Recfishwest Questions for WA State Election 2005
On behalf of the recreational fishing community of Western Australia 2004

Preamble

Recreational fishing is one of the most significant activities in Western Australia. An estimated 643,000 people go fishing at least once a year and contribute more than $500 million per annum to the economy of Western Australia. This represents thousands of jobs, many of which are in coastal towns and rural areas.

In spite of this importance, recreational fishing has received little or no formal recognition by a succession of state and federal governments.

While recreational fishers have been at the forefront of aquatic natural resource management with enormous attitudinal changes and revolutionary reforms in catch controls, they appear to be held accountable for almost all of the threats to biodiversity conservation with new marine parks impacting almost exclusively on recreational fishing activities. There is little recognition or promotion of the benefits of recreational fishing from a community wellness or international tourism perspective and access is being reduced through national, state and local government initiatives.

Recreational fishers have modest expectations; to fish today for tomorrow and to pass on an environment that is capable of providing a quality fishing experience to our children. The expectations of management, research and compliance have grown with the increasing awareness of a need for catch controls to maintain the fishing experience.

It is the view of Recfishwest that government is failing to meet these expectations and that the forthcoming state election gives the political parties an opportunity to recognise the importance of recreational fishing, the resource and habitat upon which it depends and the needs of the communities which rely upon the economic activity which recreational fishing generates.

This election policy is quite descriptive and definitive. It is necessary that the political parties give definitive commitments against which the recreational fishing voters can make their decisions. Recfishwest will distribute the party's responses to this policy. We will work with the elected government to give effect to this policy.

Overall Recfishwest believes that the issues raised and requests made in the election policy are reasonable in the context of an industry of the magnitude of recreational fishing in this state.

Recfishwest would appreciate your response to each of the proposals related to your responsibilities contained in the policy so that we can circulate them to the wider recreational fishing community. We thank you for your assistance in working towards ensuring that we can pass a legacy of quality recreational fishing onto future generations of West Australians.

Recfishwest Election Policy

The following statement by Recfishwest has been prepared for the coming Western Australian State election to advise parties and candidates in that election on the policies and aspirations of that large proportion of the Western Australian community that go fishing for sport and recreation. A brief description of some major issues is followed by questions which Recfishwest regards are of primary importance and which we would like answered by parties. Under each of the headings there are specific points requiring definitive commitments that we believe should be addressed for the benefit of present and future recreational fishing in Western Australia.

1. Resource Sustainability

Recfishwest recognises that resource sustainability is the most important issue for wild capture fisheries and gives highest priority to this objective at all times. We can never take sustainability for granted and recent problems have been attributed to both recreational and commercial fishers.

Recfishwest is concerned that although action has been taken with regard to the sustainability of pink snapper, measures to address apparent sustainability problems with some shark species have not yet been put in place.

Recreational fishers are concerned about the potentially unlimited commercial fishing for scale fish in the West Coast region in particular. This is currently being addressed in the wetline review and Recfishwest is vitally concerned that the outcome of this review results in a viable but sustainable commercial wetline fishery with proper management controls. One possible threat to management would be if commercial boats are allowed a 'personal use' catch which is not capped and monitored.

Question Do you agree that all catch from commercial fishing boats, whether for sale or personal use, must be formally monitored and kept within the acceptable commercial wetline catch?

2 Integrated fisheries management

The excellent report on Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) released in 2002 has not yet resulted in any specific activity by the government, although we understand some funding will be provided in the 2004/5 budget. Recfishwest strongly believes that the first priority is to address issues where commercial and recreational fishers target the same finfish species.

Species such as herring, Australian salmon and tailor, in the south of the State, and Spanish mackerel and barramundi, in the north, present important tasks for integrated management which need to be addressed at an early stage. Similarly, the West Coast demersal fish (dhufish and snapper) allocation is a priority topic for IFM although the main concern is for useful recreational catch information.

