"

Fish stocking – more than a numbers game
  |  First Published: August 2015



In the past 15 years Victoria’s stocking-enhanced fisheries have expanded in terms of both numbers and species released and there’s a lot more to come.

In their pre-election “Target One Million” policy announcement last year, Premier Dan Andrews committed the Labor Government to boosting Victoria's annual fish stocking level to 5 million fish:

“Labor will increase fish stock from 3 million to 5 million a year, implementing a marine species stocking program in Victoria’s drought-affected bays and inlets and introducing 15,000 Barramundi to Hazelwood Pondage.”

In terms of recreational fisheries management, the purpose of fish stocking is to develop and maintain productive fishing. This includes improving fish catches and making fishing more attractive and accessible - hence the importance of the stocking program to the Target One Million policy.

While there’s no doubt room for further expansion of the inland stocking program, the above statement suggests that the Government’s clear intention is to develop a serious saltwater stocking program. As this is unchartered territory for recreational fisheries management in Victoria, it’s worth looking at the recent history of our fish stocking program and at two independent reviews of how the program has been performing.

POST-1995 STOCKING TRENDS

Prior to the 1995-2010 drought, Fisheries Victoria was releasing up to 1.3 million fish at a more or less constant level each year. This comprised 400,000 to 600,000 salmonids and 1-1.3 million native fish. As the impact of the drought intensified, many waters normally stocked with trout or native fish dried up, either completely or to the point where stocking was suspended for several years. While native fish fingerlings could be simply redirected to remaining large waters such as Lake Eildon, Fisheries Victoria had to look for innovative ways of deploying the 40 tonnes of yearling trout they were contracted to buy. As a result, the “Small Waters” program was scaled up significantly, involving the release of trout in safe and accessible small urban waters such as ornamental lakes and flood-retarding basins. Yearling rainbow trout of 150 g to 220 g were released immediately before the June and September school holiday breaks, providing short term fishing opportunities for children and people with limited mobility.

The Small Waters program was so popular that it’s become a regular part of the annual stocking program – growing from 24 waters in 1996 to 72 in 2014. In fact it went well beyond that, forming the model for annual family fishing days and kids fishing clinics around the State and led to the development of Victoria's five “Premier Lakes” stocked with yearling and larger trout, four or more times annually, to attract families and new anglers.

When the drought broke late in 2010, Fisheries Victoria responded quickly with ramped up “drought recovery” releases of both salmonids and native fish. By this time, regular annual releases of native fish were expanding from Murray cod, golden perch, silver perch, Macquarie perch and trout cod to include Australian bass and estuary perch. Coupled with the "Murray Cod Million" project at Lake Eildon and similar initiatives, these developments boosted total annual release numbers to almost three million.

FISHERIES VICTORIA’S STOCKED FISHERIES RECORD

Fisheries Victoria has half a century or more of research-based experience in managing freshwater fish stocking programs and stocking-based fisheries. A 2005 Government statement, Managing Recreational Trout Fisheries for the Benefit of Victorian Communities, set out salmonid stocking criteria. It emphasised the importance of matching fish releases with the carrying capacity of the waters and with fishing pressure.

Beginning around 1980, Fisheries Victoria adopted the research-based approach that laid the foundation for salmonid (and native fish) stocking programs of today. Detailed records of every fish release in even the smallest water have been kept since around 1870. From the 1960s, Fisheries Victoria regularly published and publicised stocking details and the results of stocking trials, fish population surveys and creel surveys used to measure and evaluate fish stocking strategies, water by water.

From the 1980s, in consultation with angler groups, Fisheries Victoria developed a methodology for stocking trials in previously unstocked waters. This involved an initial assessment of the suitability of the water for the species being proposed. The question of whether released fish would stay in the area of the intended fishery and not escape downstream (e.g. trout in Lake Toolondo) was one criterion. For native fish species with potential life spans more than 20 years, the long-term security of the water level and water quality was another obvious criterion. Trial releases would then proceed for up to four years then halt, to be followed by fish population surveys to measure their effectiveness. Only then would a review, with anglers, determine further stocking. While that stock-survey-review process continues to be warranted for most native fish, in recent years it has been relaxed where early observations by anglers were positive enough to indicate initial success warranting continued stocking; releases of bass in Gippsland waters are a good example.

