Recfishwest Policy
Compressed Air Spearfishing

Recfishwest opposes proposals to declare prohibitions on compressed air assisted spearfishing, which at the same time would allow other forms of fishing, unless the proponents of prohibition can objectively demonstrate why prohibition is in the interests of resource sustainability or over-riding social or economic concerns.

This Policy is to be read together with Appendix 1 - Compressed Air Assisted Spearfishing - Considerations and Available Information

Appendix 1 - Compressed Air Assisted Spearfishing (CAASF) - Considerations and Available Information

1. Introduction

The issue of whether Recfishwest should have a policy position on Compressed Air Assisted Spearfishing (CAASF) has arisen from time to time over the past four years due to occasional proposals to specifically prohibit CAASF (as opposed to spearfishing generally) in CALM managed marine reserves and Department of Fisheries managed fish habitat protection areas, as well as in the first Gascoyne Recreational Fishing Review Committee report.

Recfishwest supports the responsible practice of spearfishing. The Western Australian branch of the Australian Underwater Federation, the peak body representing club spearfishing, is a constitutional member.

Currently CAASF is specifically prohibited in any part of the Ningaloo, Marmion, Shark Bay, and Swan Estuary Marine Parks, is prohibited in the non general use zones of the Rowley Shoals Marine Park, and is proposed to be prohibited in part of the proposed Shoalwater Bay Marine Park. CAASF is also proposed for prohibition in the Abrolhos Fish Habitat Protection Area but Regulations have not yet been gazetted. We do not know at this stage what the final outcome of the Gascoyne Recreational Fishing Review will be but our submission to that Review in the matter of CAASF was as follows:

"Recfishwest believes that we all need to have better information on the impact of air-assisted spearfishing. If the Working Group has this information we believe it should present it, or the references. We are genuinely at a loss to know what is both right and fair in this situation; but in the absence of data we are reluctant to support this proposal as it stands."

This position was reiterated in the Recfishwest December 2001 submission to the Department of Fisheries on the latest Shoalwater Bay Marine Park draft management plan.

In developing the Recfishwest policy on CAASF the following information was considered:

2. Availability of data supporting contention that CAASF has extensive or local effects leading, disproportionally, to 'larger fish' depletions.

Recfishwest is aware of a number of documents pertaining to spearfishing/CAASF. These sources were augmented with two interviews with senior Western Australian diving industry representatives:

(i) A 1992 paper issued by the Australia Underwater Federation (Technical Paper 92.1) comprising a literature review of 28 sources dealing mainly with the effects of spearfishing on fishing stocks but also canvassing the issue of the 'additional' impacts due to CAASF. The references cited appear comprehensive and cover the period from 1970 to 1990.

The AUF paper in its' discussion section made (inter alia) the following points:

"Clearly any form of human activity has the potential for impacting on the environment. The more intense and localized the activity, the greater the potential impact.

The results of such high profile exposure (arising from media reports of large kills of key fish species during spearfishing competitions up to the 1980's) has resulted (Australia and internationally) in imposition of quotas, bag limits, closed seasons and bans on the capture of certain species.

Other methods of regulation have involved restriction of particular fishing methods. Prime examples are the banning of (CAASF) in all Australian States (this latter is incorrect) and other parts of the world.

The major conflict in recent years has been the conflict of interest between all user groups and their requirements for a healthy resource. Traditionally this has been the skindiver versus the angler. However, the increasing numbers of conservation minded individuals amongst the general population has given rise to a new problem, that of consumptive users depriving non consumptive users of a natural resource.

Bearing the brunt of this has been the spearfisherman who has generally been perceived as someone who enters the water and proceeds to shoot anything that moves until there is nothing left in the area.

Rational analysis of results (of impact assessments) suggested that the environmental compatibility of spearfishing was high compared to angling, particularly in competition formats.

Studies into controlling factors and the spearfishermen's productivity showed that he was strongly influenced by water conditions. As wave height increased, catch decreased proportionally. (the point being made was that spearfishing is generally more restricted due to weather than is angling).

Prohibition of the use of SCUBA for spearfishing provided fish with a sanctuary in deeper waters. This was due to breathhold spearfishermen not being able to follow fish indefinitely, thus creating a sanctuary zone to replenish shallower reefs.

.... showed that there was minimal overlap between the competition catch of spearfishermen and the angler's catch. Thus any conflict between the two groups could be regarded as political in nature, rather than based on scientific evidence.

Similarly, the proportionally small numbers of spearfishermen relative to numbers of anglers supports statements that anglers have more impact due to sheer weight of numbers of recreational anglers.

