arthur-pieman_conservation_area_submission.htm  

29 March 2001

Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council:
The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) is the peak representative body for the commercial fishing industry in Tasmania. This submission for the "Inquiry into the finalisation of the Draft Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area Management Plan 2000" is made in representation of those fishing industry interests.

The notes below are designed to provide an overall perspective for an understanding of important issues with recommendations placed in dot point form within the conclusion. TFIC respectfully requests that the issues raised hereunder are seriously considered for inclusion into the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area Management Plan.

Background and Draft Recommendations document:
In the recently released Background and Draft Recommendations document a comment was made in Section 1: Global Summary of Responses: Users of the Area: Fishermen.

The observation was made that little input has come from commercial fishermen in regard to the management plan and that this is probably due to very few fishermen being affected by the plan. It continues to say that those individuals who are affected face considerable uncertainty but that the issues are adequately addressed by submission 297.

As the representative body of the licensed commercial fishermen affected by the plan (and in the light of those comments) TFIC feels that the livelihood and interests of those individuals affected by the plan would appear to have been treated in a casual and inappropriate manner. This applies to both the Background and Draft Recommendations document and to submission 297.

The former appears to be downplaying the importance of these issues that affect more than just a few fishermen. The latter indicates a willingness to develop protocols with the industry with regard to infrastructure and operations but falls well short of introducing any proactive or constructive attempt at finding a resolution to the problem. The issues involved in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area (APCA) are clearly seriously affecting the livelihood of individuals and their families within the fishing industry.

Commercial Fishermen: Traditional Coastal Use
Over the past decades abalone divers, net fishermen and rock lobster fishermen have traditionally utilised northwest Tasmanian coastal access points for launching/retrieving vessels, safely landing their catch for timely transport to processors, rock lobster pot bait collection and fishing gear retrieval from the beaches. Many of these access points are now included within the APCA.

Coastal access restrictions within the Conservation Area have already had significant detrimental effects upon those licensed commercial fishermen who have historically used these coastal access points.

The reduction in coastal access points available to commercial fishermen along the northwest Tasmanian coastline has placed severe constraints upon the commercial fishing industry’s ability to fish the entire coast in a safe, responsible and sustainable way. This is the indisputable right of our licensed fishing industry members and has been so for generations.

The plan seriously compromises maritime safety in its present form:
One significant consequence of these Conservation Area closures strikes at the very heart of the current initiative from Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) for increased water safety awareness. The reduction of coastal access points quite obviously elevates the potential for lives to be lost at sea. This point is relevant for all boat users.

With conditions on the West Coast being unpredictable and fickle (as has been amply documented elsewhere) it is often vitally important to have a secondary vessel landing/retrieval point when coming ashore. This is pertinent both during normal fishing operations and also when fishermen voluntarily assume a crucial role in emergency search and rescue operations that have to be undertaken in the region from time to time.

For a fisherman to have to travel to an access point miles away from the launching area because the safe bay within a few hundred metres is closed is patently ludicrous and highly likely to cause even more loss of life on the west coast.

Bluff Hill Point Access:
An estimated 30+ licensed commercial fishermen annually access the northwest coast from time to time with the beach access point on the northern side of Bluff Hill Point being the primary point of access for many. Bluff Hill Point is now the most northern coastal access point to a rugged and remote coastline that is subject to rapid extremes of weather and sea conditions.

Bluff Hill Point offers no facilities apart from rudimentary unformed beach access to the water. To describe the road into Bluff Hill Point, the terms ‘atrocious’ and ‘appalling’ immediately spring to mind. This so-called road is an intolerable imposition for those fishermen who have little choice but to regularly tow expensive boats, valuable catch and equipment along it. It is in desperate need of substantial upgrading and maintenance.

One Example of APCA Coastal Access Point Restrictions:
The Bluff Hill Point ocean access can become impassable if weather conditions change whilst vessels are at sea, forcing fishermen to seek another landing point (previously on the southern or lee side of the headland). Likewise, with prevailing conditions it can be dangerous to attempt to put to sea from Bluff Hill Point although the access points to the south of the headland may well be safe at that same time.

On the southern side of the Bluff Hill Point headland are Crosseys Bay, Tummers (Harry’s) Bay and further south, Church Rock (north of the Arthur River) all of which are now included in the APCA. These bays have been areas that have historically provided safe coastal access points vital to commercial fishermen for both launching or landing (especially with boats loaded with catch) when the Bluff Hill Point access has become too dangerous and as such foolhardy to attempt. The restrictions now applying to these areas of the APCA place significant and unnecessary constraints upon the legitimate activities of our fishing industry members.