WHAT THE AUDITOR-GENERAL SAID

In 2013 the Victorian Auditor-General's Office (VAGO) reported on its examination of “whether the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is managing recreational freshwater fisheries in an ecologically sustainable manner so that fishery habitats and supporting ecosystems are protected and conserved for future generations”.

It concluded that “The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is not discharging its legislative responsibilities to deliver balanced and sustainable outcomes for freshwater recreational fisheries. While it is demonstrably delivering improved recreational freshwater fishing outcomes, it is not paying sufficient attention to the protection and conservation of ecological processes, habitats and supporting ecosystems in these fisheries.” The VAGO report went on to state “DPI’s reporting of performance in managing recreational freshwater fisheries is output focused and not comprehensive.”

However, the VAGO report failed to appreciate a number of important factors. Their audit judged Fisheries Victoria’s performance against the objectives of the Fisheries Act 1995 which date back to a time when the agency had the main responsibility for “the maintenance of aquatic ecological processes and genetic diversity”. Until the 1980s, Fisheries Victoria’s freshwater researchers undertook all studies of freshwater species and communities and the threats they face, as well as conducting all freshwater fisheries research. When those biodiversity protection and fisheries functions were separated in the early 1980s, Fisheries Victoria and its freshwater scientists at Snobs Creek were deliberately focused on the fisheries research, development and management functions (and on commercial freshwater aquaculture). That demarcation in functions became even more pronounced when Fisheries Victoria was moved out of the conservation and natural resource management portfolio and into the agriculture and primary industries area. That’s where it was at the time of the audit.

The VAGO audit was obliged to assess the Department’s performance against the legislative responsibilities as defined in the objectives of the Fisheries Act. By the time of the audit, the primary responsibility for biodiversity protection lay with a separate department under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Given these changes, was it, therefore, appropriate to assess the ‘primary industries’ Department’s performance against responsibilities which, by then, lay with the separate ‘environment’ department? I think not!

Perhaps most importantly, the VAGO report failed to recognise that, through the 1990s and 2000s, successive Victorian governments had progressively stripped Fisheries Victoria of all of the considerable scientific personnel, field and laboratory capabilities that had made it a leading national contributor to environment and biodiversity protection as well as fisheries management.

This left Fisheries Victoria far short in its ability to meet the (outdated?) objective of the Fisheries Act in terms of “protecting and conserving fisheries resources, habitats and ecosystems including the maintenance of aquatic ecological processes and genetic diversity”. After investing more than one million dollars upgrading Snobs Creek’s research facilities, budget cuts during the 2000s saw the few remaining researchers being relocated to Queenscliff, leaving the facility to operate purely as a fish hatchery. Furthermore – and again unacknowledged by the VAGO – successive governments had cost-shifted the funding of much of what remained of freshwater fisheries research and management to the Recreational Fishing License trust fund. The VAGO commented, “Greater effort and resources are needed to improve the monitoring and assessment of stocking activities to generate sound evidence of stocking success and to evaluate the economic and social returns to the community.” While completely true, where were the extra resources going to come from?

In short, by 2013 Government resourcing of Fisheries Victoria was way below the level needed to meet its responsibilities as set out in the Act. Technically the VAGO report was correct on much of its judgment of the agency’s performance but its finger of blame was pointed in the wrong direction.

In effect, successive governments had told Fisheries Victoria to concentrate its efforts on the area in which the VAGO judged it to have been most successful – freshwater fisheries management. The report did, however, make a number of critical comments and recommendations in relation to deficiencies in the areas of inland fisheries planning, fisheries management plans, fishery monitoring, performance measurement and reporting. Many of these were – and remain – valid and some are in the process of being remedied. However, some deficiencies may never be addressed, as incoming governments require Fisheries Victoria to deliver policy agendas that leave little if any scope for other areas of the Act highlighted by the VAGO audit. On recent performance, this is unlikely to change unless; there is a substantial injection of resources, or the objectives of the Fisheries Act objectives are redefined in much narrower terms.

Drawing on the VAGO's recommendations there are some clear messages of relevance to “Target 5 Million Fish” policy. While too numerous and detailed to list here they mainly relate to the need for an overall “management plan for all recreational freshwater fisheries”; this recommendation was agreed to by the Secretary of the Department in his 2013 response to the report. Raising the total number of fish stocked by over 40% while ensuring efficiency, effectiveness and quality fishing outcomes will take a lot of planning, risk and site assessments and commitment to monitoring and assessment. This applies particularly in the area of stocking enhancement of saltwater fisheries where Fisheries Victoria has little experience and faces growing angler demands.

