Scalefish Fishery Management Plandpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/H458363_2015-09-21 REPORT TO TH… · 4 Final Report to the Minister on the Remake of the Scalefish Fishery Management

Scalefish Fishery Management Plan

Final Report to the Minister

on the Remake of the

Scalefish Fishery Management Plan Report under section 47 of the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995

September 2015

Southern Bluespotted Flathead (Platycephalus speculator) by Peter Gouldthorpe

2 Final Report to the Minister on the Remake of the Scalefish Fishery Management Plan 2015

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Recommendations following Consideration of Written Submissions ......................................... 6

2.1 Use of Fishing Gear ......................................................................................................................... 6

Appropriate recreational fishing methods ......................................................................................... 6

Minimum age requirement .................................................................................................................... 7

Gillnet use and compliance ................................................................................................................... 9

Gillnets free areas – seabirds ............................................................................................................. 13

Macquarie Harbour – restriction on winter night netting ........................................................... 41

Macquarie Harbour – set times ......................................................................................................... 47

Macquarie Harbour – extension to the south eastern no netting area .................................... 49

Seine nets and other encircling nets ................................................................................................. 51

Recreational set lines ........................................................................................................................... 55

Use of spears .......................................................................................................................................... 61

Auxiliary fishing gear (apparatus) ....................................................................................................... 65

Non-commercial bait pumps and bait traps .................................................................................... 70

2.2 Berley and bait use ......................................................................................................................... 73

Use of berley as an attractant for shark and other species ......................................................... 73

Restrictions on certain species for use as bait or berley ............................................................. 77

2.3 Recreational Catch Limits ............................................................................................................ 82 2.4 Size Limits ........................................................................................................................................ 99

Striped trumpeter ................................................................................................................................. 99

Size limits for emerging species and others .................................................................................. 102

2.5 Blue groper .................................................................................................................................... 106 2.6 Specialised Scalefish Fishing ........................................................................................................ 107 2.7 Banded Morwong Fishery (commercial) ................................................................................. 108

Commercial Banded Morwong Quota Management System .................................................... 108

Commercial Banded Morwong Quota Unit Holdings ................................................................ 109

2.8 Administrative and Other Amendments ................................................................................. 111

Spawning closures ............................................................................................................................... 111

North Coast Night Netting Endorsements ................................................................................... 112

2.9 Administrative and other Amendments to the Management Plan .................................... 114

Final Report to the Minister on the Remake of the Scalefish Fishery Management Plan 2015 3

3. Issues raised during public consultation .......................................................................................... 116

3.1 Issues that would require inclusion in the management plan ............................................. 116 3.2 Issues that would require no changes to the legislation ..................................................... 122 3.3 Issues not relevant to the scalefish fishery management plan ............................................ 124

4. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 127

4.1 Written submissions received ................................................................................................... 127 4.2 Submissions received via the online response forms ........................................................... 128


1. Introduction

The Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery includes diverse recreational and commercial fisheries in coastal waters that take a range of species using a variety of gear types including hooks, gillnets, fish traps and seine nets. It also includes use of scalefish fishing gear as part of a commercial fishing licence (rock lobster). The current Scalefish Fishery Management Plan, the Fisheries (Scalefish) Rules 2004, expire on the 31 October 2015.

A new management plan (new Rules) needs to be in place by 1 November 2015. Thus, the process for the implementation of the new scalefish fishery management plan must comply with the statutory requirements of the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 (the Act) for the preparation of a new management plan.

This report is provided to the Minister as required by section 47 of the Act and reports on the public exhibition of the draft management plan, the representations received and the resultant amendments made to the draft management plan.

The management plan reflects the general intent and long term policy of the previous management plan which is essential for the continuation of access rights for both the recreational and commercial sectors.

The issues, consulted through the statutory public exhibition of the draft management plan, were based on those received after calling for public submissions in July 2013.

Representative fishing bodies (the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council and the Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing) and Fishery Advisory Committees provided input into identifying and understanding the issues to be advanced through the review. The degree of support by these bodies for the proposals developed through the initial consultation stage varied. The DPIPWE then sought the approval of the Minister to develop final proposals for inclusion in the draft plan for public exhibition. So whilst these groups were involved in the initial stages, their input may not necessarily indicate support for the final proposals that were subsequently included in the draft plan that was publically exhibited. Representative fishing bodies have now provided their formal comment during the 60 day public exhibition period.

Additional issues have been raised that are not legislative in nature—such as increasing post release survival of gamefish species. Where appropriate these may be considered in future policy development.

Public information sessions on the draft plan were held during July and August 2015 in Launceston, St Helens, Triabunna, Smithton, Strahan, Burnie, Dunalley and Hobart. Attendance at these information sessions was high.

During the statutory public exhibition period for the draft plan, 453 written submissions were received addressing the direct questions asked. This is considered a high number of written submissions.

In addition, a submission coordinated by Environment Tasmania was received with 6,259 signatures. This submission/petition argues for a phase out of recreational gillnets, with their use prohibited by November 2016.

The responses to the public exhibition of the draft management plan are not considered a ‘vote’ or ‘poll’. The representations received in relation to the proposals contained in the draft


management plan have, nevertheless, been carefully considered, addressed and reported in this document.

Please note that any quotes used in this report from representations received during public consultation are written verbatim—therefore will include spelling and grammatical errors. These quotes are displayed in “italics” throughout the document.


2. Recommendations following Consideration of Written Submissions

Use of Fishing Gear

Proposals consulted in public exhibition of draft plan:

Appropriate recreational fishing methods

What are your views on the policy statement about encouraging fishing methods in which recreational fishers are actively involved and are selective in the species and quantities caught?

Outcome of public consultation This question does not relate to a particular rule in the new management plan, but rather seeks broader views from the community regarding ongoing management and policy in the future. It may also assist consideration of some of the rules proposed in the exhibited draft management plan.

Generally, the feedback shows strong support for the basic principal for development of a long term general policy statement that captures the spirit of recreational fishing.

Of the 366 that responded directly to the question, 36% strongly agree, 38 % agree, 13% are neutral, 6% disagree and 7% strongly disagree.

It is suggested that some caution needs to be used in interpreting the results. A range of issues were raised in the responses to this question—including high level policy issues along with very specific proposals or issues. Thus, some caution needs to be exercised using these results in future policy considerations.

Some respondents who disagreed suggested this was basically a leading question and not sufficiently specific for a proper response. Others suggested that commercial fishing should be constrained pointing to other fishery examples. A number of respondents raised particular issues of importance to them that may have been better directed to later questions.

Some respondents used this question to argue a position that a ban on recreational gillnets should be implemented. Others used the question to support ongoing sustainable management.

TARFish supports the development of an overarching general policy statement that captures the spirit of recreational fishing and looks forward to being involved in the development of such a statement.

38%

36%

13%

6%7%

2.1 (i) Policy encouraging appropriate recreational fishing methods

Agree

Strongly agree

Neutral/Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The Scalefish Fishery Advisory Committee (SFAC) generally supported this policy statement.

The Recreational Fishery Advisory Committee (RecFAC) supported the intent of the statement and supports further development of overarching policy for recreational fisheries management.

Discussion No decision is required at this time for this management plan, however, this feedback will inform future management and policy considerations and development of recreational fisheries policy.

DPIPWE Recommendation No statutory response to this question is proposed in the draft Rules being considered by the Minister.

Minimum age requirement

Should there be a minimum age requirement for using and licencing of gillnets and set lines.

Outcome of public consultation Of the 369 submissions that responded to the question 35% strongly agree, 38 % agree, 14% were neutral, 7% disagree and 6% strongly disagree (it should be noted that some who support a ban on recreational gillnets disagreed with this proposal).

Many agreed that a ‘reasonable’ age was required, essentially when a person could be capable and responsible for using this type of fishing gear. Suggestions ranged from 10 (same as for rock lobster) to 18, including 14 and 16.

A number of submissions were concerned that children were being ‘licensed’ by parents to increase gear allocations and catch limits for the family fishing unit.

Others suggested this was naturally controlled by the physical limitations of the child and no regulation was needed. Some suggested this was ‘regulation for regulation sake’.

The Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing (TARFish) supports a minimum age requirement, although it does not specify what the minimum age should be.


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported a minimum age. There was no firm agreement of what age, but there was strong support that the age should be higher than 10. The committee suggested further consideration of this issue is needed across fisheries—particularly considering the issue of the age of legal responsibility.

The RecFAC supported age 10 as an absolute minimum. RecFAC suggests the issue of the age for legal responsibility should be investigated.

Discussion On balance a minimum age limit is supported—although the exact age is relatively arbitrary. Given existing rules for holding a rock lobster pot/ring/dive licence of 10 years, it is suggested this is an appropriate benchmark. The rationalee for different ages between management plans would be somewhat difficult to justify. However, this issue may need further consideration across fisheries around the legal responsibility issues raised, as suggested by the advisory committees.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE recommends a minimum age limit of 10 for a person to hold a recreational gillnet or set line licence. The minimum age for the use of all types of licensed recreational fishing gear should be reviewed in the future.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – MINIMUM AGE FOR GILLNETS AND SET LINES

(ii) Should there be a minimum age requirement for using and licencing of gillnets and set lines.

SFAC Support a minimum age for holders of recreational gillnet, mullet net and set line licences. No agreement of what age, but there was strong support that the age should be higher than 10.

RecFAC Support age 10 as an absolute minimum. Would like the age for legal responsibility investigated.

DPIPWE Support a minimum age of 10 for users of gillnets, mullet nets and set lines.


Gillnet use and compliance

(i) Require recreational gillnets to be removed from the water one hour before sunset and not to be set prior to sunrise—excluding Macquarie Harbour where restricted night time netting is permitted. The current night netting restrictions for the commercial fishery will remain unchanged.

Outcome of public consultation There were 372 responses to this proposal, with a diverse range of views. There are clearly polarised views on the use of recreational gillnets.

Some respondents argue that gillnets are a valued and appropriate fishing gear for which restrictive management has been implemented over a number of years, and further imposts are not required.

Conversely, a range of views against the use of recreational gillnets are held in the community - including that the gear type should not be permitted at all—including the Environment Tasmania petition containing 6,259 signatures.

Of those that responded directly to the question (rather than the higher order policy issues surrounding ongoing use of recreational gillnets and those who signed the petition seeking to ban gillnets) 44% strongly agree, 30 % agree, 13% are neutral, 5% strongly disagree and 8% disagree (it should be noted that some who support a ban on recreational gillnets disagreed with this proposal). The petition of 6,259 signatures seeks to ban gillnets by November 2016.

Those that oppose the measure argue that appropriate management has been implemented (or there is already too much management). They suggest that this is not required and is an overreaction. A number of submissions suggest that gillnet fishing around dusk is the best period to capture certain fish species and added restrictions would make it difficult to capture those species. Some argue those that do not gillnet should not propose additional management measures for this sector – they just want to ban it. For example:

“night gill netting should be allowed (other than in shark refuge areas) I can remember waking up early and pulling in the nets when night netting use to be aloud with hardly any unwanted by catch. night netting is a great way of getting a feed, with the current soak time rules more than half the time you cannot catch a feed, I think there needs to be more education on how to target a species of fish with minimal bi catch via social media and in the tas fish guide”.

Also:

44%

30%

13%

8%5%

2.2.1 (i) Recreational gillnet set times (sunrise to 1hr before sunset)

Agree

Strongly agree

Neutral/Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree


“its a waste of time netting during the day for recreational anglers you have basically cut them out, if this was your goal you have achieved it”.

Some argue that the commercial sector should be also restricted or is to ‘blame’ for impacts on fish stocks. They consider that added management should be placed on the commercials sector and not on recreational fishers. For example:

“night netting restrictions for commercial fishery should be the same as for recreational fisherman”.

Many that supported the measure argue that recreational gillnets have a high impact, some argue they should be banned and others support the increased restrictions around sunset and sunrise. For example:

“I would like to see recreational gill netting cease in Tasmania”

Birdlife Tasmania also called for a ban on gillnetting:

"BirdLife Tasmania continues to call for a complete prohibition of the use of recreational gillnets and mullet nets in Tasmania. Our support for a complete prohibition was identified in our 2004 and 2009 submissions and continues to the present Review.

Our support for a complete prohibition is based on the well-documented by-catch of protected species such as Little Penguin Eudyptula minor and Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris”.

A submission from Environment Tasmania also argued for the cessation of recreational gillnets as follows:

“The proposed changes to recreational gillnet restrictions by the Scalefish Review fail to either significantly minimise the damage recreational gillnets do to our fish, seabird and mammal populations, but they also fail to deliver a permanent solution to this issue, which has been identified as a problem for over 15 years. Environment Tas recommends a phase out of all rec gillnets by Nov 2016 to sustain our marine environments and assist in reversing declining fish populations”.

TARFish does not support the measures suggesting other spatial measures (presumably gillnet free areas) should be utilised rather than this temporal measure.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC support the measure, recognising that the measure does not affect the commercial sector. The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council (TSIC) submission states that responsible use of gillnets will be pursued through a formal industry code of conduct—which is currently in the process of being finalised for consultation with wider industry.

The RecFAC generally support the revised set times. RecFAC also discussed the use of recreational gillnets in future, noting the policy direction of the current review that does not propose banning recreational gillnets but rather to continue appropriate mitigation in light of research outcomes.

Previous RecFAC discussions have identified a possible research need for developing and promoting alternative fishing methods to catch fish species such as escaped Atlantic salmon (e.g. “G” nett or barrier net). This may be a platform for future research and policy consideration.

RecFAC members also suggested attendance provisions and/or maximum soak times for recreational gillnets should be further reviewed in the future. As this did not form part of the


exhibited draft management plan, this may be considered as a direction for future policy.

Discussion The current management plan has a complex regime of restrictions relating to the use of commercial and recreational gillnets, including rules about the areas of use, soak times and night time usage of commercial and recreational gillnets. The existing policy has been to continue to review netting practices in the context of research findings and amend rules to mitigate identified impacts.

The sunrise/sunset proposals were informed through a risk assessment process and drafted to further mitigate potential negative impacts on little penguins in particular, and other sea birds. Given the polarised views on gillnets, the DPIPWE continues to supports the rationale of the measures.

It is recognised (as some argue) that there are already a range of measures on the use of gillnets and recreational gillnets in particular. The view that these measures are adequate, particularly the ban on most night time netting, is recognised. It is also recognised that some aspirations of gillnet fishers may be impacted by the proposed measure, and some who support the measure will not be directly impacted by it.

Conversely, many hold strong views that the measure is inadequate and that only a total ban on recreational gillnets is sufficient.

However, the risk assessment process undertaken to inform decision making on this issue was rigorous and community expectations are that negative impacts of gillnets must be minimised.

The suggestion that the same measures must apply for both commercial fishing activity and recreational activity is not supported by the DPIPWE. It is not supported that the commercial fishing activity, which operates with very different imperatives and drivers, must be subject to identical management regimes.

Given the divergent polarised views on the issues, and the process and rationale for developing the sunset/sunrise provisions, the DPIPWE supports this proposal unchanged.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE recommends the sunrise/sunset provisions be adopted unchanged.


(ii) Require each marker buoy on recreational gillnets to have the unique identifying code (UIC) and type of gear code (‘G’ = Graball net, ‘M’ = mullet net).

Outcome of public consultation Of the 364 submissions that responded directly to this proposal, 32% strongly agree, 40 % agree, 13% are neutral, 7% strongly disagree and 8% disagree.

Many respondents suggest this was a reasonable proposal to ensure gear was easy to identify and locate and to prevent inadvertent interactions with the gear.

Other argued that one buoy was adequate with no clear need for change. Some suggested that for larger groups on boats this doubled the number of buoys required increasing gear required and costs.

Some potential safety concerns were also identified. It is suggested that two buoys may potentially create problems for nets effected by tides and weather in a manner that may create a safety issue for fishers and result in the loss of nets resulting in “ghost fishing”.

Both TSIC and TARFish support this measure.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported the proposal. The issues of safe navigation, appropriate policing and also the issues raised on 2 buoys causing net tangles were discussed.

The SFAC contains a number of professional net fishers, who are intimately familiar and experienced with gillnets and how they should be configured and set. The SFAC rejected the claim that two surface buoys causes more net tangles and creates a safety issue. The industry members stated that if this occurred then the fishers did not know how to configure a net properly. On the basis of enforcement, safety and identifying both ends for navigation, the SFAC supported the proposal as ‘a no brainer’.

The RecFAC supported the proposal.

Discussion The measure has general support from people recognising the importance of being able to readily identify the location of nets and the need to facilitate enforcement. The expertise of the SFAC addressed the issues raised and strongly supported the measure. This expert opinion is accepted.

40%

32%

13%

8%

7%

2.2.1 (ii) Recreational gillnet marker buoys

Agree

Strongly agree

Neutral/Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree


DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE recommends the proposal be adopted unchanged.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – GILLNET USE AND COMPLIANCE

(i) Require recreational gillnets to be removed from the water one hour before sunset and not to be set prior to sunrise—excluding Macquarie Harbour where restricted night time netting is permitted. The current night netting restrictions for the commercial fishery will remain unchanged.

SFAC Support this proposal—noting that this does not impact on the commercial sector.

RecFAC Generally supported the proposed sunrise/sunset provisions—noting the TARFish position of not supporting.

DPIPWE Support the proposed sunrise/sunset provisions be adopted unchanged.

(ii) Require each marker buoy on recreational gillnets to have the unique identifying code (UIC) and type of gear code (‘G’ = Graball net, ‘M’ = mullet net).

SFAC Support for this proposal

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Support the proposal for each marker buoy on a recreational graball net to be marked with a “G” and on a recreational mullet net to be marked with an “M” in addition to the unique identifying code be adopted unchanged.

Gillnets free areas – seabirds

Proposals prohibiting the use of gillnets (both recreational and commercial) within 500 to 1000 metres adjacent to the following key penguin colonies. Refer to Appendix 1 of the Background to Proposed Amendments paper for maps and descriptions of each area.

Proposals consulted on:

Greater Derwent River

Extend the Derwent no gillnetting area to align with the current no mullet net area boundaries for the River Derwent i.e. from Piersons Point to Dennes Point to Cape Direction.

Outcome of public consultation There were 369 responses to this proposal, with a high level of support. Many of the comments received for the proposed areas (and the sunset sunrise provisions) are the same. Comments often coalesce around the polarised views on gillnets. As noted above, some fishers suggested that there are many provisions in place that restrict the operations of gillnets and in fact this gear is used in a responsible manner. This is often repeated for each area and generic statements as detailed below should be noted for all the no gillnet area proposals—and gillnetting generally.


Other views repeat for these areas that gillnets should be banned, including the petition submitted by Environment Tasmania.

Environment Tasmania also state for all the areas that:

“We support the establishment of areas free of commercial and recreational gillnets to protect seabird colonies. We recommend that the prohibition on commercial gillnets to be expanded to include areas surrounding all known penguin colonies, and inside shark refuge areas and estuaries to better protect these important breeding areas”.

Additionally Birdlife Tasmania state:

"We note DPIPWE have identified key and iconic penguin colonies. On what basis or criteria were these colonies identified as “key” or “iconic”? They are not the largest colonies in Tasmania, nor are they colonies with ongoing research programs to justify being identified as “key” colonies. How were these colonies selected?

We note there are private and/or commercial eco-tourism ventures utilising penguin colonies at Neck Beach (Adventure Bay), Waubs Bay (Bicheno), Low Head, Lillico Beach, Parsonage

Point (Burnie) and Godfreys Beach (Stanley), suggesting these colonies were selected as “key and iconic” on the basis of protecting commercial interests rather than the penguins themselves."

For those that oppose gillnets it was suggested this measure is not sufficient, others support the proposal as appropriate.

Some question that gillnets impact on seabirds and/or penguins and suggest that in fact the impact is very low.

There are some respondents that will be impacted by the measure and argue that the Derwent River provides a sheltered area where recreational fishers can set nets. For example:

“This is one of the few areas left where families can fish from a row boat safely together, close to home. There is very little fishing pressure on this area. Netting should be permitted between the prescribed daylight times. Catch rates of trumpeter and warehou are improving annually in the alum cliffs area. A net need only be set for an hour of two to get a family meal. The residents of Taroona look after their patch calling the marine police if nets are left too long etc. Boats in the reserve etc”.

In general, however a significant response supported the measure.

30%

30%

27%

6%7%

2.2.2.1 Gillnet Free Area ‐ Greater Derwent

Agree

Strongly agree

Neutral/Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree


TARFish supported all proposed no gillnet areas. In addition TARFish suggested that flexibility is provided in the legislation so that little penguin colonies identified in the future can be afforded protection between Scalefish Fishery Management Plan reviews.

The TSIC does not support any of the proposed closures. For all these closures the TSIC position is:

"Proposal 2-10: Prohibit the setting of gillnets at Fredrick Henry Bay (around Sloping Island and Spectacle Island), Neck Beach (Adventure Bay), Waubs Bay (Bicheno), Musselroe Bay, Low Head, Lillico Beach, Parsonage Point (Burnie), Godfreys Beach (Stanley) Bonnet Island (Macquarie Harbour entrance). NOT SUPPORTED

TSIC is of the view that for commercial fishers the Code of Practice for the Scalefish Fishery could be amended, recommending that commercial gillnetters do not have their nets set adjacent to penguin rookeries one hour before sunrise to an hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset to one hour after sunset. This is the period when penguins are most active on or adjacent to the rookeries ".

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC had no stated opposition to this closure, noting that the proposal does not impact the commercial sector—however TSIC does not support any of these closures.

The RecFAC generally supports the principle of establishing closures or additional closed areas to gillnetting for protection around penguin colonies. RecFAC further supports TARFish’s suggestion of flexibility to be allowed for in the legislation so that little penguin colonies that may be identified in the future can be afforded protection between Scalefish Fishery Management Plan reviews.

Discussion As with the sunrise/sunset provisions, the essential rationale of the proposal is supported by the DPIPWE. It is also recognised that the spatial closures protect some little penguin rookeries, but it has never been stated that closed penguin rookeries would be implemented for all areas. Rather the proposal for restricting recreational netting at sunrise/sunset is an important measure that will benefit all State waters.

It should be noted that the Scalefish Fishery Management Plan has inherent flexibility to close parts of the fishery by public notice.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE recommends the measure be adopted unchanged.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – RIVER DERWENT

MAP 1: Proposed River Derwent closure for gillnets indicated in yellow.

SFAC No stated opposition to this closure—noting that the proposal does not impact the commercial sector.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Supports the measure to extend the closure of the River Derwent to gillnets to be adopted unchanged—refer to Map 1.

Frederick Henry Bay

(i) Spectacle Island

Remove the ability to set a gillnet within 200 metres of Spectacle Island by moving the baseline so it is 200 metres from the southern end of Tiger Head to a line that is 200 metres south east of Spectacle Island.

Outcome of public consultation There were 362 responses to this proposal This measure received a high level of support.


The arguments on the proposal are essentially the same as for the Derwent River. Many oppose the use of gillnets and support the added protection. For example:

“I understand that this is a seabird nesting area (not sure), if so we should be doing all possible to avoid sea bird entrapment in nets”.

Conversely, some respondents argued ongoing access for the area. For example:

“I live on Spectacle Head and fish when weather suitable with my graball on my side of the headland and around the corner towards Park Beach and I have never caught a penguin or a sea bird ever. I check my net 2 hourly as per the rules. I do not know the movements of Penguins .I have not seen any washed up on our beaches. And is there a colony of penguins on Spectacle Island. I would not like to lose this area. Also the seals patrol here and like Penguins also”.

TARFish supports all proposed no gillnet areas. The TSIC does not support any of the proposed closures.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations For the SFAC, industry members do not support this proposal arguing there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. The conservation member supports the proposal.

The RecFAC supports the proposal.

Discussion As with the sunrise/sunset provisions—the essential rationale of the proposal is supported by the DPIPWE.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE recommends the measure be adopted unchanged.

26%

26%

38%

5%5%

2.2.2.2 (i) Gillnet Free Area ‐ Spectacle Island

Agree

Strongly agree

Neutral/Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – SPECTACLE ISLAND

MAP 2: The area around Spectacle Island now gillnet free. Gillnets (not including mullet nets) can still be used in the areas shaded in grey.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports this proposal.

Industry members do not support this proposal as there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Supports the proposal to move the base line to exclude Spectacle Island from gillnetting—refer to Map 2.

SpectacleIsland

SpectacleHead

TigerHead


(ii) Sloping Island

Adjust the current “no gillnet area” baseline so it is from the most western point at the northern end of Lagoon Beach to a point 200 metres due north of Black Jack Point—so that the boundary is on the eastern side of Sloping Island.

Outcome of public consultation There were 357 responses to this proposal. Again, the majority of submissions support this measure—with many issues raised are similar to the proposals previously discussed.

The commercial sector considers that this area is not similar to those previously discussed. Less than 10 fishers are endorsed with non-transferable endorsements as ‘grandfathered provisions’ for continued access to the area. When they leave the fishery this access is removed permanently from this area. Their operations are restricted to the shallower waters generally 200 metres from the high water mark or inshore of baselines determined for Frederick Henry and Norfolk Bays (FHNB).

The baselines around the Sloping Island area are further offshore than in many other parts of FHNB, providing a significant portion of the area open for operations under the endorsements (see Map 3).