With the recent unfortunate closure of West Point to the general public, the next public coastal access point to the north is on the northern coastline in the Montagu Channel. This is over 30 nautical miles by sea and in excess of 60 minutes by road from Bluff Hill Point. The closest southern coastal access point is Sundown Point, (approximately 10 nautical miles to the south or 40 minutes by road). Both of these coastal access points are unreasonable distances for fishermen to have to travel from Bluff Hill Point with obvious problems if the vehicle and trailer are in one place while the boat and valuable catch is forced to land at another.

Other APCA Access Constraints:
The issue of coastal access is not localised to Bluff Hill Point. Fishermen further south are encountering similar difficulties. Access within this region (along sections of coastline from Nelson Bay to Sandy Cape) has also been restricted in areas that have been traditionally open and available to licensed commercial fishermen.

Rock lobster fishermen and net fishermen (especially those who use beach seine nets) are seriously restricted in their activities in this region. Gill net and beach seine fishermen have had traditional access to the beaches from Couta Rocks to Sandy Cape for many years with some fishing this area five and six times a year, more-so in winter.

Beaches and areas fished include Stinking Beach (Rebecca), Possum Banks (Darties Corner), Dawsons Bay, Gannet Point, Greenes Point and Sandy Cape. Access may be open to one or two of these places but appropriate access for fishermen with a heavy catch is not available now via existing tracks to the most suitable beaches that have been historically fished for generations.

In essence, the problem of restricted coastal access is creating significant difficulties for our fishing industry members in most of the northern coastal areas of the APCA.

Undesirable Localised Fishing Effort
Encouraging commercial fishing to ‘relocate into established nodes of shack development on unallocated Crown land’ at Temma and Couta Rocks (Draft Management Plan: 5.5) is not a viable option for the fishing industry. The immediate negative aspect that must be understood is that the proposed move focuses fishing effort into more specific localised coastal regions.

The entire concept of fishing an area sustainably is based on the precept of spreading the fishing effort as equitably within the region as is possible. Ongoing assessment is needed over that same region to monitor sustainability of the fish stocks. Concentrating the fishing pressure into localised regions through restricted access and relocation causes the processes of assessment and monitoring to become inadequate or biased. Competition for the catch closer to those remaining access points is likely to make the fishing activity untenable for marginal fishermen, a situation which would have the effect of unfairly forcing them from the industry.

Commercial fishing activity in the APCA is varied. Rock lobster fishermen, abalone divers and net fishermen are all stakeholders in the region. All need adequate access to the entire coastline without being confined to specific areas that may not be able to sustain the fishing pressure over time.

Vessel Survey Requirements:
The issue of travelling extended distances at sea from the launching area has further ramifications for fishermen who have stringent (limited) survey conditions to comply with as well as post-fishing reports to make within a specific time-frame. These regulations are not a matter of choice for the fishermen but licence conditions that are imposed by MAST and strenuously enforced by the Marine Police.

The vessel survey requirements that fishermen must comply with have gained authorities attention at MAST due to the access closures being likely to cause fishermen to operate outside the area that the boats are surveyed to operate in. Causes for this would be being caught in adverse weather after launching or being forced to launch substantial distances from the fishing ground due to a lack of suitable access.

These survey regulations include the ‘3 x 30’ and ‘2 x 20’ surveys. The former restriction means that the licensed fishing vessels are surveyed to go 3 nautical miles out to sea and can range a maximum of 30 nautical miles along the coast from the launching site. Those boats not equipped with marine radio are further limited to the latter ‘2 x 20’ restriction. Most of the aluminium dinghies used by abalone divers fall into the latter group.

This is an issue that could realistically create serious difficulties for the fishermen and divers should they be required to launch away from the fishing ground or land and retrieve their boats at other points on the coastline. A good example would be if an abalone diver could not launch at Bluff Hill Point due to weather conditions and had to travel by sea from either Sundown Point or Montagu on the north coast to access the abalone northern zone that commences at Arthur River. Apart from the survey restrictions, there are other issues to be recognised in relation to these zones.

Abalone Zones:
Bluff Hill Point is the only vessel launching point on the west coast in the Northern Zone of the abalone fishery. Abalone fishermen must by law launch and retrieve their boats in that zone. It is illegal for them to access the water from Sundown Point, fish in the Northern Zone and land back at Sundown.

Historically if conditions prevented them using Bluff Hill Point they could launch their boats from the southern side of the headland at Crosseys Bay or Tummers Bay. The option to access the water on the south side of the Bluff Hill Point headland is currently no longer open to them with this being a significant and expensive constraint to those abalone divers who have traveled across the state to work in the Northern Zone.

