T-112-19
Assessing the Use of Harvest Tags in the Management of a Small-Scale, Iconic Marine Recreational Fishery in Western Australia

Gary Jackson , Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, North Beach, WA, Australia
Karina Ryan , Department of Fisheries Western Australia, Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, North Beach, WA, Australia
Timothy Green , Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, North Beach, WA, Australia
Kenneth H. Pollock , Departments of Applied Ecology, Biomathematics, and Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Jeremy Lyle , University of Tasmania, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Hobart, Australia
Fisheries authorities are increasingly required to develop regulatory frameworks to more effectively manage recreational catch.  Following overfishing of snapper stocks in Shark Bay through the 1970s-1990s, a range of management measures was progressively introduced from 1998 onwards to constrain recreational catches.   Since 2003, these have included a harvest tag system, where a limited number of tags are made available each year via a ballot.  The effectiveness of these tags has been evaluated in terms of capacity to limit the recreational catch, levels of compliance, acceptance by recreational fishers and administrative cost.  Phone surveys of all tag recipients 2011-2013 indicated that 87% of respondents agreed the tags were effective (for management of snapper); 82% agreed the cost of tags was reasonable; and the majority of fishers considered illegal activity (fishing without licence, fishing without tags, high-grading) “not very important” or “not at all important”.  Harvest tags have potential with valuable but vulnerable marine fisheries, particularly where output management controls are required.  Management authorities need to consider the benefits with respect to the size of the fishery (numbers of participants and harvest), administrative cost, requirements for monitoring effectiveness and the need to communicate with fishers.