Our Mulloway Are In Peril!
At the beginning of June, 2017, I was invited by the NSW DPI (Department of Primary Industry) to attend a meeting of recreational fishing stakeholders intended to discuss the ongoing mulloway recovery program in that state. A similar meeting of commercial stakeholders was scheduled to take place shortly afterwards. Participants in both meetings were to be presented with a paper (which you can read here). This was accompanied by presentations from several DPI researchers. Below I’ve attempted to convey the “guts” of this meeting in simplified terms that I hope most anglers can relate to. But please don’t take my word as gospel on this critical issue! Read the paper as well, and search out the literature it quotes. This subject is too important to take for granted or gloss over. If we don’t do something, we face the potential demise of one of our most iconic saltwater species.
Mulloway or jewfish are a peak predator greatly prized by fishers and seafood fanciers alike.
OVERFISHED STOCKS
In NSW, mulloway or jewfish have been officially classified by the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) as “overfished” since 2004/05. In November 2013, a recovery program was implemented in an effort to rebuild mulloway stocks. This program involved, amongst other things, an increase in the species’ minimum legal length from 45 to 70 cm for both recreational and commercial fishers (with a significant exception that we’ll look at later), and a reduction in the recreational bag limit from 5 fish per angler per day to 2 fish per angler per day.
Jewfish or mulloway are an iconic species. Unfortunately, NSW stocks are in very poor shape.
Unfortunately, ongoing monitoring of stocks since the implementation of this recovery program indicates that mulloway are still in serious trouble throughout NSW, despite some better-than-average spawning years. Recent scientific estimates of the total size of the mulloway biomass in NSW indicate that it’s down to somewhere between 5% and 20% of its original (un-fished) size. Even worse, most of the scientists involved were of the personal opinion that the true figure was likely to lie at the lower end of that range: probably somewhere around the 7 or 8% mark, according to several researchers I spoke to… In other words, potentially around 92-93% of the state’s baseline mulloway stocks (as they would have been at the time of European settlement) are now gone from our waters!
Furthermore, while it’s known from the analysis of otoliths (ear bones) that mulloway can live for at least 34 years in the wild, relatively few fish make it past the 4 to 6 year mark these days. So, jewies are not only stock- or population-overfished, but also seriously size-overfished.
This was the age frequency of mulloway sampled between 2002 and 2005… the dramatic lack of fish over 4 years of age sounded real alarm bells and was one of the triggers leading to the implementation of the recovery program.
By 2014/15, the age spread of mulloway in NSW looked slightly better, but there should still be a lot more fish in the population older than 6 years. (NB: The vertical scale on this graph is different to the 2002 – 2005 graph above.)
Since the breaking of the millennial drought (thanks to a series of wetter years between 2008 and 2011), there have been several better-than-average spawning seasons for mulloway, resulting in a noticeable spike in numbers of juvenile and sub-adult fish. This increase in the number of small jewies (often referred to as “soapies”) has been widely reported by both recreational and commercial fishers. However, relatively few of these small fish are surviving to become large fish, and to spawn multiple times.
Here are a few important facts about mulloway biology:
- Female mulloway mature and spawn for the first time at an average length of 68 – 70 cm
- Male mulloway mature and spawn for the first time at an average length of 50 – 52 cm
- Mulloway grow relatively rapidly in their first few years of life, after which their growth slows and becomes highly variable between individuals and geographic locations
WHO OR WHAT IS KILING OUR JEWIES?
Mulloway are obviously a highly desirable and sought-after target for both recreational and commercial fishers. Both sectors take large quantities. Declared commercial catches peaked just shy of 400 tonnes per annum in the mid-1970s and have been in general decline ever since. Commercial catches are now back to about where they were at the end of World War Two… and you can imagine how much more effort there is today, and how much more sophisticated that effort it is! Commercial fishers are struggling to catch jewies today as well — especially fish over the 70 cm minimum length.
