130908a Draft Garfish Position and Strategy

7/29/2019 130908a Draft Garfish Position and Strategy

1/13

Development Recreational Fishing Committee

GARFISH EXPLOITATION

Consultation Draft Position Paper and StrategyEndorsed for release for comment - 4

thSeptember 2013

Page 1

1. BACKGROUND

In late 2012 the Metropolitan Fishers Alliance (MFA) approached the Department of PrimaryIndustries and Regions (PIRSA) seeking attendance of senior policy officers at a full meeting of thecommittee to explore concerns related to the management of Garfish across South Australia. Thisconcern was fuelled by regular exposure to the problems of Garfish, an apparent over exploitationof the biomass by commercial fishing, and allegations that the specie was in danger of imminentcollapse. Further, there was anecdotal evidence of a severe decline in the recreational catch.PIRSA were not prepared to attend a full meeting of the MFA but offered to receive a smalldelegation to discuss concerns.

In 2013 the MFA morphed into the Development Recreat ional Fishing Committee (DRFC) withrecognition as a Recreational Fishing Committee (RFC) under the umbrella of RecFishSA/PIRSA.

Subsequently a further invitation was made to PIRSA to attend a full meeting and this occurred inAugust 2013. Senior Officers of PIRSA provided a full and professional briefing to the DRFC andfollowed up with additional material related to the management of the specie experienced in otherstates and also a South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) report onpromoting stock recovery of the fishery. The time afforded by the PIRSA senior officers for thatevening presentation is appreciated.

The PowerPoint presentation by PIRSA which is attached as Appendix A provides a basicoverview of the situation. The presentation was accompanied by a verbal presentation andsubstantial question time to clarify the situation.

1.1. The Essentials

The recreational sector is hamstrung in its capacity to conduct its own full and peer reviewedresearch by the serious under-resourcing of the peak body - RecFishSA. This issue iscanvassed in greater detail in another DRFC Position Paper (entitled Recreational Fishing Representation and Resourcing Issues). In order to fully understand the linkages of fisheryissues (to appropriate resources) this paper should be read in conjunction with that paper.

The DRFC understand that the essence of the problem in relation to garfish is:-

The fishery is overfished; in serious decline and has reached its lowest level since recordsbegan in 1983/84 (McGarvey et al, 2009) (Steer et al 2012).

The garfish population could collapse (McGarvey et al, 2009) The exploitation rate is currently 70% but should be reduced to 30% to be sustainable -

PIRSA target.

The mortality rate (post release) for the specie is almost 100%.

The implemented and proposed management control arrangements are: -

o To increase the mesh size of nets.

o To impose some short-term closures of the fishery (at different times in both Gulfs).

o To further address the issue in the Recreational Boat, Bag and Size limit review.

o To undertake further recreational fishing surveys.

o To aim for the exploitation rate to be reduced to 30% by 2020.


2/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 2

1.2. SARDI Reports

In September 2009 SARDI provided a comprehensive Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSAon the garfish situation (the 4th in a series since 1997). The report noted that: -

In 2007/2008 the value of the landed catch of garfish in South Australia was $2.058 million,making it the fourth most valuable species in the Marine Scalefish fishery, behind KingGeorge whiting, snapper, and southern calamari (Knight and Tsolos 2009).

The State-wide commercial fishery statistics since 1983/84 are dominated by a decliningtrend in fishing effort due to the long- term decline in licensed fishers. This decline wasfurther accelerated in 2005 by the net buy-back scheme.

The recreational harvest constituted a greater share of the total catch in Gulf St Vincent, atabout 24% of the total.. In Spencer Gulf, the recreational fisher took about 14% of the

garfish by weight. The fisheries for garfish are now concentrated in NGSV and NSG, which are both

dominated by the haul net sector. For both regions the garfish fishery is heavily exploited,and each regional population is severely truncated.

It is apparent that the South Australian garfish fishery is now largely based on a single yearclass whose biomass varies from year-to-year depending on recruitment success. For suchpopulations for which there is only minimal biomass stored in the older age classes, futurerecruitment and biomass are particularly vulnerable. This is because the strength of eachyear class becomes critically linked to the strength and spawning success of the precedingone. Thus, if a year class fails to spawn due to low egg production, or if recruitment failsdue to unfavourable environmental conditions, the population could collapse.

In October 2012 SARDI provided a further comprehensive assessment report (the 5th in theseries). The report confirmed that: -

The Garfish Fishery has remained at depressed levels since the 2000/2001 decline.

.not given any indication of recovery

Thus South Australias Garfish Fishery remains over-exploited.