An endorsed fisher has made a submission that the shallower waters of Sloping Main is an important area for his operations for flounder, and that the area on the western side of Sloping Island is an important ‘snotty shot’ for him. This fisher suggests the western side are cliffs—and is inaccessible to penguins—and that the eastern side and the mainland is where the penguins are.

The submission stated:

“Around 80-90% of FHNB is already closed to netting. Around 35-40% of my trevally catch comes from west side of Sloping Is & 20% of my flounder catch from eastern side. Sloping Is. is one of only three most productive areas, along with NW Head & Carlton Bluff. Propose clause that exempts holder of an endorsement from this proposal”.

It should be noted that the commercial catches in FHNB have been very low over the last few years, and records show the fisher has not fished the last two years. The individual argues however that this is an area open to him and it is important when he needs to participate in the fishery. He suggests that endorsement holders should be exempt from the provisions.

25%

23%39%

7%6%

2.2.2.2 (ii) Gillnet Free Area ‐ Sloping Island

Agree

Strongly agree

Neutral/Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree


MAP 3: Current no gillnet area with proposal released inset at bottom left. The area to the left of the blue line would be closed to gillnetting.

MAP 4: Compromise proposal—no gillnets in yellow area. Gillnets are permitted to be used in the grey areas.

It is recognised that the endorsements were issued to provide this level of commercial access to the area. It is also recognised that the endorsees will be required to permanently leave the area in accordance with the shark refuge area endorsement policy. The three basic options are to:

1. proceed with the proposal unchanged; 2. exempt endorsees from the proposal; or 3. amend the area to achieve a level of protection but mitigate the impacts.

Some recreational fishers also point out that the area may be a good spot for blue warehou, with one fisher stating:

Sloping Island

Green Head

Blackjack Point

Closed Area

Lobster Point


“I have caught lovely snotty trevally in this area, it would be awful not to be able to do this”.

TARFish supports all proposed no gillnet areas. The TSIC does not support any of the proposed closures as stated previously.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations In light of the representations made, the DPIPWE developed an alternate proposal for further discussion and consideration by the advisory committees. That proposal was for a total closure between Sloping Island and the mainland, but leaving open the western side of the Island and all the area open to the south (see Map 4).

For the SFAC, industry members do not support this proposal arguing there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area.

However, of the two models discussed and if a closure was to proceed, there is general industry support for the alternative proposal—but retaining the existing 200 metre ‘strip’ of access open along the mainland coast.

The SFAC conservation member supports the original proposal.

The RecFAC supports the original proposal released. RecFAC was concerned that the first objective for protecting penguins may be weakened through the alternate proposal.

Discussion The objective of the alternate proposal developed by the DPIPWE is to balance conservation objectives while also minimising impact—on longstanding commercial access in the area. The issues raised by the representation regarding the commercial utility of the area is recognised

The rationale of the original proposal is also recognised, however, the alternate proposal is considered a reasonable compromise in providing ongoing access while mitigating impact on penguin rookeries.

If may be more effective to include the existing 200 metre shoreline gillnet area within the closure so that the full area between the mainland and Sloping Island excludes gillnets. The cliff faces on the western side are unlikely to be penguin habitat.

On balance the DPIPWE recommends the alternate closure all the way to the mainland shore, but with some very minor modifications. This sees the southern boundary extend from the southern tip of Sloping Island due east to the mainland, and the northern boundary starting from 200 metres north of the northern tip of Sloping Island extend due east to the mainland. These small modifications join the open area south of the island to the area open on the western side, and closes off the area to the east 200 metres north of the island.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement a closed area for gillnets adjacent to Sloping Island and the mainland as described in the paragraph above—i.e. the full area between Sloping Island and the mainland as shown in Map 5.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – SLOPING ISLAND

It is recommended that the following closure is adopted, which protects the area east of Sloping Island to the high water mark of the mainland.

MAP 5: Recommended closure for Sloping Island in Frederick Henry Bay.

SFAC


Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area.

However, there was general industry support for the alternative proposal (map 5), but retaining the 200m access on the mainland coast.

RecFAC Support original proposal

DPIPWE Support the alternative closure boundaries—refer to map 5. This accommodates the concerns of the commercial fishery of keeping the 200 metre access on the western side of the island open.

Neck Beach (Adventure Bay)

Prohibit the use of gillnets in waters enclosed by an imaginary line from the southern end of Neck Beach to the northern end of Neck Beach.

Outcome of public consultation There were 359 responses to this proposal, and it received a high level of support. The underlying issues are the same as is detailed for the areas above and the sunrise/sunset provisions.

Closed Area

Sloping Island

Blackjack Point

Lobster Point

Green Head


Another example of a representation that does not support any gillnets states:

“I don't believe that recreational gill nets should be allowed under any circumstances. They are indiscriminate, stupid and lazy fishing”.

Conversely, one fisher recognised utility of the areas as follows:

“I am not sure what this seeks to achieve. The piece of rough off the neck lookout is the only hard bottom on the entire stretch of beach and is only netted by experienced recreational fishers. It is a good net shot for those who know it and it takes pressure off other areas”.

While there may be one small area of rocky reef affected, generally the closure is for a long extended sandy beach which is well recognised for bird/penguin activity. As such, the DPIPWE supports the rationale of the closure.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations For the SFAC, industry members do not support this proposal arguing there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. The conservation member supports the proposal.

However, if the proposal must proceed, then there was general industry acceptance that this area is mostly sand bottom.


Discussion This popular public area is relatively small, while there may be one small area of rocky reef affected, generally the closure is for a long extended sandy beach which is well recognised for bird/penguin activity. Also noting the SFAC comments, the DPIPWE supports the rationale of the closure.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE supports implementing the closure unchanged.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – NECK BEACH

MAP 6: Recommended closure for Neck Beach, Bruny Island.

SFAC


Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area.

However, if must have then there was general industry support as this area is mostly sand bottom.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Supports implementing the closure at Necks Beach unchanged—refer to Map 6.

North Bruny

South Bruny

Adventure Bay

Mars BluffCape Queen Elizabeth

Neck Beach

Simpsons Bay


Waubs Bay (Bicheno)

Prohibit the use of gillnets inside an imaginary straight line from Peggys Point to the southernmost point of Diamond Island, and from a second imaginary straight line from the western most point of Diamond Island due west to mainland Tasmania.

Outcome of public consultation There were 355 responses to this proposal. As suggested from the responses, the support was less for this area than for some others. In fact, 30% either agreed or strongly agreed and 30% strongly disagreed or disagreed. A significant 40% were neutral/not sure.

However, many of the underlying issues are the same as detailed for the areas above and the sunrise/sunset provisions.

Issues particular to this area include the nearby marine reserve, the Bicheno foreshore—including popular public beach, dive spots and reef habitat.

There are other values in this area that the closures may indirectly benefit. The background paper identified some of those secondary benefits as:

maintain diving values in Waubs Bay; protection of reef fish habitat; resource sharing—increase angling opportunities.

Some of those values were identified in submissions, as seen in the following four submissions received:

“as a very popular diving area it is easy to get tangled in fishing nets and would be a good idea”;

“This area adjoins a marine reserve, a seabird colony including penguins and is a tourist attraction. Off course gillnets should be banned”;

“Isnt Diamond Island famous for Penguins, no brainer I would think, of course it should be closed”;

“Extremely high area of recreational fishing and boating. Improves safety of all users and may help to improve inshore reef ecosystems”.

Others pointed to local fishing areas where fishing is good and the ability to fish these areas in poor weather conditions, as outlined in the following three submissions:

“Local popular fishing area. No sound reason given for this proposal”;


“To great a zone. Next will be closure for fishing”;

“these grounds are good fishing grounds for commercial and amiture fishermen, and safe aria when wether is bad els where, which could save lifes at sea. and same again on any closures compensation should be paid for loss of income”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The attributes of the area and possible values for protection were discussed in detail by both committees.

The RecFAC, which met first, highlighted both the primary objectives of penguin protection and also other secondary benefits it identified to be of importance for this area. In short, RecFAC suggested a larger area should be closed essentially joining the top of the current marine reserve to a buffer 200 metres off Diamond Island.

RecFAC recommended that the closure should include a 200 metre net exclusion zone around Diamond Island and waters enclosed from the northern point of the Diamond Island exclusion zone (i.e. 200 m out) to the northwest point to the Governor Island Marine Reserve boundary. The rationale was:

additional protection for penguin colonies along the unprotected foreshore between Peggys Point and the Gulch;

existing and potential tourism businesses which will be protected;

popular for recreational divers;

rocky reef/bastard trumpeter protection.

From SFAC, industry members do not support this proposal or the alternative as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue—such as a Code of Practice—rather than removing commercial access to this area. Of particular concern to SFAC was access to an area at Trap Reef which would be excluded if the boundary released for consultation was moved too far north. It was also identified that some fishing for banded morwong occurs in proximity to Diamond Island.

Discussion The DPIPWE recognises that there are multiple benefits from a closure in the area, and that an increased area might afford additional protection, particularly along the coast at Peggys Point—which is outside the current area. However, the DPIPWE is also concerned that an increased area should not have significant impact on some existing activities if there has been no wide opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on a larger area.

On balance, the DPIPWE recommends an increased area to include Peggys Point, but not to the size of that area recommended by RecFAC that would incorporate all of Trap Reef and all of Diamond Island.

This area would enclose waters of Waubs Bay within the area north of the southern end of ‘The Gulch’, and from a line starting at the north westernmost point of Governor Island to the southernmost point of Diamond Island, and then from the westernmost point of Diamond Island to the northern end of Redbill Beach—refer to Map 7.


MAP 7: Waubs Bay: Map of alternate proposal determined after considering public consultation and FAC recommendations

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the closure as illustrated in map 7 above, which excludes Trap Reef as this is one of the areas that is important to the commercial sector.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – WAUBS BAY .

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports the alternative as proposed by RecFAC.

Industry members do not support this proposal or the alternative as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. Particular concern that the alternative includes Trap Reef, which is an important fishing area.

RecFAC

RecFAC recommended that the closure should include a 200m net exclusion zone around Diamond Island and waters enclosed from the northern point of the Diamond Island exclusion zone (i.e 200 m out) to the north west point to the Governor Island Marine Reserve boundary. This is recommended on the basis:

additional protection for penguin colonies along the unprotected foreshore between Peggy’s Point and the Gulch;

existing and potential tourism businesses which will be protected; popular for recreational divers; bastard trumpeter protection.

DPIPWE Support a modification of the RecFAC proposal so that Trap Reef is not included in the closure, which was of concern to industry. Refer to map 7.


Musselroe Bay

Extend current no gillnet netting closure to all waters in Musselroe Bay. Waters enclosed by a northerly line from the most eastern point of Ryans Arm to the south western side of Musselroe Point.

Outcome of public consultation There were 342 responses to this proposal. The issue received strong support with 24% of respondents strongly agreeing and 23% agreeing and 40% of respondents neutral on this proposal.

The rationale for this area is somewhat different than for the other areas. This area is a shallow enclosed area of water within Musselroe Bay.

Several respondents argue that no nets should be allowed in these enclosed waters, for example:

“All bays river mouth seem to be nursery areas and need to have minimal impact”.

Conversely some others argue the status quo is fine and the area provides sheltered water to set nets, for example:

“Most of Musselroe Bay is protected already. There are many days where weather will not permit netting anywhere outside the bay. I don't believe netting is causing any major damage to fish stocks in the bay, when most of it is protected, and there are a limited number of nets used in the area. Bringing this area in line with other areas is not a good enough reason to change the current rules that are working fine”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. However, if the measure was to proceed there were no significant issues identified for the boundary. The community and conservation member supported the proposal.


Discussion As can be seen from the map for this area, this is a very enclosed small area of water. This issue has been consistently raised in previous reviews and the DPIPWE considers removing the nets


from this sheltered area is appropriate and may also minimise interactions with bream fishers in enclosed waters.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the closure

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – MUSSELROE BAY

MAP 8: Musselroe Bay gillnet closure. The area shaded in yellow will now be gillnet free.

SFAC


Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area.

If to proceed then boundary ok

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Support this area closure as proposed—refer to Map 8.


Low Head

Prohibit the use of gillnets within waters enclosed by an imaginary straight line extending one (1) kilometre due north of Low Head, extending one (1) kilometre from the shoreline to a line extending one (1) kilometre due west from Barrel Spit.

Outcome of public consultation There were 356 responses to this proposal, which was well supported—22% strongly agree, 24% agree, 7% strongly disagree and 5% disagree.

The fundamental debate around the use of gillnet applies to this proposal also.

However, one commercial fisher who operates the area made the following submission:

“1 kilometre due west from Barrel Spit is to far to the West. The boundary should be 100m west of the Low head breakwater (boat ramp) and follow the shape of the shoreline to the North remaining 100m offshore until the tip of Low Head Point. Commercial fisherman that are endorsed to net in this area never set nets near the Penguins and never catch any Penguins. They do however fish within 1km due west from Barrel Spit. This would destroy their livelihood. The line needs to be closer to shore”.

A converse opinion also addressed the use of commercial small mesh nets in the area as follows:

“As above - protect penguins. Ban commercial small mesh gillnets from 1 km of any shoreline in Bass Strait”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The RecFAC, which met before SFAC considered an alternate proposal developed by the DPIPWE as a possible simplification of the proposed closure as an aid to enforcement.

This proposal was to make a box in the area roughly equivalent to the original proposal as follows:

“A rectangular based closure within waters enclosed by an imaginary straight line extending one kilometre due north of Low Head, with the northern boundary extending one kilometre due west from the end of the line extending due north, then a third line extending due south from the end of the line extending west, and a fourth line extending due east to the shoreline from the end of the line extending due south”.


RecFAC supports the rationale of the original proposal and supported the slight modification to make a box as detailed above. RecFAC did not explicitly address the representation from the fisher as detailed above.

The SFAC discussed the need for a buffer of 1 km, arguing most other closures were smaller in the order of 500-200 metres. As such, the majority of members argued the area was too big and should be reduced.

There was some discussion that somewhere around 500 metres might be appropriate. Ultimately, industry members argued that if a closure were to be implemented a 200 metre buffer should be implemented—stating that this is consistent with other areas.

It should be noted, however, that the SFAC industry position remains that industry members do not support this proposal or any alternative as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area.

The SFAC conservation member supports the basic proposal but would support a lesser area somewhere around 500 metres. He did not support 200 metres.

Discussion The DPIPWE considers that an alternate proposal can be developed that minimises impact and maintains the objectives of the closures, particularly around key areas along the northern end of Low Head.

It should also be noted that the representation from a commercial operator indicates there are fishing grounds off Barrel Spit.

MAP 9: Low Head closure proposal—note Barrel Spit

From the map above, it can be seen that Barrel Spit is at the southern end of the proposed closure (Map 9). Therefore, moving the southern boundary a distance further north can still protect key penguin habitat but mitigate impacts upon that area identified by the commercial fisher.

Given a movement of that southern boundary, the DPIPWE suggests that 500 metres may be appropriate. There can be no disputing the penguin habitat along the western side of Low Head. The DPIPWE considers this is a reasonable alternate proposal given the key area at Barrel Spit identified by the fisher. This alternate proposal, as shown in Map 10 is:

“waters enclosed by an imaginary line starting at a point 500 metres due north of Low Head then to a point at the northernmost tip of Low Head then following the high water mark in an anticlockwise direction to a point at latitude 41° 03’ 45” South then to a point 500 metres west of that point at 41° 03’ 45” South then to a point 500 metres west of the westernmost point of Dotterel Point then to a point 500 metres west of the northernmost tip of Low Head then to a point 500 metres north of that


previous point then to the start of the imaginary line”.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the alternate reduced closure to 500 metres—as detailed above—and shown in the map included in the Final Recommendations section (refer to Map 10).

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – LOW HEAD

MAP 10: Low Head map: Yellow area is new gillnet free area

SFAC


Industry members do not support this proposal or the alternative as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. If must go through boundary should be reduced to 200 metres north of Low Head, then 200m out following the coast line.

RecFAC Support the general area in the original proposal. A rectangular based closure – generally closing waters to gill nets 1 km at low head. option 3 – the box

DPIPWE Support a modified version of the original proposal where the boundary extends 500 metres with straight lines joining at five points. Refer to Map 10.

Lillico Beach

Prohibit the use of gillnets within a one (1) kilometre radius from the Lillico Beach penguin viewing Platform. Note: The Don River and Forth River are “no netting” areas.

Outcome of public consultation There were 357 responses to this proposal. Of the respondents, 52% either agree or strongly agree with the proposal, and 39% were neutral.


There were several strong submissions supporting the closure but also suggesting a larger area should be protected.

One commercial fisher suggested that:

“Protect penguins, ban small mesh gillnets from all known penguin colonies and areas right along Bass Strait not just here—Lillico is no different to Rocky Cape, Stanley, Robbins Island, Walkers Island, Three Hummock Island, Hunter Islant or any where else”.

The Friends of Lillico Penguins also argued for additional protection:

“Also strongly recommend that the area be extended to include the whole of Lillico Beach from the mouth of the Forth River to the mouth of the Don. Only a small proportion of 3,000 to 3,500 birds nest within the proposed 1 km radius. For proper protection the exclusion zone would need to include the inshore waters along the length of the beach. During Sep 14 - Apr 15 the most sightings on a given night were 50, which shows how small a prop of the colony nests within sight of the viewing platform”.

The converse was also argued by a commercial fisher:

“I do not agree with any of the restrictions around penguin colonies as this will end up being yet another no netting area. Commercial fishermen do not catch penguins in their nets as their method of fishing does not coincide with the penguins returning to their nests”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue rather than removing commercial access to this area such as the proposed Code of Practice.

However, if a closure does go through the boundary should be as per the original proposal in front of the penguin viewing platform. The SFAC conservation member supports the RecFAC proposal for a larger area.

The RecFAC support a closure, however, most recommend to extend the no gillnetting area to protect the entire beach, as suggested in the Lillico Beach Penguin Association’s submission.


Discussion As suggested by the submission quoted above, it is likely that there is penguin habitat along large areas on this part of the coast. As previously argued, the sunset/sunrise provisions are important as they recognise that closures are not being implemented for all areas.

The rationale of the submissions that argue for a larger area is recognised, however, this would see a large area closed. Increasing the size of a closed area can be problematic if the full potential impacts of an alternate proposal are not clear and stakeholders have not had opportunity to comment on a markedly different alternative.

Therefore the DPIPWE supports the closure as proposed.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the closure as originally proposed.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – LILLICO BEACH

MAP 11: Proposed gillnet exclusion area around the penguin viewing platform at Lillico Beach.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports alternative proposal proposed and supported by RecFAC. Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue rather than removing commercial access to this area such as the proposed Code of Practice.

However, if must go through boundary should be as per the original proposal in front of the penguin viewing platform.

RecFAC Support a closure, however recommend to extend the no gillnetting area to protect the entire beach, as suggested in the Lillico Beach Penguin Association’s submission

DPIPWE Support the closure as originally proposed—refer to Map 11.


Parsonage Point (Burnie)

Prohibit the use of gillnets within an imaginary line extending 200 metres around Parsonage Point (extending to 200 metres either side).

Outcome of public consultation There were 352 responses to this proposal. Again, this measure was strongly supported with most of the additional comments going to the higher order issues of the use of nets rather than particular aspects of Parsonage Point.

One submission explicitly stated that the areas could be expanded, which would presumably be supported by those wishing to ban gillnets. This submission stated:

“could make this exclusion zone bigger to avoid the penguins, from the wharf to red rock cooee”.

Other submissions did not support a closure or questioned the need:

“Is there any evidence of penguins being in the water in this area during daylight?)”.

The DPIPWE subsequently considered an alternative proposal, again forming a box around the closure, as being easier for fishers to identify and easier for enforcement (refer to Map 12). This model has easy to understand eastern and western boundaries at clear geographical points, namely Alexander Street on the eastern boundary and Russ Street for the western boundary.

This was an alternate model that was put to both advisory committees after consultation closed.

MAP 12: DPIPWE alternate ‘boxed’ proposal overlaid over the original area proposed.


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations From the SFAC, the Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. However, if the measure is progressed the original proposal is preferred as it is for a slightly smaller area than a box format.

The SFAC Conservation member supported the amended proposal for ease of enforcement.

The RecFAC support the amended proposal from the DPIPWE as per Map 6.

Discussion The DPIPWE supports the alternate proposal forming a box around the closed area as being easier for fishers to identify and easier for enforcement—refer to Map 13. This model has easy to understand eastern and western boundaries at clear geographical points.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the closure, but adopt a rectangular area boundary based on the visual cues of Alexander Street on the Eastern side and Russ Street on the western side.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – PARSONAGE POINT

MAP 13: Parsonage Point gillnet free area as modified from the original proposal after consultation.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports alternative proposal proposed and supported by RecFAC as straight lines are easier to enforce.

Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue rather than removing commercial access to this area such as the proposed Code of Practice, but if must go through boundary should be as per the original proposal.

RecFAC Support alternative rectangle closure

DPIPWE Support the alternative rectangle closure—refer to Map 13.


Godfreys Beach (Stanley)

Prohibit the use of gillnets inside an imaginary straight line extending from the existing ‘no netting boundary’ to the eastern most point of the first small headland north of Godfreys Beach.

Outcome of public consultation There were 353 responses to this proposal.

While most respondents agreed with the measure some questioned interactions with penguins, for example:

“Is there any evidence anyone has ever caught a penguin in this area? I have not heard of it being an issue, in fact I'm not sure that it is a popular area for gillnetting. It seems to be further restrictions for the sake of imposing restrictions”.

Conversely, several other respondents provided and supported the rationale, for example:

“This is the only area I gillnet at Stanley - but its probably a good thing in the long run - I use 6 x 25m by 25 mesh gillnets in the daytime even though I have a night netting endorsement - it is not very often I net it - so it won't matter much”.

Additionally:

“There is a large movement of penguins along Godfrey's beach and close to The Nut. This will help significantly improve the potential interaction of penguins in nets”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations From the SFAC, the Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. The SFAC community and conservation member supported the proposal.

The RecFAC support the proposal.

Discussion Again, views are very much aligned to contrasting opinions regarding the use of gillnets. This is long beach with penguin habitat and the DPIPWE supports the general rationale of the original proposal. It also connects with an existing ‘no netting’ area.


DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the closure unchanged—refer to Map 14.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – GODFREYS BEACH

MAP 14: New gillnet closure for Godfreys Beach, Stanley is area shaded in yellow.

SFAC

The community and conservation supports proposal.

Industry members do not support this proposal as there are other ways to better address the issue rather than removing commercial access to this area such as the proposed Code of Practice. However, if must go through boundary should be as per the original proposal.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Support proposal unchanged—refer to Map 14.

Bonnet Island (Macquarie Harbour entrance)

Prohibit the use of gillnets within the area bounded by an imaginary straight line from the eastern most point of Wellington Head due north to Braddon Point, and from a second imaginary straight line defining the entrance to Macquarie Harbour (Nigger Head due east to Braddon Point).

Outcome of public consultation There were 355 responses to this proposal. Some 22% indicated strong support, 22% support, 9% strongly disagree and 8% disagree. Neutral responses were 39%.


While there was strong support, others questioned whether the measure is necessary. For example:

"I have fished the area you are proposing to lock up for 40 years and have NEVER caught a penguin in my nets.

This includes Munssons behind Bonnet and where the old boatshed was towards Hells Gates

Please be upfront and at least say we don't want the tourists who view the Bonnet Island experience to ask awkward questions and make us look foolish.

Even though most who think that penguins consistently get caught in nets cannot be told!"

Some others supported the measure but also noted it was not an appropriate place to net in the first place, for example:

“Netting in an entrance to any bay or harbour would take to high a number of fish entering or leaving the area”.

A neutral submission observed:

“Not sure how you could set a net in that current!”

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations From the SFAC, the Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue (Code of Practice) rather than removing commercial access to this area. The SFAC notes there are only two endorsed commercial fishers in the area and if a closure must proceed, the original boundaries should be used.

The SFAC community and conservation member supported the proposal.

The RecFAC support the proposal.

Discussion There was some discussion that gillnetting in this area is highly challenging, whilst some argue it is possible if you know what you are doing with local knowledge. Again, views are very much aligned to disparate views regarding the use of gillnets.

The original rationale for the measure is still supported by the DPIPWE.


DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the closure unchanged—refer to Map 15.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – BONNET ISLAND

MAP 15: Gillnet closure for Bonnet Island, Macquarie Harbour

SFAC


Industry members do not support this proposal as they contend that there are other ways to better address the issue rather than removing the limited commercial access (2 fishers) to this area such as the proposed Code of Practice. However, if must go through boundary should be as per the original proposal.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Supports the closure as proposed—refer to Map 15.


Macquarie Harbour – restriction on winter night netting

(i) Prohibit overnight recreational netting in Macquarie Harbour except during the period from 1 November to 31 April inclusive.

Outcome of public consultation There were 392 responses to this proposal. Of those respondents, 18% strongly agree and 16% agree, while 31% strongly disagree with the proposal and 8% disagree. Also, 27% were neutral.

This issue was a major issue during consultation for fishers in the area, and for those that travel to the area to fish (e.g. from the north coast).

There is a strong difference between the positions argued on this issue. In essence, most of the opinions revolve around either the view that all recreational gillnets should be banned, or that this is longstanding activity in the area and is not a major threat to the marine environment.