Declared commercial catches of mulloway in NSW peaked at almost 400 tonnes per annum in the 1970s and have trended down ever since, with a slight rise since the end of the drought in the “noughties”.
Not too surprisingly, there’s virtually no worthwhile and accurate historical data on recreational catches of mulloway in NSW, but these catches are clearly very significant, and it’s quite likely that the rec’ catch has equaled or exceeded the official commercial catch in many years, especially since about the early 1990s. Today, the recreational catch is thought to be in the order of 100 tonnes per annum (potentially twice the size of the official commercial catch!).
However, since the increase in the minimum size limit from 45 cm to 70 cm in November 2013, a lot more mulloway are being released by rec’ anglers. In fact, more than 80% of all the jewies caught by anglers are now released! Researchers believe that these released fish have a very high survival rate (80%+ on average, and significantly higher for lure caught fish). Here are the estimated recreational catches (based on creel surveys and other research) for 2000/01 and 2013/14; expressed as numbers of fish caught and further broken down into the percentages kept and released:
It’s believed that rec’ anglers release in excess of 80% of the mulloway they catch these days. This includes both undersized and legal fish. Mulloway released by anglers have high survival rates.
It should be stressed that the catch statistics for both commercial and recreational sectors don’t include the undeclared, illegal “black market” operations of either sector, which may well be significant, especially when talking about such a high-value target species.
Mulloway released by anglers are known to have very high survival rates: generally well in excess of 80%.
TWO “SMOKING GUNS”
The other two “smoking guns” in the demise of mulloway stocks in NSW are the discarded by-catch of juveniles taken during trawling operations (especially estuarine prawn trawling), and the effects of loss and degradation of nursery habitat caused by bottom trawling, dredging, land reclamation, siltation, pollution, acid soil run-off, damming of coastal rivers, etc, etc.
Degradation of our waterways has obviously played a part in the demise of jewfish stocks.
These two impacts are obviously immense, although there’s reason to believe (or at least hope!) that both have been reduced slightly over time. Improved trawling practices — including the implementation of fish exclusion devices and other modifications to trawl nets — along with better management in the form of periodic closures and spatial restraints on trawling, have no doubt reduced the by-catch. However, it’s hard to quantify this reduction without a lot more research. Similarly, more stringent environmental monitoring and tighter controls on polluters and developers are slowly improving the health of many estuaries… but there’s clearly a long way to go! These are things we need to be pushing to fix as a community. However, their solutions are likely to be long term. Meanwhile, we need to act fast to save our mulloway stocks.
SO, WHY HASN’T THE RECOVERY PROGRAM WORKED?
From what I saw and heard at the meeting, the 2013 recovery program had two key weak points: Firstly, there was a clause built into the increased minimum length regulations allowing commercial estuary mesh netters to keep 10 undersized fish per day (10 jewies between the old limit of 45 cm and the new limit of 70 cm). This “get out of jail free” card has definitely backfired in a big way! While it was intended to prevent the “wastage” of a few stray undersized fish caught (and usually killed) in these nets, it has been interpreted and applied by many commercial operators as a de facto quota.
Mulloway form tight schools that are highly susceptible to netting.
Not only do many netters intentionally aim to kill their 10 undersized mulloway per day, a significant proportion of operators within this fishery greatly exceed that number on what appears to be a regular basis. In fact, 25% of the netters checked by DPI had retained more than 10 undersized jewies on the day they were checked… and some of these breaches of the regulations were nothing short of spectacular. The greatest number of undersized mulloway found in a single netter’s possession was 189 fish (!), but this was by no means a stand-out exception, as other offenders had 121, 72, 63 and so on undersized jewies in their catch! Unfortunately, I don’t have any information on whether any of these operators faced charges as a result of their blatant breaches.
Most jewies encountered these days are under the 70 cm minimum legal length.
It’s hard to envisage the community at large issuing a “social licence” for this kind of mandated breaking of the rules in any other realm of modern day commercial activity. Can you imagine a long-haul truck driver being told that he or she was allowed to break the road rules 10 times each day without penalty… and then finding out that one driver had actually done it 189 times?