Recfishwest believes that the best way to proceed is by an independent Integrated Fisheries Allocation Council making public recommendations on optimal resource allocation to the Minister for Fisheries, as recommended by the Committee. These recommendations should result from a transparent process including scientific information from the Department of Fisheries and public input from stakeholders and the community in general to the Allocation Council.

Questions

What action would you propose to take with respect to an independent allocation council to recommend to the Minister on resource allocation between sectors?

When and with which species would you expect to start the resource allocation process?

Specific points that require a definitive response

2.1 Ensure that the allocation process within the integrated framework affords all sections of the community an opportunity to provide input into the decision making process.

2.2 Ensure representation of recreational fishing interests is consistent with the gross domestic product of its activity with respect to all resource management committees.

2.3 Make appropriate structural changes within the Department of Fisheries to reflect the agreed need for integrated sustainable management of fished species.

3. Funding for Sustainability and IFM

The improving technology of commercial fishing and the increasing numbers of recreational fishers have created new pressures on fisheries management, including the need for specific resource allocation under IFM. Recfishwest agrees with Justice Toohey's conclusion that additional funding is required for the Department of Fisheries to manage the State's fish resources sustainably and within the allocations derived from the IFM process.

Recfishwest regards the recommendations of the Toohey IFM committee on levels of funding as conservative; but the general principles are supported. The highest priority is to provide for accurate catch information each year in preparation for the resource allocation process.

Question

What are your views on the need for additional funding for the Department of Fisheries and fishing peak bodies to meet the demands of the IFM allocation process?

Specific points that require a definitive response

3.1 Allocate additional sufficient funding (of the order of $1.5 - 2.0 million annually) to allow timely and accurate gathering of recreational catch information on which to base critical sector allocation and sustainability decisions for IFM. This funding will need to be continued until reliable lower cost proxy estimates have been identified and tested.

3.2 Allocate an additional $225,000 to Recfishwest for the first three years of the IFM process to allow equity in participation and future outcomes by ensuring that submissions can be made and that the recreational fishing community is actively engaged in the IFM process.

3.3 Allocate an additional $5 million annually to recreational fisheries management, compliance and education. If consolidated funding is not available, extend the recreational licensing system to finfish to ensure adequate funding is totally dedicated to recreational fisheries management.

3.4 Ensure that Western Australia makes a contribution to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation which is equivalent to 0.25% of the gross value of production of commercial catches, thus qualifying for maximum Commonwealth contributions.

3.5 Ensure that the Development and Better Interest Fund is able to be accessed for projects which are in the better interests of the community which are the owners of the community aquatic resources.

3.6 Implement recommendations of Statutory Management Authority Review with respect to resource rents.

4 Recognition for Recreational Fishing

The Fish Resources Management Act, the Government and the Department of Fisheries still need to give better recognition to recreational fishing, particularly vis-à-vis commercial fishing. Legislation, for example should recognise recreational fishers (through Recfishwest) as potentially affected parties in all Administrative Tribunal matters. Recreational fishing should be recognised by the Department of Sport and Recreation as an important leisure activity with significant community and health benefits and a high participation rate.

It is very important that the level of peak body funding (ie Recfishwest) should be reviewed to treat recreational fishing equitably in relation to its level of participation and contribution to gross domestic product, rather than maintain historical funding priorities that favour commercial fishing over recreational fishing by a ratio of 4:1. It should be more widely realised that recreational fishing automatically provides value-adding to its use of the community's fish resource. Recreationally caught fish provide fish which are eaten by the community in exactly the same way as commercial fish.

In addition recreationally caught fish incur a higher expenditure on equipment, travel, accommodation etc per fish caught than commercially caught fish. This increase in economic activity provides value-adding to the fish resource used in this way. Recreational fishers are prepared to pay for this extra activity because of the pleasure they derive from recreational fishing.

Question Do you agree that funding provided through the Department of Fisheries to Recfishwest and the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) should be on an equitable rather than an historic basis?

Specific points that require a definitive response

4.1 Independently review peak body funding with a view to funding relative to sector activity rather than the current historical allocation.

