Home

Review of fisheries management suppressed?

The Hunter Community Environment Centre compiled a review of NSW Fisheries catch data from 1940 to 2000 entitled “Empty Oceans Empty Nets” in February 2006, presenting the best available time-series data on the state of NSW fisheries. The Report was compiled due to the dearth of information on the health of our marine environment, and in particular the sustainability of current fishing pressure in NSW. It did not claim, and never intended, to be a scientific report. It has created a storm of reaction from fisheries scientists (Forrest and Pitcher from the University of British Columbia) and the Primary Industries Minister, Ian MacDonald, has now written to peak environment groups in NSW telling them not to use Empty Oceans Empty Nets.  We find this kind of behaviour baffling in the extreme, especially since the two "fisheries scientists" who have challenged HCEC's methodology in the report did not even address the fundamental issue: that the NSW fishery is in serious decline due to overfishing. Is the NSW Government trying to silence debate about fisheries management and the sustainability of commercial and recreational fishing in NSW? We challenge the Government (or anyone else) to show that current catch levels are sustainable. HCEC has prepared a response to Forest and Pitcher's attack, and you can download all of these papers here.

  1. Empty Oceans Empty Nets (695 kb)
  2. Forrest and Pitcher’s response 
  3. HCEC's responce to Forrest and Pitcher
AttachmentSize
The Minister's letter41.75 KB

Empty Nets

As for the sustainability of fishing in NSW don't you think that reducing the number of commercial fishermen by 80% since the 1990's goes a long way towards that? And then there's the 30 recreational fishing havens and saltwater stocking funded by the recreational fishing license. Why is the commercial CPU rising if our fishery is in serious decline? Another inconvenient fact (for you) is that in any given time most the State's seafood is imported. Australia in fact imports 70% of its seafood and we have the least fished waters in the world (1/30th world average). Mostly imports are from waters far more heavily fished than our own. If you succeed in wiping our our limited fishing effort all you will achieve is contributing to overfishing elsewhere.

You claim that (once again) that NSW fisheries are in serious decline and at risk of collapse and wonder why two fisheries scientists from Canada would refute this. Actually the UBC is one of the foremost centres for the research of fisheries in the world and they assist NSW fisheries in their work. You also make the same claim that NSW fisheries own data support your gloomy assessment. Why then would the chief NSW fisheries scientist say that our fish stocks are being managed sustainably and are not under threat?

What you have done in your rebutal is repeat the same mistakes as your 'Empty Nets' missive. Ie poor and inconsistent interpretation of trends and data. Eg do you really think that the 50% drop in CPU in 1997 was the result of the abundance of the fished species being halved in that year? And this at a time when the fishing effort was being reduced!

sustainable fisheries?

Hi Phillip, Thanks for your thoguhtful comments. The main problems we see with NSW Fisheries management is the lack of knowledge of populations and life-cycle of most of the fish we catch. Far too little work has been done understanding fish in NSW -- particuarly those that appear likely to be vulnerable to overfishing -- long-lived fish with slow reproductive cycles. The data used in "Empty Oceans, Empty Nets" was primary data from NSW fisheries collating nearly sixty years of catch reporting. There are certinly some inconsistencies with reporting methods over that time, and that limits the data somewhat: this equivocation was made in "Empty Oceans, Empty Nets." The most important reading HCEC thinks anyone -- particularly people who rely on the health of the oceans for their livelihoods -- must do are the Environmental Impact Statements for the commercial fisheries of NSW. Many of the statements that HCEC has made about lack of adequate knowledge to ensure sustainable catch levels, and overfishing of particular species, are direct from those documents. For example: 15 out of 26 primary and key secondary species in the Ocean Trap and Line Fishery were considered to be overfished by the Environmental Impact Statement for that fishery. We encougae you to read the EISs at the Fisheries website: http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/commercial/management-strategies

Sustainable Fisheries

Actually the EIS only lists one of the 25 target species as recruitment overfished (ie of conservation concern), that is gemfish. They are found in deep water and not within any NSW marine park. The other 'overfished' species are described as growth overfished and the EIS points out this is not a biological problem but an economic one. Also all that is needed for a recovery is to target them at a larger size. The size limit for kingfish has already been increased to 65cm. They recommend a size increase for snapper to 32cm and other measures for commercial fishermen such a bigger escape panels on traps. There is no recommendation for marine parks to fix these minor problems.

Of the species of most concern 3 are sharks and the others are pigfish and bar cod. None of these are popular angling species. The status of bar cod and pigfish are uncertain due to lack of proper stock assessment and variable catches.