‘Prior’ and ‘Post’ Fishing Report Requirements:
When rock lobster and abalone fishermen commence fishing activities they are required to make a ‘prior’ and ‘post’ fishing report to the authorities. These stringently enforced reporting requirements could easily be compromised by instances of landing away from the launching point (with possible unnecessary penalties).

The remaining access points on the northwest coast are obviously poor and costly options for commercial fishermen with a valuable catch on board, specific survey stipulations to adhere to and stringently enforced time constraints to comply with due to post-catch reporting requirements.

Economic and Enforcement Factors:
Economic and enforcement factors that relate to licensed commercial fishermen must be considered in this management plan. With commercial fishermen having to launch their vessels at Sundown Point or on the northern coast in the Montagu channel, there is the added impost of significantly elevated costs for boat and vehicle transport. There is also the issue of an extended duration that the catch is exposed before being adequately refrigerated or processed.

The international perception of Tasmanian high value quality seafood is exactly as it appears. Top quality. To expect fishermen to transport their catch longer distances, delay the processing of their catch and risk having a substandard product because a bay suitable for launching within a few hundred metres of the remaining launching area is now closed is demonstrably short sighted. The decision making process is obviously ignoring the common good for Tasmania. Any intelligent decision should be considering the global picture not a localised one.

Bait Capture and Gear Retrieval:
Fishermen have hitherto been able to access the coast to net for the bait that they need for rock lobster pots. These activities can require access to significant portions of the coast. To purchase bait is a completely unnecessary and sometimes prohibitive expense.

The other very important factor to consider here is that rock lobster fishermen need to be able to retrieve rock lobster pots and gear that is regularly strewn over miles of beach after storm events. To leave expensive ropes, pots and buoys scattered on the beaches is not only another unnecessary expense for the fishermen but environmentally irresponsible as it can pose an unnecessary threat to other species. Examples of this are entanglement and ghost fishing. Significant costs in relation to lost gear and bait capture are borne unnecessarily by the rock lobster fishermen while coastal access is unavailable.

Impact of Commercial Fishers Vehicular Access
The tracks through the coastal areas are old and established, with many of the fishermen using appropriately registered four-wheel-drive All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) to tow the boats wherever possible to minimise any environmental impact when using coastal access points. There is no need for commercial fishermen to drive over any vegetated areas, as all they require is continued access on existing tracks.

This action constitutes no threat to terrestrial flora or fauna. Those fishermen who require access to these regions have significant experience with off-road vehicles and require the access to go about their work activities.

It is important to make a clear statement that these commercial fishermen use off-road vehicles for their livelihood, treating their access and the environment with the respect that it deserves. They are not recreational users who may on occasion include inexperienced drivers and other drivers with little regard for the environment.

The proposal for the formation of an Off-road vehicle consultative group for the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area (Section 3.5.2) is a significant initiative especially if the group is able to assist in the enforcement of vehicular access. TFIC believes that local licensed commercial fishermen would be ideal candidates for membership of this group. Access issues in the Conservation Area that affect commercial fishermen would have an opportunity to be aired and constructively resolved.

Orange-bellied Parrot:
An issue that has a bearing on the restrictive coastal access for commercial fishermen within the Conservation Area is the fact that the endangered Orange-bellied Parrot (Section 3.8:) uses a two kilometre wide corridor between Macquarie Harbour and Marrawah for shelter and feeding during its annual migratory flight. The bird is known to shelter in the Bluff Hill Point region.

Cattle agistment has a far greater impact on this endangered species than fishermen due to the cattle providing competition for food resources. It is established beyond doubt that the bird is not known to commonly settle upon the tracks in question. Fishermen have rarely seen it as it feeds and roosts away from vehicular tracks in the area.

It seems absurd that this issue could have a bearing on access to the coast when there are plans to build giant wind power generators with rotating windmill-style blades right within the flight path of this same endangered migratory bird.

Hooded Plover:
The Hooded Plover nests on the sand above the high tide mark or in the dunes. As the nest sites are of a cryptic nature, vehicular activity on beaches could conceivably have a deleterious effect on this species.

In the case of commercial fishermen accessing the beach, it is highly unlikely that the vehicular traffic would have any need to traverse along the beach above the high tide mark or within the dunes regions. Apart from launching and retrieving vessels, ATVs and four-wheel-drives are used to travel on the hard sand of the inter-tidal zone for netting, bait collection activities and lost fishing gear retrieval. These activities do not constitute a threat to the Hooded Plover. The traffic is very low impact and unlikely to cause environmental degradation. Commercial fishermen are well aware of their responsibilities.

Aboriginal Cultural Significance:
It is both understandable and most desirable to see areas of Aboriginal cultural significance identified and preserved wherever possible (Section 3.2). With internationally unique sites of archaeological and historical importance extant in the Conservation Area anything less is culturally irresponsible.