The submissions received supporting this proposal were similar to those for those other proposal relating to the use of gillnets. However, additional issues identified that there are separate provisions in place for Macquarie Harbour in the scalefish fishery management plan that allow a night net to be set and the presence of the maugean skate.

For example:

“I am in favour of a complete ban on recreational netting”; and,

“Macquarie Harbour should have the same overnight restrictions as the rest of Tasmania”; and,

“supports sustainable fish stocks”; and,

“Prohibit overnight netting”; and,

“should be no overnight setting at all, same rules should apply state wide”; and,

“I don't see that there is anything "special" about Macquarie Harbour that can justify overnight gill netting at all”.

Respondents who disagreed with the measure contended that flounder and Atlantic salmon were the major target species and that the negative impact to the marine environment of targeting these species was low. Particularly for Atlantic salmon, removing a non-endemic species was regarded as a positive and desirable outcome. They also argued that maugean skates are robust and are easily released alive.


The comments included:

“Night netting is the only way one can maybe catch a feed of flounder and the rid the harbour of unwanted escaped salmon and trout”; and,

“This is one place where netting should be allowed”; and,

“The harbour swarms with fish farm escapes which should be removed from the water all year should be the rule”; and,

“Why cut the fishing months back? We are only helping to remove an introduced pest in Atlantic Salmon. If its to protect the skate, the few skate that we have ever caught have all been able to be released unharmed”; and,

“We travelled to Strahan a few weeks ago, set a net over night, caught 6 Atlantic salmon, stayed the night at the cabin park, spent money on meals, fuel etc etc. obviously this will affect tourism in the town especially through the winter. Not a smart move!! I cannot see any conclusive scientific evidence why night netting should be banned through the winter. It must be remembered that we are targeting an introduced fish. I have done on average 3 trips per year for 10 years and never seen a skate”;

“the maugean skate never had or have seen a dead one yet.The skate that i have caught in our nets release fine. Over the winter months is the time we like fishing we provide an income for the strahan town accomidation food fuel and more it is an income for them dont take that away over the winter months. We are taking escape fish out of the harbour which is a win win for the harbour and the fish farm operators so dont ban night netting in the harbour. REGARD LESS OF WHAT I SAY OR OTHERS SAY YOU HAVE AREADY MADE UP YOUR MINDS TO BAN NIGHT NETTING WHICH IS A GRAVE MISTAKE SO WAKE UP AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE HOW USE THE AREA . PLEASE SURPORT THE PEOPLE OF STRAHAN”; and,

“This tradition has not hurt the fishing industry at all. I have soaked a net a good 100 timers overnight and have not caught anymore skate at night as i do during the day. Skate can be easily removed and kept alive, they seem to be caught mostly in the early hrs of the day around sunbreak up until 10am. Limiting the Atlantic Salmon numbers are more important for the flounder,cod, trout and flathead numbers. Gillnets are needed to reduce Salmon numbers”.

At the information session run in Strahan, many fishers claimed that the recreational gillnet fishery is mainly a winter fishery, as during summer nets clog up with algae. They argue that this as a long established activity particularly with many camping spots around the Harbour. Also, fishers suggested they rarely fish in depths greater than five metres, i.e. netting is limited to shallow water.

Some of the issues that were addressed by the proposal relating to Macquarie Harbour (i.e. night netting, set times for night nets and a no gillnet area at the end of the Harbour) were:

Reduce interactions with maugean skate (the species is listed as endangered under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.);

Reduce fish wastage;

Resource sharing issues in the south east part of the harbour around the Gordon.


It is clear that there is a large amount of concern for Macquarie Harbour recreational netters about the proposed winter closure in particular and extension of exclusion areas in the south east of the harbour.

Many submissions along these lines were received from members of the West Coast Recreation Association (WCRA), a local community organisation. The DPIPWE has continued to liaise with this organisation to potentially develop alternate proposals that also meet management objectives.

If appropriate management arrangements can be developed through proposals from the stakeholders themselves, it is considered there will be greater community support and acceptance for the measures.

Given the maugean skate is a listed species, legislated management action to limit recreational netting interactions needs to be demonstrated. In fact, the President of the WCRA has argued that the community should use the IMAS research results to support an alternate proposal as a “win/win”.

Different management options might be developed to address this research and its conclusions. Some key points are:

Maugean skate are susceptible to capture in gillnets and although the vast majority are expected to survive if released, some mortalities do occur—especially in overnight sets;

skate are more active and tend to inhabit deep water, moving into shallow water (>10m) during the night;

statistically, maugean skate taken in overnight deployments were in poorer condition than those from shorter, daytime soak times;

although capture in gillnets did not appear to be directly responsible for the observed mortalities, it is probable that being restrained in the nets enabled opportunistic predators to take advantage of the skate’s lack of mobility; and

overall, the results clearly indicate that Maugean Skate are susceptible to a degree of incidental mortality from gillnet capture especially in overnight sets.

The researchers have correspondingly made some conclusions as to measures that might be adopted to minimise interactions, that is:

“There are a number of strategies that would help to miminise Maugean Skate by-catch and mortality, these include a ban on overnight netting (bringing Macquarie Harbour into line with the remainder of the state), an expansion of the areas closed to netting, and/or restricting gillnet usage to shallow waters. Maugean Skate are distributed widely throughout Macquarie Harbour so any expansion of the no netting area (currently around the entrance to the Gordon River in the upper reaches of the system) would provide additional protection. The implementation of a strategy based on fishing depths may be best achieved through a code of practice and education, noting that from our data and reports from experienced local fishers, the main target species – Salmonids and Flounder – are most commonly caught in shallow areas (< ~5 m). By deploying gillnets in shallow waters fishers are able to reduce, or avoid, catching Maugean Skate as well as Whitespotted Dogfish, which are considered a nuisance species by fishers.”

Thus, two basic alternatives are identified: 1) reduce night netting; or, 2) increase closures particularly in deeper waters.


It appears that areas mostly utilised for recreational netting in the harbour, are not the areas of preferred habitat for the maugean skate—particularly at night. This raises the possibility of an alternative to banning night nets, that is, spatial closures of key and deeper waters—potentially leaving shallow waters open.

The WCRA does not support the winter night net prohibition or extending the southeast no netting area to align with the TWWHA boundary. Rather, the WCRA and individual submissions suggest that a depth based closure (>5 metres) may be acceptable. They argued this should be implemented through a code of conduct.

The DPIPWE recognised the possibility of a consensus alterative, however, considered that a regulated outcome would be required given the issues and that policing a closure of waters deeper than 5 metres would be virtually impossible.

Correspondingly, the DPIPWE worked to develop an alternate proposal/package for closing deeper waters of Macquarie Harbour and some known key areas for skates, and leaving open access to shallow waters and some key camping spots in the TWWHA. That scenario was developed also on the understanding that the proposal for a complete recreational gillnet closure along the TWWHA boundary had effectively been withdrawn by the proponents, however, the alternative amendments may have such complimentary benefits.

A map for a potential closed area was drafted with baseline closure lines that generally followed a five metre bathymetric contour line. To reflect the practicalities from a user and compliance perspective, the straight line boundaries were in some cases shallower or deeper than a precise five metres depth exclusion area. Also, key areas for skates were closed to the shore (Liberty Point, Table Head and Rum Point). It was attempted to also recognise key camping areas in this process.

Also, closure of waters in narrower waters of Birchs Inlet in two areas were proposed as follows:

1. “the narrows” being waters enclosed by an imaginary line running due east from southern end of beach below Henrietta Creek across to Shamrock Point to an imaginary line from the northern point of the mouth of Cuthbertson’s Creek meeting Shamrock Point;

2. Birchs Inlet, below Pine Creek.

The alternate proposal of the no recreational gillnets area in Macquarie Harbour and Birchs Inlet is shown in map 16.

TARFish supports an alternate proposal developed from local knowledge provided it is supported by “empirical science”.


MAP 16: Alternative proposal to reduce gillnetting risks to maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour.


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The industry members of SFAC have no opinion on this proposal or the alternative as this does not affect the commercial sector. The conservation member supports the alternative proposal supported by RecFAC.

The RecFAC supports the alternate proposal developed and negotiated with WRCA. However, recommended the entire closure of Birchs Inlet on the basis of the following:

support the movement of sea run trout; consistency and simplification of closure areas; would affect a small number of fishers; and there are other fishing alternatives available—including catching fish by other methods such

as spear or line fishing and they are also able to set nets just outside of Birchs Inlet.

Discussion The consultation phase has raised many issues in relation to the proposals for Macquarie Harbour and much opposition from the user group most directly impacted. Others argued that additional measures, such as no night netting, should be implemented as for the rest of the State.

The DPIPWE has worked with the local community recreational group to develop a proposal that meets the objectives—particularly for maugean skates—whilst minimising impacts. The DPIPWE considers that the alternate proposal addresses key points as stated in the IMAS research.

That the genesis of this proposal comes from a community counter proposal is seen as a positive consensus outcome—with potential for local acceptance.

The WRCA has now formally responded to the proposals for the area supporting the model as follows.

“The WRCA support an area based closure as depicted in the post consultation map drafted by the Wild Fisheries Branch. The WRCA considers that this proposal generally reflects the WRCA submission by allowing day and night netting in waters less than 5 metres deep. The WCRA recognises this may not always follow the 5 metre contour exactly in all areas, but that the boundaries are practical and enforceable. Areas of high skate affinity have been closed in this area but an area at Liberty Bay (generally than 5 metres deep) will remain open. Additionally, a code of conduct will be developed in partnership with other groups to minimise impacts.

Further, in relation to the set times allowed for nights nets and the proposal to reduce the period for setting around sunrise/sunset (reduction from 2 hours to one hour), the “WCRA accept on provision that shallow waters generally remain open.”

In relation to an extension of netting restrictions around the TWWHA, the WCRA does not support that measure. However, the WCRA will accept a closure in the south east part of Macquarie Harbour being:

1. A closure at the narrows, being waters enclosed by an imaginary line running due east from southern end of beach below Henrietta Creek across to Shamrock Point to an imaginary line from the northern point of the mouth of Cuthbertson’s Creek meeting Shamrock Point; and

2. All waters in Birchs Inlet below Pine Creek.


This has been incorporated in the alternate model.

Also, the WCRA accepts the area closed to gillnets at Bonnet Island on the basis that the alternate model is adopted.

Similarly, the WCRA accepts prohibition of set lines in Macquarie Harbour on the basis that the alternate model is adopted.

The alternate model provides a large area where gillnets would be banned all year round rather than just some additional protection of night-time periods in winter. This proposal is supported by the IMAS data. As such, the alternate model is seen as a positive outcome and generally supported by the local community.

The DPIPWE supports the alternate model as described above.

This closed area for gillnets has been negotiated with the recreational sector only. There are only two commercial fishers allowed to net in Macquarie Harbour and it is not proposed to include the commercial sector in this proposal. The activities of these fishers are not fully understood and no consultation on such a proposal has been conducted with the commercial sector.

DPIPWE Recommendation DPIPWE supports dropping the night time provisions as released for consultation and implementing the alternate proposals for the recreational sector as shown in Map 16 (pp. 45) and endorsed by the WCRA.

Macquarie Harbour – set times

(ii) Redefine the set times allowed for night nets to be from one (1) hour before sunset and one (1) hour after sunrise.

Outcome of public consultation There were 348 responses to this question. From responses, 21% strongly agree and 26% agree, a total of 47%. Conversely, 17% strongly disagree and 13% disagree, a total of 30%. Neutral was 23%.

For those that support the measure, long soak time and night netting activity were identified as poor fishing practices. Some suggested this was already the case or should be or that night nets should be banned altogether. Some of the submissions were:


“SHOULD BE DOING THIS ALREADY!!!” and,

“Limits fishers to have hour from departure to get back before dark and fishers would need to be advised of this retrieval needs to take into account time to travel to nets as well as retrieval” and,

“Ban night netting altogether. Require boat/persons setting nets to remain within sight of their gear while it is in the water” and,

“there should be no night netting period and as for day shots in summer 6am till 9pm is daylight and is way too long for returning bycatch net soak time should be no more than 4 hours period but how do you police that!!!” and,

“This would substantially reduce allowable soak times”.

For those that disagreed with the measure, some pointed to the need for appropriate travel time in daylight to set or retrieve nets or that this is already common practice and thus not required. Some of the comments were:

“Your either allowing it or your not give up on the over regulation. If someone has a net set they will be up to check it because they won't want another person to check it and take their fish” and,

“There could be a safety issue in that some fishers may not want to operate that area in the dark and this would force them to do so” and,

“Some of the areas in Macquarrie harbour take well over an hour to reach from strahan in bad weather, riduculous idea may nead to set net earlier due to storm approching or having to wait for a front to go through” and,

“MOST PEOPLE CHECK THEIR NETS THEN ANYWAY AND YOU WILL ONLY GIVE MARINE POLICE A TECHNICALITY THEY CAN GET US ON WHEN RETRIEVAL MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The industry members of SFAC have no opinion on this proposal. The conservation member supports the alternative proposal supported by RecFAC.

The RecFAC supports the gillnet set times outlined in the background paper and alternate proposals developed and negotiated with WRCA that will replace the proposed night time gillnet seasonal closure and south east boundary closure.

Discussion This issue was considered as part of the package negotiated for Macquarie Harbour. As part of that package and as detailed and discussed above, the WRCA supported an area of gillnet closure and accepted the reduction in set times as proposed.

In relation to the set times allowed for nights nets and the proposal to reduce the period for setting around sunrise/sunset (reduction from 2 hours to one hour), the “WCRA accept on provision that shallow waters generally remain open”.

The DPIPWE supports that package.

DPIPWE Recommendation DPIPWE supports the measure as released and as part of the package negotiated for Macquarie Harbour.


Macquarie Harbour – extension to the south eastern no netting area

Extend the no gillnetting area (for recreational and commercial fishers) from the current boundary between Gordon Point and Charcoal Burns Bluff to a line between Coal Point and Steadman Point, which is the existing Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) boundary.

Outcome of public consultation There were 387 responses to this question. Of the responses, 19% strongly agree and 18% agree, a total of 37%. Conversely, 22% strongly disagree and 10% disagreed, a total of 32%. Neutral was 31%.

Of those that supported the measure, some pointed to the recreational hook fishery (particularly trout) in the area and that netting was not appropriate in the TWWHA. Some of the comments were:

“No gillnetting in World Heritage Areas” and, “This area is often used by people targeting sea run Trout” and, “Keep nets away from the river mouth” and, “Protect sea run trout and obviously help improve angling enjoyment rather than seeing so many nets. Netting is 'not' a recreational angling pursuit in its current day definition”.

The main issue raised by opponents was that this area is a long-standing camping area (Kelly Basin) and the activity has been ongoing for a long period of time. Some of the comments included:

“The southern end of Macquarie Harbour is the major, traditional, recreational usage area for west coasters. It was declared an Historic Site to allow traditional recreational practices to continue. Important reason for taking a net is for an emergency food source while being held up by bad weather or boat break-down. It is not unusual to take shelter for several extra days in Kelly Basin, Farm Cover or Birchs Inlet” and,

“The anglers already have a section of the harbour closed off to gillneters, this balance is fine at the moment and doesnt require change. Most escaped atlantic salmon reside in the top part of the harbour, doing this will create a santuary for these fish which already decimate the whitebait and trout fingerlind i the area , i know as i fish this area now and have seen a decline in native trout species due to predation and food source competition from these introduced species” and,

“That cuts off half the harbour, all of the "camps" are in this area were guys spend weekends etc.” and,


“too many escaped salmon not to have nets down there”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The industry members of SFAC have no opinion on this proposal. The community and conservation member supports the alternative proposal supported by RecFAC.

The RecFAC supports the alternate proposal developed and negotiated with WRCA.

Discussion This issue was also encompassed in negotiations regarding a full package of measures as discussed above. The package of no gillnet areas has overtaken this proposal which has also been effectively withdrawn by the initial proponents. The DPIPWE supports the no gillnet area package as described above and endorsed by the WCRA.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE recommends not proceeding with this proposal, but rather proceeding with the other no gillnet areas outlined in Map 16 (pp. 45).

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – MACQUARIE HARBOUR

(i) Prohibit overnight recreational netting in Macquarie Harbour except during the period from 1 November to 31 April inclusive.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports alternative proposal supported by RecFAC.

The remainder of SFAC has no opinion on this proposal or the alternative as this does not affect the commercial sector.

RecFAC Support the alternative proposal developed and negotiated with the WCRA.

DPIPWE

In lieu of this proposal the preference is to support the alternate no recreational gillnet area proposed for Macquarie Harbour (refer to Map 16, pp. 45) in addition to the reduction of night set times to 1 hour before sunset and 1 hour after sunrise.

(ii) Redefine the set times allowed for night nets to be from one (1) hour before sunset and one (1) hour after sunrise.

SFAC Had no opinion on this proposal as it will not affect commercial operators.

RecFAC Supported this proposal.

DPIPWE The reduction of night set times to 1 hour before sunset and 1 hour after sunrise is supported


Extend the no gillnetting area (for recreational and commercial fishers) from the current boundary between Gordon Point and Charcoal Burns Bluff to a line between Coal Point and Steadman Point, which is the existing Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) boundary.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports alternative proposal supported by RecFAC.

The remainder of SFAC has no opinion on this proposal or the alternative as this does not affect the commercial sector.

RecFAC Support alternative proposal.

DPIPWE In lieu of this proposal the preference is to support the alternate no recreational gillnet area proposed for Macquarie Harbour (Map 16, pp. 45) in addition to the reduction of night set times to 1 hour before sunset and 1 hour after sunrise.

Seine nets and other encircling nets

The draft rules clarify the difference between gillnets and beach seine nets by improving the description of a beach seine in the rules. This has arisen from concern about recreational fishers using gillnets in the same manner as a beach seine net. Gillnets should not be actively dragged through the water or be used to encircle fish, as fish are subject to being deeply meshed resulting in lower survivability of released fish (e.g. undersize or excess fish). Prohibiting the use of gillnets as encircling nets aims to reduce the risk of exceeding catch limits, fish wastage and bycatch.

In a previous review of netting, the intent to ban all nets in Georges Bay was not fully implemented through the drafting of the rules—as beach seine and bait nets were not prohibited. Subsequently, the prohibition was introduced through a public notice. The intention is to now reflect the full intent of no netting in Georges Bay by banning the use of beach seine, bait nets and cast nets in Georges Bay in the management plan. These are considered to be minor administrative changes. The industry body supported the proposal to ban all nets from Georges Bay.

Robbins Passage – seine nets

Prohibit the use of commercial and recreational seine nets in Robbins Passage.

Outcome of public consultation There were 351 responses to this proposal. Around 13% of respondents did not support this proposal. However, of the 47% those that supported this, many misinterpreted the type of fishing gear being discussed and thought the proposal referred to gillnets—which are already excluded from Robbins Passage.

For those that opposed the ban, comments included reference to the impact to recreational flounder fishing. Suggesting only banning beach seine and not purse seine, or only banning recreational beach seine.

Others believe that not many recreational fishers actually beach seine in Robbins Passage for flounder and that removing the access is not warranted.


Some felt that small mesh gillnets were more of an issue than seine nets

An alternative to closing all of Robbins Passage to seine nets was proposed to both Fishery Advisory Committees. This alternative was to close the area to seine netting south of a straight line from the end of the breakwater located on Stony Point east to the most northern and western extremity of Shipwreck Point. This would then enhance the net free area in Duck Bay, but still allow fishers to target flounder in other areas of Robbins Passage.

MAP 17: The blue shaded area is the proposed seine free area. The red is no netting at all and the yellow is no gillnetting.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC support the original proposal—excluding TSIC who reserve its original position and the TRLFA who have no specific comment on this proposal.

The industry member sitting on SFAC from the north west of the State explained to the committee in detail the ‘special’ characteristics of this area and the large areas of shallow sandy bottom that form extensive shallow pools of water where fish are concentrated and are vulnerable at those times. The long term fishing opportunities that this area provides were highlighted.


The industry members concluded that seine fishing techniques on these shallow areas were probably not an appropriate fishing method. It was also suggested in fact that even spearing should not be permitted due to the vulnerability at those times.

The SFAC discussed a smaller area than originally proposed might be warranted, possibly in the middle of Robbins Passage. However, it was concluded that the shallows were extensive and covered the full area of the initial proposal—hence a proposal for smaller area was not considered.

The SFAC took into account the local knowledge on this issue and generally agreed that seine fishing in this area was not an appropriate activity (excluding TSIC and TRLFA).

The RecFAC support the original proposal whereby Robbins Passage is closed to seine netting on the basis of:

Interaction with seagrass beds; Damage to calamari mops (eggs); Protection of niche fishing opportunities; Consistency with most other estuaries and embayments; That a ban on seine netting would not prevent fishers from taking flounder as spearing is

still allowed. Other species can be taken by line fishing.

One member indicated that the closure of the entire area is not justified on the basis that a substantial amount of sandy area of no conservation value would be closed to seine netting.

Discussion This proposal excludes recreational fishers from targeting flounder with beach seine nets—where there are already minimal opportunities in this area.

The tides are quite strong and limits access to seining

Beach seining allows fishers to release undersize/unwanted fish unharmed to the water.

Industry looked to local knowledge with regard to this proposal and felt that removing the use of seines in this area was warranted.

DPIPWE Recommendation After further consideration the DPIPWE supported the original proposal of excluding seining from all of Robbins Passage—refer to Map 18.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – ROBBINS PASSAGE

MAP 18: Seine free area in Robbins Passage is shaded in yellow.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports original proposal as supported by RecFAC. The remainder of SFAC (excluding TSIC who reserve its original position and TRLFA who have no comment) support the original proposal.

RecFAC Supported original proposal. They note that flounder can be taken by spearing. One dissent supporting the DPIPWE alternative proposal.

DPIPWE Support original proposal as detailed in Map 18.


Recreational set lines

Hook numbers

Reduce the number of hooks that can be used on recreational set lines from 30 to 15 hooks.

Outcome of public consultation There were 366 responses to this proposal. From the responses, 35% strongly disagree and 15% disagree (total 50%) 23% strongly agree and 18% agree (total 41%), 9% were neutral.

The review of this issue arises from previous management plan reviews when the Minister of the day set the hook numbers for a recreational line at 30. In making that decision the then Minister indicated the number should continue to be reviewed into the future, gauging the potential impact of the gear, of hook numbers, and consideration in context of bag limits.

This review has continued that process. Concerns have been expressed that the hook numbers can see catches in excess of the bag limits and the appropriateness of activities within a recreational context.

There were a range of views expressed during consultation. Some fishers suggest that the success rate per hook is low hence a larger number is required. Others suggest that 30 hooks per fisher is not appropriate for recreational fishing and that it results in large catches in excess of the limits and wastage of fish. Some respondents believe that this fishing method is not appropriate as a recreational activity and should only be aligned with commercial activities.

For those that support the proposal, the essential premise is that 30 hooks are not warranted given prescribed bag limits. Supporting comments had a similar theme as suggested by the following representations:

“20 would be a good number - thats all that we use”; and,

“i think the number of hooks should be reduced even further down to 5”; and,

“I do not support the use of set lines at all”; and,

“Its pointless having 30 hooks when your only allowed to have a catch limit of 3 Shark. If more than the catch limit is caught then the Shark have to be released or thrown away as waste. By reducing


the hook limit it will reduce the chances of catching too many unwanted Shark and Bycatch.ie Sting ray and Skate”; and,

“Its recreational for fun and get a feed even 15 hooks is too much”; and,

“30 hooks was always for the greedy” and,

“We recommend that recreational set lines are also banned, along with gillnets, as this is another form of unattended recreational fishing that results in high numbers of unwanted catch that are wasted. A reduction in the number of hooks is not enough to eliminate the impacts of this fishing practice on our scalefish populations. Additionally, the maximum amount of hooks on droplines and longlines should be reduced to 6, to suit the recreational nature of the activity”.

Conversely, those that do not support the proposal argue 30 hooks are needed for a successful fishing trip and excess catches can be discarded in good condition. They suggest they do not fish regularly and it needs to be “worthwhile”.

Examples include:

“Just because you have 30 hooks it doesn’t automatically follow that you will get 30 fish. Most people I know including myself would be lucky to get 3 or 4 fish per drop on a drop line if they are lucky. In the last two seasons I have not caught a fish on a drop line but have purchased a licence in both years. Frequently you will have all your baits stripped from the hooks and only catch 2 or 3 fish its not simply a matter of going out there dropping it over the side and catching a fish”; and,

“30 hooks is fine, if you a further restricting graball netting, why restrict this method which is far better practice”; and,

“This is not needed as a boat can only take the legal allowed catch quoter and very seldom ever catch more on a line setting and fish are released alive and well” and,

“I would be ok with a number of 20 hooks. If you reduce the number of hooks to 15 or lower you mught as well ban them. Many of us users of these have spent a large $$$ amount setting these up”; and,

“The size of our boats & weather already limit the number of fish caught by recreational fishers” and,

“30 hooks is barely enough to make the effort of setting a long line worthwhile 15 hooks would not be worth the effort I cant remember when I last caught more than the bag limit but suspect not since reduction to 30 hooks”.

TARFish supports reducing the number of hooks on a recreational set line from 30 to 15. TSIC did not address this proposal presumably as it is a recreational issue only.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The RecFAC support the slightly amended proposal to reduce hook number to 15 but also allow two fishers to join their set lines together in waters less than 150 metres.

The SFAC generally support this amended proposal.