The recreational sector has accounted for about 20%... of the State -wide garfish catch.

Seven of the ten biological performance indicators were breached. These were primarilyrelated to high exploitation rates and low estimates of egg production in both gulfs.

The key feature of this fishery is that its status has remained largely unchanged since thelast stock assessment despite the enhanced management framework that wasimplemented in 2005.

Funds for the research were obtained by PIRSA through commercial licence fees.

1.3. Relationship with Gulf St. Vincent Marine Park Sanctuary Zone

During the marine park process an area at the top of Gulf St Vincent was established as aSanctuary Zone. The establishment of this Zone was a result of deliberations by the MarineParks Local Advisory Group (MPLAG), agreements reached in the Premier's PeakStakeholder Workshop that examined all MPLAG advices for Sanctuary Zones around state

waters, and subsequent representations by SARFAC (now RecFishSA). The representationswere made on the basis that the area was considered a critical marine habitat and such aZone would provide relief as a spawning and breeding ground for a number of species


3/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 3

including for the dire garfish situation. The Zone has been the subject of a well organised andpublic campaign seeking to review the Zone on the basis of commercial considerations.

The DRFC is under the impression that the Government does not have the will to actdecisively in the short term to turn around the serious decline in the Garfish fishery in Gulf St.Vincent (e.g., by buying out the Commercial netters or closing the fishery for a significantperiod to allow it to fully recover). Accordingly, the DRFC intends to lobby the Governmentand the Opposition to save the garfish fishery and to preserve this area of marine habitat insupport of Garfish and many other marine and scalefish species.

One option worth exploration is for a whole of government approach to this MarinePark/Conservation and Fisheries Management issue (based on a commitment to threat basedmanagement). Consideration could be given to a joint DEWNR/PIRSA buy out of provencommercial effort in the Zone and progressing its status as a Sanctuary as per Marine Park or

Fishery management legislation.

1.4. Comment on Commercial bias within PIRSA

DRFC are of the view that PIRSA do not give sufficient weight to the recreational sector (infact a significant bias towards commercial interests exists) when developing fisherymanagement policy such as (but not exclusive to) garfish.

Whilst there is evidence of some increasing attention being given to the recreational sector(including its needs and its value) by PIRSA, the DRFC is of the view that more urgency needsto be applied to this cultural disparity in the Department.

This issue will be pursued as part of a broader representation and funding strategy. However

to ensure the context and importance of recognising the value of the sector and resourcing itto be able to better make representations on issues such as this - the matter is furtherexplored in Appendix C.

If the Department has any hope of pursu ing the co-management proposals currently beingdeveloped, this issue needs to be understood as having a significant impact on issues such asgarfish management.

2. DRFC CONCERNS/OPTIONS

2.1. Clearly the fishery is over fished, currently exploited beyond internationallyacceptable levels and is in danger of collapse.

2.2. Fishery Management actions over the last decade have not seen anysignificant improvement in the dire situation.

2.3. The recreational fishing sector is frustrated by the absence of resourcing toenable effective research and representation on major issues of concern suchas garfish management.

It is acknowledged that the Marine Fishers Association has been pro-active intheir aim to promote the recovery of the garfish fishery and dedicatedcommercial fishers have actively contributed to research and reports. Howeverthe recreational sector has not been sufficiently resourced or involved to providea similar contribution.

2.4. There is insufficient research of the economic and social value of recreationalfishing and as a consequence a Departmental culture has developed of notfully appreciating the potential for constructive and informed input from therecreational fishing sector.


4/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 4

PIRSA have acknowledged that it has a bias towards the commercial sectorand only recently has made some efforts to engage with the recreational sector

more regularly and support additional Recreational Fishing Committees torectify that deficiency.

PIRSA have acknowledged that there is little research and understanding of theeconomic and social value of recreational fishing in South Australia.

2.5. Too Little too Late

The DRFC has no confidence that the current and proposed managementarrangements will have any major short/medium/long term effect on the seriousdecline of the fishery.

PIRSA's stated aim for a sustainable fishery by 2020 based on trials of nets andengaging only with the commercial sector is highly questionable when it is clear

that urgent action is required.

To suggest that closures of the fishery for a few weeks will have a marked effecton holistic recovery of the specie stretches credibility (considering managementactions over the last seven years).

2.6. Mortality Rate/Mesh Sizes

Experienced recreational garfish anglers are not surprised by the statistic thatmortality rates (post release) of the specie is almost 100%

In the presentation to DRFC, PIRSA acknowledged that the specie isparticularly vulnerable to handing, net damage and/or losing scales.