Its worth noting that a lot of the species mentioned in the EIS for the OTLF are in fact caught in larger nos in other fisheries such as the Commonwealth and Qld managed ones. Also note that Commonwealth fisheries (including those off the NSW coast) have been restructured and the no of boats has been halved from 1200 to 600. This includes the SE trawl fishery where a lot of the same species are caught.

The EIS points out that of the 25 target species more than half are being caught at or near their historic lows. However the CPU has increased or remained stable for 18 of the 25. The HCEC's review of NSW fisheries tried to point out the big drop in CPU in the 1990's was a sign of severe overfishing (seems more likely to be an artifact of changes in reporting). They then demonstrated a double standard by not acknowledging the recent rises in CPU.

growth overfishing

We cannot agree with your assertion that growth overfishing is not a biological problem. Growth overfishing means smaller mean size of fish in a population. Ultimately, this leads to fish being caught which haven't yet reproduced and in the meantime, it means fish being caught (taken out of the population) after very few reproductive seasons/events. As a trend, it looks like this process could have effects on the population, since fat old female fish produce more eggs. To be honest, this is not my area of expertise, so it might be better to read the arguments that environmentalists have put forward who have done the reading behind these assertions. Have you read the National Parks Association report The Torn Blue Fringe? It reviews alot of current scientific research on the ecological effects of growth overfishing.Thanks for all your commnts. George.

Sustainable fisheries

Looking at the EIS I find that on the subject of so called 'overfishing' only one species, gemfish, is listed as recruitment overfished, ie of consevation concern! Gemfish are found in deep water and so will not benifit from NSW marine parks for which NSW only has juristriction up to the 3nm mark.

Some are listed as growth overfished, including the popular snapper and kingfish. However the EIS states this is more an economic concern than a biological one. The 'recovery' merely requires the setting of an appropriate size at harvest. The size limit of kingfish has recently been increased from 60 to 65 cm. The EIS recommends an increase in the size limit for snapper and larger escape panels on traps amoung other measures. There is no recomendation for marine parks to manage this issue.

Of the species regarded most at risk, three are shark species. The other two are bar cod and pigfish. None of these are popular targets of recreational fishermen. The EIS also states the status of bar cod and pigfish are highly uncertain due to lack of resource assessment and highly variable catches.

Also a lot of these fish are caught in larger quantites in other fisheries such as those managed by the Commonwealth or under Queensland juristiction. Its worth noting that the Commonwealth fishery has been restructed (including the SE trawl fishery) and the number of Commonwealth boats has gone down to 600 from the previous 1200.

The EIS acknowledges the take of most species has been reduced and more than half are at near historic low levels. Also that the CPU of the OTLF has increased or remained stable for 18 of the 25 species. The HCEC tried to point out that an earlier decline in CPU (which seems to be an artifact of the way the records was kept) was a sign of a fishery in serious decline. They failed to acknowledge that the CPU has been rising more recently.

Growth overfishing

Actually it was the EIS that asserted that growth overfishing was not a biological problem, George. Mainly because it is easily reversed by winding back the fishing effort a bit or targeting them at a larger size. You certainly don't need something as drastic as locking up 20% or more of the ocean in marine reserves. I'm not sure why you think immature fish will inevitably targeted as legal sizes are set so that fish have a chance of spawning before being caught.

As to the impact of fishing on the population dynamics its a fact that any substantial fishing effort will lead to a decline in the population compared to the unfished state. However you only need 30% of the original spawning population to replenish the species due to the extreme fecundancy of fish. In theory they can be harvested at this level indefinitely and this is termed the maximum sutainable yield (MSY). It is also well known that under fishing pressure juvenile classes benifit from less predation and less competion for food.

There is a good case for fishing at a level somewhat lighter than the MSY. Eg greater economic benifit from more abundant fish stocks, better recreational fishing, more resilent ecosystems. But its wrong to assume that any decline is unsustainable fishing given what I have outlined.