Discussion The views on this issue were quite polarised around the two opposing views. One view is that set lines can be a powerful fishing method with too many hooks in relation to the catch limits set, while others argue catch rates are low, 30 hooks is fine and bycatch can be released.

During consultation, a potential alternate proposal emerged that may provide some middle ground in addressing this issue. The concept of allowing 2 licence holders to join their gear in waters less than 150 metres (there is already an allowance for joining lines in waters greater than 150 metres) would allow one line to be set with 30 hooks from two licences of 15 hooks each. Such a proposal reduces and limits the number of hooks in the fishery, but would provide scope for two licence holders to “share” a line of 30 hooks within their individual gear allocation of 15 hooks combined.

Given the divergence of views and the support of both advisory committees for this amended concept, and noting that TARFish supports a reduction to 15 hooks, the DPIPWE supports this amended alternative.

DPIPWE Recommendation Proceed with the proposal to reduce hook numbers from 30 to 15, but also allow two lines to be joined together in waters <150 metres. Retain four lines being joined in waters ≥150 metres.

Soak times

Limit the soak times of recreational set lines by prohibiting the use from one hour before sunset to sunrise—in line with proposed night netting restrictions.

Outcome of public consultation There were 369 responses to this proposal. From the responses, 26% strongly agree and 25% agree (total 51%), 21% strongly disagree and 12% disagree (total 33%), 16% were neutral.

For those in support of the proposal, the issue of long soak times was identified with associated wastages and possible interactions. Some suggested that shorter soak times should be implemented—some suggesting a two hour period after which fish are lost. Others identified the sunrise period as a key fishing time, and also that fishers often depart at sunrise and wish to set their line then. Thus a range of views were expressed.

Concerns regarding long soak times included:


“Most of these lines are set during daylight hours given the areas they are usually set”; and,

“agree here over night is far to long and fish will die, leave hook numbers at 30!”; and,

“sea lice destroy any fish that drown overnight and is a waste soak times should be daylight only”; and,

“There shouldnt be long lines in the water at night, 50% of the catch is wasted with sea lice attack”.

Comments that disagreed, and pointed to the importance of sunrise, included:

“we drop our trevalla lines right on daylight so we can return back to the coast before the wind gets away. Its a safety issue. Please don't make the rules such as to make us take risks for no good reason”; and,

“Some people do their set ling if a evening or a night and others do it (especially over summer) in the early morning before the sun rises and the wind gets up. Set lines do not catch fish like nets and should not be compared with them. There are bag limits in place so soak times should be up to the individual. For most fisherman I know including myself they check anywhere from half an hour to 4 hours so the quality of the fish dosent deteriorate and or they dont get eaten by lice”; and,

“Some species of fish are active after dark and therefore these cannot be targeted”; and,

“I have only used my set line when on the water during the day time for the last 3 years and my soak times are between 2-4 hours. Most of the time your hooks have lost their bait in 4 hours. I believe the soaks times should be from 1 hour before sunrise til 1 hour after sunset. Many fishers hit the water at sunrise and should be allowed to set these lines on the way out fishing”;

“Nobody leaves set lines over night in deep water. The weather again is the main danger, also the fish do not stay on the hook for to long a time. The shorter the time you retreave you set line the more chance you catch a fish”.

TARFish does not support the proposal pointing to fishing behaviours where a significant number of fishers set their lines up to an hour before sunrise. Hence the TARFish proposal is to allow the setting of set lines from one hour before sunrise to one hour before sunset.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC generally supports the amended proposal as suggested by TARFish and supported by RecFAC.

The RecFAC support the TARFish proposal to allow recreational setlines to be set one hour before sunrise to one hour before sunset.

Discussion Part of the rationale for the original proposal is to stop very poor fishing practices of setting setlines for long periods. The ban overnight would stop such behaviour. However, the proposal was not necessarily suggesting that fishing should not occur at certain periods, such as sunrise. The issue here is not so much about bird interactions as was the case for gillnets at sunrise.

During consultation, many fishers suggested that they do not set for long periods as they would lose their gear, but that they do wish to start fishing at sunrise (as suggested by some submissions).

Thus, the rationale and proposal suggested by TARFish is on balance supported by the DPIPWE. This proposal is also supported by RecFAC and SFAC.


DPIPWE Recommendation Proceed with an amended proposal as suggested by TARFish to allow the use of set lines from one hour before sunrise to one hour before sunset.

Prohibited areas for set lines

Prohibit the use of recreational set lines in the Leven, Forth, Mersey and Musselroe Rivers, Ansons Bay, Macquarie Harbour, and in the Southport no netting area in the western side of the bay.

Outcome of public consultation There were 360 responses to this proposal. Of the respondents, 25% strongly agreed and 28 % agreed, 9% strongly disagreed and 6% disagreed, 32% were neutral.

There was strong support for the concept that setlines should not be permitted in rivers and sheltered embayments. It was suggested that setlines should be offshore gear, and not allowed in no netting areas. For example:

“No set lines within bays or rivers”; and,

“Should only be allowed far offshore”; and,

“setlines have no place in inshore waters and rivers where more active fishing pursuits are viable” and,

“set lines should not be inside any river or bay”; and,

“If you do not allow netting then you should at least allow set lines”.

Some argued that there was no real issue and also that Macquarie Harbour should be exempted, for example:

“Set lines are very different to nets. Can't see that they are causing any more problems that anglers with lines in their hands -- except maybe navigational problems” and,

“Macquarie Harbour should be excluded but rivers yes” and,

“Again Why?? For the scate that has increased in numbers As stated before If it's not broke, don't fix it so bugger off and leave it alone”.

TARFish supports this proposal, TSIC made no comment.


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC had no view except the conservation member who supported the proposal.

The RecFAC supports the proposal

Discussion There was strong support for this proposal and it is supported by the TARFish and RecFAC.

Some submissions suggested that Macquarie Harbour should be exempted. However, the rationale for protecting sheltered waters, particularly given the protected maugean skate issues, is still considered to have merit. No particular argument why this area is different was provided that was recognised to have sufficient merit to change this view.

The DPIPWE supports the other views that the measure should be implemented unchanged.

DPIPWE Recommendations Implement the no set line areas as proposed unchanged.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – SET LINES

(i) Reduce the number of hooks that can be used on recreational set lines from 30 to 15 hooks.

SFAC The community and conservation member supports alternative proposal supported by RecFAC. General support for the alternative proposal (15 hooks and joining of two licenced fisher’s lines).

RecFAC Support for the alternative proposal of reduction to 15 hooks and allow the joining of two licenced fisher’s lines in waters less than 150 metres.

DPIPWE Support the DPIPWE alternative to reduce to 15 hooks and allow two licenced fisher’s lines to be joined in waters less than 150 metres. Retain ability to join up to four licenced fisher’s set lines in waters 150 metres or deeper.

(ii) Limit the soak times of recreational set lines by prohibiting the use from one hour before sunset to sunrise—in line with proposed night netting restrictions.

SFAC The FAC generally supports alternative proposal supported by RecFAC.

RecFAC Support original proposal with amendment to be able to set 1 hour before sunrise.

DPIPWE Support RecFAC/TARFish alternative proposal of allowing the use of set lines one hour before sunrise to one hour before sunset.

(iii) Prohibit the use of recreational set lines in the Leven, Forth, Mersey and Musselroe Rivers, Ansons Bay, Macquarie Harbour, and in the Southport no netting area in the western side of the bay.


SFAC The community and conservation member supports the RecFAC position. The remainder of the SFAC has no view on this issue.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Support the proposal unchanged.

Use of spears

Spearing restrictions – banded morwong and striped trumpeter

(i) Prohibit the spearing of banded morwong and striped trumpeter.

Outcome of public consultation There were 362 responses to this proposal. Of submissions received, 47% registered a level of support and 26% registered a level of disagreement, while 27% were neutral.

Issues for those who support the proposal include that it is not possible to release a fish after spearing – issues such as size limits. Some also suggested that other species such as flathead and bastard trumpeter might be included. For example:

“wasnt aware that diving/spear fishing was still common practice”; and,

“these fish are too easy to spear and can be pillaged by spear fisherman”; and,

“certainly banded morwong, not so sure about striped trumpeter”; and,

“you could add flathead also to this list, as most large flathead breed in shallow water” and,

“Support ban for banded morwong”; and,

“should be extended to Bastard Trumpeter and boarfish and no assisted air” and,

“Environment Tasmania agrees with the decision to ban the spearing of banded morwong and striped trumpeter. The population sizes of these two species are continuing to decline, and given their vulnerability, it is necessary to eliminate pressure from spearing. The risk from accidentally spearing a fish below the size requirement is too great, and it is in the best interest of these fish species to prohibit the spearing of them”.


For those that disagreed, respondents argued that spearing is a highly selective fishing method, unlike netting and even hooks. Divers are able to “pick” individual fish for size etc. They argue that both recreational and commercial fishers target both these species and there is no reason why the spear sector should be removed for these species. Bag limits etc. are in place for all irrespective of the fishing method. For example:

“This will totally restrict divers from targeting these species. I don't agree with this at all”; and,

“I cant see what difference this would make, How many striped trumpeter/Morwong are getting speared ? is there a risk to there numbers from spearing ? I personally dive, but dont use a spear gun, but cant see any issue with someone spearing. in the past 3 years i have only seen 1 Striped trumpeter whilst diving and this was with a school of bastard trumpeter”; and,

“You should allow spearing of more fish ------- spearfishing is one of the most ecologically sustainable methods of fishing ------ much better than line or nets. So why not allow spearing of this fish (as others)?” and,

“Also, in Tasmania it is only really during the summer months that spearfishing can occur (3 or 4 months in total) due to the conditions of the sea -- why limit it even more? See: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257409158_SPEARFISHING__IS_IT_ECOLOGICALLY_SUSTAINABLE” and,

“Spearing is the most selective fishing technique available as fish can be picked before being targetted. Banded morwong are subject to a significant commercial fihery, as such if there is a fishery decline, managing the fishery that is removing the bulk of the catch will have more positive efffects than targetting a peripheral group that can be the most selective. Tighten bag limits on recreationals further if necessary”.

TARFish does not support the proposal stating bag/possession limits should be the tools used to control recreational catch not measures around restricting gear types as long as gear types are not dangerous or potentially illegal. TARFish argues spear fishing is one of the most highly selective gear types available to recreational fishers who undertake this activity and it is undertaken by a very small and select group within the diving sector.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC industry members support banning the taking of banded morwong by spear due to the difficulty of determining size and that this change wouldn’t affect many people if removed. The conservation members supported the RecFAC position as below.

The RecFAC do not support the proposal, arguing that the amount taken by spearing is insignificant. Any stock issues need to be addressed by the dominant catcher (i.e. the commercial fishery) or through bag limits adjustments. Stated there was no evidence of non-compliance with size limits.

Discussion The DPIPWE considers that striped trumpeter and banded morwong are very different species with different behaviours. As suggested by respondents, striped trumpeter would be a challenging species to target by divers. Banded morwong, however, is a more sedentary rocky reef species that would be relatively easy to spear.


However, the argument that spearing is a selective fishing method that is subject to the same bag limits etc., and that the sector should be treated in the same manner as others, is also recognised.

The arguments enunciated by TARFish and RecFAC are also noted.

On balance, the DPIPWE supports the rationale suggested by TARFish for this review and proposes that the measure should not be progressed.

DPIPWE Recommendation In light of TARFish and RecFAC recomendations, do not proceed to implement the proposal.

Spearing area management

(ii) Allow the recreational spearing of flounder in the Inglis, Leven and Mersey Rivers.

Outcome of public consultation There were 356 responses to this proposal. Support for this measure is strong at 56%, opposition is negligible at 7%.

This form of fishing is relatively low impact and the gear is relatively selective and is an active form of fishing. It is an activity that is allowed in many other similar areas. Comments from those that support the proposal generally suggested this was a low impact activity and an appropriate fishing practice within sound and defensible bag limits and size limits. For example:

“A proven sustainable method with bag limits; and,

“This is the way flounder have been taken by generations of recreational fisher men” and,

“Yes I strongly agree with the recommendation” and,

“spear fishing for flounder is a great past time for all fisherman especially youngster who should be incourage into the recreation of fishing” and,

“if people wish to walk around with torch and spear let them go for it, old tradition that should be encouraged great family outing office nerds should try this (leave phone in car )”.

Those that did not support the proposal suggested these were relatively small areas and that they could not support large catches, flounder may be caught by other methods and other species may be speared, e.g. sea run trout and stingrays. Comments were, for example:


“Breeding areas”; and,

“no flounder in the inglis anyway. the stanley inlets are flogged out as well, put a 2-3 year ban on it and see if it bounces back”; and,

“Flounder can be caught easily on rod and line with light runing sinker, small hook and sand worm bait”; and,

“No no no !! absolutley not. Spear fisherman using lights continually take fish illegally such as Bream, because they now it is not policed. I have seen it first hand on quite a few occasion and reported it numerous times; and,

“There are hardly any size flounder along the coast near these areas so why allow more areas”; and,

“The proposed areas are too small and are likely to be fished out very quickly if they are opened up. There is no reason to expect that the "irresponsible fishing behaviours of spearing sea run trout and sting rays in the mid-nineties", given as an explanation for the bans in the Scalefish Review Background Paper, will not be repeated”.

TARFish supports the proposal.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC generally supports the proposal, however, the committee notes that this proposal applies to recreational fishers only and thus, is a form of resource allocation. The conservation member supports the RecFAC position.


Discussion Given the strong level of support, there is no clear reason why these areas are different to many other similar areas where this activity is allowed on an ongoing basis. Therefore, noting the advice from the advisory committees and TARFish, the DPIPWE supports the proposal.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement proposal unchanged.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – SPEARING

(i) Prohibit the spearing of banded morwong and striped trumpeter.

SFAC

The community and conservation member supports RecFAC position.

Industry support banning the taking of banded Morwong by spear due to the difficulty of determining size and that this change wouldn’t affect many people if removed.

RecFAC Not supported. The amount taken by spearing is insignificant. Any stock issues need to be addressed by the dominant catcher—i.e., commercial—or bag limits adjusted. No evidence of non-compliance with size limits.

DPIPWE Not supported


(ii) Allow the recreational spearing of flounder in the Inglis, Leven and Mersey Rivers.

SFAC The community and conservation member supports RecFAC position.

General support, but note that this is considered a resource allocation to the recreational sector.

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Support proposal unchanged.

Auxiliary fishing gear (apparatus)

(i) Define the types of auxiliary gear that can be used by non-commercial fishers, with a maximum of 200 metres being the amount of line that can be deployed, and the use of up to five (5) hooks. The fisher must remain within 20 metres of the auxiliary gear when deployed. (There were 362 responses to this question).

(ii) Auxiliary gear would not be permitted to be used in Shark Refuge Areas, rivers and estuaries—as described in Schedule 6 of the Scalefish Rules—or within 100 metres of swimmers. (There were 354 responses to this question).

(iii) Specific comment is sought on whether auxiliary fishing gear, such as electric or motorised fishing raft systems or remote drone systems deploying lines, should be permitted.

Outcome of public consultation


Many submissions indicated auxiliary fishing gear should be defined—with some submissions suggested restricting use of this gear is over-regulation. Many submissions suggested the auxiliary fishing gear definition should not include electric fishing reels.

Several submissions mentioned either electric fishing reels and/or remotely, mechanical, or electrical auxiliary fishing gear is not in the spirit of recreational fishing or increased catch and should not be allowed. Other submissions indicated that these gear types should be licensed to allow more research. Reviewing hook numbers was also mentioned.

Others indicated confusion that this applied to set lines commenting that the attendance provision requirement of 20 metres was not practical. For example; "How can you be expected to stay within 20 metres of a dropline out on the shelf".

Support for using electric fishing reels by older persons or those with a disability, including in Shark Refuge Areas was mentioned in several submissions.

Opportunities to allow this sort of gear were mentioned in several submissions. TARFish commented “Novel and innovative fishing techniques and gear are aspects of recreational fishing that promote and support continued interest and participation particularly amongst avid fishers.”

Several commented on the opportunities these type of systems present—deployment of line over heavy weeded areas, wave action, and at distances to access the deeper water.

The New Zealand company ‘Seahorse Electric Kontikis’ made a submission stating “A kontiki is deploying a line from the beach, compared to a boat or a kayak being launched from the same beach and then deploying the line. A kontiki will have a lower impact on the fishery compared to a vessel with an electronic GPS and fish finder, as the kontiki cannot target specific fishing spots. The chance of lost gear due to a tangled line is no higher than gear deployed from a boat”.

Several submissions agreed with the DPIPWE’s concern regarding interactions with other water users, amount of line able to be deployed and entanglement of lines (with other users) and snagging. Several mentioned risks of ghost fishing and threats to birds, other animals and bycatch.

Areas of use

Concerns for these gear types interacting with other water users (e.g., swimmers) was acknowledged.

One submission expressed concern that electric fishing reels and other gear would be used for targeting sharks, and therefore supported the prohibition of these gear types in Shark Refuge


Areas. Several respondents indicate that most auxiliary gear is not used inshore. Another mentioned auxiliary fishing gear and electric fishing reels may redirect effort from inshore reefs to offshore areas and therefore ease inshore fishing effort.

“Shear quantities of line that these types of gear can deploy is huge and therefore increases the amount of entanglement that could occur with other water users and non-targeted species.”

Environment Tasmania supported the prohibition of electric fishing reels inside shark refuge areas, rivers and estuaries and within 100 metres of swimmers, and the exclusion of remote and motorised fishing systems and drone fishing in all areas around the State and stated that “these forms of fishing are likely to result in excessively large catches but could cause harm to other users in the marine environment”.

The operator should have a means of recovering the remote operating equipment in event of some electronic/mechanical failure.

TARFish believe that:

“Bag/Possession limits should be the tools used to control recreational catch not measures around restricting gear types as long as gear types are not dangerous or potentially illegal. Education programs should be the tools used to manage safety and interaction issues rather than legislative gear type prohibition. Novel and innovative methods and gear types will continue to evolve in shorter and shorter timeframes and attempting to legislatively define and manage their use will always be in arrears and behind the development curve.”

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC did not indicate support on this topic aside from noting the danger of allowing types of fishing gears that have the potential to dramatically increase recreational catch and effort in the future—due to increased efficiency—to the detriment of the commercial sector.

RecFAC generally support the proposal if the definition excludes electric fishing reels and set lines and the general restrictions are “land based” (e.g., the deployment restriction). There are mixed views on whether 200 metres from shore is the appropriate maximum length, but note that 200 metres may be too far, particularly at popular beaches. There was support for restricting the areas of use from the more populous areas. RecFAC contends that fishers must be within 20 metres of attendance. In addition, flexibility is required in the rule, possibly through public notice, to enable the DPIPWE to allow the deployment of longer lines for specified areas. This would facilitate the consideration of kite fishing off remote cliff tops as future fishing opportunities arise.

RecFAC generally support the proposal to restrict interactions with swimmers or other vessels, but suggest a further inclusion “not within 400 metres of a boat ramp or wharves”. It noted that the Minister has the flexibility to open areas for specific uses under the rules. It contended that auxiliary gear should be excluded from populous areas, with capacity to have flexibility to adjust—by public notice to include areas.

RecFAC do not support any area restrictions—for example, shark refuge areas—for electric fishing reels.


Discussion Prior to the Statewide public consultation meetings DPIPWE became aware that electric fishing reels did not fit into the description of auxillary fishing equipment—particularly the 200 metre deployment restriction. As such at the meetings DPIPWE proposed that electric fishing reels should not be included in the definition of auxillary fishing gear—i.e have seperate definitions for auxillary fishing gear and electric fishing reels.

Many issues relating to the use of auxiliary gear relate to the amount of line deployed a fisher could reasonably control and observe what is happening at the terminal tackle end. The 200 metre line deployment restriction will assist in ensuring a person is in control of auxiliary fishing gear. It should be noted that electric fishing reels and set lines will not be included in the definition of auxiliary fishing gear and therefore deep water fishing using electric fishing reels would not be affected. RecFAC suggested flexibility for longer line deployment in future and identified exclusion areas be incorporated in the rules. This has not been incorporated, and any future considerations would need to have full consultation as a rule amendment.

The intent is to reduce the risks of interactions with vessels, water users and people on the foreshore. Interactions with water users were considered in developing the proposals, however interactions with people (or animals) on the foreshore were not. For example, a person operating a kite or balloon device from land would not have reasonable control if deploying this gear from say 100 metres from the water. A requirement to deploy within a practical distance of the water would address this.

RecFAC suggested prohibiting the use of auxiliary gear in populous areas and flexibility be incorporated into the rules to allow identified areas to be reopened. Identifying and closing “populous” areas is problematic. The closure of shark refuge areas (SRAs), estuaries and rivers will capture many populous areas. It is envisaged that the users of certain auxiliary fishing gear will become aware of some of the interaction issues after highlighting it in this review and in future through fisheries awareness products—for example, the Recreational Fishing Guide. Should area based interaction issues arise in the future, parts of the fishery are able to be closed by public notice—noting that this option is not considered the preferred practice by the DPIPWE.

Currently, the use of electric fishing reels tends to be directed to offshore use. Electric fishing reels are highly effective as they have settings to impart jigging actions and can retrieve lines very quickly. Several submissions discussed that a prohibition of electric fishing reels use in SRAs would unfairly restrict people with disabilities. The efficiency of electric fishing reels and auxiliary gear should be monitored and further management considered if needed. The suggestion raised during the review that hook numbers use with this apparatus be reviewed would be considered if necessary.

Specific comment was sought on whether auxiliary fishing gear, such as electric or motorised fishing raft systems or remote drone systems deploying lines should be permitted or indeed banned. The TARFish submission and RecFAC advice indicated that issues around this gear could be managed as they arise rather than outright banning the particular gear. The proposed limitation on line deployment, area and attendance provisions would address the DPIPWE’s initial concerns.


DPIPWE Recommendation Prior to the statewide public consultation meetings DPIPWE became aware that electric fishing reels did not fit into the description of auxillary fishing equipment—particularly the 200 metre deployment restriction. As such at the meetings DPIPWE proposed that electric fishing reels not be included in the definition of auxillary fishing gear—i.e., have seperate definitions for auxillary fishing gear and electric fishing reels.

Auxiliary fishing apparatus means a type of apparatus used to deploy or retrieve fishing line for the purposes of non-commercial fishing, other than a setline, electric fishing reel mounted on a rod and line, a manually operated fishing rod and line or a handline.

The use of electric fishing reels would not be specifically restricted by area.

Specific types of auxiliary fishing gear will not be prohibited at this stage. The issues surrounding the gear will be addressed by area of use, line deployment restrictions and number of hooks. These may be reviewed at a later stage as issues arise through amendment to the management plan and not via public notice.

Recommend that auxiliary fishing gear may be used to deploy or retrieve not more than 200 metres of fishing line with 5 hooks or less. This gear would not be permitted in in Shark Refuge Areas, rivers and estuaries—as described in Schedule 6 of the Fisheries (Scalefish) Rules 2015.

To reduce the risks of interactions with other water users or lost gear the use of auxiliary fishing gear will be prohibited within 100 metres of swimmers or any vessel or within 400 metres of a boat ramp, wharf, jetty, artificial extension of land and/or a mooring. Auxiliary gear can be used from a vessel. If using auxiliary fishing gear from land the user must remain within 20 metres of the gear and must not deploy the gear from a distance greater than 20 metres from the high water mark.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – AUXILIARY FISHING GEAR

(i) Define the types of auxiliary gear that can be used by non-commercial fishers, with a maximum of 200 metres being the amount of line that can be deployed, and the use of up to five (5) hooks. The fisher must remain within 20 metres of the auxiliary gear when deployed.

SFAC

No comment on the development and use of auxiliary gear aside from noting the danger of allowing types of fishing gears that have the potential to dramatically increase recreational catch and effort in the future—due to increased efficiency—to the detriment of the commercial sector.

RecFAC

Support DPIPWE’s amended version including restricting use within a distance of 100 metres from swimmers and vessels and 400 metres from boat ramps and wharves. Exclude from SRAs and all other populous areas.

Need to have flexibility to adjust—i.e., use public notice to refine areas. Deployment provision applies to land based only, restrict boat based use to a distance offshore.

DPIPWE Exclude electric fishing reels and set lines from the definition of auxiliary fishing gear.

Use of auxiliary fishing gear to be prohibited within 100 metres of swimmers and


other vessels on the water or within 400 metres of boat ramps, wharfs, jetties, artificial extensions of land or moorings. If using from land, they must be deployed and used within 20 metres of the high water mark and the fisher must be attending within 20 metres of the gear.

(ii) Auxiliary gear would not be permitted to be used in Shark Refuge Areas, rivers and estuaries—as described in Schedule 6 of the Scalefish Rules—or within 100 metres of swimmers.

SFAC

No comment on the development and use of auxiliary gear aside from noting the danger of allowing types of fishing gears that have the potential to dramatically increase recreational catch and effort in the future—due to increased efficiency—to the detriment of the commercial sector.

RecFAC Support the amended proposal as described in (i) above.

DPIPWE Support the amended proposal—including banning the use of auxiliary fishing gear in Shark Refuge Areas, rivers and estuaries—as described in (i) above.

(iii) Use of electric fishing reels—areas permitted, exclude from SRAs and no netting areas.

SFAC No view on the use of electric fishing reels.

RecFAC Recommend to allow electric fishing reels in all areas. Over-regulation cited. If things become an issue close off part of the fishery by public notice.