The fact that spearfishing is inefficient, compared to commercial methods and proportionally few in participants suggest that spearfishing would have low environmental impacts. Where spearfishing is most efficient is in the high incidence of reef and intermittent reef species.

Similar impacts will be inflicted on the environment by anglers, however, the larger numbers of participants, combined with the reduced species availability, due to fishing styles and techniques must lead to greater impacts on species populations. The spearfisherman, alternatively, by nature of being able to observe his quarry, is both limited yet selective in the amount and type of catch he obtains

Categorical statements that spearfishing depletes fisheries has yet to be supported by scientific evidence.... individuals claiming that spearfishing has depleted or destroyed fisheries are relying on purely emotive arguments. These include cruelty to animals, yet the same arguments are not used against the more powerful, and vocal angling fraternity. In this light such statements become discriminatory.

The enormity of the problem (local depletions) around urbanized areas such as capital cities cannot be placed on any single recreational group. Rather it is more a symptom of a larger problem, that resources are limited and every group should contribute towards resource conservation and management."

(ii) Letter to Recfishwest from Department of Fisheries of 14 August 1998 providing data regarding the relative catch results from a 1996/1997 lower west coast recreational fishing creel survey for spearfishing vis a vis angling. The survey (which was qualified due to sampling issues) did not further differentiate between spearfishing per se and CAASF but did provide some very interesting data (see attachment 2).

These data show that the spearfished catch is of minimal extent in aggregate for the main reef species targeted by both reef and rock anglers. For instance, spearfishers accounted for only 4%, 3%, 6% and 2% of dhufish, breaksea cod, baldchin groper and pink snapper resp. while recording 41%, 36%, 25% and 41% for sea sweep, banded sweep, queen snapper and leatherjackets resp; fish that are not so highly targeted by anglers.

The data provided did not include the relative proportions of the participants and, given the possibility that boat anglers outnumber spearfishers by at least 95:5, the overall efficiency of the spearfishers is likely to be at least as high as anglers with only their relatively low numbers keeping the aggregate catches low.

(iii) Letter to Recfishwest from Department of Fisheries of 16 May 2000 in response to a request from Recfishwest as to the basis for the Gascoyne Recreational Fishing Review proposal in respect to CAASF. The main points of this letter were that:

• the proposal arose from community perceptions that CAASF had a greater selective impact on some stocks, particularly (as for spearfishing generally) tuskfish, groper, cods and coral trout, (but more particularly) on stocks not accessible by other means. (this point was not justified in the letter in that it was not stated why stocks could only be targeted effectively by CAASF);

• little scientific research had been carried out on the effect of CAASF but that anecdotal evidence was to the effect that CAASF was highly selective and may have a disproportionate effect on stocks justifying the exercise of the 'precautionary principle';

• the issue generated user conflicts (but such was also generated by spearfishing generally);

• creel survey data (referred to in (ii) above) indicated that the while total catch and effort via CAASF "appears low in comparison with other methods, an analysis of differential selectivity has yet to be carried out".

(iv) Additional data from Department of Fisheries for the Gascoyne and Pilbara Regions.

These data were received by email from Department of Fisheries in January 2002 and provide similar data to those provided in (ii) above. Additional data contained in this survey for the Gascoyne region included the finding that less than 2% of boat fishers dived for fish/lobster with the majority targeting rock lobster.

(v) Gascoyne Region Recreational Fishing Reports May 1999 and August 2001 (Department of Fisheries Management Papers 124 and 154)

As above, the first Gascoyne Report included a recommendation for prohibition of CAASF. However, following community consultation, this recommendation was removed from the second report. The reasons given for this were that:

• There was no substantive evidence in the Gascoyne region to indicate CAASF divers were responsible for any additional effect on fish stocks in comparison to other forms of fishing;
• There were comparatively few fishers spearfishing (less than 2%) compared to other recreational fishing activity;
• It was considered that the majority of spearfishers do not use compressed air;
• Enforcement problems would arise.

3. Interviews with two senior diving industry representatives.

Both representatives reported that the number of sales of spearfishing equipment from their stores had dramatically declined from the 1970's, when sales of such equipment were major revenue contributors, to now being something of an occasional sale item only. Their views were that very few consumptive divers now target fish (as opposed to rock lobster). One interviewee also stated his opinion that the great majority of speared fish resulted from a relatively small group of expert/competition divers who were highly efficient. He observed that these divers never used CAASF and that the component of spearfishers who did was relatively small in number.

