fishers...

• Environmental; permissible weather conditions e.g. calm sea, visibility, within open season
• Social; individual allowable times to fish e.g. weekends, holidays, after work, family commitment, dominant age group
• Geographical; knowledge of area, amount of area covered, knowledge of habitat, how much of that area has SRL populations, ACCESS to locations, marine parks/sanctuaries, MNP's and closed areas
• Time; sun up to sun down
• Level of experience; fisher knows how to identify SRL habitat, physical capability, has good hand capture technique

I don't expect answers to these questions, just something for everyone to think about

_________________
http://www.brimbosports.com/

Do you think they should do full stock assessments on every single recreational and commercial species? Who would pay for it? What would be the point of doing an expensive assessment on a species with only a small recreational take? There is none, it would cost too much and nobody would want to pay for it. Thats why assessments are done on species like crays.
They don't have much idea how big the catch is compared to the commercial catch, thats why they want to estimate it. One of the reasons for doing that is so they can include the recreational catch in their stock assessment model. At the moment they assume the rec catches are 5% and 10% of the commercial catches and that goes into the model. The more accurate the data that goes into the model, the more accurate the results, and the better managed the fishery.


Just maintaining ecologically and environmentally sustainable fisheries.


Google "Precautionary principle"
Anyway, what do you mean, don't talk to Fisheries? Say we are against and endorsement, so they will use a different method?

Now my turn,



I tell what I am thinking, I think that all recreational freedivers should be left alone! We have no real impact on crayfish population (or any other fish). They want to do an assessment? They should do it on commercial fishers!



I agree with Brett 100% too!


Yes, I think they have. I have seen this in 3 different countries, and every time it ended with reducing recreational catches.

_________________
http://lokus200.blogspot.com/

Persionaly I that the fee should be around the $10-$15 mark, as to when I was working in a recreational fishing shop I would sell tens of RFL's a day, and find that people would purchase the yearly as to make it "easer" for them self even if they are not going to use it for the whole year. My point is that I think the fee should be around the $10-$15 mark because people have the "why not attude" when it comes to fishing licences and alike as they do not know what the future will bring, and when the matter may only be $2 theay may just pay it with out thinking. As to get the stats as accurate as possible I believe to should be that ammount and not over as to deter fishers; also it would create more revenue for future investagations and or more fisheries officers!!
Stephen