DPIPWE Not supported. Allow use in all areas.

Non-commercial bait pumps and bait traps

(i) Define and allow non-commercial bait pumps.

Outcome of public consultation There were 356 responses to this proposal. Several submissions suggested that no go zones should be considered. One submission mentioned that consideration should be given to siltation effects where bait pumps are in use.


One mentioned that fresh bait is better than buying imported bait as it reduces the risk of introduction of disease.

TARFish supported defining and allowing bait pumps and indicated it would “support particular area protection as long as there is a valid reason, supported by empirical science”.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust stated that “the use of these devices needs to be monitored so that impacts can be assessed”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC did not express a view on bait pumps and the RecFAC support the proposal.

Discussion The purpose of this proposal is to clarify that recreational fishers can use bait pumps in Tasmania.

Avoidance of fragile habitat areas or siltation issues can be dealt with under fishery awareness campaigns. Parts of the fishery are able to be closed under public notice should issues arise in particular areas or by amendment to the management plan in a future review.

DPIPWE Recommendation Support this measure as originally proposed.

(ii) Unattended non-commercial bait traps will now require a buoy or tag attached marked with the gear type code “BT” and the user’s surname, initials, year of birth and postcode.

Outcome of public consultation There were 356 responses to this proposal. Many support unattended bait traps being labelled so the user can be identified. TARFish supported the proposal.

There was relatively low disagreement. Some queried whether all the details identifying the user is warranted. Others suggested that a licence number could be used for labelling or indeed the gear be licenced. Tasmanian Conservation Trust stated that bait traps should be licensed and the use of these devices needs to be monitored so that impacts can be assessed.


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC generally supported the marking of unattended bait traps.

RecFAC generally supported that non-commercial bait traps should be marked. RecFAC agree that bait traps are marked with a surname and date of birth of the user.

Discussion No major issues were identified through consultation.

The rule relating to number of entrances in the definition of bait traps is confusing. Many bait traps available for sale in tackle stores have two entrances, however, the definition in the draft rules states a bait trap must have “an entrance that is not more than 65 millimetres at its widest.”

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE supports this proposal and the amendment of the definition of a bait trap to clarify the number of entrances from one to not more than two.

Specific Comment is sought on whether the use of non-commercial bait pumps should be excluded from certain areas. If so, which areas and why?

TARFish would support particular area protection as long as there is a valid reason, supported by empirical science.

Tasmanian Conservation Trust state that the use of these devices needs to be monitored so that impacts can be assessed.

RecFAC does not support area restrictions for the use of non-commercial bait traps.

DPIPWE initial post consultation position Flag in future if warranted.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS – BAIT PUMPS AND BAIT TRAPS

(i) Define and allow non-commercial bait pumps.

SFAC Did not express a view on this proposal.

RecFAC Support this proposal.

DPIPWE Support this proposal.


(ii) Unattended non-commercial bait traps will now require a buoy or tag attached marked with the gear type code “BT” and the user’s surname, initials, year of birth and postcode.

SFAC The community and conservation member believes that recreational bait traps should be licenced. The FAC supports the marking of recreational bait traps.

RecFAC Support a requirement to identify the user of an unattended bait trap with “BT” and the users surname, initials, year of birth and postcode.

DPIPWE Support a requirement to identify the user of an unattended bait trap with “BT” and the users surname, initials, year of birth and postcode.

Clarify definition of a bait trap to include having up to two entrances

Berley and bait use

Use of berley as an attractant for shark and other species

(i) Prohibit the use of berley to attract shark and fish for any purpose other than fishing.

Outcome of public consultation There were 365 responses to this question, most of whom supported the proposal. Together, 55% either strongly agreed or agreed. There were 24% who either strongly disagreed or disagreed. Neutral was recorded at 21%.

However, a number of submissions questioned and opposed the proposal, arguing the potential for tourism benefits and economic benefit. For example:

“Other purposes may include photography and tourism. This state should be able to promote or utilise non take tourism that does not adversely apply pressure on a fishery or for the purposes of photography and tourism,. The benefits outweigh the impacts”.

Another submission suggested that:

“Shark cage diving could one day be a great tourist attraction”.


However, other submissions indicated that burleying sharks in inshore waters was not a sound idea, for example:

“Berleying for sharks should not be permitted near to shore as it is a danger to divers, surfers and other water users”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supports this, but noted that this rule would stop tourism operators from berleying to attract fish, other than shark (e.g., glass bottomed boat). Unintended consequences were identified.


Discussion The proposal is supported by TSIC and TARFish.

This proposal originates from reports that a tourism operator was starting a shark viewing tourism venture targeting great white sharks, including ‘berleying up’ sharks for patrons to observe underwater from the safety of a cage.

There was a legislative gap in controlling such activities. A number of concerns were raised that the area on the east coast was frequently accessed by other users such as recreational and commercial divers—and that large scale berleying might habituate sharks to people and potentially lead to a higher risk of shark attacks.

The first two proposals in this section were originally consulted in a non-statutory fashion with a decision from the then Minister to proceed with statutory consideration when the rules were next reviewed. This review process provides that opportunity.

While there were no submissions received as part of this review from key diving groups—such as the Tasmanian Abalone Council. It is believed that many groups in the diving sector support the proposal to ban the use of berley to attract shark. The Tasmanian Abalone Council previously strongly supported a ban on shark cage diving in a previous consultation process identifying concern for its members, who spend long periods each year underwater in such areas.

While support is already high, a recent death from a shark attack on the east coast has heightened public awareness of the risks attendant with the activity.

The proposal is recognised to have potential for unintended consequences. To avoid this, the wording of the draft rules has been amended to permit the use of commercial pellets and products, which may allow for non-shark targeting low level fish feeding or attraction.

The clear intent of this proposal is not to permit activities that change shark behaviour or habituate sharks to human activity, therefore, tourism activity such as berleying sharks for filming or watching by tourists is not supported.

If some other non-shark targeting activities which have not been identified present, these may have to be assessed for a potential permit or exemption. However, this form of case by case assessment is not seen as a desirable long term solution. Any process needs to support the underlying rationale of the policy.


DPIPWE Recommendation Support the proposal with amended drafting such as to prohbit the use of berley to attract shark and fish for any purpose other than fishing, but excluding a person who uses commercial bait pellets or other processed food products intended for consumption by animals or humans.

(ii) Prohibit the use of berley that contains mammal flesh, blood or offal (other than pellets).

Outcome of public consultation There were 357 responses to this proposal. From the submissions received, 21% strongly disagreed and 19% disagreed (total of 40%). With a large neutral register, 32% either strongly agreed or agreed. More opposed the measure than agreed—suggesting that many fishers may use meat and blood for burley. This is likely to be the recreational shark fishing sector—such as mako shark fishers.

Those who disagreed did not accept that there were potential impacts and argued that this was a sensible activity that does not waste available source of berley and that sharks eat blood and flesh in the wild. They suggested that the proposal was nonsensical with no proper rationale.

For example:

“no justification, from the point of view of great white sharks, they already like mammals so there will be no harm done and for others they'd rather have fish anyway but if you have access to mammalian products that would otherwise be wasted better to use them than waste seafood products as berley”.

Also:

“blood is a great burley” and,

“For legal shark fishing this can be a cheap source of burley”; and

“I have a wallaby licence why cant I use it for bait or burley”.

Others supported the rationale from the previous issue that berleying in State waters with animal blood was not a sensible thing to do. One respondent also indicated that some fishing clubs already have their own provisions about this issue, for example:


“in game fishing circles there is already an IFGA provision that burley containing flesh or blood of mammals if prohibited”.

Others also continued the logic from the above issue that the use of blood may change shark behaviours and potentially increase the likelihood of interactions with humans, for example:

“Would this encourage sharks to attack mammals”.

TARFish supports the intent of the proposal with amended wording to ensure that the blood, meat, offal etc. refers to products from mammals. DPIPWE has liaised with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) in finalising wording to ensure the intent is properly reflected in the draft rules.

TSIC did not explicitly address this proposal.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC did not support the proposal, suggesting it was not warranted.

The RecFAC also did not support the proposal. The RecFAC consider this measure to be overly restrictive and thus not warranted. The committee argued this is an established form of fishing and in practice is not different to using fish based berley to attract sharks for fishing.

Discussion While there were many submissions arguing against this measure, the critical nature of the underlying issue continues to present a rationale to support the measure. Indeed, community concerns are likely to have been heightened by a recent shark attacks and sightings.

The issues raised by RecFAC are also recognised to a degree.

However, it is also considered that the wider community, divers and swimmers etc., view using mammal products (blood/flesh etc.) is to be different to fish products in the water and are detected by sharks as being different. It is also recognised, however, that this is also an emotive subject with imprecise understandings.

It is understood that groups such as Tasmanian Abalone Council and dive clubs would be concerned if this proposal was dropped.

Victoria and South Australia both have measures that restrict the use animal based burley in a similar manner. The initial proposal was drafted in a similar manner to the Victorian provisions.

As with the previous proposal, it is recognised that there may be some small scale non-shark targeting fishing activities that might be considered appropriate to continue. For example, angling for finfish species using a can of dog/cat food as berley. There may be an issue that such an activity may be impacted under the initial proposal, hence a slight change to the wording is proposed so that the rule would not apply to a person who uses commercial bait pellets or other processed food products intended for consumption by animals or humans that contains mammal flesh, blood, bone, offal or skin

DPIPWE Recommendation Support the proposal amended as with the slight change of wording which will continue to allow the use of commercial bait pellets or other processed food products intended for consumption by animals or humans that contains the flesh, blood, bone, offal or skin of mammals.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – BERLEY

(i) Prohibit the use of berley to attract shark and fish for any purpose other than fishing.

SFAC The FAC supports this, but notes that this rule would stop tourism operator’s berleying to attract fish, other than shark (eg, glass bottomed boat).

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Support this proposal

(ii) Prohibit the use of berley that contains mammal flesh, blood or offal (other than pellets).

SFAC The FAC does not support this proposal.

RecFAC Not supported

DPIPWE Support but exclude the use of commercial pelletised products or food products intended for consumption by animals or humans that contains the flesh, blood, bone, offal or skin of mammals.

Restrictions on certain species for use as bait or berley

(i) Restrict the use of skipjack tuna, albacore tuna and yellowtail kingfish for use as bait and berley to heads and frames only.

Outcome of public consultation There were 364 responses to this proposal, with support or disagreement at roughly equal levels.

Some disagreed with any restrictions on the use of whole fish as bait or berley—for example,

“why restrict this? If you were to use these species for berley it's most likely they are no longer fit for human consumption. Why not allow it then? This is over regulation!!!!!”.


There were a number of submissions that supported the proposal—other than skipjack tuna—recognising these are high value species. However, they suggested skipjack was not a highly valued eating fish, is abundant and good bait. For example:

“Assuming by skipjack you mean stripy tuna they are a poor quality eating fish that are in great abundance and as long as the possession limits are observed i cannot see why you should not be able to use the whole fish as burley/bait. Happy with Kingfish and albacore frames only being used as berley though”; and,

“Not sure why skipjack are included - plenty of them about, and one skipjack is a days bait”; and,

“I think that skipjack tuna in their entirety should be allowed”; and,

“Skipjack isn't a very good table fish and fillets make great shark baits and berley”; and,

“pertains mainly to skipjack, as why would anyone want to use the other species, they are hard enough to catch”.

TARFish does not support the inclusion of skipjack tuna, but supports the measure for the other species as they are highly valued consumptive species.

TSIC do not support the inclusion of skipjack tuna given the stock status and low commercial value. The TSIC submission does not explicitly comment on the other species.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC support removal of skipjack tuna from this list.

The RecFAC support removal of skipjack tuna from this list.

Discussion The intent of this rule is to reduce ‘wastage’ of high valued species by stipulating that whole fish of these species cannot be used as bait or berley. The submissions and arguments that skipjack tuna does not fall in this category, and are regularly used for this purpose, is accepted at this time.

The DPIPWE would agree that skipjack tuna should be removed from the list and the proposal proceed excluding that species.

DPIPWE Recommendation Proceed with the proposal, but exclude skipjack tuna.

(ii) Prohibit the sale or use of any part of a salmonid species (Atlantic salmon or ocean trout) as bait or berley.

Outcome of public consultation There were 363 responses to this proposal. Of the respondents, 27% strongly disagreed and 23% disagreed (total 50%). Only 23% showed any level of support and 27% were neutral.


There were two different positions argued by those that disagree with the proposal. The first revolves around obtaining waste frames etc. from the marine farming industry and using that (waste) product, the second involves the use of fish caught that person and then used as bait in the local vicinity.

The proposal was initially developed as a biosecurity measure to include a prohibition for commercial operations selling salmonids for bait and also incorporated an expanded measure to prohibit the sale or use of any part of a salmonid as bait or berley. The biosecurity measure would complement the salmonid industry’s strict biosecurity protocols and enhance disease protection between salmonid growing regions.

The basic objective is to prevent the large scale transfer of marine farmed salmonids from the waters of one growing region to another growing region.

There are two potential ways marine farmed salmonids may be obtained by fishers for use as bait. The first is if the fisher catches escaped farmed stock themselves or sources from someone who has, and the second is from marine farming sector sources.

It is understood that the marine farming companies have policies that no waste product will be sold or disposed of in a manner that could see it returned to State waters. However, it may be that some waste frames are still provided to recreational fishers.

Recreational fishers, particularly in Macquarie Harbour argue that they take significant quantities of marine farmed salmonids and it makes sense to use it as bait and not waste that fish. The argument is that this is low risk and is more a desirable alternative to the use of native species.

Example comments on these two different arguments and situations (and risk profiles) are given below.

For using farmed fish some responses were:

“Its is farmed and waste is sold by the factories for berley and or bait. It is recycling a waste product one would have thought it would be encouraged”; and,

“This is a waste product and it makes sense to use it; and,

“To ban this would then cause recreational fishers to catch and use other fish that is a waste as Salmon have been used for meat and the left over pieces should be allowed to be used for burley”.

Submissions which addressed using salmon caught by that fisher included the following:


“Should be able to use any caught fish (as long as legal limit and size) as berley or bait”; and,

“This makes absolutely no sense. There is no quarantine problem and the fish are available in abundance”; and,

“Sorry, but why shouldn't I be able to keep the frames of the Atlantic salmon caught at Macquarie Harbour, put them in the freezer and use them as cray bait. Or do we just toss them into the water at the boat ramp?? Where is the logic here? We need to be maximising use of as much of the fish we catch as possible”.

The TARFish submission argues as follows:

“TARFish does not support the proposal as we understand there is a commercial operation that can effectively treat any salmonid waste and reduce any potential biosecurity risk. If the waste can effectively be processed to mitigate the biosecurity risk then we cannot understand why appropriately treated bait/burley cannot be placed into the market place.

TARFish understands access to commercial quantities of salmonid waste needs to be better managed through implementation of stricter marine farming biosecurity management measures rather than fisheries management prohibition and suggest this issue be appropriately referred to the marine farming management branch, agency or authority”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supports the proposal as released, the FAC does not support an alternative of tightening up the chain of supply in the marine farming sector to prevent any leakages and better education for not moving fish long distances.

The RecFAC do not support the original proposal. It does support an alternative of a move to better education and ensuring the marine farming sector tighten any leakage from its processing chain.

Discussion Given the views received during consultation, the basic question that remains is if the blunt nature of this proposal is warranted or if other alternative approaches are acceptable.

The policy position that no product leaving the marine farming sector supply chain should be used as bait or burley remains supported. Given that it is understood that this is current policy within the marine farming sector, this outcome should be achievable through the companies themselves. The majority of leakages should be able to be addressed by the companies reinforcing this policy, implementing any necessary modifications to existing practices and educating wholesale customers.

The next question that arises is if further statutory restrictions are required to support this outcome.

The TARFish submission supports the view that increased biosecurity vigilance in the marine farming sector (where the responsibility lies) can and should address the major concerns for this issue.

A lower risk is a fisher potentially catching escaped marine farmed salmonids in one growing region and taking it to another growing region and using this as bait. This is considered far less likely and not common practice. Education of general biosecurity risks of moving fish long distances may also be used to further reduce the risk in this instance.


On balance, the DPIPWE accepts at this time that the major risk of fish from the marine farming sector can be addressed by that sector. Therefore, the DPIPWE accepts the RecFAC and TARFish position at this time.

Given this position, it is suggested that there is no reason to prohibit whole Atlantic salmon being used as bait (rather than as frames only). It is considered that this provision should be considered for wild ocean (brown) trout.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE does not support this measure. Preference is to promote appropriate biosecurity measures supported in the marine farming sector and further support education in the recreational sector. Allow whole Atlantic salmon to be used as bait, but only the frames of wild brown (ocean) trout.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS – SPECIES RESTRICTIONS FOR BAIT AND BERLEY

(i) Restrict the use of skipjack tuna, albacore tuna and yellowtail kingfish for use as bait and berley to heads and frames only.

SFAC The FAC support the proposal, but excluding skipjack tuna from this list

RecFAC Support the proposal, excluding skipjack tuna from this list

DPIPWE Support the proposal, but excluding skipjack tuna from this list

(ii) Prohibit the sale or use of any part of a salmonid species (Atlantic salmon or ocean trout) as bait or berley.

SFAC The FAC does not support alternative. The FAC supports the original proposal that salmonids cannot be used or sold for bait or berley.

RecFAC Not support. Move to education and marine farm sector to tighten leakage from their processing facilities.

DPIPWE

Support the alternative of educating fishers to the risks of spreading disease when using marine farmed salmonids as bait in different areas of the State to where the fish were caught.

Remove marine farmed Atlantic salmon from the list completely. However add brown (ocean) trout to the list of species where only the heads and frames can be used as bait.


Recreational Catch Limits

Bag limits, possession and boat limits for general species

Do you support the general concept of reintroducing bag limits—with possession limits being two (2) times the bag limit and boat limits being three (3) times the bag limit for species listed in the General Species table? Refer to Table 1 in the accompanying “Background to Proposed Amendments” paper for the proposed bag limit for each species.

Shark and specialised scalefish

Do you support targeted management for shark and specialised scalefish—with bag limits, possession limits and boat limits tailored according to each species stock status, meat return or potential for wastage? (Refer to Table 2 in the Background paper)

Authorised charter boat limits

Introduce specific boat limits for authorised charter boat businesses of five (5) times the bag limit for General Species (listed in Table 1) and specified limits for Shark and Specialised Scalefish Species listed in Table 2.

Specific comment was sought on if fish species not generally classed as recreational species, or are known to be unsuitable for eating (such as red velvet fish and cowfish), should have a lower limit than the default limit of five (5) or even have a zero (no take) limit.

Bag limit of flathead species

Introduce a combined bag limit for of 15 flathead, of which no more than five (5) fish can be southern bluespotted or rock flathead with only one of these fish allowed to be greater than 60 centimetres.

Striped trumpeter

Specific comment is sought on the proposed striped trumpeter recreational bag, possession, boat and charter boat limits listed in Table 2 in the background paper.

Outcome of public consultation Three hundred and sixty seven submissions made a response to the recreational catch limit proposals.

Many responses supported the general concept of re-introducing bag limits, with possession limits being two times the bag limit etc. Several comments stated that formulas were easy to understand.

TARFish indicated agreement with the formula for bag/possession limits for species listed in the General Species list, but did not support Boat Limits “as they supersede the individual’s bag/possession rights". Submissions from the Game Fishing Club of Northern Tasmania and the Tasmanian Game Fishing Association (TGFA)—also expressed disagreement with boat limits. TARFish indicated its opposition to boat limits for all species.



Many submissions mentioned that careful consideration be given to the costs of travel and the time required in fishing when determining catch limits. Some noted that they do not always have the opportunity to go fishing and fishers want to bring a “reasonable feed” home. This contrasted with other submissions of support for possession limits as limiting fishers taking their bag limit day after day, and for boat limits as they prevent boats with non-fishing crew returning with larger numbers of fish.

There was indication that boat limits (and charter limits) may be acceptable and deemed fairer if they set an amount based on passenger category (e.g. <5 or 5-8 passengers etc) or size of vessel.

Environment Tasmania stated:

“The redefinition of catch limits is a positive step in clarifying the amount of fish allowed to be caught by recreational fishers”.

One submission stated agreement for the proposed concepts, but advised against considering the Western Australian style of mixed bag limits in future reviews, as they were too complex.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust did not support the general concept and commented that the possession limit will be viewed as a bag limit stating:

“The proposal creates may increase fishing pressure on key species. For example, it allows double the number of elephant fish, banded morwong, and yellowtail kingfish to be retained. It is not reasonable for a rec fisher to take five yellowtail kingfish. There are sustainability issues with elephant fish and banded morwong. Limits need to be put in place that are enforceable, protect stocks and support the notion of recreational fishing for a meal”.

One submission mentioned that a season limit should be investigated—

“If we had a quota system whereby recreational fisherman were permitted to catch a set quantity of fish for the whole season, it would be a fairer system”.

The effect of catch limits on fishing competitions was mentioned in the Game Fishing Club of Northern Tasmania submission:

“Gamefishing competitions are individual entries and not team/vessel based. 1 bluefin over 150cm will impact heavily on these competitions. The competitions bring a large number of people to smaller towns”.


“We run two shark fishing competitions and participate in others around the state where the heaviest shark wins. We would like to see the bag limit for mako sharks increased to 2 to discourage the dumping of smaller shark if a bigger one is then caught”.

Boat Limits

Samples of comments include:

“Due to the expense of travelling with a boat, our members frequently plan fishing trips longer than 2 days. Reduced boat and possession limits will impact on the financial viability of these trips and may reduce the fishing tourism in some regional areas that rely on our members support for their businesses.” [Game Fishing Club of Northern Tasmania]

“Disagree with boat limit should be per person no boat limit as it puts pressure on inshore fishery as small boats can take as many fish as larger boats with twice as many people on board as they travel to offshore fishery maybe increase boat limit to boats over 6 meters and then ten meters increase again.”

“boat limits should be dependent on the amount of fishers in the boat, (I take 5 fishers flatheading sometimes) 15 flathead sounds like a fair number each.”

"Marlin and Swordfish surely one fish is plenty - a lot of meat on these species - I do not agree with catch and release of any species except if its undersized - don't catch it if your not going to eat it or keep it.”

“I have a boat that legally carry 18 persons and we take up to six persons on a trip up to 3 days. a boat limit restricts us to a smaller quantity that is not suitable to the amount of people on-board.”

“Don’t agree with boat limit on some species eg Blue eye , we travel 4 hours to fish out of St Helens with usually 5 on board large boat and if we strike the perfect day 3 fish each seems unfair. Same with Stripey trumpeter and tuna”

“Disagree with boat limit being only 3 times bag limit. Many recreational boat's now days accommodate 5-6 people. 45 flathead between 6 people isn't enough in my opinion. Happy to see 30 per person cut back to 15 and size increase to 32 cm but boat limits should be 4 times bag limit. 60 flathead between 6 people, 10 each is a feed but you wouldn't want any less.”

Charter limits

Several submissions either supporting or not supporting the proposal for an increase charter boat limit indicated that the catch limits were too high. Several mentioned that charter boat limits should be the same as private boats. One mentioned that charter boat operators should be licensed.

There was relatively low level disagreement about Charter Boat limits for authorised charter vessels. Submissions from Charter boat operators, however, indicated strong concern with the general application of boat limits and charter limits. Several indicated that the limits may affect their customer base. Several submissions suggested a tiered system based on the number of passenger’s or size of vessel.

A sample of comments included:

“An example is the boat limit for School Bluefin tuna is proposed a 10 tuna boat limit. On a smaller operator that takes 5 customers that is two fish per client however on a larger vessel with 14 customers


that is less than 1 fish per person. A lot of angling groups are not happy with that and will book two smaller boats with 5 on each and hence not book the larger vessel. Whilst we are aware that this limit is very rarely reached and we encourage anglers to take less fish, a lot customer’s perception is that they will catch the limit and we all know that rarely happens. We are happy with the reduction on Jumbos.” [The Sea Charter Boat Operators of Tasmania (SCBOOT) submission]

“There is a fear with these limits that it could lead to high grading if larger fish that are caught after the initial catch –as proposed limits defined within the amendment document.”

“Unless the boat limits are lifted for charter boats, this will severely impact on the charter boat industry currently running from St Helens because people will not “fish for nothing”. If the boat limit is lifted to 5 times for a fee, this is discriminatory against the recreational fisherman as well as the charter operators that can take up to 12 passengers, not all boats take 5 people as not all recreational boats are small and can take 6 passengers and above as well.”

“5 x the bag limit is still a lot of fish - when they are big fish. It starts to be commercial amounts in weight of fillets especially for Stripey T and Trevalla”

“special rules for charter vessels which looks like favouritism.”

“Regardless of fisher numbers, charter boat operators, like rec fishers, need clearly defined boat limits.”

“I have no problem with Charter boat limits but I feel that 5 times is too generous. Because of the boat size and the number of days fished - compared to Rec fishers, the potential to damage fish stocks is extremely high. Some charter boats are out every day of the season - weather permitting.”

“Table 2 (Billfish-Marlin,Swordfish) Authorised Charter Boat limit. Should be reduced from 5 to 2. Not a good look for tourist.”

“they need to satisfy their customer's fishing experience, not compete with commercial scalefishers for the resource, usually targetting large fish, where one fish caught, would supply a feed for many people”

“The proposed limit for mako for commersial [assume Charter?] fishers is way to high... Must exclude jumbo tuna and mako sharks as 5 times is way to much.”

