Require tunnel net fishers to have a Bycatch Reduction Device installed in the net. Introduce a symbol fee of $850 Promotes responsible fishing practices. Many tunnel netters already voluntarily use these Devices to ensure larger bycatch species escape the net alive. The new symbol fee reflects the more exclusive access 450 that could potentially access the fishery under current licensing arrangements. This is not expected to decrease the value of the N1 fishery symbol. Fishers will surrender an N1, but will have all the same rights as an N1 under the new symbol. The cost of installing a BRD will be in the order of $400 for those who do not already have one. The total cost to industry is likely to be less than $5000, given most operators already have TEDs installed. The net cost to industry of the new fee is likely to be around $17,000, plus up to $5000 for fitting of new TEDs ($22,000 total) The new licence fee reflects the of the access right and the more exclusive nature of the right compared to the N1. Allow ocean beach fishers to use N1 and K nets under the one symbol (K) and then remove the N1 symbols from the relevant licence. Revise the symbol fee to $580 in recognition of the amalgamation. (Not in RIS) Reduces duplication and reduces the potential for increases in netting effort. Minimal. There are currently 61 K symbol holders. These fishers will still be able to use the same suite of nets that they currently can, but under one symbol instead of two. The net licence fee will remain the same but be combined under the one symbol. The value of the licence is unlikely to be affected by the change. The proposal will prevent fishers being able to split off the N1 and transfer it on to a separate licence where it can be activated. No. Minimal impact. Remove the N5 and N7 symbols and issue current holders with an N2 and N1 respectively. Reduces duplication. Minimal. There are currently 4 N5 symbols and 4 N7 symbols. These fishers will be issued with symbols that give them greater flexibility and access. The access annual fees will remain the same. The value of the The proposal will significantly simplify the regulations. The proposal removes unnecessary restrictions.
Clarify that a general purpose mesh net that can be used in DPA zones cannot be allowed to drift freely. Removes uncertainty. Provides protection for dugong from drift nets. Nil. Removes uncertainty. No. The proposal will remove uncertainty. Clarify the closure to recreational netting in . Removes uncertainty. Nil. The proposal will clarify the currently enforced closure. No. All closures are currently included in the regulated waters provisions. Clarify the commercial netting closure in . Removes uncertainty. Nil. The proposal will clarify the currently enforced closure. No. All closures are currently included in the regulated waters provisions. Remove the 150 fish for spotted mackerel line fishers Removes unnecessary restrictions and allows the Total Allowable Catch to be more fully utilised. Nil. The proposal will allow commercial line fishers to catch more than the current 150 fish possession limit on a trip, improving the profitability of the sector. The proposal removes unnecessary restrictions. Increase the net caught incidental limit for spotted mackerel to 50 and introduce a trigger point at 100 tonnes, at which point the possession limit would revert back to 15 fish. Allows for net fishers to retain slightly more spotted mackerel when taken incidentally. The prohibition on ring netting for spotted mackerel will be maintained and the integrity of the TAC will not be compromised. Nil. The proposal will allow for net fishers to retain more spotted mackerel when fishing for other species, helping to improve their profitability, without impacting on spotted mackerel sustainability. No. The proposal relaxes some of the current restrictions. Tailor incidental limit to be reduced from 100kg to 30kg Ensures that the TAC can be monitored properly. Nil. The proposal is effectively only a reporting change. The proposal will for more effective monitoring of the TAC. No. An incidental limit needs to be in place in case the TAC is reached. The TAC has never been reached and much of the catch is incidental. Coral reef fin fish incidental net caught limit Allows net fishers to retain a amount (up to the recreational bag limit) of Minimal. Some quota holders felt it may drive down prices by putting lower quality net caught product on the market. Allows net fishers to retain fish that are dead when caught incidentally. No. The proposal allows net fishers to retain and sell a small number of fish that possession
Prohibit use of any net (except commercial bait nets and set pocket nets) within 200 m of a public jetty or wharf. Limited comment. General agreement. 62% of commercial, 59% of recreational and 62% of conservation agreed. ANSA – Strongly agree Sunfish – Opposed, some nets currently 400m should be retained QSIA – Strongly (need to clarify “public” jetty) JCU – Agree Provide minimum requirements for the marking of all nets. General support. Suggestion that lights should blink. General agreement. 80% of commercial, 73% of recreational and 67% of conservation agreed. ANSA – Strongly QSIA – Strongly JCU – Agree Oceanwatch – Agree Clarify that only one net may be used at a time under any net symbol. No opposition – noting that the proposal does not to N2. General agreement. 55% of commercial, 80% of recreational and 83% of conservation agreed. ANSA – Strongly agree QSIA – Strongly agree (noting N2 multiple nets, support dual-endorsed fishers cannot operate under more than one symbol WWF – Supported JCU – Agree Oceanwatch – Agree Allow for the use of recognised By-catch Reduction Devices. No opposition. General agreement. 59% of commercial, 82% of recreational and 84% of conservation agreed. ANSA – Strongly agree QSIA – Strongly agree WWF – Supported JCU – Oceanwatch – Strongly agree
MEETING COMMENTS RIS RESPONSES MAJOR STAKEHOLDER CLOSURES Eurimbula Creek Strong opposition to the closure at most meetings. Important recreational fishing and camping area. of green zones in the region, so need for further closures. 44% of commercial fishers supported the proposal, 37% were neutral and 11% disagreed. 31% of recreational fishers supported the proposal, 26% were neutral and 42% disagreed. 68% of conservationists supported the proposal, 23% were neutral and 8% disagreed. QSIA supports the proposal ANSA strongly disagrees AMCS supports the proposal Sunfish opposes the proposal Fishing tackle association opposes the proposal Strong support from the commercial sector in the Burdekin. Strong opposition from the recreational sector in the Burdekin. Few comments outside the immediate region. 26% of commercial fishers supported the proposal, 66% were neutral and 7% disagreed. 40% of recreational fishers supported the proposal, 43% were neutral and 16% disagreed. 54% of conservationists supported the proposal, 46% were neutral and 0% disagreed. QSIA supports the proposal JCU fisheries group supports the proposal Weekend closures Widespread support from commercial and recreational meeting for retaining weekend closure as is () as it was agreed to between sectors to ensure access in the afternoons and to deal with certain tides. 67% of commercial fishers supported the proposal, 27% were neutral and 9% disagreed. 65% of recreational fishers supported the proposal, 23% were neutral and 10% disagreed. 54% of conservationists supported the proposal, 46% were neutral and 0% disagreed. QSIA supports the proposal JCU fisheries group supports the proposal Support from the commercial sector in the area. Opposition from the recreational sector in the area. Few comments outside the immediate region. 43% of commercial fishers supported the proposal, 43% were neutral and 13% disagreed. 76% of recreational fishers supported the proposal, 19% were neutral and 4% disagreed. 76% of conservationists supported the proposal, 15% were neutral and 7% disagreed. QSIA supports the proposal Southern Has been superseded by zoning. No support for additional closure from commercial or recreational fishers. 32% of commercial fishers supported the proposal, 56% were neutral and 11% disagreed. QSIA neutral