Both also felt that it was unlikely that there were now any arguments for concerns re sustainability of fish stocks from any form of spearfishing as the method had been swamped in its effects in more recent years by increasing numbers of boat fishers (in contrast with diminishing numbers of spearfishers) who were increasingly more effective due to bigger boats being used combined with rapid take up of new fish finding technology.

One interviewee commented that CAASF was relatively inefficient in contrast to breathhold spearing in that most CAASF divers were limited to two dives per day (for safety reasons) while competent snorkeling spearfishers typically spent much more time in the water covering wider 'ground'. This person stated that, in his view, CAASF was a legitimate method of fishing for those who chose to use it. He also noted that there was a tendency for CAASF to be used by that cohort of divers who entered the sport in the 1960 - 70's who were no longer competent in breathhold spearfishing due to age and health reasons.

4. Comparison with existing Recfishwest policy on recreational net fishing.

The only method of fishing that is currently legal but which Recfishwest proposes for prohibition is gill and set netting. The reason for this policy is that recreational fishing should emphasise the active involvement of the fisher to gain the maximum benefit from the use of a limited resource. The issue of by-catch is also a consideration.

It is clear that the rationale for this advocacy does not apply to either spearfishing or CAASF with fishers practicing either being both highly active in the carriage of their pursuit and highly selective in their targeting of fish to be taken.

5. Precautionary Principle and Alternatives to Prohibition

The issue of the 'precautionary principle' as a justification for possibly implementing a ban on CAASF was raised by Department of Fisheries in its letter of 16 May 2000 referred to above. The use of the principle to justify a complete ban on an activity is a serious matter requiring supporting data. As noted above, in the matter of CAASF there is only anecdotal information available. However this information still gives rise to concerns which may, in the end, when hard data become available, reveal them to have been justified.

The question then arises as to what alternatives might be available to recognize those concerns but not arbitrarily and perhaps unfairly discriminate against a specific group of fishers.

There are many ways in which such might be effected. Firstly, the 'area' or location in which measures might be implemented should be well argued on a case by case basis. For instance, specific reefs with known, but at risk, stocks of fish might warrant a temporary or permanent prohibition. Or, in the absence of a total prohibition, alternative measures from the current suite of management tools may be brought to bear, such as separate bag limits for spearfishers and/or CAASF on a species by species basis, or specific seasonal restrictions and so on.

In the end however, the onus for demonstrating the requirement for changes that would impact on others lies with the proponents of those changes. Such advocacy needs to be more sophisticated than the simple articulation of concern based on suspicion.

6. Trends

To the extent that fishing technologies have improved over the past ten years it is highly likely that anglers and commercial fishers are rapidly increasing catching effectiveness vis a vis CAASF divers; the latter having derived only limited benefits from GPS systems due to the relative inability to move to large numbers of sites during the day as well as essentially being restricted to waters less than thirty meters, in contrast to the increasing tendency of anglers to fish deeper waters. It is also likely that the proportion of spearfishers to anglers generally is diminishing.

7. Review of CAASF restrictions in other jurisdictions

• Victoria - No regulations in Place for control of scuba or hookah.
• NSW - Person may not use apparatus capable of supplying air underwater to take fish by any means.
• QLD - Person may not use any apparatus capable of supplying air underwater to take fish by any means.
• TAS - Divers face no real restrictions. Proposed banning
• NT - A person engaged in amateur fishing shall not take fish using underwater breathing
• SA - Persons are not allowed to carry or use any form of fish spear while using underwater breathing apparatus

Inquiries have not been able to reveal any logical rationale for the varying prescriptions State to State.

8. Key Conclusions:

(i) There is a paucity of data that supports the contention that either spearfishing or CAASF have a disproportionally higher impact on fish stocks than other recreational fishing or commercial activity;

(ii) To the extent that data are available in the Western Australian context, those data demonstrate the limited impact of spearfishing and CAASF on stocks, principally due to the very low relative incidence of these types of fishing;

(iii) Data from the Gascoyne recreational fishing survey indicate that a very low proportion of boat fishers dive to fish and that the majority of those that do, target lobster, not fish;

(iv) Arguments opposing spearfishing and CAASF might largely derive from prejudice and/or misinformation rather than data;

(v) The trend is for the proportional impact of spearfishing on stocks to diminish vis a vis increased and increasingly efficient angling effort;

(vi) To the extent that demonstrable local problems arise from CAASF, these are able to be dealt with via the existing suite of Department of Fisheries management tools.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.