“Charter boats do account for a large amount of recreational catch, due to the experience and skill of operators trying to please their customers”

“People spend a large sum to charter boats and as such are entitled to expect some return on their investment if they are lucky enough.”

“If this were applied to charter boats that take 15 passengers this limitation would put them out of business. Perhaps limit the no. of passengers these boats can take to a maximum of 8 passengers”

“No I think 5x times is far too high.”

“Given the extremely limited number of charter operators in this state in the big scheme of the fishery, I believe the impact they have is negligible and all limits should remain as is”

half the bag limit for charter vessels”

“Charter operators should be licenced as such.”

“Charter boat businesses fish multiple times per year (some up to 200 times per year - feedback from meeting recently). For someone like myself though, i would only fish 5-8 times per year so i don’t think


they should have any greater limits than someone like myself who fishes less frequently and recreationally”

Comments on specific fish groupings

FLATHEAD

Flathead catch limits were mentioned in many respondents’ submissions. There were indications that fishers may agree to a bag limit of 15 but could not support a boat limit or the proposed boat limit of 45. Some mentioned a boat limit of 60 or 75 would be acceptable to the average fishing group. Similar to the general comments on boat limits, numerous submissions mentioned that catch limits should consider the costs of travel and time, and fishers want to “bring a reasonable feed home”.

Commercial flathead trawling or Danish seine was mentioned. One submission stating that the flathead catch adjacent to Tasmanian waters needs to be taken into account. Another submission mentioned that Danish Seine vessel positions need to be monitored [VMS].

Several submissions suggested a bag limit of 10 is adequate given the fishing pressure. Several submissions indicated that 20 is a reasonable amount. Some submissions (and during the consultative meetings) suggested catch limits for particular species could be specific to regions. This would allow the limits to be targeted to the area or the amount of fishing effort. For example a large proportion of fishing effort is on the East Coast or South East. A few submissions proposed closing areas (e.g., the D’Entrecasteaux Channel) to allow recovery of flathead stocks.

TARFish does not support a bag limit of all flathead species of 15. Its submission stated:

“Whilst we understand and accept there have been preliminary indicators, for particularly Sand Flathead, that warrant a degree of caution as far as resource management is concerned, the flathead fishery is not crashing nor are the indicators a continual downward trend over time. A 50% reduction in bag limits coupled with a size increase to 32 cm are two major management measures normally associated with major issues within a fishery. We do not believe the severity and magnitude of the dual management measures is warranted.

TARFish suggests consideration of bag limit for all flathead species of 20, of which no more than five fish can be southern bluespotted or rock flathead with only one of these fish allowed to be greater than 60 cm.”

A sample of other comments relating to flathead include:

“I believe the bag limits for sand flathead should be reduced to 10/person. This is very adequate and should further protect a diminishing species. The rapidly increasing number of fishers targeting the species is certainly having an effect on numbers.”

“Flathead - 15 flat head is still a good feed of fish if the limits are not reduced from current levels soon there will be no fish in close at all, in the last 5 years we have gone from fishing in close to now having to often head out 6-8 kms to get a feed”

“Up until 10 years ago it was possible to go fishing in many areas in the south and catch sized fish. Now in areas such as Randalls Bay, Tinpot, quarries etc it is difficult to catch sized fish.”


STRIPED TRUMPETER

TARFish supports the bag/possession limit of 4 and 8 respectively for striped trumpeter.

The TGFA supports the bag/possession limit of 4 and 8 respectively for striped trumpeter. The TGFA does not support boat limits as it considers that they supersede the individual’s bag/possession entitlements. The TGFA contend that boat limits are discriminatory and in some circumstances counterproductive as they may lead to localised depletion as larger boats carrying more anglers often travel further afield to less fished areas.

One respondent stated that:

“The stock of striped trumpeter is not as large as it should be, due to overfishing. The recreational fishing experience is suffering as a result. Bag/possession limit should also be reduced to two/person/ day and there should be a boat limit of four”.

OTHER FISH GROUPS

A commercial fisher submission commented that “there should be lower limits for King George Whiting, Calamari, pike.”

Several submissions suggested increases for particular species that were introduced, emerging, seasonal, abundant or underutilised, e.g., gurnards, Atlantic salmon escapees and mackerels.

DEFAULT LIMIT AND LIMIT FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE OR ORNAMENTAL SPECIES

Numerous submissions supported a default bag limit of five fish for non-specified species. Many submissions supported a zero limit or two for non-consumptive or ornamental species.

One submission suggested that several species should be “no take unless specifically authorised situation. e.g. For museums or research”.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust commented that:

“There is no reasonable expectation that these fish can ever be managed in any sort of scientific manner. They should be largely protected. Use by home aquarists could be permitted via a permit system similar to the one used by people who keep native wildlife. Otherwise a zero limit should be imposed”.

"TARFish agree with the default limit of 5 to apply to all non-specified fish species that may be caught by recreational fishers”.

Another submission commented:

“With a diverse cultural population mix it is apparent that non-specified species or for that matter species not historically eaten are increasingly being consumed and to consider such a proposal we believe will bring unintended consequences. You only have to look at the ever increasing variety of fish species at fish mongers and peruse Developmental Fishing Permit applications to understand population palates are expanding and recreational fishers, as well as seafood consumers, are expanding their consumption across a broad range of fish that were not that long ago considered unpalatable."

Environment Tasmania commented:

“The catch limit for unsuitable recreational fishing species, such as red velvet fish and cowfish should have a default limit of zero. Enforcing a zero limit for these species will help avoid their waste and


support their abundance in our marine environments. Since these species are not targeted by recreational fishers, implementing the catch limit of zero should not be debated.”

COMPLIANCE ISSUES

Compliance of catch limits was mentioned in several submissions, with many stating that more enforcement is needed. Some respondents identified the need to encourage people to report fishers exceeding limits to Fishwatch.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC propose that longfin and shortfin pike (snook) should be separated and that the shortfin limit should be set at 5. Flounder should be set at 10. Southern calamari should be reduced to 5 and a minimum size limit introduced.

The SFAC supported boat limits for albacore of 20 and skipjack 40. SFAC also supported the principle of a lower limit on fish species not generally classed as recreational or unsuitable for eating.

The SFAC does not support charter boat limits and considers that these should be the same as all other recreational vessels.

SFAC supported separating bag limit to 15 for flathead other than bluespotted and rock flathead and have a limit of 5 for these two species—with one of the 5 being greater than 60 cm.

SFAC supported the proposed individual catch limits and a boat limit of 12 for striped trumpeter. SFAC does not support a charter limit of 20. The SFAC does not support separate striped trumpeter boat limits for charter boats, but supports the limits for striped trumpeter as proposed.

The RecFAC supported the general concepts in the proposal, with the following notations:

boat limits should apply to specialised species only; boat limits should be the same for private or charter vessels; and are valuable in terms of managing public perception and demonstrating responsible fishing

behaviour.

One RecFAC member stated support for boat limits for marlin, swordfish and mako shark only.

There was general support for having the individual limits for southern bluefin tuna of bag limit 2, possession limit 2 and a boat limit of 4—of which only 2 can be jumbos (>150 cm). To cater for fishing competitions the rules should allow flexibility on boat limits where a recognised organisation conducting a fishing competition is allowed to set alternative (higher boat limits).

RecFAC recommended bag limits of 5 for albacore tuna and 10 for skipjack tuna with respective possession limits of 10 and 20 and no boat limit. However, because of the variation in size between these two species education will be required to avoid undesirable fishing behaviours—i.e., fit in with reasonable feed messages.

RecFAC generally supported a reduction in the flathead bag limit. It noted this is a highly valued fishery for recreational fishers.

There was strong support for the reduction in the bag limit to 15 on the basis:

better resource sharing within the recreational fishing sector;


IMAS research supports a reduction in fishing pressure (15 addressing this better than 20);

IMAS surveys indicate 90 % of fishing trips take less than 15;

15 still represents an adequate feed;

the fisher is still able to possess 30 flathead, but take over more than one day; and

during the recreational fishing survey, there was support for a bag limit of 15.

Some RecFAC members suggested the bag limit should be set at 20 on the basis that in combination with the increase in size limit this approach would adequately address scientific concerns of slight regional declines in the fishery.

RecFAC acknowledged that by going to bag limits/possession limits for striped trumpeter the on water possession limit of 4 is removed and the possession limit will allow individual possession of 8. The proposed boat limit of 12 was viewed as the lever to limit catch for this species, as the boat is the effective fishing unit. There is a risk of increasing the recreational catch by moving to the proposed possession limit arrangements—therefore either a boat limit is required or the catch limits will need to be revisited.

RecFAC acknowledged concerns about striped trumpeter, and noted that total catch for this fishery should not have the potential to increase.

RecFAC commented on other species:

Marlin – bag limit 1, possession limit 1, boat limit 2;

Swordfish – bag limit 1, possession limit 1, boat limit 1;

Shark (blue/mako) – bag limit 1, possession limit 2, boat limit 2;

Separation of gurnard species. Gurnard common species – bag limit to 10. Ocean perch –bag limit 15;

Leatherjacket – set bag limit between 10 and 15;

Morwong other – mixed views; reef species reduce bag limit to 5; offshore e.g., jackass morwong 10;

King George whiting – majority of RecFAC supported a bag limit of 5. Two members believe the bag limit of 5 is too low; and

Wrasse – set bag limit to 5 and herring cale – set bag limit to 5.

Inshore Crab – separate the species. Set the bag limits for speedy crabs and red velvet crabs to 5. Then set the bag limit for other Inshore Crabs at 15.

The RecFAC generally supported having a limit for non-consumptive species—particularly red velvetfish and cowfish—which is less than the proposed default limit of five for unspecified fish species. However, TARFish supported the default limit of five to apply to all non-specified fish species that may be caught by recreational fishers.

The RecFAC supported the proposed striped trumpeter bag and possession limits, but was silent on the issue of boat limits. TARFish supports the bag/possession limits of 4 and 8 respectively for striped trumpeter, but does not support boat limits as they supersede an individual’s bag/possession limit entitlements.


Discussion The basis of setting bag limits and then setting possession limits outlined in the background paper would apply in almost all circumstances. After considering submissions and the advice of the FACs several changes are considered justifiable. The general application of boat limits for all groupings of fish is now not proposed—as it is condsidered that these would lead to complexities and would prove problematic for the charter boat sector.

Boat limits are considered warranted for most of the species listed in the draft rules as “specialised species”—such as tuna, marlin, striped trumpeter and mako shark—as the effective fishing unit tends to be the fishing group and the boat. Boat limits assist in compliance, as it limits the fishing unit irrespective of how many persons are on the vessel. Where a boat limit is applied it is proposed that they apply equally to private and charter vessels.

In the future there may be a case to apply boat limits to additional species. As more species are managed this way, or indeed as issues arise there will need to be further discussions with the recreational sector—particularly large vessel users and the charter boat sector. Considerations may include categorising vessels and specific management of charter boats.

TUNA

The proposal for tuna (southern bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye) to group into size based categories is now considered to be overly complicated. In recognising a boat fishing unit it is now proposed to apply the restriction on the number of large fish to the boat and not the individual. It is proposed to keep individual catch limits, but not separate out the “jumbo” fish. The proposal is now for a boat limit of 4 of which only two can be jumbos (length >150 cm).

Skipjack tuna and albacore tend to be in relatively high numbers for short periods and do not have the same stock considerations as southern blue fin. Although often these are smaller fish compared to other tuna species, new bag limits and fisheries education should address potential fish wastage issues. Albacore and skipjack tuna catch limits are now proposed to remain as seperate categories with bag limits reflecting the availablity and use of the fish—noting that skipjack tend to be used as bait or burley. No boat limit is recommended at this stage for these two species.

BLUE–EYE TREVALLA

The recreational catch of blue-eye trevalla relative to the commercial (Commonwealth) catch is relatively low. An increase in boat limit from that originally proposed balances travel and weather issues. The boat limit is proposed to be retained for this species to prevent the taking of commercially marketable quantities of blue-eye trevalla by recreational fishers.

STRIPED TRUMPETER

The IMAS Scalefish Fishery Assessment has reported stock concerns for many years. The recreational sector is responsible for most of the total catch in Tasmania and a significant amount is lost to fishing induced mortality due to seal interactions when fishing.

Although contentious, a boat limit is considered warranted to reduce the risk of an increase in the total recreational catch of striped trumpeter—which could impact the rebuilding of stocks of this highly valued species. An increase from the proposed boat limit of 12 to 20 is a compromise position recognising that such a limit is better than the current situation of having no boat limits. A boat limit of 20 will accommodate concerns voiced in some submissions about disincentives to


travelling beyond easily accessed locations. A boat limit of 20 would enable five persons on a vessel being able to take their bag limit of 5 striped trumpeter.

The DPIPWE proposes that a boat limit for striped trumpeter applies to both charter and non-charter recreational vessels. The DPIPWE has a view that a boat limit of 20 is better than no boat limit at all. If no boat limit is applied for striped trumpeter then individual limits would need to be revisited to a lower number to constrain the recreational catch.

By moving to bag limits/possession limits—the current on water possession limit of 4 is removed. The possession limit will allow individual to have possession of up to 8 fish. The proposed boat limit of 20 is now proposed to be the lever to limit catch for this species—as the boat is the effective fishing unit.

Parts of the recreational sector have expressed opposition to boat limits for striped trumpeter. It is worthwhile noting that the recreational sector has supported commercial trip limits for particular species and that this has been successful in controlling the commercial take.

A reduction in the bag limit was not proposed in this review. However, given the compromise of increasing the boat limit, consideration of a reduction in this bag limit may be required in future reviews—depending on the outcome of future stock assessments.

The move to modify catch limits to bag limit/possession limits essentially allows increased individual possession on water for fishing trips of two days fishing or more.

A combination of management tools applies to limiting striped trumpeter catch including individual catch limits, boat limits, season and size limit. It is noted that the proposed size limit for this species is still under the biological size of maturity and given the pressure of recreational fishing influenced by new fishing technologies and social media (e.g., exchange of fishing marks)—managing the recreational catch is imperative.

FLATHEAD

As outlined in the background paper, flathead is the backbone of the recreational fishery in Tasmania. Given the average recreational catch is around one million fish (over 235 tonnes) per annum it was not surprising to receive the number of formal submissions and comments at meetings to proposed changes to flathead management.

There is general consensus that additional management of flathead should be undertaken to protect this highly regarded fishery. There are, however, diverse views on the extent of management change required.

There are distinct differences in fishing behaviours—some people fish occasionally, some frequently, some fish locally, and others travel. There are also regional differences in fishing pressure, with most of the fishing occurring in the south-east, followed by the central east coast. Regardless of this diversity, lowering the take is required in the high fishing pressure areas.

A bag limit of 15 to 20 for flathead was considered appropriate by the majority of submissions. The proposal released suggested a bag limit of 15 flathead. Recognising significant support and also the TARFish submission—the DPIPWE considers that (in tandem with an increased size limit) a bag limit of 20 flathead is an acceptable compromise. However, it is also considered that in making this compromise the possession limit should not be increased from the existing proposed limit of 30 fish. As such, for this key species, a departure from the simple bag/possession calculation model should be implemented. That is, a bag limit of 20 fish and a possession limit of 30 fish.


The Survey1 of recreational fishing in 2012/13 (a statistical based survey conducted by IMAS) indicated that the majority (61%) of fishers considered the current flathead limit of 30 as too high. Respondents who indicated that the limit was too high were asked what they thought would be a reasonable limit—27% suggest limits of 10 or less, 62% suggested limits of 15 or less while the vast majority (97%) considered limits of 20 or less to be reasonable.

IMAS research has found that flathead catch rates have declined in several key areas, which suggests a decline in the abundance of sand flathead. The report2 also suggests a need to reduce fishing pressure. It should be noted that this included the D’Entrecasteaux Channel—where there is no commercial scalefishing permitted, and in Frederick Henry Bay and Norfolk Bay—which has relatively low commercial fishing activity.

IMAS monitoring of flathead stocks will continue and it is envisaged that the stock status of sand flathead will be assessed in the 2014/15 Scalefish Fishery Assessment report. Performance measures should be developed for the recreational component of this fishery. Future considerations could be given to spatial management to reflect the diversity of the fishery discussed above, however, that will present issues in relation to compliance. The complexities of spatial management would need to be considered in the context of benefits to the stock and recreational fishing values.

A catch limit grouping for southern bluespotted and rock flathead to separate sand and tiger flathead appears easier and more appropriate than having a combined flathead group with a subset of catch limits for southern bluespotted and rock flathead. Accordingly it is proposed to have two groupings—“flathead (other than southern bluespotted and rock flathead)” and “flathead (southern bluespotted and rock flathead)”.

By separating the two groups of flathead for the purposes of catch limits, it is recommended therefore, that the general limits proposed for the niche southern bluepotted and rock flathead fishery should be a bag limit of 5 (combined), possession limit of 10 (combined) and no boat limit. In addition, only one of those 5 fish can be greater than 600 mm in length.

Fisheries awareness products such as the “Meet the flatheads” pamphlets, the Tas Fish App, Fishes of Tasmania posters and feature articles in the Tasmanian Recreational Fishing Guide are proposed to be used to educate fishers about the various flathead species in Tasmania and the size and bag limits that apply.

Some recreational fishers attributed a reduction in flathead catches to commercial fishing activity, particularly Danish Seine fishing. As the commercial fishery catch of sand flathead is relatively low (less than 15 tonnes per annum since 2008/93), compared to the recreational catch (at over 200 tonnes per annum) other factors may be more likely—including environmental influences and natural annual variability, as well as the relatively high recreational catch itself. Commercial Danish

1 Lyle, J.M., Stark, K.E & Tracey, S.R. (2014). 2012-13 Survey of recreational fishing in Tasmania. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies Report, 124p

2 Ewing, G.P., J.M. Lyle & A. Mapleston (2014) Developing a Low-Cost Monitoring Regime to Assess Relative Abundance and Population Characteristics of Sand Flathead, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies(IMAS) Report 37p.

3 André, J., Lyle J and Hartman, K.(2015) Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery Assessment 2012/13. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies(IMAS) Report 181 p


seiners, target tiger flathead and although their fishing areas may overlap with recreational fishers—it does not seem to have had an adverse impact. The commercial tiger flathead catch in Tasmania has fluctuated between 30 to 70 tonnes per year.

Tiger flathead are also taken by the Commonwealth South Eastern and Southern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, which operates in waters adjacent to Tasmanian State waters—i.e taken outside 3 nautical miles or established baselines from the coast.

The average annual tiger flathead catch (2005 to 2014) taken by Commonwealth operators is shown in Map 19. Less than one tonne of sand flathead (10 year average from 2005 to 2014) per annum is taken in zone 60 (Bass Strait) by the Commonwealth Danish seine sector, which operates out of Lakes Entrance, Victoria. Sand flathead is not taken by Commonwealth operators in any other regional zone (source AFMA 2015).

MAP 19: A 10 year average (in tonnes) of Commonwealth tiger flathead catch by regional zone. Most of the

Commonwealth flathead catch is taken by Danish seine of Lakes Entrance. Less than one tonne of sand flathead was

taken by Commonwealth operators in zone 60 (Lakes Entrance) and is not taken in any other regional zone (source

AFMA 2015).

OTHER FISH GROUPS

Wrasse and herring cale are distinct groups and easier to identify in communication products with separate provisions as herring cale does not have a size limit. The herring cale bag limit is proposed to be the default limit of 5.

The garfish bag limit is proposed to be 15—noting that a limit of 15 was stated in the catch table in background paper and a limit of 10 in the draft rules.

A mackerel/redbait grouping is considered more appropriate than having redbait grouped in small pelagic fish—they are also already grouped this way in the current rules defining fish species. These fish are relatively common and have no stock sustainability issues. A bag limit of 30 and possession limit 60 combined acknowledges the use of these species as bait.

The stock decline for blue warehou and bastard trumpeter were noted in the background paper for the draft management plan and relatively low bag limits are proposed accordingly.


NON-CONSUMPTIVE OR NOT GENERALLY CLASSED AS RECREATIONAL

The Act caters for the inadvertent catching of fish, where if there is a zero limit then the fisher needs to return the fish as soon as practicable to the water. There is a need to cater for recreational aquarium species. At present, schools, conservation/education displays etc require a permit if they seek to undertake activities not permitted within the current rules.

With a diverse cultural population it is apparent that non-specified species—or for that matter any species not historically eaten—are increasingly being consumed. To consider a proposal to limit catch of these species further may bring unintended consequences.

There is an increasing variety of fish species available at fish mongers and recreational fishers as well as seafood consumers are expanding their consumption across a broad range of fish that were considered undesirable not that long ago. Accordingly a practical approach is considered necessary for the management of these species.

Red velvetfish, prowfish and anglerfish were three groups identified as warranting greater protection than the default bag limit of 5 fish.

DPIPWE Recommendation Implement the general concepts of setting a bag limit and a possession limit of two times the bag limit for general species. The exception is for sand/tiger flathead, of which the bag limit of 20 and possession limit of 30 are proposed to apply (i.e no change to proposed possession limit). Boat limits should only apply to shark and specialised (certain) species. Full details are provided in the following catch limit tables.

Charter boat limits should be the same as for private vessels. As there are no proposed specific limits for charter vessels, therefore no charter authorisations would be required. An increase in the boat limit for blue-eye trevalla has been proposed to acknowledge the issues raised through submissions.

Propose a default bag limit of 5 applies for all species where not otherwise specified in the tables below. For non-consumptive species such as red velvetfish, prowfish and anglerfish a bag limit of 2 is proposed, noting that commercial fishers are already limited to a maximum of three “limited scalefish” such as anglerfish, red velvetfish and prowfish in the current rules.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – NON COMMERCIAL CATCH LIMITS

Table 1: Non‐commercial catch limits for General Species

General Species Catch Limits Bag limit

Possession limit Fish Group

Anglerfish 2 4

Australian salmon 15 30

Barracouta 15 30

Boarfish – combined total 2 4

Bream 5 10

Cod – combined total 15 30

Elephantfish 2 4

Flathead (excluding bluespotted and rock) – combined total 20 30

Flathead, bluespotted and rock with one greater than 600mm – combined total 5 10

Flounder – combined total 15 30

Garfish, including King gar – combined total 15 30

Gurnards and Ocean perch – combined total 15 30

Herring cale 5 10

Inshore crab – combined total 15 30

Invertebrate bait species 50 100

Leatherjacket – combined total 10 20

Mackerel – combined total 30 60

Morwong, banded 2 4

Morwong species except banded morwong – combined total 10 20

Mullet – combined 15 30

Octopus – combined 5 10

Pike, longfinned 15 30

Pike, shortfinned (snook) 5 10

prawns 50 100

Red velvetfish 2 4

Prowfish 2 4

Salmonids, ocean trout 12 24

Salmonids, Atlantic 12 24

Silver trevally 10 20

Snapper 5 10

Small pelagic species (Australian anchovy, Australian sardine, Australian sprat, blue sprat, hardyhead)

50 100

Squid, Gould’s 15 30

Squid, calamari 10 20

Tailor 5 10

Trumpeter, bastard 5 10

Warehou – combined total 10 20

Whiting, King George 5 10

Whiting (except King George whiting) – combined total 15 30

Wrasse – combined total 5 10

Yellowtail kingfish 5 10

Unspecified species (except protected fish) 5 10


Table 2: Catch limits for Shark and Specialised Scalefish

Shark and Specialised Scalefish Species Bag limit

Possession limit

Boat limit

Boat Limit Comments

Billfish, marlin 1 1 2

Billfish, sword 1 1 2

Blue‐eye trevalla 5 10 25

sharks and rays – excluding elephantfish, gummy, school, mako and blue

2 4 5 Boat limits apply to all vessels for all species combined

Shark, school and gummy 2 2 5 Boat limits apply to all vessels for all species combined

Shark, blue and mako 1 2 2 Only 2 of the shark combined boat limit can be blue or mako

Striped trumpeter 4 8 20

Tuna, SBT and yellowfin and bigeye 2 2 4 Of which two can be over 150 cm

Tuna, albacore 5 10 Boat limits do not apply to albacore

Tuna, skipjack 10 20 Boat limits do not apply to skipjack

Requirements to land flathead whole

All flathead must be landed whole or with heads and frames in the area east from Cape Grim and west from Port Sorell, unless the holder of a commercial scalefish licence landing flathead other than southern bluespotted flathead.

Outcome of public consultation There were 359 responses to this proposal. Concerns about disposing of fish waste at points of landing were raised in many submissions.

Others suggested that this requirement should be extended statewide to assist enforcement of the rules by facilitating the identification of fish, size limits and catch limits.

A submission from the Circular Head Council stated:

"With a significant recreational catch of flathead in the region, Council are concerned about possible implications on public recreation spaces and waste service. The following are noted as potential issues:

Potential increase in incorrect disposal of fish remains at boat launch facilities;

Increase demand for the provision of public bins at boat launching facilities (or increased usage public bins);


"General increase in a waste stream with a potential to cause nuisance (e.g., odour)".