Despite this knowledge a key platform of the management plans is to increasethe mesh size of nets (which in the opinion of DRFC may do little to amelioratedamage to small fish).

It is important to note that there has been much effort and discussion by theGarfish Working Group about the move to a larger 32mm mesh size and howthis would reduce the capture of undersized garfish and promote stockrecovery. However the importance of this factor as a key stock recoverymanagement tool has already been played down by SARDI in its ResearchReport Series No 658 (2012) p72.

2.7. Dab Fishing

A dab and line only fishery would significantly decrease the catch by virtue ofthe fact that the necessary criteria for dabbing are: calm conditions and amoonless/overcast night. Obviously line fishing is much more timeconsuming/inefficient and will have less impact on the total catch (if combinedwith a netting ban).

Furthermore, dabbing would enable size selection, thereby dramaticallyreducing the mortality of undersize fish that results from hooking/nettingmethods. Another benefit is that larger fish bring higher prices, thereby reducingthe number of fish required to make a living.

2.8. Understanding of Spawning

After the PIRSA presentation, members of the DRFC were left with an impression

that the spawning habits and critical locations to protect garfish were not clearlyunderstood. Further research on these issues is considered important.


5/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 5

2.9. PIRSA's Cultural Attitude - All Sectors to Share the Pain

In the view of DRFC, the seriousness of the Garfish situation IS NOT the fault of(or affected in any significant way by) the recreational fishing sector.Recreational fishers are concerned about the health of fisheries in which itparticipates and wish to participate more actively in an informed way now and inthe future.

DRFC believe that the problem of decline in the Garfish population (in bothGulfs) is due to commercial over fishing (mainly with nets) and not in anysignificant way due to recreational fishing activity.

Nevertheless, to show good faith, some concession could be made by therecreational sector provided that comprehensive changes are made tosignificantly and immediately reduce the commercial take towards a speedy

recovery of the garfish fishery.2.10. Marketing of undersize Gar

The DRFC is aware of undersized garfish being sold on the retail market andbelieve that the seriousness of the situation is not appreciated fully within thecommercial sector. (See Appendix B).

2.11. Actions and Options considered

The following (not necessarily individually exclusive or in order of priority) optionswere considered in developing a firm position in relation to this matter: -

Advise PIRSA that the DRFC has no confidence in the measures and timeframeof its proposed management arrangements.

Close the fishery in both Gulfs to commercial and recreational fishers until suchtime as quantitative and qualitative proof can be established that the specie hascommenced significant recovery towards a sustainable 30% exploitation rate.However, from a practical point of view, it may not be possible to achieve a banon recreational anglers where garfish may be taken by accident when fishing forother species. It is the experience of many recreational fishers that any garhandled (which would include those caught inadvertently) are likely to die.

Close the fishery in both Gulfs for commercials only. In these circumstancesthe Government may need to develop a fair and equitable compensatory (oreven buy out) package for commercial fishers affected by any closure of thefishery.

Make the fishery a dab and line fishery only until such time as it could bedemonstrated that egg production and recruitment had increased to sustainablelevels.

Significantly increase the short-term closures being implemented by PIRSA.

Adjust the boat/bag limits and size for recreational fishers (only as part of apackage of measures and after broad consultation with the recreationalsector). DRFC consider the following might be reasonable: -

Halve the personal bag limit from 60 fish to 30 fish, halve the boat limit from180 fish to 90 fish, AND

Increase the legal length from 230mm to 280mm. The DRFC is unequivocalthat (if adopted) these length changes must be applied to bothcommercial and recreational sectors.


6/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 6

Close specific areas for trial purposes based on spawning or threat basedresearch.

3. CRITICAL SITUATIONS REQUIRE DRASTIC MEASURES

The overriding protection of the South Australian Garfish fishery (as an iconic specie)for future generations requires strong leadership and actions that can bring resultsmuch sooner than 2020.

The major reason for the current crisis is that the management of the fishery hascreated a situation whereby the commercial sector has been allowed to fish thespecie potentially to the point of collapse.

The DRFC are concerned that previous fishery management initiatives over the last 7to 10 years have had little effect on the recovery of the fishery.

The DRFC are very concerned that the management arrangements currentlyproposed by PIRSA will not be effective - the fishery may still collapse - and PIRSAdoes not acknowledge the urgency of necessary and significant management actions.