The other anomaly within the changes to the regulations that formed part of the 2013 recovery program was the reduction of the recreational bag limit from 5 fish per day, with only 2 allowed over 70 cm, to 2 fish per day over 70 cm. In other words, rec’ anglers could kill 2 a day over 70 cm before the changes… and they can still do exactly the same today! So there has been no effective reduction in the potential take of spawning-size mulloway by the very large recreational sector. This sounds to me a bit like a “Clayton’s change”… the sort of change you have when you’re not having a change!
From my perspective (and I must stress that this is only my personal opinion), the immediate solution involves a little bit of give and a little bit of pain from both sectors: an abandonment of the ridiculous 10 undersized mulloway “by catch” allowance for the commercials, and an effective reduction of the take of larger fish by the recreational sector; either by halving the limit to ONE fish over 70 cm, or allowing 2 over 70 cm, only 1 of which may be over a metre (100 cm)… If both sectors don’t bite the bullet and do something immediately, stocks will continue to decline (especially during the next drought period). Ultimately we may be faced with a much less palatable choice… Something, perhaps, like a 5-year moratorium on the taking of any mulloway from NSW waters by either sector…
What do YOU reckon the best answer is?
NB: Please note that the personal opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of others involved in the June, 2017 stakeholder meeting.
Surely one fish a day like this is plenty for any recreational angler? We need to give a little to get a little… and time is fast running out for our mighty mulloway!
Good informative write up Starlo
There needs be more give on both side’s – Rec + Commercial sectors & better fisheries management programs put into place with proper consultation with Rec + commercial fishers + penalties that are actually enforced.
Thanks for your efforts.
FH
im a hardcore Jew fisher in mainly the sydney harbour and parramatta region been releasing alot of mulloway from 45 to 90cm i love them wish we had abit more big quality fish to catch over the metre.makes it very hard to get that 1 metre these days to over fished the waterways and people taking to many big jewfish which I’d prefer to live another day if you keep a jewfish to eat I reckon keep 1 only 70cm and over return any over the metre and under 70 got to give them a chance the last 7 years I’ve fished for jewfish in sydbey harbour parramatta region I’ve seen only 10 mulloway over 1 metre biggest being 116 and I go real hard my addictions that bad for them I go atleast 5 times a week and still struggle mayby hook that dream fish every few months when it should be every few sessions I hope use read this and really do something about it because I can see an impact on these beautifull fish very rare u see big Jews go back these days let alone get a chance to hook a big Jew and not a soapy it’s sad really is.if I could ban taking jewfish and catch and release for 5years I would because I know these strong fish will come back hard and grow big before you know it this last week I’ve released 5 jewfish 75 to 80cm looking healthy and strong would be nice to see them get to a metre without getting taken.. that’s my opinion hope use do something soon before it’s to late
Starlo thanks for a very well written and researched article. We really all need to help protect this iconic fish stock.
Hi Steve
I wonder if there is any thing to learn from the hunting fraternity in the US where shooters buy a season tag to take game. Perhaps this could apply to jew (e.g. a season limit of say 10 fish which must be tagged with pre-purchased tags that cannot be reused) but how it would work in practice is the issue, at the end of the day we can have the best rules and significant fines but without enough fisheries officer’s on the ground it becomes voluntary
Hi I made the comment above but as I read further into your discussions I see it is well covered, sorry for going over old ground. At the risk of doing so again, is there any data presented about other species for example snapper and dusky flathead ? would be good to put these species into the context as a point of comparison as many species are probably a fraction today of their 1788 population.
Big fish worth plenty $, simple as that….black market, desperate times, it’s been open slather for at least ten years in northern NSW, as I’m sure you have heard firsthand. Thanks for your concern, and best of luck in your endevours… with great respect, I think you will need it.
Close it for 5yrs I like to really see if this will help the recovery program and remove the 10 a day for commercial fisherman as they are obviously not looking to save there own livelihood.