The TARFish submission stated:

“TARFish do not support the proposal as we believe it will create unintended consequences associated with waste disposal. We agree that the proposed measure will assist with compliance however the expected unintended consequences of waste disposal will, we believe, have a greater impact and detrimental effect. This point was highlighted by a Circular Head Councillor who attended the Smithton public meeting to indicate the councils concerns about waste disposal should recreational fishers be required to land fish whole or with frames. TARFish believe compliance can be effectively managed on water without the need to land fish whole or with frames”.

Other comments included:

“You clean the fish at sea while your fishing saves mess and provides food for other fish. Much better than it rotting in the garbage or thrown in the bush”.

“I'll strongly agree IF you provide fish cleaning stations at every ramp. And IF you require the same conditions of commercials”.

“Keeping flathead frames is fine but they must be allowed to be disposed of at the boat ramp”.

“We should be encouraging fishers to clean their fish at sea and dispose of the carcass at sea rather than bring the head and frame back, where in most cases we find the frames etc dumped on the beaches or near the boat ramps”.

“This creates problems at boat ramps with the disposal of the by products. By cleaning the fish at sea the remnants of the fish are returned to the sea where the flathead and other fish are able to consume them This is a far better practise than having fish offal near boat ramps or disposed of in inappropriate ways”.

“Justified under the circumstances and recognise the need for Striped Trumpeter frames but wouldn't want to see it introduced statewide - without a vast amount of money being spent to ensure shore based cleaning offal is disposed of properly”.

“All flathead should be landed whole around the whole state as it is common for flathead up to 2 cm undersize to be filleted at sea. All fish with a size limit should be landed whole”.

“One rule for all to avoid confusion. This also needs clarification as like many I prefer to look after and clean my catch at sea or at least while on the boat. No problem to keep frames for evidence of catch and size but when and how should these then be disposed of to prevent a mess at boat ramps”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC support the initial proposal, although this should apply to all species statewide.

The RecFAC supported the DPIPWE’s withdrawal of this requirement, noting that the compliance issues are the same irrespective of species and location.

Discussion Most concern was expressed about disposal issues at boat ramps as there as reported a considerable lack of facilities available to cope with recreational fish waste.


The Marine Police have indicated landing fish either whole or with frames or skin on—as is required in most other jurisdictions—would provide cost effective compliance of many rules as the compliance issues are the same irrespective of species and location.

DPIPWE Recommendation Propose not to implement at this stage. Further work would be required on this issue in the future (in conjunction with the Marine Police) to develop mechanisms that would improve compliance with the rules for all key species in all regions—particularly with size limits.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – LANDING FLATHEAD WHOLE

All flathead must be landed whole or with heads and frames in the area east from Cape Grim and west from Port Sorell, unless the holder of a commercial scalefish licence landing flathead other than southern bluespotted flathead.

SFAC Support proposal to land flathead whole or with heads and frames on the northwest coast.

RecFAC Does not support this proposal

DPIPWE Do not implement this proposal at this stage, as further work required on the issue of size limits—in conjunction with the Marine Police.

Size Limits

Striped trumpeter

Increase minimum size limit for Striped Trumpeter size from 500 mm to 550 mm.

Outcome of public consultation There were 363 responses to this proposal, with the majority supporting the proposed increase and some suggesting that the increase should be to 600 mm, as this is the biological size of maturity (SoM). Those that didn’t support the increase stated, for example, “don’t catch many at 500mm”, “they wont survive if they are thrown back due to bladder swell” and “the seals will get them on release”.


The Tasmanian Game Fishing Association (TGFA) supports a staggered program to progressively increase the minimum size limit to the level of sexual maturity with an increase in 2015 to 55cm. It stated “Many of our members as a result of education provided through or clubs already implement a self-imposed 60cm size restriction.”

TSIC commented that “It is noted that the stock status of Striped Trumpeter is reported as “transitional recovering” and that recent research has confirmed that the L50 for the species is 60cm. We note that the proposed increase in the minimum size is from 50cm to 55cm. We support the rationale for increasing the minimum size limit to 55cm but believe that an increase in the size limit to 60cm can also be justified. Given the iconic status of this species additional measures to help improve the status of the stock are warranted the proposal is SUPPORTED”

TARFish commented that “As we did in 2009 TARFish supports the staggered program to progressively increase the minimum size limit to the level of sexual maturity with an increase in 2015 to 55cm.”

The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fisherman’s Association (TRLFA) “Supports the proposed increase as an interim measure. Notes that this species is predominantly a recreational fishery and questions the delay in implementing the move to a further increase to SOM. This would seem a logical step in light of the scientific evidence from IMAS”

Conversely there was concern expressed of the survival of undersized fish that are released, with one submission stating that “release weights should be mandatory as in WA”. A number of submissions that did not support the increase stated that “In deeper water a released fish may not survive due to bladder swell” and others believing that increasing the minimum size will make fishers more wasteful “Most stripey are stuffed when pulled up from the deep. I hope that a bigger size limit doesn't kill more fish – sometimes bigger size limit are more wasteful. I've seen it in nearly all species – sometimes just keep what you catch is better – you see it with abalone - people kill 7-8 undersize to get 1 or 2 size a lot of catch and release methods are more wasteful”.

Others felt that the size limit was acceptable as is, and that “not everyone has big boats to go out wide or to deeper water to catch the bigger fish” and one stating that the number of fish they catch above the current size limit of 500 mm is low and “I will rarely get to keep one”.

Some respondents mentioned the increasing issue of seal interactions when fishing “Given the huge increase in seal numbers (near Tasman Peninsula) and their inevitable presence near our boat every fishing trip, we often only land 50% of hooked fish as the seals take them. Any undersized are invariably taken by the seals on release. Increasing the minimum size is in some ways counter-productive and a waste of time – unless a seal cull was undertaken!”

Two submissions felt that not enough scientific information on the need to increase the minimum size limit was made available to justify the increase to the minimum size, stating “At the information session at St Helens, questions were asked in regards to what is the science behind the decisions in regards to limit sizes of fishes, bag limits and boat limits – representatives from the DPIPWE were unable to provide a response in regards to how these decisions were made. Scientific facts should be made available before major changes occur in the Management Plan, eg, 2 years ago they lifted the size of Stripey Trumpeter from 450 to 500 claiming that it would assist the breeding cycle, and now they are saying that it needs to go from 500 to 550 but in 12 months should go to 600 – where is the scientific evidence to say that this is needed”.


Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported increasing the minimum size limit to 550 mm—but also supported the DPIPWE having an action plan (including a time frame) for increasing the size limit to 600 mm.

The RecFAC generally supported an increase to the minimum size of striped trumpeter to 600 mm. TARFish supports progressively increasing the minimum size limit to the level of sexual maturity—as they did in the 2009 Review—with the increase in 2015 to 550 mm.

Discussion There was good support for this measure during consultation, with many recognising that the size limit is below the size of maturity.

Given the support from submissions from TARFish, TSIC, SFAC and RecFAC—the DPIPWE recommends this measure be adopted.

There is also scope for improving education on striped trumpeter post release survivability via the Fishcare Program and in other information available for recreational fishers.

DPIPWE Recommendation Support the proposal to increase the minimum size limit of striped trumpeter to 550 millimetres—noting that this species has been assessed as transitional recovering for the past six years and that the biological size of maturity is 600 millimetres.

Alternative Minimum Size Limit of 600 mm

Specific comment was sought on an alternative minimum size limit of 60 cm for striped trumpeter to better reflect the biological size of maturity.

Outcome of public consultation Not all respondents made comment on potentially increasing the minimum size to 600 mm, but some that did supported a phased in approach to increasing the size limit in the future. Others felt that if the science supports 600 mm then that is what it should it be now.

The Tasmanian Game Fishing Association (TGFA) supports a staggered program to progressively increase the minimum size limit to the level of sexual maturity, which from IMAS assessment, is 60cm. “The size limit should certainly be increased, but it should be increased to 600 mm which is the size of maturity (SOM). The stock of striped trumpeter is not as large as it should be, due to overfishing, and increasing the size limit may be a solution to that problem. Bag/possession limit should also be reduced to two”.

A commercial fisher stated that “The average size in Banks Strait is normally well over 60cm, so 60cm as a minimum size would be fine, the smaller fish off long point (east coast) average around 50cm to 60cm for all of them”.

Environment Tasmania “strongly urges an increase in the minimum size limit for Striped Trumpeter to 70cm to allow the fish to reach maturity and reproduce for a number of years (or equivalent size of length of maturity plus three years). The minimum size limit for all scalefish should follow this rule—to allow the individuals to reproduce and replenish the population before being removed from the ecosystem”.


The TRLFA recommended that “DPIPWE announce a timeframe to increase the legal minimum size of striped trumpeter to 60cm. The TRLFA also question the point of having a closed season in State waters for this species that is not reciprocated in Commonwealth waters. While there will be compliance within the recreational fishery, those commercial fishers with a Commonwealth endorsement will continue to fish outside State jurisdiction”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported an action plan—which includes a time frame—for increasing the minimum size limit to 600 mm. No time frame was suggested by SFAC. The community and conservation member supported increasing the minimum size limit to 600 mm now.

The RecFAC generally support an increase to the minimum size limit to 600 mm. TARFish reiterate its support for a staggered increase to the minimum size limit for striped trumpeter to progressively increase the minimum size to 600 mm. No timeframe was suggested by RecFAC or TARFish.

Discussion Striped trumpeter is classified as transitional recovering in the most recent scalefish fishery assessment—and has been assessed at this classification for the past six years.

The statutory proposal at this time is for a size limit of 550 mm. This consultation process provides information to consider further statutory proposals for an increase to 600 mm, together with monitoring of the impacts and outcomes of a move to increase the minimum size limit to 550 mm.

DPIPWE Recommendation No statutory decision is required at this time. Any future move to increase to 600 mm will require the full statutory process and consideration as required by the Act.

Size limits for emerging species and others

Introduce size limits for emerging species and for common species as there are currently no defined size limits for several species. The minimum size limits proposed are:

King George whiting – 35 cm;

Tailor – 25 cm;

Yellowtail kingfish – 45 cm; and

Silver warehou – 25 cm (same as blue warehou)

Outcome of public consultation There were 364 responses to this question, with 66% generally supportive of introducing size limits for King George whiting, yellowtail kingfish and silver warehou, but not much support for a minimum size limit for tailor as it is frequently taken in Tasmanian waters.

There were differing views on what the minimum size limits should be with some believing 35 cm is too high for King George whiting and others suggesting 45cm was too low for yellowtail kingfish.


KING GEORGE WHITING

Some respondents claim that the minimum size limit may be too high and suggest that 30 – 32 cm would be more appropriate. A submission from a commercial fisher indicated that “the King George whiting limit would be better set at 32 cm. Larger fish often stay further offshore which limits the value of an inshore fishery”.

Another commercial fisher submission argued “Should be 30 cm. The minimum size limit in South Australia is 30cm while in Victoria it is 29cm. The suggested MSL of 35 cm will have a significant impact on the retained catch of King George Whiting by beach seine and purse seine methods with no scientific evidence of a benefit to the stock. There will also be a significant mortality of fish returned to the water between the size of 30 and 35 cm by line fishing.”

YELLOWTAIL KINGFISH

The range of submissions for yellowtail kingfish included the following:

“I strongly agree with the introduction of a size limit for the above species but having targeted kingfish for the last 4 years and caught over 150 individual fish. I believe that the size limit should be at least 50cm if not 55cm. Out of all the kingfish I've encountered only two below 45cms”.

“45cm is a small kingfish 55cm makes more sense”.

“I think that the size limit for yellowtail kingfish is too small. I would favour at least 55cm but preferably 60cm”.

“size for Kingfish is too small. In New Zealand is a lot bigger (75 cm??) and they are not usually kept unless 90 cm”.

“Thought Yellowtail Kingfish might have been alright a bit smaller”.

“Kingfish may need to be reassessed if we get some decent sized ones here in good numbers”.

“I think the kingfish size is too big, should be 35cm same as King George Whiting”.

TAILOR

For tailor, the submissions included the following:

“Tailor and Yellowtail Kingfish limits could be each 10cm higher”.

“Tailor seems a bit small”.


“It needs to be said, though, that if Tailor take off as a species here in Tasmanian waters that you are going to want as many taken as possible. They're marauders and will be a menace around the Salmon pens and for whitebait”.

“I do however believe that if the tailor limit is altered, then the salmon limit should be the same as I think a lot of people would not know the difference between the two”.

WAREHOU

For warehou, submissions included the following:

“Spotted trevally should be the same as snottys”.

"TSIC supports the rationale for imposing a minimum size limit for King George Whiting 35cm, Tailor 25cm, Yellowtail Kingfish 45cm and Silver Warehou 25cm.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC generally supported the size limit for King George whiting being set at 35 cm. One industry member did not support 35cm and believed this was too high and should be set at 30cm—the same as South Australia. Victoria has a minimum size limit of 29cm. This industry member also believes that this will become an increasingly popular species targeted by recreational fishers and that the survivability of this species when caught on a line is low. Another industry member disagreed stating that he personally (throughout the sampling program conducted in northwest Tasmania) caught one fish less than 30cm and that most caught were over 35cm.

Generally, the SFAC considered the available information better supported 35 cm, however, if the current research showed different final results, it was felt that the limit could be more easily reduced than increased.

The RecFAC supported the proposed minimum size limits with the exception of tailor. The RecFAC recommend no size limit for tailor. RecFAC recognise that there is limited knowledge on these species in Tasmanian waters. The size limits are recommended in the spirit of resource sharing and future work is needed to determine if they are biologically appropriate (SoM).

Discussion King George whiting may become an increasingly popular species targeted by both recreational and commercial fishers. Greg Jenkins (King George whiting researcher) states that, biologically, 35 cm is appropriate for Tasmania as this is the known size of maturity (SoM). The South Australian and Victoria size limits for King George whiting are set below SoM.

Anecdotally King George whiting caught on the east coast may be closer to 30 cm. If research can be shown that some areas need a smaller size limit then this may need further discussion.

King George whiting is considered an emerging species for both the commercial and recreational sectors and management goals in Tasmania are not yet clear. There was some discussion as to whether this species should be protected to SoM or not. Resource sharing is an appropriate rationale for introducing a size limit for this species.

Appropriate size for yellowtail kingfish size limit not clear as the minimum size limit for yellowtail kingfish varies in other States from 45 to 60 cm.


A significant number of submissions suggest that around 50 to 55 cm is an appropriate minimum size limit for yellowtail kingfish.

DPIPWE Recommendation Support the proposed size limits, noting researcher Greg Jenkins provided the view that the proposed minimum size limit of 35 cm for King George whiting “is about right”.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – SIZE LIMITS

4.2 Increase minimum size limit for Striped Trumpeter size from 500 mm to 550 mm.

SFAC Support increasing the size limit to 550 mm, but also support an action plan (including a time frame) for moving to 600 mm. The community and conservation member supports increasing the size limit to 600 mm now.

RecFAC Support increasing the size limit to 550 mm, but four members support moving to 600 mm now.

DPIPWE Support an increase to 550 mm.

Specific comment was sought on an alternative minimum size limit of 60 cm for striped trumpeter to better reflect the biological size of maturity.

SFAC Support an action plan with a time frame for increasing the minimum size limit of striped trumpeter to 600 mm.

RecFAC Generally support increasing the minimum size limit of striped trumpeter to 600 mm.

DPIPWE

The statutory proposal at this time is for a size limit of 550 mm. This consultation process provides information to consider further statutory proposals for an increase to 600 mm, together with monitoring of the impacts and outcomes of the move to 550 mm. A further proposal to move to 600 mm would require appropriate statutory process.

Introduce size limits for emerging species and for common species as there are currently no defined size limits for several species. The minimum size limits proposed are:

King George whiting – 35 cm;

Tailor – 25 cm;

Yellowtail kingfish – 45 cm; and

Silver warehou – 25 cm (same as blue warehou)

SFAC

Support King George Whiting being set at 35cm.

No objection to the proposed minimum size limit for Tailor.

Support the proposed minimum size limit of 45 cm for Yellowtail Kingfish for now—unless future research says otherwise.

Support the proposed minimum size limit of 25 cm for Silver Warehou for


now—unless future research says otherwise.

RecFAC Support the proposed size limits, except no limit for Tailor

DPIPWE Support the proposed size limits, except for Tailor. A size limit should not apply to Tailor at this stage.

Blue groper

Prohibit the take and possession of blue groper to assist in combating urchin barrens.

Outcome of public consultation There were 349 responses to this proposal of which 61% were supportive of banning the take of blue groper to assist in combating urchin barrens.

Few comments were received on this proposal with many stating that they had “never seen one” or “if they eat urchins – I am all for it”. Others were more cautious and wanted to know if there has “been any research into any potential negative impacts”. One respondent thought that banning the take of blue groper outright was “over the top as NSW rules shoe groper can thrive with a spearing ban and a small line bag limit, such rules would be more than adequate for tas”.

Others welcomed moves “to protect blue groper in an effort to reduce numbers of the invasive sea urchin”, with one stating “urchins are a real issue and I support this if it will help combat the urchins”.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust stated “Urchin barrens are a major and growing problem for Tasmania’s marine environment and recreational fisheries. This seems to be a low cost management decision. Unfortunately it is unlikely to have any meaningful effect. There needs to be changes to the management of the rock lobsters fishery that actually increases the numbers of ecologically significant larger rock lobsters in the environment to the point where they can once again control urchin numbers”.

TARFish supports the proposal due to their current low numbers and ability as a complementary measure in controlling Centrostephanus rodgersii. TARFish also notes what it perceives as an inconsistency between justifying protection of blue groper and the lack of support by the Government in relation to protecting large rock lobster, which have also been confirmed by IMAS as an effective controlling influence on Centrostephanus rodgersii.


The TRLFA fully supports the protection of blue groper. “As stated in the summary paper the blue groper is a predator of urchins and any predation on these species will aid in the prevention and spread of urchin barrens that threaten abalone and rock lobster habitat”.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported the proposal to ban the take of blue groper. The RecFAC support the proposal to ban the take of blue groper. TARFish also supports the proposal due to the current low numbers and ability as a complimentary measure in managing Centrostephanus rodgersii.

Discussion This is seen as a measure that will support controlling Centrostephanus rodgersii.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE supports the proposal to ban the take of blue groper.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – BLUE GROPER

SFAC Supports the proposal to ban the take of blue groper.

RecFAC Supports the proposal to ban the take of blue groper.

DPIPWE Supports the proposal to ban the take of blue groper.

Specialised Scalefish Fishing

Extend recreational fishing licence requirements to include ‘specialised scalefish’ activities. Which includes fishing for tunas, marlin, swordfish, striped trumpeter, blue-eye trevalla, mako or blue shark, and when using an electric fishing reel.

Outcome of public consultation The Minister made a decision not to introduce a recreational specialised scalefish fishing endorsement at the time of the release of the draft management plan for public exhibition—therefore there are no recommendations relating to this proposal.


Banded Morwong Fishery (commercial)

Commercial Banded Morwong Quota Management System

6.1 That the commercial banded morwong quota fishery is changed to a weight based quota management system.

The east coast commercial component of this fishery is managed by a Total Allowable Catch. Currently this is set as numbers of fish per quota unit instead of weight per quota unit as is used in other quota managed fisheries.

Outcome of public consultation There were 347 responses to this proposal with just over half neutral and just under half supportive. Of the commercial respondent, almost all supported moving to a weight based quota management system.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported moving the banded morwong fishery from a numbers to a weight based quota management system. This has been discussed and supported by industry for around three years.

The RecFAC supported moving the banded morwong fishery from a numbers to a weight based quota management system.

Discussion The Banded Morwong Fishery is a ‘live fish’ fishery. Retained fish are transported and sold to markets in Sydney and Melbourne alive in tanks. Banded morwong are already weighed when they are transferred to a processor as payment is made by weight not number of fish.

The stock assessment model also uses weight rather than numbers.

Most respondents did not provide any comment, and the majority appeared not to understand how a quota management system worked.

Commercial respondents supported moving to a weight based system—citing that this would be an improvement to the integrity of the quota management system.


There are currently 26 banded morwong licences—with around 10 to 14 of these being actively fished. Size limits apply to both the commercial and non-commercial sectors.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE supports the proposal to move the Banded Morwong Fishery from a numbers to weight based quota management system.

Commercial Banded Morwong Quota Unit Holdings

6.2 That the commercial banded morwong fishery quota holding limit holding be increased from 200 units to 230 units.

Due to the number of units in this fishery—a total of 1,193—there is already potential for less than 5.97 fishers to hold or benefit from the total number of units available. If the number of unit holdings increased to 230 units then this number would fall to 5.19 fishers.

Outcome of public consultation We received 343 responses to this proposal with more than half neutral.

Of those that opposed, most were non-commercial and—based on the supporting comments—appeared to misunderstand what quota unit holdings are.

In the Commercial Banded Morwong Fishery there are a total of 1,193 units available. Of these the current rule states that a person can only hold or benefit financially from a maximum of 200 units.

When setting the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) the total number of the TAC set is divided by 1,193 to obtain a value for each quota unit—for example the current unit value is 23 fish per quota unit. Increasing the maximum quota unit holdings does not mean that more fish are taken out of the water by inadvertently increasing the TAC.

Most commercial interests supported the proposal, however there was concern expressed about the potential for reducing the amount of units available for new entrants to the fishery as well as potentially all of the units being controlled by a small number of quota owners who are not necessarily fishers. This was felt to be detrimental to the fishery in the longer term.


There was also the view that if the maximum holdings were not increased then further cuts to the TAC in the future would make this fishery unviable for some operators, due to the static price per kilogram and rise in the costs of fishing.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The industry members of the SFAC expressed concern about the fishery being taken over by processor investors. It was highlighted that the current maximum unit holdings allow this to happen now and that increasing this limit to 230 units will not make much difference as this will not stop fishers selling their quota to investors if they choose to.

It was acknowledged that if the fishery wanted to remain as an owner/operator fishery then this should have been determined at the time part of the fishery moved to quota.

The RecFAC members generally had no strong view on this proposal. TARFish indicated it has some understanding of the problems and issues associated with this fishery and suggest the Total Allowable Catch should be reduced to effectively manage the fishery to ensure stock increases in a positive way. However, as stated above, this proposal only relates to the amount of quota units that a fisher can holder and has no impact on the catch limits set.

Discussion Some industry members have expressed concern that the proposed change would allow further concentration of quota ownership to processor investors—who would then have greater control of the fishery.

Many submissions appear to misunderstand what this proposal is about—i.e., quota unit holdings not quota unit value.

DPIPWE recommendation On balance, given the opposition from industry to this measure, the DPIPWE is prepared to drop this proposal and retain the status quo. However, it is also noted that retaining the current number of units allowed to be held will not address concerns raised that already effect the quota fishery.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – COMMERCIAL BANDED MORWONG

6.1 That the commercial banded morwong quota fishery is changed to a weight based quota management system.

SFAC Supports moving the Banded Morwong Fishery from a numbers to a weight based quota management system.

RecFAC Supports moving the Banded Morwong Fishery from a numbers to a weight based quota management system.

DPIPWE Supports moving the Banded Morwong Fishery from a numbers to a weight based quota management system.


6.2 That the commercial banded morwong fishery quota holding limit holding be increased from 200 units to 230 units.

SFAC The FAC generally supports leaving at 200 units.

RecFAC No strong view for or against.

DPIPWE On balance accept the current maximum of 200 units and not progress the proposal as released.

Administrative and Other Amendments

Spawning closures

7.1 That the current closed seasons for calamari/squid, striped trumpeter and banded morwong are incorporated in the Rules.

These closures are currently implemented via public notice. Incorporating these closures within the rules—whilst still allowing flexibility to change if new information warrants it—will allow long term planning for fishers of those species and be more cost effective from a management perspective.

Outcome of public consultation There were 353 responses to this proposal. There was overwhelming support from respondents—with 70% supporting the seasonal spawning closures being incorporated within the new rules.

A few comments suggested implementing spawning closures for other species such as flathead, bastard trumpeter and blue warehou stating that some populations require extra assistance to rebuild to healthier levels. One comment believes that Gould’s squid should be excluded from the calamari closure.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported this proposal.

The RecFAC supported this proposal.


Discussion It is more cost effective to include long term and established closures within the legislation and still maintains flexibility to change if new information warrants it.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE supports incorporating the seasonal closures for banded morwong, striped trumpeter and southern calamari/Gould’s squid within the new rules.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – CLOSED SEASONS

7.1 That the current closed seasons for calamari/squid, striped trumpeter and banded morwong are incorporated in the Rules.

SFAC Support

RecFAC Support

DPIPWE Supports including seasonal closures for banded morwong, striped trumpeter and southern calamari/Gould’s squid within the new rules.

North Coast Night Netting Endorsements

Specific comment is sought on moving from an annual endorsement for unattended gillnets and small mesh gillnets in north coast waters to more permanent arrangements, with two options retaining their non-transferable status or making this endorsement transferable.

Comment was sought on two options:

(i) Moving from an annual non-transferable endorsement for unattended gillnets and small mesh gillnets operating in north coast waters to more permanent non-transferable arrangements; or

(ii) Moving from an annual non-transferable endorsement for unattended gillnets and small mesh gillnets operating in north coast waters to more permanent transferable arrangements.

Outcome of public consultation There were 341 responses to this question. Unfortunately some responses may be invalid due to an issue with the online form relating to this proposal where the previous question on seasonal closures had been repeated. This was particularly relevant if respondents were not reviewing the background paper as they went through the response form.


As stated above, even though responses allude to 70% of respondents supporting this proposal, due to the issue with the draft proposal in the online response form this is not assumed to be accurate.