The DRFC do not believe that the extraction rates and management arrangementsactioned so far (and proposed) represent anything like PIRSA's regularly statedmantra that the Department is: Widely viewed as a national leader in fisheriesmanagement

A drastic measure such as complete closure of the fishery (for a period say 3 years)would not be appreciated or readily accepted by the recreational or commercialsectors and the economic and social impacts are likely to be significant. However the

DRFC is of the view that at the very least there should be a significant reduction toextraction levels until the fishery is able to recover to levels that will sustain thetargeted 30% exploitation rate. Therefore, a complete closure for a recovery period isan option that should receive serious and ongoing consideration. DRFC understandsthat complete closure of the fishery may invoke significant political pressure and hasthe potential for displaced effort to impact on other iconic recreational species (andcost to Government).

4. DRFC FINAL POSITION

4.1. The DRFCs preferred position is the immediate closure of the fishery (for say 3years) to commercial netting in both Gulfs (and restrict fishing to dab and line fishing

only) until such time as quantitative and qualitative proof is produced that the speciehas commenced significant recovery towards a sustainable 30% exploitation rate.

4.2. The DRFC seek the application of resources within PIRSA/Government to furtherunderstand the spawning habits and critical locations to further facilitate informedmanagement decisions in relation to the specie.

4.3. The DRFC seek the development and resourcing of a PIRSA sponsoredrecreational community engagement and educational process to facilitate greaterunderstanding of the garfish situation, the need for change and involvement of thesector in the research and decision making processes.

4.4. If the Government and PIRSA cannot support an immediate short term closure of

the commercial fishery, urgent consideration needs to be given to:-1. Imposing additional restrictions on the commercial take (consistent with the

threat to the specie) such as significantly increasing the current proposals forshort-term closures in both Gulfs.


7/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 7

2. Developing options for the area in the top of Gulf St Vincent being a fishingSanctuary as part of a fisheries management initiative utilising the provisions of

the Fisheries Management Act 2007 or pursuing the Marine Park Sanctuarystatus of the area as part of a threat based approach including a jointDEWNR/PIRSA buy out of netting licenses in this area.

3. Developing a rationale for recreational bag/boat limits consistent with the threatto the specie.

4. Additional resources being applied to policing the wholesale fish market forundersize fish.

5. Committing now to closing the fishery to commercial netting in both Gulfs if the2015 SARDI Assessment finds insufficient improvement towards a sustainable30% exploitation rate.


8/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 8

REFERENCES

The following references were consulted in the development of this paper. Their availability in thePublic space is appreciated.

Southern Garfish (Hyporhamphus melanochir) Fishery Fishery Assessment Report toPIRSA. R McGarvey, A. J Fowler, J.E.Feenstra, P.Burch and W.B.Jackson September2009. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000720-2.

Southern Garfish (Hyporhamphus melanochir) Fishery Fishery Assessment Report toPIRSA. M.A.Steer, R McGarvey, A. J Fowler, P.Burch J.E.Feenstra, W.B.Jackson andM.T.Lloyd October 2012. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000720-3.

Wild Fisheries Promoting stock recovery through the standardisation of fishing gear:streamlining the hauling of net sector of South Australias Garfish Fishery. M.A. Steer, R.McGarvey, A.J.Fowler, W.B.Jackson and M.T.Lloyd SARDI Publication No.F2011/000412-1.

Report From Little Things Big Things Grow: Transforming Relationships with SouthAustralias Recreational Fishing Sector- Lessons in stakeholder engagement. May 2012Ms Rebecca Lang

http://recfishsa.com.au/media_releases/fisheries-move-to-protect-garfish-stocks/
http://recfishsa.com.au/media_releases/fisheries-move-to-protect-garfish-stocks/http://recfishsa.com.au/media_releases/fisheries-move-to-protect-garfish-stocks/http://recfishsa.com.au/media_releases/fisheries-move-to-protect-garfish-stocks/


9/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 9

APPENDIX A

PIRSA Power Point Presentation

Note: A PDF file of this Presentation is attached separately


10/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 10

APPENDIX B

A PICTURE TELLS A THOUSAND WORDS

The first photograph was taken on 29th August 2013 in the fresh fish bar in a supermarket inAdelaide. The Garfish (Whole) price per kilogram in this supermarket has reduced in the lastyear from $18/Kg to its current price of $9.98/Kg. According to the Manager of the fresh fishbar, these fish do not sell at all well but are stocked for appearance to attract shoppers to buyat the fish bar. The fish stay in the tray and are thrown out when their condition deteriorates. 2fish were randomly selected and purchased for the purpose of measurement. The secondphoto shows those fish are just under the legal size for Garfish of 23 cm measured from tip ofthe upper jaw to the tip of the tail. There were smaller fish in the tray. PIRSA should police thewholesale fish market for compliance.