[* Shield plugin marked this comment as “0”. Reason: Human SPAM filter found “possess” in “comment_content” *]
Steve I think one fish per day is still to much, one fish in possession, perhaps. As you know there are still anglers here locally that go out to catch two fish per day every day when they are on the bite. Really how much can you eat? The release statistic are good which in reality means that the rec fishers ate only taking 20 ton? Education is working, I just think that perhaps there should be more of it.
[* Shield plugin marked this comment as “0”. Reason: Human SPAM filter found “i needs” in “comment_content” *]
Hi Steve,
Thanks for providing such a detailed report. I personally have been eagerly awaiting an update since the recovery program was implemented.
From my own perspective, Which I draw from two decades targeting Mulloway with now a totally dedicated couple of years of exclusively fishing for this species on lure in Sydney with 99% catch and release, Is much the same of the report. With a targeted approach good numbers are achievable but over 85% seem to be in that smaller range, With bigger fish encountered seasonally and most of the time through an extremely dedicated approach. I know I personally work harder for the bigger fish than decades past and I think going off what many older and experienced anglers say, This is now the norm. Including the far North NSW guys who have historically experienced consistent XL fish and lots of them.
Exceptional catches both in volume and size are still occurring which can give some anglers a false representation of just how far the biomass is down across the state. The volume and size overfishing is a major concern and it feels that while a number of key systems are fished hard the Mulloway have little chance of substantial recovery.
Tagging has shown us the fish release very well when handled correctly. It also shows that the species loves to travel. Hawkesbury fish regularly move between other key systems both north and south like the Hunter, Shoalhaven etc. This is highlighting that protecting one system may be useless as the fish travel wide distances and are eventually running into trouble, Usually well before getting close to maximum growth potential and as stated often prior to being able to spawn enough times to begin a significant population rebound.
You have asked what we think should be done. The above report (which is the only official date we can currently use) paints a very clear picture. Since DPI implemented the recovery program the data suggests that recreational angling of the species has reduced mortality on juveniles but not adult fish. The commercial estuary general mesh sector are still impacting juveniles and adult stock negatively and this is a major concern. With 25% of the commercial estuary mesh netters checked found to be exceeding the limit of 10 the answer seems simple..
How could any rec make an impact on stock to the likes of the one operator that had 189 in his possession!
This attempt at ‘reducing wastage’ seems to be doing the exact opposite and allowing mesh netters to continue to deplete stocks, Often before they have had a chance to spawn.
I personally emailed NDW DPI in 2014 to express my concerns and in the reply I received I was told it was hoped the minimum 70cm size increase would deter the commercial estuary general mesh sector from targeting them… Clearly this is not working and the fish are being targeted.
From reading various posts you can see this is a very delicate issue. Many commercial guys seem very aggressive when presented with their role in stock depletion plus we all know there are recs out there keeping undersize fish. I find it hard to imagine any recs keeping the volume of undersized fish found on the 25% of checked netters though.
DPI needs to urgently review the 10 under 70cm rule and abolish it while also having a realistic look at whether simply increasing a net size will do anything at all in reducing mortality of undersized fish in this sector. A buyout of estuary mesh netters needs serious review in key systems such as the Hawkesbury river where volume take is the highest in the state.
I agree for recs we need a one fish over 70 in place plus potentially a slot limit on larger fish much like the USA do with Red Fish. Alternately surely we could mirror the Bass and Estuary perch scenario with closed seasons over the estimated spawning period for both recs and commercials with heavy fisheries presence in key systems for both sectors. Potentially funded by an increase in recreational angling fees which I feel would be warranted in this instance.
Either way action needs to be taken while we still have enough stock for the species to recover. Lets hope DPI can actually address the findings in their report and make some tough decisions to secure a positive future.
Please keep us informed of any updates you hear of.