4.2 Legislate to recognise recreational fishing, through Recfishwest, as an affected party in all Administrative Tribunal fishery matters.

4.3 Funds should be provided through the Department of Sport and Recreation for promotion of fishing as an important leisure activity with significant community and health benefits.

4.4 Expedite the review of recreational fishing consultative structures to maximise synergies between Recfishwest, RFAC and regional RFACs.

4.5 Ensure that any Fisheries Adjustment Scheme results in a tangible benefit to the recreational sector consistent with the level of investment and the 1997 Cabinet decision. For example:-

4.5.1 Prohibit the use of long line fishing in Cockburn Sound.

4.5.2 Ensure a recreational crab catch in Cockburn Sound as 3/8 of the total catch in line with the 3/8 to 5/8 ratio principle established in the Voluntary Cockburn Sound Crab Management Agreement to which Recfishwest and WAFIC are signatories.

4.5.3 Make tailor and black bream recreational fishing only.

4.5.4 Make Blackwood estuary recreational fishing only.

5 Compliance and Education

It is essential that there should be an increase in the number of officers devoted to recreational fishery compliance and education work. These officers should be given specific targets for contacts with recreational fishers. Recfishwest believes that mobile patrol arrangements appear to be an efficient way of meeting some of the needs. The unavoidably increasing complexity of fishery management regulations gives emphasis to the value of frequent contact and emphasis on knowing as well as obeying the regulations.

Questions


Do you agree that a higher level of staffing with Fisheries Officers is required to meet reasonable compliance and education standards for recreational fishery management?

Do you agree that the Volunteer Fisheries Liaison Officers (VFLO) system provides leverage benefits to Fisheries programs and should be given better support by Fisheries?

Specific points that require a definitive response

5.1 Employ eight additional fisheries officers specifically to undertake recreational compliance work.

5.2 Establish a specific recreational fisheries mobile patrol to be used in peak times and areas.

5.3 Establish specific targets for contacts with recreational fishers for all fisheries officers.

5.4 Provide funding for an increase in VFLO numbers with a focus on regional areas including their administration and support.

5.5 Make administration of VFLO programs a formal part of performance assessment for all regional fisheries officers.

5.6 Establish a community education committee with external representation including Recfishwest to advise on programs and publications.

5.7 Conduct an independent review of cost effectiveness of community education programs including the Western Fisheries magazine.

5.8 Identify recreational fishing tourism as a priority target area for tourism.

5.9 Provide funds for Recfishwest to run an educational campaign on community issues such as fishing safety and catch and release fishing.

5.10 Develop strategies for low impact recreational fishing to overseas tourists.

6 Coordination of government resources

Recfishwest regards the present divided management of marine/aquatic responsibilities between the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) as being wasteful of resources, confusing to the public and harmful, creating antagonism and competition instead of co-operation. First and foremost the Government, particularly the Ministers with direct responsibilities, should move to establish a framework for continuing consultation and coordination between these two agencies as well as the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and ensure that the arrangement is meticulously observed. Secondly, the Government should establish an appropriate task force to examine the legislation and recommend appropriate changes.

Questions

What would you do to overcome the present situation between CALM and the Department of Fisheries with respect to lack of constructive consultation and development of consensus?

Do you agree that cross-authorisation arrangements between agencies should be used to increase the effectiveness of grass-roots contact with the public?

Specific points that require a definitive response

6.1 Ensure coordination between government agencies particularly CALM and the Department of Fisheries of marine natural resource and conservation management.

6.2 Establish effective practical cross-authorisation arrangements between at-sea officers of CALM and the Department of Fisheries and determine transfers of resources needed to finalise transfers of responsibilities from the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to the Department of Fisheries.

6.3 Review legislation to ensure consistency of approach and that appropriate powers are in place to ensure prosecution for damage to riparian vegetation, pollution, or illegal dumping into waterways.

7 Marine Protected Areas and Planning for Coastal Waters

Consultation between CALM and Department of Fisheries should include planning for areas to be reserved under the CALM or Fisheries legislation. Planning of all marine reserves by either Department should include direct representation on a similar basis of all the principal stakeholders including commercial and recreational fishers and conservationists.