Responses from those that commented on the proposal were varied. Some believed there should be no such endorsement at all (i.e., all gillnets should be attended), some thought they should remain non-transferable and be phased out, and others supported transferability.

This proposal will require further consultation with the Fishery Advisory Committees, in particular RecFAC before a final recommendation can be made.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC acknowledged that there was no resolution required for this proposal. SFAC also recognised that there are some additional issues that needed to be fully considered before industry or Government could make firm policy recommendations.

The RecFAC acknowledged that there was no resolution required for this proposal.

Discussion An issue with the online form has clouded the results.

Further consultation will be undertaken with the Fishery Advisory Committees in the future.

DPIPWE Recommendation As no rule change is required to proceed with either of these options and in light of the issue with the online response form, the DPIPWE has determined that this proposal requires further consultation with the Fishery Advisory Committees before a final recommendation can be made.


FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY – COMMERCIAL UNATTENDED NIGHT NETTING ENDORSEMENTS

Comment was sought on two options:

(i) Moving from an annual non-transferable endorsement for unattended gillnets and small mesh gillnets operating in north coast waters to more permanent non-transferable arrangements; or

(ii) Moving from an annual non-transferable endorsement for unattended gillnets and small mesh gillnets operating in north coast waters to more permanent transferable arrangements.

SFAC No recommendation at this time.

RecFAC No recommendation at this time

DPIPWE No recommendation at this time

Administrative and other Amendments to the Management Plan

A number of minor administrative changes were identified that will provide for improved consistency across fisheries or to better clarify the intent and purpose of existing rules. These mostly relate to the commercial fishery.

Names of areas and fish species have also been updated to better reflect and identify them. These apply to both the commercial and recreational sectors.

These include:

Proposed Amendments

Clarifying the difference between gillnets and beach seine nets by improving the description of a beach seine net in the ‘Interpretation’ section. [draft rule 3]

Including Georges Bay in Schedule 6 so that all nets are banned [refer to draft rule 28].

Supported by SFAC and RecFAC

Clarifying area descriptions in draft schedules 2, 6 and 7, such as Anderson Bay, Southport, Southport Bay West, Duck Bay, Robbins Passage, Frederick Henry Bay and Norfolk Bay,

Adding new area definitions such as Waubs Bay, Eaglehawk Bay, Lillico Beach, Low Head, Musselroe Bay East, Parsonage Point, Neck Beach, Swanwick Bay, Macquarie Harbour Internal Waters, Birchs Narrows, Lower Birchs Inlet,

Removing Arch Island, which is now inside Nine Pin Point Marine Reserve

Supported by SFAC

Fixing error in rule that inadvertently stops a rock lobster package from using a wrasse licence attached to the package.[draft rule 88]

Supported by TRLFA

Fixing an error in rule that inadvertently limits the number of jigs that can Supported by TSIC


be used on an automatic squid jig machine by the holder of a scalefish A or B licence. The original intent was to limit the number of hand jigs not the number of jigs on an auto jig machine. [draft rule 42]

Redefine an ‘auxiliary vessel” [draft rule 3]

Remove the word ‘take’ from the definition of a “landing net” [draft rule 3]

Clarify that a fishing licence (scalefish C) can only be used by the holder of the licence—no supervisors are permitted on a scalefish C licence. [draft rule 55]

Change “or” to “and” to reflect intent of the rule which allows small mesh gillnets of 200 metres in length to be used up to a total of 600 metres [draft rule 45]

Changing ‘A person” to “The holder of a fishing licence (personal)” for the take and possession of octopus [draft rule 79(1)]

Updating species common names to the national standard fish names. Updating the definition of species where necessary. For example “inshore crab”, “Australian sardine” and include new fish as necessary—“morwong”, “warehou”, “whiting” etc. [schedule 1]

Adding a new subrule that reflects the new trip limit for striped trumpeter for commonwealth fishers [draft rules 56 & 57]

Outcome of public consultation There was no specific comment received on all of the above proposals, other than from the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council (TSIC), who generally supported the changes to draft rules 42, 88 and to the area descriptions.

Fishery Advisory Committee Recommendations The SFAC supported the changes as proposed.

The RecFAC supported reflecting the intent of no netting in Georges Bay with the rules prohibiting seine nets, cast nets and dip nets. No comment was provided on other proposed amendments.

Discussion None were raised.

DPIPWE Recommendation The DPIPWE supports the amendments as drafted.


3. Issues raised during public consultation

There were a number of issues that were raised in written responses during the public consultation period that were not addressed in the draft management plan—with some being outside the scope of this review. Some issues raised would require further consultation and may be considered for a future review, some would require no legislative changes and others were not relevant to the scalefish fishery management plan at all.

Issues that would require inclusion in the management plan

There were a number of issues that were raised that were not addressed in the draft management plan for this review, but may be considered in a future review of the scalefish fishery management plan if warranted.

These include:

Submission # Issue Response

24

Commercial and recreational fishers should be banned from netting any type of flathead. Netting, particularly by commercial fishers is harming viability of species.

Commercial netting for flathead is regulated by limited access, no netting areas and restrictions on the use of gear. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that commercial or recreational netting is having an unacceptable impact on flathead stocks.

27

Introduce a rule that commercial fishers are not to fish anywhere closer than 2 miles from the shores. The normal recreational fisher does not make as much damage as commercials do.

This would represent a significant impost on commercial scalefish fishing businesses and not considered warranted from the perspective of the management of fish stocks.

59 Should be a closed season on flathead to allow spawning.

Not considered necessary at this time. Management measures of reduced bag limits for non-commercial fishers and increased size limits for flathead species have been proposed to help protect flathead stocks.

75

If a licence system is implemented then it should be implemented across the board for all recreational fishermen. If the aim is to generate revenue to put towards management, research, compliance, communication and fisheries education it would make sense to make this across the board. The sand and king flathead fishery is arguably the most valuable of all as it is the

The Government has a policy that there will be no general saltwater rod and line licence


bread and butter of Tasmanian boating and it deserves to be treated with the same scrutiny and respect as the specialised scalefish fishery. (#75)

86

Ban gillnetting in all marine protected and conservation areas, including those in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. They are being destroyed by gillnets both by catching the fish and destroying the environment.

Gillnetting is banned in all marine protected areas. Draft rules provide for an increase in no gillnetting areas to reduce interactions adjacent to significant little penguin rookeries.

148 Progressively remove recreational gillnetting and reduction on set lines to promote a healthy sustainable fishery.

Further constraints on the use of recreational gillnets and set lines are provided for in draft rules to balance ongoing use of these gears while minimising negative environmental impacts.

226

If the banded morwong fishery is managed under quota then why can some fishers use 1,000 metres of net and others only 500 metres of net. The gear was allocated under general scalefish catch history and not banded morwong. The extra soak time for ‘A class’ licences is detrimental to the sustainable future of our fishery due to higher mortality rates, fish damage and seal interactions.

Amount of net used by commercial banded morwong fishers is dictated by the class of scalefish licence that they hold. This would need to be considered in a future review of the management plan and require preliminary consultation and support of the recognised fishing body and the Scalefish Fishery Advisory Committee.

231 Would like to see the pilchard fishery established and a provisional quota issued to applicants. It will provide jobs and opportunity.

The Minister has endorsed a developmental fishery for Australian sardines under permit.

298

Phasing out of gillnetting. Phase out monofilament and multifilament netting and introduce the return of cotton netting (it rots away if lost) also the use of hemp ropes and dissolvable buoys. Ghost netting is very real and any material that breaks down would be so beneficial to our underwater environment and lessening the need to ban netting altogether.

Further constraints on the use of recreational gillnets are provided for in draft rules to balance ongoing use of these gears while minimising negative environmental impacts

322 Banning the take of flounder by commercial fisher, other than taking by spear

This would represent a significant impost on commercial scalefish fishing businesses and is not considered warranted from the perspective of the management of fish stocks.


324, 325

Introduce a saltwater fishing licence and auxiliary gear endorsements. Only then can we move forward with sound scientific research involving fisher numbers and the amount, type of fish taken over time.

The Government has a policy that there will be no general saltwater rod and line licence

345

Need less pressure on our waters. Catches are way down and fishing numbers are soaring. Permanent reserves and rotating four year closure at least. No recreational netting.

Fisheries management processes based on adaptive management. Management measures have been and will continue to be implemented to deal with the dynamic nature of the fishery which attempt to balance sustainability and acceptable access to resources

371

The current catch limit for sardines should be removed as survey data suggests there is no sustainability risk to this species. The min mesh size of 30mm for all seine nets except purse seine is enough to restrict active targeting to the 10 x PS licences available.

The Minister has endorsed a developmental fishery for Australian sardines under permit.

413

The massive decline in blue warehou, Australian salmon and barracouta on the northwest coast needs drastic action. Prior to the 1960s there was aa thriving barracouta industry, but these fish are rarely seen today. Hundreds of anglers lined the mouth of the Blythe river catching Australian salmon up to the mid 1980s. Now there are no fish to catch. The once great blue warehou runs at Stanley Wharf are no more, when once the wharf was packed with fishermen catching 100+ fish a day in the 1970s. These fish need urgent protection and scientific study.

Recreational blue warehou bag limits have been halved in the draft rules and further restrictions placed on the use of gill nets.

In recent years the Commonwealth has implemented an incidental catch total allowable catch (TAC) of 118 tonnes to manage commercial blue warehou fishery in its waters and a harvest strategy to rebuild stocks.

Australian salmon stocks have been assessed as being sustainable.

421

Gillnets should not be used by recreational fishers. They kill little penguins, other seabirds and marine mammals and damage recreational fisheries. Fish trapped in gillnets for too long die and are wasted. Large net free areas should be created to rebuild the stocks of bastard trumpeter. Max soak times should be 2 hours for recreational gillnets. Nets should be attended so that they can be removed from the water if marine mammals or seabird approach or if weather conditions deteriorate. Attended netting would reduce the risk of gear being lost and ghost fishing.

Further constraints on the use of recreational gillnets are provided for in draft rules to balance ongoing use of these gears while minimising negative environmental impacts.


429 Restrict all gillnets to daylight hours, maximum soak time 2 hours to restrict seal interaction and loss of bycatch.


437

Beach seine net rules need to be changed allowing the towing of one side of the net to the other side of the net (point A to point B) which would enable the fisher to stay on board the vessel, as the current rules force us to jump in the water and be vulnerable to shark/stingray, and due to wearing waders it is only a matter of time before there is loss of life. Tasmanian beach seine rules should be in line with Welshpool rules to eliminate these dangers. Also need changes to mesh sizes for beach seine only. To be able to target such species as King George whiting, rock and sand flathead. As the current mesh net size at moment is too large and only targets breeding stock.

This was not an issue that was highlighted through the consultative processes undertaken as part of the current review. Would require consultation through a future review process.

439 The use of recreational gillnets should be phased out.


441

We support the proposal put forward by the Tasmanian Scalefish Fishermen’s Association (TSFA) calling for an increase in the trip limits for certain species in the undeveloped area on the west coast. The undeveloped area is defined as being between Whale Head and Cape Grim. We believe that by increasing trip limits to a higher number that there will not be significant increase in effort thus no significant increase to the risk of the stocks. It will simply allow the small number of scalefishers who fish the west coast to be more viable.

This proposal was not supported by the Minister to be advanced in this review.

441

There is evidence that there has been an increase in effort by fishers targeting calamari in the northwest. It would be reasonable to assume that the spawning behaviour of calamari in this area would be similar to that of calamari on the east coast. Given the paucity of sheltered spawning locations in the north west for calamari once hot spots are identified,

This issue is to be addressed through research to identify spawning “hotspots” with a view to future management through spawning closures.


out advice is that they are fished quite heavily in a short period of time. We believe that the Government needs to consider imposing interim measures to restrict effort on calamari in the north west as a matter of some urgency.

441

TISC supports the position of the TSFA that the non-transferable licences and endorsement remaining in the scalefish fishery should be made transferable. We believe that there are minimal, if any, issues relating to the sustainability of the stocks targeted by fishers who hold these licences and endorsements, including Danish seine licences.

This proposal was not supported by the Minister to be advanced in this review

445

Ban recreational gillnetting in all Tasmanian waters, but especially in estuaries and bays. While recreational fishing is a popular activity and line fishing is sustainable, recreational net fishing seems an anomaly as it allows for large scale and indiscriminate fishing.


447

Prohibit the take of southern garfish by dipnet. Southern garfish numbers have decreased quite dramatically over recent years and are extremely vulnerable to dipnetting over rocky headlands where they gather to spawn. Beach seining this species allows an area of protection due to being confined to a beach environment.

This was not an issue that was highlighted through the consultative processes undertaken as part of the current review. Would require consultation through a future review process

447

Moratorium on recreational graball nets for five years. Commercial small mesh gillnet between Cape Grim and Cape Naturaliste. Limit banded morwong net fishers to east coast and south east. To protect and rebuild stocks of blue warehou, bastard trumpeter, banded morwong, yellowtail kingfish and snapper. All are highly susceptible to netting. The northwest coast was traditionally frequented by blue warehou in the 1-2 yo age class (both western and eastern stocks, dependent on weather patterns and other factors. This species is in serious trouble and going on near absence in recent years. Need management intervention at Commonwealth level where stock collapse

Further constraints on the use of recreational gillnets are provided for in draft rules to balance ongoing use of these gears while minimising negative environmental impacts. Bag limits have been reduced for blue warehou and bastard trumpeter in the draft rules by half.

In recent years the Commonwealth has implemented an incidental catch total allowable catch (TAC) of 118 tonnes to manage commercial blue warehou fishery in its waters and a harvest strategy to rebuild stocks.

447, 451

Limit commercial access to southern calamari on the north coast to holders of a small mesh gillnet, with all other scalefish licence holders limited to 10 in a 24 hour period.

This would represent a significant restriction on the access rights of commercial scalefish fishing licence holders and would require


thorough consultation through a future review process.

448, 449

That the Tasmanian Government to support a healthier, more abundant and productive coast by phasing out recreational gillnets in Tasmanian waters by November 2016.

Further constraints on the use of recreational gillnets are provided for in draft rules to balance ongoing use of these gears while minimising negative environmental impacts

450

Blue warehou is identified as overfished and is known to be a recreational fishing favourite, however proposals in the review seem insignificant compared with the population status concern. Recommend that the recreational bag limit is reduced to 5, with relative increases for possession and boat limits, and a minimum size applied.

Bag limits have been reduced by half for blue warehou and bastard trumpeter in draft rules.

451

Spatial management of southern calamari in the north west. Alternative to limiting to small mesh gillnet fishers is to use catch history to limit access to calamari on the north coast. Disappointed that proposals to manage increasing pressure on calamari on the north coast were not included.

This issue is to be addressed through research to identify spawning “hotspots” with a view to future management through spawning closures


Issues that would require no changes to the legislation

Below are issues raised that are policy or education based and would not require any legislative amendments to the management plan.

These include:


66

International or foreign fishers are unaware or ignorant of the fishing legislation, ie legal size and bag numbers. I have observed that Asian fishermen will take anything and everything they catch with no regard to the law. I have tried to be educational where possible but it is met with either confusion or anger. Suggest supplementary signage on the fish boards in Chinese to at least cover size and bag limits and prohibited catches or graphical representation to the same effect.

Being addressed through the FishCare program

159

Commercial fishers should be banned from River Derwent estuary, Great Oyster Bay and Mercury Passage. I am certain that these operations take large numbers of fish that would be undersize. If we are serious about protecting fish stocks around our state, this move is essential.

Restrictions already exist for commercial fishers in these areas.

There is one commercial endorsement that allows a Danish seine operator access to a limited area in the mouth of the River Derwent. No commercial gillnetting is permitted in the River Derwent.

Great Oyster Bay and Mercury Passage are Shark Refuge Areas and the limited number of commercial operators that have access to these areas hold a gillnet endorsement to do so. Danish seine operators are required to operate one nautical mile offshore and are not permitted to operate in Mercury Passage or Great Oyster Bay. Maps are available in the commercial scalefish fishery section at www.fishing.tas.gov.au

184

‘No fish reserves’ – for example, No fishing in the northern half of the Channel for 18 months. Then open the northern half and close the southern half for 18 months. Divide the State into sections and move the reserves around to give thing a

Rotational ‘no fishing’ areas would require extensive consultation given impacts on both commercial and


chance to repopulate. It would need to include both commercial and recreational fishermen. Stop all inshore netting that involves towed nets.

recreational fishers.

Mechanically towed nets in State waters are restricted to Danish seining operations. This activity is restricted by licences, gear and area closures—and is not considered to be having an unacceptable impact on fish stocks.

193

To allow scalefishers more flexible rules concerning our FLV and endorsements and entitlements like the ab divers have. I have 2 FLV and 2 vessels and 1 entitlement. Why can’t I use both vessels independently on the one entitlement like ab divers can. I can keep changing the licence from one vessel to another but the costs are too much. Why my entitlement is attached to an FLV where it’s not transferable or able to be leased its my licence and I’m the only one able to use it! It should be attached to my personal licence and then I could use my vessels independently on the one entitlement as a package.

An abalone diver can still only use one FL(V) at any one time. They cannot dive off two vessels on the same trip, and to use multiple vessels, they would need to have a FL(V) on each vessel.

It is the scalefish licence package that authorises the fishing, not an authority relating to the individual. The FL(P) only authorises a fisher to take fish for sale.

291 & 302

That a Code of Practice (CoP) be developed for recreational fishers to encourage recreational users to be responsible in developing their resources. Representation from DPI and fishing groups. Representation to be equal across the Board.

Recreational CoP to be developed by the recreational recognised fishing body and facilitated for Ministerial approval by the DPIPWE if appropriate.

381

The development of a Code of Practice for recreational fishers using Macquarie Harbour. This would need to be done in conjunction with equal representation from DPIPWE, the community and interested organisations.

Recreational CoP to be developed by the recreational recognised fishing body and facilitated for Ministerial approval by the DPIPWE if appropriate.


Issues not relevant to the scalefish fishery management plan

Issues that are not relevant to the scalefish fishery management plan at all and relate to other fisheries or marine resources generally.


11

Pay recreational divers a royalty on the removal of sea urchins. I believe this would work. It’s getting harder and harder to catch an abalone or crayfish, so why not earn a quid while one is doing what they love.

Research work has demonstrated that culling of sea urchins is ineffective in combatting Centrostephanus in any situation other than for extremely small localised areas.

13

Should be an UPPER size limit for rock lobster and the daily take of abalone should be reduced to six. Concerning amateur scallop season, given the distance we have to travel and the fact that the season is largely in the cooler months I think we could have a greater daily catch, say 75 or even 100.

Rock lobster, abalone and scallop fisheries management issues

62

Commercial fishing for crayfish should be banned for professional fisherman to a set distance from shortline. Every year, the week before the cray season starts they pound the coast with craypots and fish out areas for everyone else.

Rock lobster fishery management issue

68 Increase size limit of crays by 5mm male and female to increase stocks long term.


90

Crayfish should have a maximum size limits as well as minimum. Large crays are not that good for eating and need to stay in the water as are vital for breeding and combating the introduced sea urchin.


127

More policing by fisheries person not a cop. Boating restrictions need to be clarified – no grey areas. Ban drinking and fishing. Encourage recreational fishing for younger persons.

Policing/compliance issue

134 How about the government address climate change as an issue that may/is having a significant impact on recreational fish species.

Climate change is one of many complex issues that is addressed through the adaptive management approach applied to fisheries management

142 Rewards or bounties should be offered to people who bring ashore exotic or introduced species such as northern pacific seastar, sea urchins, carp

These proposals have been considered in the past and found to be unfeasible with little


and atlantic salmon. impact on the target pest species.

147 All fisherman are complaining about the amount the increased number of seals that are plundering the fish stocks.

Seals are a protected species under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

157 Put female crayfish up to 110mm the same as males to give them extra time to breed before they can be taken.


164 We need more sea fishery inspectors checking the recreational catches.


186

The taking of crayfish by recreational divers should be banned. It’s the most unsporting way to catch crayfish and is abused by non-divers with a dive licence from receiving crayfish from a licenced working diver. It has been abused for far too long.


266

Macquarie Harbour: over past 10 years, skate are found in waters 10 m or more with native fish, flounder/ling/cod numbers have dropped dramatically due to “who knows”. Local evidence suggests introduction of farm fishing has harmed local species. Also noted “oil slicks” are more common in harbour leaving a residue on local shores. A lot of green “weed” seems to have appeared in still waters/backwaters, which was not common some years ago.

Marine farm management issue

288

A reduction in abalone catch to 5 from 10. Also a limit of divers that are air assisted for crayfish from Stanley boat ramp to west point from 5 to 3 and a boat limit of 6. Stanley has been targeted by divers that are taking a lot of crayfish. As Stanley is a popular tourist and fishing spot we believe the reduction would be beneficial in the long term.

Abalone fishery and rock lobster fishery management issues

294

Seals – DPIPWE and Gov are preaching fish conservation but are allowing seals to be relocated north to establish new colonies over the last 10 years, they have minimal natural predators and the rabbits of the sea. We struggle to release undersize fish.

Seals are a protected species under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

322

Rec cray fishers should not be allowed to use assisted air such as hookers or scuba tanks. They can denude an area of crayfish very quickly, with little effort.


355 For recreational scallop situation there should be a season quota not a daily one. It is far too

Scallop fishery management


expensive to go out and get 40/50 scallops. Say a season limit of 200-300 scallops. Maybe issue the participant non-reusable tags and clear bags which hold say 50 scallops giving the diver the option to take all or some on any particular day.

issue

361

Create marine parks at Fortescue Bay, Wineglass Bay, Warbs Bay, Adventure Bay and other appropriate locations with no pot or net fishing, but allow handline or rod. This will allow rock fisher or small boat fishers to catch common species, but allow crayfish and other species to breed in protected areas, control urchins and assist in retaining kelp forests and populate nearby areas.

The current Government policy is of a moratorium on the introduction of any new MPAs in State waters.

366

Some zones/areas should be shut off from commercial rock lobster fishers. On too many occasions I have seen commercial fishers bombard areas, which would totally rape the area. i.e. 30 pots in 100m2. There must be spots in Adventure Bay out to Penguin Isand and say from Crescent Bay near Port Arthur across to the eastern headland (sorry don’t know proper names) that could be restricted to recreational fishers.


372

There needs to be some independent research into whether fish farms have any effect on our native species. This will clarify either way whether it has had an effect or not. Fishing has been getting poorer in the Channel since the introduction of fish farms and many people believe fish farms are a significant cause.

Marine farm management issue

388 Increase statewide policing of laws. This will have the biggest impact on recreational fishing.


450

We urge the DPIPWE to support the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of protected areas around Tasmania that can protect samples of our unique marine biodiversity and ecosystems and provide valuable baseline data to compare other impacts outside of these areas.

The current Government policy is of a moratorium on the introduction of any new MPAs in State waters.


4. APPENDICES

Written submissions received

Submission # Respondent Organisation

150 Phil Scherer Seahorse Electric Kontikis

285 Brian Gardiner West Coast Recreation Association Inc

371 Grant Leeworthy Fishermen Direct Pty Ltd

381 Bill Grining Fish-West

398 Tim Mirabella Commercial fisher

402 Angela Matthews Owner/operator Zulu Charterz

404 Greg Quinn Owner/operator Zulu Charterz

420 President Tasmanian Game Fishing Association

441 Neil Stump Tasmanian Seafood Industry Association (TSIC)

442 Anthony Klye Commercial fisher

443 Shane Bevis Tasmanian Scalefish Fishermen’s Association (TSFA)

444 Mark Nikolai Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing (TARFish)

445 Susan Henn

446 Brett Sharp

Michael Kent Sea Charter Boat Operators of Tasmania

447 Craig Garland Commercial fisher

448 Petition (6,259 signatures)

Environment Tasmania

449 Petition Various Business and organisations

450 Rebecca Hubbard Environment Tasmania

451 David & Colleen Osborne

Commercial fishers

452 Dr Eric J Woehler Birdlife Tasmania

453 John Sansom Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s Association (TRLFA)


Submissions received via the online response forms

Proposal # Title

2.1 Appropriate recreational fishing methods (37pp)

2.2.1 Recreational gillnets – use and compliance (37pp)

2.2.2 Gillnet free areas – Seabirds (175pp)

2.3 Macquarie Harbour – recreational soak times (35pp)

2.4 Macquarie Harbour – Extension to TWWHA (16pp)

2.5.1 Robbins Passage – ban use of seine nets (16pp)

2.6 Recreational set lines (50pp)

2.7 Use of spears (31pp)

2.8 Auxiliary fishing gear [apparatus] (33pp)

2.9 Non-commercial bait pumps and bait traps (30pp)

2.10 Berley and bait use (81pp)

3 Recreational catch limits (79pp)

4.1 Flathead (100pp)

4.2 Striped trumpeter (27pp)

4.3 Ban take of blue groper (22pp)

4.4 Size limits for emerging and other species (22pp)

5 Specialised scalefish licence (proposal withdrawn)

6 Commercial banded morwong (44pp)

7.1 Formalise spawning closures for calamari, banded morwong and striped trumpeter (21pp)

7.2 Permanent arrangements for north coast night netting endorsements (17pp)

7.3 (i) Specific comment on administrative and other amendments (25pp)

7.3 (ii) Other issues not addressed in this process, including supporting rationale (31pp)