Management of Murray Cod in the MDB June 2004...Murray Cod in the MDB Statements, recommendations and supporting papers Workshop held in Canberra, 3-4 June 2004 Rivers KNOWLEDGE JUNE

Management of Murray Cod in the MDBStatements, recommendations and supporting papers

Workshop held in Canberra, 3-4 June 2004

Rive

rsK

NO

WL

ED

GE

J U N E 2 0 0 5

Management ofMurray Cod in theMurray-DarlingBasinStatement, recommendationsand supporting papers

Workshop held in Canberra, 3-4 June 2004

Mark Lintermans and Bill Phillips (editors)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks to those who assisted in organisingthe workshop, particularly Anthony Chariton, John Harris and Graeme Pike who were part of thesteering committee for the workshop. Thanks tomembers of the Murray-Darling Basin CommissionsFish Management and Science Committee who led or recorded workshop discussion sessions.

Thanks to all who presented papers or posters at the workshop, and to all the participants, for theirenthusiasm and contributions.

Published by: Murray-Darling Basin Commission

Postal Address: GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601Office location: Level 5, 15 Moore Street, Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory

Telephone (02) 6279 0100; international + 61 2 6279 0100Facsimile (02) 6248 8053; international + 61 2 6248 8053E-Mail [email protected] http://www.mdbc.gov.au

For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100

This report may be cited as:Lintermans, M. and Phillips B. (eds) 2005. Management of Murray Cod in the Murray-Darling Basin: Statement,recommendations and supporting papers. Proceedings of a workshop held in Canberra ACT, 3–4 June 2004. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

MDBC Publication No. 22/05

ISBN 1 921038 55 1

© Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission

This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs andthe MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is notsold or used for commercial benefit and its source (Management of Murray Cod in the Murray-Darling Basin:Statement, recommendations and supporting papers) is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for thepurpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproductionfor other purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or theindividual photographers and artists with whom copyright applies.

To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including their employees and consultants) exclude allliability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses andany other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Murray-Darling BasinCommission. They are presented to inform discussion for improvement of the Basin’s natural resources.

Cover photo credits:Fish image © Gunther Schmida

Ref. No. MDBC10743

This publication is printed on Monza Satin, a 50% recycled and coated paper

M A N A G E M E N T O F M U R R AY C O D I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N – C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 4ii

STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1

FOREWORD 7

WELCOME TO COUNTRY 8

Indigenous perspective on Murray cod 8

Perspectives from Recreational Fishing Representatives 8

KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS 9

The values of Murray cod: Learning invaluable lessons from King Midas 9Dr Paul Sinclair

The status, threats and management of freshwater cod species Maccullochella spp. in Australia 15Mark Lintermans, Stuart Rowland, John Koehn, Gavin Butler, Bob Simpson, Ian Wooden

Threats to Murray cod 30John D. Koehn

Overview of the history, fishery, biology and aquaculture of Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) 38Stuart J. Rowland

An outline of the threatened species listing process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 62Rob McKelleher

Summary of management policies and fisheries regulations for Murray cod in the Murray-Darling Basin 64Mark Lintermans

If I were the Cod God: strengthening Murray cod management 70John Harris

The loss of valuable Murray cod in fish kills: a science and management perspective 73John D. Koehn

The loss of valuable Murray cod in fish kills: a community and conservation perspective 83Dr Paul Sinclair

A role for recreational fisherman in the management of Murray cod: the Angler Catch database 88Tim Park

The recreational fishery for Murray cod in the Murray Darling Basin – Results from the National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey 93Tim Park, Jeff Murphy and Dennis Reid

How can recreational angling regulations help meet the multiple objectives for the management of Murray cod populations? 98Simon Nicol, Charles Todd, John Koehn and Jason Lieschke

M A N A G E M E N T O F M U R R AY C O D I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N – C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 4 iii

Contents

POSTER 107

Application of genetic & reproduction technologies to Murray cod for aquaculture and conservation 107Ingram, B.A., Rourke, M.L., Lade, J., Taylor, A.C. and Boyd, P.

APPENDICES 111

Appendix 1. Knowledge needs and priorities identified by workshop participants 111

Appendix 2: Summaries of presentations from recreational fishing representatives 119

Appendix 3. Murray cod Information Sheet 123

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 126

M A N A G E M E N T O F M U R R AY C O D I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N – C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 4iv

1. IntroductionOn 3-4 June 2004, the Management of Murray codin the Murray-Darling Basin workshop was held in Canberra and attended by approximately 50people representing a cross-section of governmentand non-government stakeholders and experts.

The Murray cod is Australia’s largest freshwaterfish and an icon species. It has significanteconomic, cultural, recreational andenvironmental values for all Australians.

The workshop reviewed current knowledge of the history, status, population trends, threats andmanagement responses relating to Murray codand formulated the priority actions outlined inSection 3 below. These are intended to provide an immediate response to the concerns of theworkshop participants about the future of thisicon species.

In formulating these priority actions theobjectives from the Native Fish Strategy for theMurray-Darling Basin 2003-2013 were used toframe the responses. This was done to ease theirready adoption and immediate implementationby the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and its member Governments.

The workshop acknowledged that recreationalfishing is an important part of the Australianculture and economy. The future of Murray cod depends on the wise management of itsenvironment and recreational fisheries.

