Fisheries

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Apr 7, 2015.

  1. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,617
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    This headbutting between the two groups is a great example of why capitalism is one of the greatest ways of solving disputes. :)

    Both sides are making value judgements about investing their scarce resources (with both sides having significant sunk investments). As I summarised way back on page 3 and 4, had the Queensland Government approached the problem of the competing interests by setting up well-informed property titles with some form of grandfathering to both groups and then let markets work their magic in resolving who should own what, where and when then I bet a more peaceful outcome could be reached in each zone. Instead the jackboots seem to have blundered in and forced an outcome thereby disenfranchising one group. Civil wars generally started out this way.
     
  2. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    And the jackboots will keep landing on the ground as the recreational fishing lobby continues pressuring governments into enacting protectionist policies designed to harm some users so that they may have their values enhanced.

    Lies. There is no balance, commercial netting is now banned, line fishing for barramundi and salmon is uneconomical.

    http://www.afta.net.au/index.php/ne...-industry-applauds-decision-on-net-free-zones
     
  4. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    A tweak on my previous table posted:

    The value per kg of wild caught barramundi from the Rockhampton/Capricorn Coast region

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Lets come back and determine that once the figures come in.
     
  6. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Sorry mate, that's not the game that has been played.

    The rationale behind the decision was that it would be an economic boom to the region.
    The suggestion therefore is that the Labor government crunched some numbers and came up with figures that clearly proved that there would be an economic boom time. The Minister at the time could not show any figures and refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, frequently walking out on meetings or just not requesting face to face time with industry reps. And the rec lobby was more than happy to support the Minister's methods. All lies. Just to appease vocal special interest groups.

    Unless of course you can come up with some figures to show the value per kg of barramundi caught by recreational anglers in the region? :rolleyes:

    Which you can't.
     
  7. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,617
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    I don't think is completely true as there are various ways that the direct value for a sample of recreational fisherman can be estimated and a reasonable floor and ceiling for the general population should be able to be derived. At the very least the direct value will consist of the direct monetary expenses rec. fisherman incur while the non-monetary value can be estimated through well conducted willingness to pay study.

    However:
    1. Whatever methods are done to convert the direct WTP to the wider economic value for the two groups needs to be consistent. (This is one of your beefs.)
    2. It needs to be recognised that most recreational fisherman aren't primarily paying for a kg of wild caught barramundi. They are also paying for the experience (often bundled with a group of other experiences). The value of the bundle of experiences is far more difficult to untangle and is very circumstance-specific compared to commercial catch. Generalising the estimates from a detailed study to multiple regions is therefore fraught.
    3. Add in catch-and-release and by-catch and the denominator (i.e. kg of barramundi) becomes difficult (but not impossible). A better unit would probably be the value from a given fishery region rather than per kg of a specific fish type.

    So rather than "unable to be determined" I would say it's more "only able to be determined approximately by location".

    Of course, transferable property rights (possibly in a body corporate style?) will allow the true values within a common unit (ie dollars) to be found. :)
     
  8. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    In the meantime:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Mate, they'd be struggling to even do that. The data is simply not there.
     
  10. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,617
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    I'd be only too happy to undertake the study. Perhaps even for reduced fees as I haven't been to the Whitsunday's for years :D
     
  11. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    And vice versa. Yet you and the recreational fishing lobby and the Labor government can somehow justify your claim that recreational fishing will provide more economic returns than commercial? You can't even say how many fish the recreational sector catches. You have no data. You exaggerate and manipulate the truth.

    The economic return from commercial net fishing of barramundi from the CQ region is a known factor. The economic return from recreational fishing of barramundi in the CQ region is an unknown - yet it was the major reason the net bans were put in place.

    How on earth can you definitively state that the economic returns from recreationally targeting barramundi will be better than that returned from commercial activity? You can't. Yet that was the line that was pushed by the recreational fishing lobby, the labor government, the Mayor of Rockhampton and the local media.

    All in all it was a complete fabrication designed to appease Greenies and gain the votes of Qld anglers who were fed lies.
     
  12. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    The only two surveys of recreational fishing with regards to spending in QLD were done in Hervey Bay and the Pumice-stone passage. I can't find the links to the papers themselves and am only quoting second hand now but.

    Even when you add in commercial activity that doesn't have overlap with recreational like deep water prawn trawling which is hugely profitable, commercial value is dwarfed by recreational industry. Just take a look at Hervey Bay which is a very small area. $140m before you even start counting the big ticket items such as boats, trailers and 4x4's.

    I am the first to agree with you that accurate data is required from recreational anglers and I was one yelling loud and clear at fisheries and government during the Rocky Reef Fin Fish Review that a recreational catch card (especially for "at risk" species) needed to be implemented. But of course the complete fcktard of a Fisheries minister at the time Tim Mulherin went with a different political approach and how I knew from the start of this debacle in CQ that it had nothing to do with sustainability and all to do with votes.

    I completely get why you are pissed over how this came about and have legitimate gripes with this government over how it did it. Just don't try to drag down the the economic value of recreational fishing vs commercial because you will lose this one at every turn. Apparently this government is running some sort of analysis of the economic benefits of this decision and will release them down the track. We can then pick that apart.
     