sustainable yield

So, has anyone ever determined through a study of reproductive strategy and population dynamics what the maximum sustainable yield is for the dozens of species caught in large quantities in NSW fisheries, and the hundreds caught over all? Or have they just fished down the population and guessed it will be alright? Do you know what the original spawning population was of Redfish, Snapper, Silver Trevally, Gemfish, Wobbegong, or countless other species? Since most species don't have a total allowable catch applied to them, how is this maximum sustainable yield communicated to the fishing community and enforced?  There are not many primary and key secondary species that are well understood -- that is very clear from the Fisheries EISs -- and generalisations about fecundity gloss over the impact of fishing on less fecund species like sharks and rays. The fisheries EISs also decline to apply the precautionary principle to fisheries management in NSW (a requirement of the law) because such an approach would essentially shut down the industry -- so little is known about the effects of fishing on the marine environment. It is unclear whether you are saying that there is no problem, or whether you are saying that marine sanctuaries are not the right solution. Marine reserves are internationally recognised as crucial to conserve and protect the marine environment, with most scientists recommending between 20 and 50% of marine waters be protected in this way. In NSW, we are nowhere near "locking up 20% or more of ocean in marine reserves" -- we have something like 3% of the total area of NSW waters in marine sanctuaries, where no fishing is allowed. Everywhere else -- 97% -- is open to recreational fishing, which you say is your interest, and some of those areas are only available to recreational fishers. It seems a little mean-spirited to fight tooth and nail against such small degree of total protection. As to whether or not there is a problem in NSW fisheries, I have heard many fishers say there are less and smaller fish around than in the past. We don't want to jeopardise the viability of marine ecosystems just because we don't know how much exploitation they can stand.  

Sustainable yield and TAC's

You raised a lot of points there George, but I'll just deal with TAC's for now.

TAC's are a form of output control. Ie a direct regulation of the catch. This form of control requires an absolute estimation of the stock, a large amount of data, and significant expertise and resources. Even then it can be unreliable. Australian fisheries simply don't have the resources to do this for every species. As Pitcher and Forrest pointed out rigorous input controls with appropriate monitoring are an appropriate measure in this situation and is consistent with the precautionary principle. NSW fisheries are run mainly by input controls such as area closures (yes these exists speperate from marine parks such as area bans on trawling and rec havens), seasonal closures, restricting the number of fishing licenses and gear restrictions.

Re the area that is

Re the area that is 'protected' in NSW and your comments that anglers are "mean spirited" in opposing the small areas that are closed to fishing. Firstly I would have thought that these areas are a bit higher than 3% with 30% of NSW waters being marine parks and most having at least 20% green zones. In any case I'm not sure what your point is given that you go on to say "most scientists" are calling for between 20 - 50% being locked up. Thats certainly what conservation groups like yours and the Greens Party are calling for. As for "most scientists" agreeing I don't think you have any basis for that claim. I can quote many who would disagree. It is also a tricky way of avoiding debate by appealing to a non existant authority and saying that the debate is already settled. Here's what Pitcher and Forrest had to say on the subject:

"Marine protected areas are widely cited as a precautionary management method to buffer
against the effects of fishing (e.g., Allison et al. 1998). Their efficacy will be determined by a
wide range of localised factors, particularly the degree to which fish move and the spatial
structure of fished populations. Marine protected areas will also be more effective if they have
the support of local communities (Hilborn 2004). Blanket recommendations for the necessary
area to be protected are therefore meaningless. The size and location of spatial closures should be determined on a case-by-case basis if costly, unpopular and ineffective protected areas are
to be avoided".

The GBRMP with its 33% green zones would certainly fit the bill of costly, unpopular and ineffective. It has been a socio-economic disaster, costing in compensation 100 times more than the GBRMPA said it would. And all for practically no environmental benifit. I notice that you refer to it as an example of 'success' in one of your submission for NSW marine parks!

Finally the areas off limits to anglers are not small if you happen to live in an area in NSW hosting a marine park. The greens zones are usually around 20% and sometimes 30% (eg Byron Bay). Now I know you will say yes but we should be grateful for having the other 80% to fish in. However only certain spots are of value to anglers, eg offshore reefs, accessible rock platforms and beaches. The fact that these areas feature disproportionally higher in greens zones means that the spots of value made off limits to anglers is far higher than the 20% figure would imply. Picking spots to close just because they happen to be good fishing spots says something about the motives behind this policy does it not?

Many of the answers to these questions ...

Sorry about that, I have checked the figures and it is 6.5% of NSW waters in marine sancturaies --- it has increased since the Batemans and Port Stepehns Zoning Plans were determined. Everywhere else (93.5%) in NSW waters, recreastional fishing is allowed. If you read The Torn Blue Fringe, available from the NPA Marine website, the arguments in favour of conservation are all set out. All I am doing here is rehashing from memory the well-researched information in that report. I suggest that for a review of current scientific thinking on marine conservation, you read that report.