TFIC supports the preservation of clearly identified scientifically proven sites of both Aboriginal and non-aboriginal significance.

It is understood that there is always a possibility of an interaction between vehicles and areas of Aboriginal heritage considering the evidence of artifact deposits and scatter, hut depressions and petroglyphs in the region. However, the access required by fishing industry members is on established tracks that have been used for years. Because of this, interaction would appear to be an unlikely occurrence, as the tracks in question do not appear to impinge upon areas of significance.

The threat of environmental and significant site damage is far greater from cattle agisted in the area than from commercial fishermen utilising established tracks (Section 3.2.4).

TFIC Representative Visit to the APCA:
As an adjunct to these issues, an intelligent way to approach the problem is to foster a spirit of cooperation with the authorities that have jurisdiction over the area. To encourage this cooperative attitude a Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council representative visited the area and met with Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) rangers at Arthur River on 27 February this year.

The rangers at the meeting professed to be as keen to see the situation resolved on a satisfactory basis as are the fishermen. Mindful of this during the meeting, relative perspectives were discussed with emphasis on the possible interaction of fishermen with the Orange-bellied parrot and Aboriginal middens. The substantial policing and enforcement problems facing PWS rangers within the Conservation Area was also considered.

Access Arrangements:
During the discussions a possible resolution to the problem was raised. In areas where automatic access must be restricted, the suggestion was made by TFIC that provision be made in the forth-coming management plan for licensed commercial fishermen to be able to apply to have a permit/licence or ‘on-going arrangement’ (for access to the coast within the APCA) issued in conjunction with their fishing licenses.

These permits would be issued to facilitate the use of established tracks for access to beaches and launching/retrieval sites for commercial fishing activities only.

Partnership Approach:
It was discussed that a benefit for PWS would be that this privilege (should it become a reality) could also require the fishermen to act in a custodial role within the area. Those licensed fishermen granted access would liaise closely with PWS rangers to assist in the enforcement of the access restrictions in a ‘partnership approach’ to the problem. This would be advantageous to both parties as the PWS rangers indicated at the meeting that enforcement is an ongoing problem that they seem unable to resolve with resources as they are at present.

PWS verbal agreement:
A concession gained from the PWS rangers during the meeting in February was a verbal agreement for fishermen to land at those safe bays within the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area if weather conditions rendered the Bluff Hill Point dangerous. PWS also indicated that there would be no constraints should there be a search and rescue operation that fishermen are involved in.

The word ‘dangerous’ was indicated to mean ‘where human life was endangered’, with the adjunct that the fishermen would have to make that value judgement themselves at the time. Unfortunately this will only apply to vessels landing within the Conservation Area, which is a situation that will require vehicles and trailers to enter the region to retrieve the vessel. This creates a situation that still places severe constraints on vessel launching and is not a complete resolution to the problem.

Subsequent Correspondence with PWS:
The Parks and Wildlife Service has subsequently been asked in a formal letter from TFIC to allow the licensed commercial fishermen to continue to both launch and land at the access points that they have traditionally used. Enforcement requirements would place a responsibility upon the fishermen to provide provenance of their right as licensed commercial fishers to continue their traditional access, as well as to act in liaison with Parks and Wildlife in a responsible custodial manner.

A PWS email reply to the TFIC letter is dated 28 March 2001. PWS staff are obviously concerned with the endangered species and cultural heritage issues and ask for information on numbers, frequency etc of commercial fishers activities.

The positive thrust of the PWS communication is that the TFIC request for commercial fishermen to act in a custodial role in conjunction with their on-going ‘reliable’ access is both ‘logical’ and ‘an appealing one’. This would obviously be an option welcomed by both TFIC and the licensed commercial fishermen affected by the management plan.

Conclusion:
TFIC is very keen to see a workable and equitable resolution to the current situation. Some of these commercial fishermen have fished the northwest coast for many years, as did their forefathers before them. Even if they are considered to be a minority, they have strong cultural links and traditional ties to these areas that must be considered alongside the request for continued access for all commercial fishermen and divers.

Recommendations for inclusion into the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area Management plan are as follows:

• That adequate reliable continued access rights to coastal access points and beaches within the APCA are available to licensed commercial fishermen.
• That should automatic access not be forth-coming, a special authority for off-road access in the form of a no-cost permit (or similar arrangement) is available for licensed commercial fishermen upon application to PWS.
• That those commercial fishermen making the application provide provenance of their status as licensed commercial fishermen.
• That licensed commercial fishermen (especially those local to the APCA) assume a custodial role in liaison with PWS authorities to assist in enforcement and policing of access to sensitive areas.
Back to Top