  13. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
  14. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,617
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    BEER. That's what was missing between the two of you. No wonder you guys were at loggerheads ;)
     
  15. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    His beer!!! to be precise. :p
     
  16. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Yes beer is on me when I make it up there!

    While this is a Fisheries thread I'd thought I'd give some more of my gripes. And expand on the above. Fisheries scientists are hell bent (even though they acknowledge that most of the current sustainability regulations in the sectors ensure no threat of collapse) on virgin biomas and maintaining a percentage of the virgin biomas. This is something that mostly the EU nations have settled upon because often countries are fishing the same waters. Yet Fisheries scientists the world over keep looking to the EU model to justify their jobs to enforce more studies and more restrictions and more employment for them and their friends.

    Virgin biomas is the estimate in tonnes of how many fish were in the waters before captain cook arrived and we started harvesting greater numbers. The problem is Fisheries science didn't even start until hundreds of years later and now try to use mathematical models to work backwards from today based on how many fish they estimate to be taken.

    There are so many variables. Such as fundicity which is basically the ability of a species to reproduce numbers, which when taken from a stable biomas increases as more offspring survive because there is more food available to them than previous spawns due to decreased competition. Then there are the unknown variables. As Shiney and I have debated over, the lack of recreational impact information. In the case of Snapper in SEQ, it is "estimated" that the recreational sector is the largest impact by far. Yet they get these "estimates" by doing phone polls and boat ramp surveys. Having a guy at a ramp asking people how many snapper they caught (even though they may have been targeting top water fish trolling) then recording how many people on board and writing a zero gets rolled into the results, extrapolated into the larger fishing population. To top that off, they use the increases in the number of boats sold and registered year on year and increase the figures of snapper caught by that number. So if the last survey year was 5 years ago and an increase of 6% in boats has occurred each year over that period, they assume an increase in snapper catches by the rec sector over the same period. All of those figures get rolled in then run backwards to work out how many tonnes were there before we really started fishing them.

    Add to this ussumptions on the depths the fish live in, which they have completely wrong. The fact that most of the "scientists" that do these stock assessments are mere mathematicians and have no idea about the species they are even surveying is astounding. Add to this a severe lack of Fisheries inspectors keeping recs honest. And no one really knows with any sort of accuracy what the recreational take is. We agree that the species is what they term as "growth overfished" which means the % of the biomass that are large fish is small as for years fisheries management has focused on minimum legal sizes for spawning.

    Pearl Pearce are considered now a "depleting" stock based on Catch Per Unit Effort of commercial fishers. Yet they are doing nothing right now to determine the number of fish taken by recreational fishers each year.
     
  17. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Nature is dynamic, it is in a constant state of change. Most of our government policies do not recognise that and as Lovey alluded to, many scientists advising our governments are more interested in keeping their jobs than they are in rocking the boat, mainly because governments fear public backlash so a scientist that proposes an alternative is ridiculed, silenced or just doesn't get funding.

    Concepts such as "virgin biomass" or "preservation zones" are value judgments only, or at best, environmental snapshots frozen in time. They do not reflect or even acknowledge that nature is dynamic and that humans have been impacting the natural environment since the dawn of millenia, nor do they acknowledge that it is next to impossible to return the vast majority of environments to any virgin standard, because in most cases, what constitutes virgin scrub, or virgin biomass or virgin waterways is unknown. So policies are just guesswork and may actually cause more damage than harm.

    Scientific management policy that reflects the dynamic nature of our environment: http://www.perc.org
     
  18. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    I've long been a believer that fisheries job should be to research and implement policies that ensures the maximum sustainable yield. Meaning how can we pull the most fish out of the sea, every year until the big commet hits us and snuffs us all out. If that means we have to take a small fee to fund things like re-stocking (if it's economical to do so) and creating artificial reefs closer to ports (habitat expansion). I would be happy to pay the fee.

    Shiney also mentioned conservation zones. I'm happy for a zone to be created on grounds that are directly relevant. Ie there are rare sea grasses in that areas that dugongs eat and they need to be protected. So from a fishers impact sense that area should be forbidden from anchoring or any activities that effect the sea grass. But the tendancy is to lock everyone out of that area with a green zone. Similarly green zones are created in areas with zero conservation value. The GBRMP was a farce and I'd rather see zones in place that are rotated. Like you see on beach camping areas for regeneration.

    Talking about nature being dynamic. There's long been a saying, drought on land drought at sea. We know weather events like el-Nino/na are cyclical and we go through droughts for long periods followed by long wet periods/floods. Data needs to maintained constantly over long periods to reflect that so we don't go off half cocked thinking a species about to collapse and it's just a cyclical thing.
     
  19. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Mark Latham's Outsiders on commercial fishing. The discussion begins at 36:30:



    BTW, it's a pretty piss poor segment IMO, although the impact on consumers is discussed and is the main point. :)
     
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    The problem with finding a political solution to the management of natural resources:

    1. some groups in society are opposed to commercial fishing in Australian waters
    2. some groups in society are opposed to fish farming in Australian waters
    3. some groups in society are opposed to importing foreign seafood

    All three groups lobby governments in order to force their own values onto others. This results in winners and losers.
     

Share This Page