Resource Allocation - who gets what
UPDATE: We strongly recomme4d you read the following to get a better understanding of the notion of resource sharing, however we need to advise you that the 2019 fisheries reforms once again aim to reduce the total recreational catch, while maintaining the commercial harvest with NO REDUCTIONS for that sector. This is outrageous and will see yet again the remaining fish reallocated to the commercial sector away from recreational anglers. This will be the third time since the mid 1990s that we've been done over by Fisheries in so-called reviews, where we've had our catch reduced while the commercial sector enjoy no catch reductions at all. Your Public Servants and governments are riding rough shod over recreational anglers in order for the commercial sector to catch a greater share of what is left out there and export them interstate and overseas.Are you going to lie down and take it again? Your choice.
Resource allocation is all about who gets what share of the pie. In nature, it tends to be whoever is the biggest and strongest, gets the most of whatever is going. Works in the jungle, but not so well in modern society.
A constant source of frustration and conflict between recreational and commercial fishers has always been resource allocation, or in Queensland's case, lack there of in any programmed sense. Until fairly recently in this state, allocation was simple - whoever could catch the most could have it. We've seen this change very slowly with the tentative introduction of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in a couple of our fisheries.Interestingly, the first fishery in this state to have a TAC imposed was the Spanner Crab fishery. That was somewhat ironic, because it was virtually only a commercial fishery anyway, with the recreational catch being so small as not be a consideration.
More recently we've seen TAC's introduced in the reef line fishery and a ridiculously high TAC of 250 tonnes imposed on the Grey mackerel fishery, but it is a start and a small step towards world best practice fisheries management.
There was a sad attempt at writing a resource allocation policy by a previous iteration of Fisheries Qld, that never saw the light of day unfortunately. So little has changed in this regard, especially in our inshore fishery where it's still open slather and go and catch as many fish as you can if you're a commercial netter.
We're told not to use four letters words as kids, but surely "FAIR" wasn't one of them?
"Fair" has never been used when it comes to fisheries management in this once "Smart State". Do you think it is fair and reasonable that for example, it is quite OK for commercial netters to set their nets in Queensland and take as many fish as they possibly can, with absolutely no cap on the total catch, while the poor old recreational fisher has to abide by very strict bag limits (not that that is a bad thing in principle), leaving the lion's share for the netters? Durrr................
Some third world countries understand this basic principle.
Recreational fishers would undoubtedly be the largest consumers of locally caught fish in Queensland, yet we don't even get a look in when the propaganda flows about all those poor people who don't catch their own fish. Yep, they're the ones eagerly buying the imported and farmed product because they can afford it. Most recreational fishers and their families would give their left arm to be able to reliably catch more of their own local fish to eat. Now there's a market growth opportunity if there ever was one.
Here is a copied article out of the USA that discusses resource allocation issues. We recommend you have a read of this, as this is what it's all about, but it will make you realize just how far behind the eight ball we really are here in little old Queensland.
Here's another little story that explains a bit about resource allocation -
The farmers and the fish
A simple analogy of the farmers with the fish sums up sustainability and simple resource allocation under fisheries management in Qld
Farmers A and B decide to get out of farming cattle and go into fish farming.
Both put in 52 breeding pairs of the same fish specie on their neighbouring properties with identical dams.
This particular fish has 2 offspring per year.
After 1 week farmer A needs a bit of cash and nets out and sells 51 pairs of fish.
After a year both farmers harvest half their fish. Farmer A takes and sells 2 fish. Farmer B takes and sells 104 fish.
Every year thereafter farmer A can take and sell 2 fish per year and farmer B can take and sell 104 fish.
It would appear that under Qld fisheries management, both these businesses would be deemed SUSTAINABLE.
Both Farmers have another lightbulb moment. They decide to offer recreational catch and release fishing in their dams. After similar extensive marketing by both, they have a steady stream of anglers turning up. Unfortunately after a few weeks, word gets out that most of the anglers fishing in farmer A's dam are catching very little while at farmer B's dam, anglers are usually assured of catching fish on a regular basis. Anglers continue to drive past farmer A and pay farmer B for the privilege of fishing in his dam.
This is effectively what is happening in Qld as tourist anglers drive and fly past on their way to the Northern Territory.
