Rottnest Island Marine Strategy an insult to recreational anglers

Recfishwest and the Rottnest Island Authority both share the view that Rottnest Island is a special place which needs more intensive management. Our thoughts on the most effective manner in reaching this marine management objective however are eons apart.

Recreational fishers have been under direct attack with the release of the Rottnest Island Marine Strategy with the misconception that we are an evil group that must be stopped in order to protect the marine environment. It is unfortunate that CALM and the Rottnest Island Authority find it necessary to ignore the opinions of recreational fishers when we could be their greatest asset in marine conservation.

The truth is that recreational fishers have done much towards sustainable management of the resources - much more in fact than some in the conservation movement who advocate for simple lock out strategies. The Cockburn Sound snapper closure was initiated by, advocated for, and implemented by the recreational sector before the science was available. Excellent work was funded and the closure modified to protect the majority of the spawning fish the majority of the time. This was a huge success with strong community support.

Even in Shark Bay, the moves to close the eastern gulf pink snapper fishery were strongly advocated for by Recfishwest and recreational industry leaders. The stocks have recovered significantly. This is a wonderful initiative where the recreational sector took responsibility and took the difficult steps to recover the stocks.

Indeed, Recfishwest has actually asked for greater protection for a number of marine reserves in Western Australia including Jurien Bay and Shoalwater. We also asked for greater, but more enforceable controls at Rowley Shoals and yes, even at Ningaloo.

Recreational fishers have strongly advocated for use of the release device to improve the survival of released fish, both undersized and those that people choose to release. Recfishwest has strongly advocated for total protection of cobbler in the Swan River. Recreational fishers have come a long way to ensure that they pass a legacy of quality fishing on to their children.

So why have they chosen to ignore our input or views at Rottnest when we could have possibly been one of their biggest supporters if given recognition in the development of the management plan. Instead they decide to set up a committee with many people who will benefit from banning fishing. When the recreational representatives offered a concession - it was taken and a consensus view recorded. When a trade-off was asked for by recreational fishers, it was voted down and a majority decision recorded. And the committee was bound by confidentiality and not able to discuss the process as it evolved.

Geoff Gallop, a leader who emphasised his green credentials, recognised the difficulties with justifying additional closures at Rottnest and said so in their policy at launch of the Labour Party 2005 re-election campaign. These directives from our former leader should not be ignored.

The lack of consideration for the real threats to sustainability is sadly lacking in the philosophy adopted by the Rottnest Island Authority. The marine management strategy recognises Australian Herring, Australian Salmon and Tailor amongst the most popularly targeted shore based species at Rottnest. I cannot understand what a sanctuary zone will do for these pelagic species. As does the closing of the "Chicken run" at the West End from fishing will do for the protection of the unique populations of molluscs. Yes that makes a lot of sense.

If the reason behind these sanctuary zones is for the protection of the delicate corals around the island, why is there no restricted on dive charters and recreational vessels from dropping their anchors. This management plan reeks of a direct attack against recreational anglers, built around half truths and driven by a committee with an apparent objective to greatly affect recreational fishers at Rottnest Island.

If there is a problem with demersal species like blue groper, then let's look at solutions to the problem and address them. The concept of protection for blue groper in all waters of the Rottnest Island would have been considered but the goodwill of recreational fishers has been terribly eroded by the half-truths and biased material prepared by the Rottnest Island Authority.

Again with the management of the West Australian Dhufish, Recfishwest has been at the forefront in developing strategies for its future management. The highly successful 2004 Dhufish Workshop run by Recfishwest recognised the need for special management for this species. If you believe that a couple of sanctuary zones at Rottnest are the solution you are sadly mistaken. A holistic approach and not a simple patch up is required in the case of Dhufish. And Rottnest could well feature into the solution in a significant way, but it must be developed with anglers as partners, not sacrificial lambs.

It is disappointing that only a week after the recreational fishing industry were virtually the sole voice in calling for a definitive action plan for the Swan-Canning Rivers that we should be under direct attack with the release of the Rottnest Island Marine Strategy.

Many recreational fishers do not come anywhere near the bag limits because they limit their catch, don't catch their limit. If we want soundly based management, we will have to bring all the community along. I am extremely proud of what recreational fishers have done to ensure quality fishing and our stance on environmental matters is exemplary. I'm just not sure why it has become trendy to blame us for what are still regarded as some of the best managed fisheries in the world.



This page last updated on 17 January 2007.