11/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 11

APPENDIX C

Comment on Commercial bias within PIRSA

A related issue is that the DRFC are of the view that PIRSA do not give sufficient weight to therecreational sector (in fact a significant bias towards commercial interests exists) when developingfishery management policy such as (but not exclusive to) garfish.

Whilst there is evidence of some increasing attention being given to the recreational sector(including its needs and its value) the DRFC is of the view that more urgency needs to be appliedto this cultural disparity in the Department.

If the Department has any hope of pursuing the co -management proposals currently being

developed, this issue needs to be understood as having a significant impact on issues such asgarfish management.

In May 2012 Ms Rebecca Lang (PIRSA employee) prepared a report (as partial fulfilment of therequirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Change)titled From Little Things Big Things Grow: Transforming Relationships with South AustraliasRecreational Fishing Sector - Lessons in stakeholder engagement.

The report provides interesting insights into relationships with the recreational fishing sector whichconfirms the opinion of the DRFC that the value of the sector is not appreciated and insufficientengagement has occurred in relation to management of garfish as one example.

As alluded to previously, the matter of recreational fishing representation, funding and consultationwill be the subject of a more detailed and specific DRFC Position Paper, but it is relevant to thisissue to include some excerpts from Ms Lang's report:-

Page 52In focussing on building an effective approach to engaging the recreational fishing sector, the projectsignalled a new direction for Fisheries. It raised questions for the project team about the expectationsFisheries management had of their role in working with the recreational sector. Everybody on the teamalready had a full workload and, for some, this involved working solely with the commercial sector. Thismeant that any work with recreational anglers would be in addition to their current work commitments.

Page 55There are a myriad of clubs and groups dedicated to fishing in South Australia, such as amateur anglingclubs, sports fishing clubs, fresh water fishing clubs, lure fishing clubs, etc. Although many of these clubsare members of the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council (SARFAC), not all are. Inaddition, many of the 240,000 people who fish do so to get away from it all and are not members of aclub or association. This lack of an established structure across the whole sector made the idea ofengaging with recreational fishers a daunting one and highlighted just how important PIRSAsrelationship was with SARFAC.

The leadership team talked about their frustrations with the lack of an effective working relationship withSARFAC and their need to address this. They also expressed concerns about how their staff engagedwith stakeholders. Many of the staff had scientific and technical backgrounds that resulted in themhaving strongly-held positions about fisheries management and issues. It was the leadership teams perception that this prevented staff from listening effectively to stakeholders, and was causing problemsin their interactions with anglers. This was supported by feedback from fishers that indicated that they feltthat Fisheries staff had fixed views on issues, and that the Fisheries Department discounted theirexperiences and didnt want to listen to what they had to say.


12/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 12

Page 62After the recreational fisher left the session, each of the Fisheries participants was asked to share what

recreational fishing meant to them. Even though they were all from the same division, and some werefrom the same work unit, the group had not worked together as a team. This meant that there weredifferent levels of relationship and comfort amongst the participants. It was important they share theirpersonal experiences and perspectives about recreational fishing as a way of getting to know each othermore and build trust within the group. Afterwards, they shared that they had never had the opportunity totalk about this topic with each other.

Page 64The project team also spent time in the early training sessions grappling with their expectations for theproject and what working with the recreational sector would mean for them. All the participants werekeen to receive facilitation training, but many of them were concerned about the impact of the project onalready heavy workloads. Some didnt see the recreational fishing sector as a priority and others wereconcerned about setting up expectations with the recreational sector that they would not be able to meet

in the future, once the project ended

The DRFC will be pursuing the application of resources within PIRSA/Government toundertake a comprehensive study to: -

fully understand the value of the recreational sector to the economic and socialvalue of the State and

investigate actions needed to bring about fundamental engagement,consultation and governance improvements across the Government andwith/between the commercial and recreational sectors.


13/13




thSeptember 2013

Page 13

APPENDIX D

DRFC GARFISH STRATEGY

1. September 2013 DRFC endorse the Draft Position and Strategy

a. Refer Draft to RecFishSA for comment/input

b. Forward Draft to Metro RFC for comment/input

c. Publish Draft on major Forums for comment/input

d. Forward Draft to PIRSA Fisheries and seek comment/engagement.

2. Late October 2013 Make any revisions if needed to produce Final (Endorsed) Position.

3. October/November 2013 Include in Election Strategy documents.

4. November 2013 Forward to major political stakeholders including the Minister, OppositionSpokesperson etc.

130908a Draft Garfish Position and Strategy

Documents

Transcript of 130908a Draft Garfish Position and Strategy