WHAT THE CONSULTANT SAID

In 2011 Fisheries Victoria commissioned "an independent strategic review to examine Victoria’s fish production and stocking program". Two components of the review examined fish production operations and economic aspects of the fish stocking program.

The third review, conducted by Harris Consulting, addressed “the effectiveness of Fisheries Victoria’s stocking program with reference to; the mix of species, size of stocked fish, stocking strategy (timing, frequency and delivery) and performance to produce and maintain high quality recreational fisheries”. The opening line of the project brief stated “DPI delivers a comprehensive fish production and stocking program to improve opportunities for recreational freshwater fishing across Victoria”. In neither of these statements was there any mention or qualifier referring to consideration of risks or impacts on fish habitats, ecological processes or non-targeted fish.

Like the later VAGO audit, the Harris review observed that "The current state of knowledge of Victoria’s freshwater fish-stocking program is not adequate to ensure operational efficiency and optimal outcomes in all aspects. Current procedures and policies are not supported by reliable evidence of the outcomes and benefits of the program. Enhanced effort and resources are needed for monitoring and assessment to generate sound evidence of stocking success and for evaluating returns to the community. Significant improvements in efficiency and productivity are potentially available.”

It is not surprising that the 2013 VAGO report referred to the Harris review and recommended that the Department prioritise and implement its 21 recommendations "to improve its decision-making framework.”

THE MESSAGE FOR THE ‘5 MILLION FISH’ TARGET

While it acknowledged that Victoria’s fisheries programs are delivering “improved recreational freshwater fishing outcomes”, the VAGO report was critical of what it saw as Fisheries Victoria’s “output focused” approach. It cautioned “DPI has increasingly relied on artificial stocking programs without adequately assessing the impact of this activity.” With Fisheries Victoria about to embark on lifting annual stocking from three up to five million fish annually – including marine waters – the VAGO and Harris observations touch on four key points; the focus must be on stocking outcomes, not numbers released, the need for comprehensive risk-based assessments of new or significantly expanded stockings, the need to address critical knowledge gaps and the collation of previous research into a consolidated and publicly accessible medium and monitoring and evaluation of new or expanded stocking must address fisheries improvements and stocking efficiency.

Two recent stocking initiatives lend weight to the VAGO’s concerns. First, the 2013 release of 1.3 million king prawn larvae in Lake Tyers was intended to improve recreational fishing opportunities. Was there any serious assessment of (a) the suitability of the lake and (b) the need for such an intervention? Within months – totally predictably – flood waters breached the sand bar and the lake has been open to the sea, on and off, ever since. This opened the way for the escape of stocked prawns and the entry of naturally recruited king prawns, as occurs on a regular basis. As a result, while there’s a high likelihood that the stocking was pointless there’s no way of telling one way or the other.

The second example: in the four years after the drought broke in 2010, Fisheries Victoria has released 44,000 estuary perch into Lake Bolac, which had previously been bone dry. The immediate post-drought release of rainbow trout was an outstanding success, enjoyed and applauded by anglers. This was totally predictably based on sound knowledge of the species and the water – rainbows are fast growing and short lived – eminently suited to restoring a fishery in a drought-prone water. In contrast, the decision to release a valuable native species with a 20-year+ life-span in a clearly drought-prone water seems to defy any level of risk assessment. As the lake level continues to fall and facing the likelihood of a severe El Nino event, can we expect to hear talk of a costly salvage effort to catch and relocate the perch?

As the VAGO report indicated, the Department’s “planning and management framework for sustainable recreational freshwater fisheries is focused predominately on meeting current recreational fishing demands”. Both of the above examples appear to smack of angler-driven initiatives that proceeded in the absence of professional departmental due diligence or risk-based management along the lines recommended by the VAGO.

Victorian anglers are facing ground-breaking developments in what is already an exciting array of stocking-enhanced but environmentally challenged fisheries. It remains to be seen how their planning and implementation will be managed and whether the Government will ensure that Fisheries Victoria has the resources necessary to maintain all of these fisheries on a productive, efficient and sustainable basis.

Reads: 1720

Matched Content ... powered by Google




Latest Articles




Fishing Monthly Magazines On Instagram

Digital Editions

Read Digital Editions

Current Magazine - Editorial Content

Western Australia Fishing Monthly
Victoria Fishing Monthly
Queensland Fishing Monthly