Many Regards,
Aaron Papas
Hi Starlo
My answer is no commercial fishing at all. They just cannot control there catch. One Jewfish over 70cm for eating for recreational fisher. 3 jewfish per group. Lets face it they are a good fresh large feed but do not keep well frozen.
What a fantastic article. I think on a recreational level one fish over a metre per a day is sufficient, if your mentality is to take just enough for a feed then one fish is plenty!! Professional boats should just have more stringent monitoring as it is lively hoods at risk but also should not be allowed to bend the rules. As said during the article it’s not a short term band aid solution its long terms it’s our children’s future both recreationally and professionally. Kind regards vic
Thanks Vic! I agree.
Hi Steve,
Some thoughts on the declining mulloway stock in NSW that I believe has been caused mainly by overfishing and not so much by environmental degradation.
I know it sounds simplistic but I’ve always argued that a fast growing fish like the mulloway, in a healthy environment can breed successfully and grow to their full potential if we just leave them alone for a while and stop killing them. Surely for both sectors (recreational and commercial) to simply leave most of them alone for say about five years shouldn’t be too hard to initiate and manage.
Why not declare wild caught mulloway a non-commercial species for these five years. It’s been done successfully with many other less important threatened species so why not mulloway? How can Fisheries continually justify commercially harvesting a specie that has a “threatened” or “overfished” status when stocks are so desperately low?
In support of this closure Fisheries have found that many of the commercial estuary netters are deliberately ignoring regulations previously introduced to conserve and protect these juveniles. Their surveys found that more than 25% of the commercial operators are targeting these under sized fish and ignoring their bi-catch limit of ten undersized fish per day.
Take away the mulloway’s dollar value and the problem mostly goes away. I say mostly because some juvenile mulloway will continue to become entangled in estuarine nets set for bream, mullet, niggers, flathead and whiting. However the numbers could be dramatically reduced because without a dollar value mulloway would not be targeted and nets set for these bread and butter species would mostly be set in the shallower areas. And what of the small number of juvenile mulloway that will die in the nets? They will have to be either thrown back dead or taken ashore and given away. I absolutely hate the thought of baby mulloway being wasted but bi-catch is commonly accepted in most fisheries where it benefits the overall population and survival of the species. To further reduce this bi-catch perhaps areas where juvenile mulloway are prolific could be declared net free zones at certain times of the year, once again this has been a very successful tactic in other areas.
Of course the commercial sector will scream blue murder for the loss of their access to mulloway that they are legally entitled to catch but they can be compensated at a very small cost. According to Fisheries figures the commercial sector only takes about 40 tonnes per year so with a dollar value of say $10 per kilo we are talking about $400,000 per year. By using the catch history of those fishermen affected the Fisheries could take their catches for the past five years and give it back to them in compensation for the closure over the next five years. At the very most it can only cost $2,000,000 in total. A good deal for the pros as they are being compensated for fish they may never catch but small money to save thousands and thousands of juvenile mulloway that are so very, very close to spawning size.
And now, what of the recreational sector? According to very unreliable Fisheries surveys they catch most of the mulloway and Fisheries say they kill about 100 tonnes per year which I suspect is probably an exaggeration on the part of many of the fishermen. Not a big figure for the whole of NSW for over a year but maybe they have the responsibility to do more. So why not reduce the bag limit to one? An ever increasing proportion of mulloway are now being taken on lures and Fisheries say about 88% are being returned to the water. Anglers would still be able catch multiple fish but take just one fish home instead of two. This makes good sense and in theory, based on Fisheries figures will reduce the recreational catch by at least 50 tonnes per year.
A really bold Fisheries initiative would be to bite the bullet and ban the taking of all mulloway by both sectors for about five years and then review the situation. They did it successfully with the slower growing blue groper over ten years so why not mulloway over five? Unfortunately this will never happen as it would have far too much opposition. Even so I feel the introduction of the two measures I have outlined in this article would certainly make a huge difference. Brian Hay
Thanks for that, Brian. I agree with many of your points! Something certainly needs to be done…