The Government should commence a process of bioregional planning for the State's coastal waters, complementary to the Commonwealth approach. This would help to overcome the present extremely unsatisfactory position where certain uses such as pearling have virtually exclusive use.

Recfishwest is concerned at the great reluctance of Government/CALM to include recreational zones as provided for under legislation (as particularly exemplified in the Jurien Bay Marine Park) in marine park planning outcomes.

Questions


Would you commence a bioregional planning scheme for the State's coastal waters?

Would you give Recfishwest direct representation on all community consultation for Marine Parks or marine bioregional planning?

Specific points that require a definitive response

7.1 Recfishwest should have direct representation on all marine park planning processes.

7.2 Recreational zones should be viewed as a necessary component within both new and existing marine parks.

7.3 Marine Planning in part represents resource sharing and this needs to be acknowledged and accommodated when determinations are made as to the location, scale and allowable activities of Marine Parks.

8 Coastal Access

Limitation of access to the ocean or major rivers is a burning issue for recreational fishers in Western Australia. Limitation of access happens both in urban and in remote areas. Whether it is the activity of government in land development at Long Point (Port Kennedy) or of a pastoral lessee on the North-West coast, any restriction on access to the sea is regarded as totally unacceptable.

The policy of Recfishwest is that access should only be restricted for specific management reasons or safety issues. These reasons should be transparent and in most cases should have arisen from a process of community consultation. Such consultation maximises the opportunity for constructive compromise.

Question

Do you agree that all of the coast should be open to the public unless constrained by management needs or some other community priority?

Specific points that require a definitive response

8.1 Establish an effective system for pastoral access routes to the sea where pastoral leases lie along the coast.

8.2 Maintain access to all coastal areas in ways which are appropriate to the local environment.

8.3 No public access can be removed or denied without consultative agreement with stakeholders.

8.3 Include Recfishwest in all community consultative bodies advising on coastal planning or access.

9 Facilities including boat ramps and jetties

Recfishwest regards the Recreational Boating Facilities Scheme (RBFS) as a key component of the State Government's recreational boating arrangements and looks forward to the $1 million per annum agreed to by Cabinet in 1996 being spent on the scheme.

Recfishwest is aware that the current allocations are the most frugal of any comparable State. Recfishwest considers that the difference between the unindexed $650,000 per annum allocated to this expenditure in recent years and the full $1 million as intended by Cabinet could be used for larger projects under modified rules. Modifications to the RBFS should be made to widen the partner organizations from local authorities to include other government agencies including the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

The lack of boating ramps with direct access to the ocean at Fremantle is a major impediment to thousands of small boat operators wishing to gain efficient access to adjacent waters and Rottnest.

Recfishwest is concerned that jetties, which provide fishing opportunities for young, elderly, infirm, and handicapped people, are often being left to fall into disrepair. Maintenance of these facilities by local authorities should be encouraged.

Question

Would you support the continued expenditure under the recreational boating facilities scheme at $1 million per year as originally intended by Cabinet?

Specific points that require a definitive response

9.1 Maintenance of jetties that can be used for fishing should be recognised as a significant contribution to recreational facilities.

9.2 RBFS eligibility criteria should be extended to include the Department of Infrastructure as a project proponent in its own right and project criteria should be extended to allow for a wider range of boat ramps and associated facilities support infrastructure.

9.3 Immediate action needs to be taken to fund a major boat launching facility at Rous Head.

The responses received from Political Parties have been added so that recreational anglers are informed of policies for the 2005 Western Australia State Election.

Australian Labor Party 2005 Policy Document "Labor's plan for fisheries"
Response by the Premier of Western Australia
WA Liberal National Coalition 2005 Recreational Fishing Position Statement
Minister for the Environment - a part response covering some environmental questions.
Minister for Fisheries - a media statement announcing an expanded education program.



This page last updated February 2005.