As anglers, we want to participate in scenario B.
We are arguing for sensible resource allocation and a fishery that provides an average angler a fair and reasonable chance and expectation of being able to catch a feed. That will require some resource re-allocation from commercial nets to angler lines as well as the creation of net free areas.
The debate on ''sustainability'' has been tied up for decades on technicalities while the fair allocation debate gets ignored.
Resource allocation is all about who gets what share of the pie. In nature, it tends to be whoever is the biggest and strongest, gets the most of whatever is going. Works in the jungle, but not so well in modern society.
A constant source of frustration and conflict between recreational and commercial fishers has always been resource allocation, or in Queensland's case, lack there of in any programmed sense. Until fairly recently in this state, allocation was simple - whoever could catch the most could have it. We've seen this change very slowly with the tentative introduction of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in a couple of our fisheries.Interestingly, the first fishery in this state to have a TAC imposed was the Spanner Crab fishery. That was somewhat ironic, because it was virtually only a commercial fishery anyway, with the recreational catch being so small as not be a consideration.
More recently we've seen TAC's introduced in the reef line fishery and a ridiculously high TAC of 250 tonnes imposed on the Grey mackerel fishery, but it is a start and a small step towards world best practice fisheries management.
There was a sad attempt at writing a resource allocation policy by a previous iteration of Fisheries Qld, that never saw the light of day unfortunately. So little has changed in this regard, especially in our inshore fishery where it's still open slather and go and catch as many fish as you can if you're a commercial netter.
We're told not to use four letters words as kids, but surely "FAIR" wasn't one of them?
"Fair" has never been used when it comes to fisheries management in this once "Smart State". Do you think it is fair and reasonable that for example, it is quite OK for commercial netters to set their nets in Queensland and take as many fish as they possibly can, with absolutely no cap on the total catch, while the poor old recreational fisher has to abide by very strict bag limits (not that that is a bad thing in principle), leaving the lion's share for the netters? Durrr................
Some third world countries understand this basic principle.
Recreational fishers would undoubtedly be the largest consumers of locally caught fish in Queensland, yet we don't even get a look in when the propaganda flows about all those poor people who don't catch their own fish. Yep, they're the ones eagerly buying the imported and farmed product because they can afford it. Most recreational fishers and their families would give their left arm to be able to reliably catch more of their own local fish to eat. Now there's a market growth opportunity if there ever was one.
Here is a copied article out of the USA that discusses resource allocation issues. We recommend you have a read of this, as this is what it's all about, but it will make you realize just how far behind the eight ball we really are here in little old Queensland.
Here's another little story that explains a bit about resource allocation -
The farmers and the fish
A simple analogy of the farmers with the fish sums up sustainability and simple resource allocation under fisheries management in Qld
Farmers A and B decide to get out of farming cattle and go into fish farming.
Both put in 52 breeding pairs of the same fish specie on their neighbouring properties with identical dams.
This particular fish has 2 offspring per year.
After 1 week farmer A needs a bit of cash and nets out and sells 51 pairs of fish.
After a year both farmers harvest half their fish. Farmer A takes and sells 2 fish. Farmer B takes and sells 104 fish.
Every year thereafter farmer A can take and sell 2 fish per year and farmer B can take and sell 104 fish.
It would appear that under Qld fisheries management, both these businesses would be deemed SUSTAINABLE.
Both Farmers have another lightbulb moment. They decide to offer recreational catch and release fishing in their dams. After similar extensive marketing by both, they have a steady stream of anglers turning up. Unfortunately after a few weeks, word gets out that most of the anglers fishing in farmer A's dam are catching very little while at farmer B's dam, anglers are usually assured of catching fish on a regular basis. Anglers continue to drive past farmer A and pay farmer B for the privilege of fishing in his dam.
This is effectively what is happening in Qld as tourist anglers drive and fly past on their way to the Northern Territory.
As anglers, we want to participate in scenario B.
We are arguing for sensible resource allocation and a fishery that provides an average angler a fair and reasonable chance and expectation of being able to catch a feed. That will require some resource re-allocation from commercial nets to angler lines as well as the creation of net free areas.
The debate on ''sustainability'' has been tied up for decades on technicalities while the fair allocation debate gets ignored.