The workshop concluded that there are compellingscientific reasons for concern about the future for this species. These are summarised below.

2. The reasons for concern• The population of Murray cod across the

Murray-Darling Basin has declined significantlyfrom its early-European settlement levels;

• Causes for decline include habitat loss anddegradation, barriers to fish passage, flowregulation, cold-water releases and fishing;

• Murray cod is a slow-growing, territorial,long-lived species at the top of the food-chain(a top predator). It is especially vulnerable to overfishing, localised habitat alteration,pollution events and poor water quality, aswitnessed by a succession of recent fish kills in some parts of the Basin;

• Stocking from hatcheries is currently animportant management tool used tosupplement Murray cod fisheries across theBasin each year, but it is not a long-termconservation solution. Stocking may bemasking the true status of the species, andpresents other risks such as reduced geneticdiversity;

• The Living Murray Programme offers an ideal opportunity to address many of themanagement and community engagementneeds of Murray cod outlined below.However, the workshop expressed concernthat this opportunity seems to have been lost,as Murray cod are no longer an icon species inthis programme.

• While convinced that there are good reasonsfor concern about the future of this species,the workshop identified a number of priorityresearch needs (see section 4 below) thatwould clarify the Basin-wide status of thepopulations more precisely, allow forinvestigation and monitoring of cod ecologyand population dynamics and help guidemanagement interventions to reduce orminimise threatening processes.

M A N A G E M E N T O F M U R R AY C O D I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N – C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 4 1

Statement and Recommendations

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. The reasons for concern 1

3. Priority actions for securing the future of Murray cod 2

3.1 Vision for the icon of the Murray-Darling Basin: the Murray cod 2

3.2 Priority Objectives 2

3.3 Achieving the Priority Objectives 3

3.3.1 Institutional and policy actions 3

3.3.2 Management Information 4

3.3.3 Habitat repair and protection 4

3.3.4 Flow regulation 5

3.3.5 Managing recreational fisheries 5

3.3.6 Community and partner ownership 5

4. Key research needs 6

Table of Contents

3. Priority actions for securing the future of Murray cod

3.1 Vision for the icon of the Murray-Darling Basin: the Murray cod

The workshop formulated the following visionfor the future of Murray cod across the Basin.

3.2 Priority Objectives

The Management of Murray cod workshop reviewedthe 13 objectives of the Native Fish Strategy andconcluded, based on current knowledge, thatthose objectives highlighted below represent thehighest priorities for pursuing the above vision for the future of Murray cod in the Basin in theimmediate future.

The identification of these priority objectives wasdone with the full knowledge and expectationthat existing and proposed activities beingundertaken under all 13 objectives of the NativeFish Strategy are likely to provide some direct or indirect benefits for Murray cod. While theseactions are important in the pursuit of thebroader vision of the Native Fish Strategy, thoseobjectives identified below, and then amplifiedfurther through specific actions, are those theworkshop participants believe will help securethe future of Murray cod more rapidly. The priority actions presented below are meantto complement, not replace existing or proposedactions through the Native Fish Strategy.

The workshop recognised that while there issignificant knowledge about the species, there are important gaps in that knowledge that needto be addressed as a matter of priority. It was thecollective view of those present that investmentdirected at pursuing the objectives highlightedbelow is necessary now in order to minimise therisk of the Murray cod populations of the Basindeclining even further. Additional research isessential to support and refine this investment. In order to ensure that addressing these researchneeds is given appropriate priority in the short-term, the workshop adopted an additionalobjective, as provided below. This is considered

a cross-cutting or overarching objective since theactions it proposes (see the following section)relate to all others.

For each highlighted objective below, priorityactions have been identified. In Section 4 priorityresearch needs are also provided. Note that forthe priority objectives identified below, the texthas been amended slightly from that containedin the Native Fish Strategy to make it specific tothe Murray cod situation.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 2. To rehabilitateand protect the natural functioning of wetlandsand floodplain habitats for native fish; and revive the links between terrestrial ecosystems,wetlands and rivers

Native Fish Strategy Objective 3. To improve keyaspects of water quality that affect native fish

Native Fish Strategy Objective 5. To provideadequate passage for native fish throughout the Basin

Native Fish Strategy Objective 6. To devise andimplement recovery plans for threatened nativefish species and communities

Native Fish Strategy Objective 7. To create andimplement management plans for all non-threatened native fish species and communities

Native Fish Strategy Objective 8. To control and manage carp and other alien fish specieseffectively

Native Fish Strategy Objective 9. To increaseunderstanding of fish diseases and parasites, and to protect native fish from such threats

Native Fish Strategy Objective 4.To modify flow regulation practices tofacilitate Murray cod rehabilitation.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 1. To repair and protect key components ofaquatic and riparian habitats important for sustaining Murray cod populations.

Overarching Objective. To establish and maintain fundamental information on population structure and dynamics for Murray cod across the Basin to guide and assess all other priority objectives.

“Self-sustaining Murray cod populationsmanaged for conservation, fishing andculture”

M A N A G E M E N T O F M U R R AY C O D I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N – C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 42

Native Fish Strategy Objective 11. To protect the natural species composition, populationstructure, genetic integrity and diversity of native fish communities from the adverse effectsof human interventions into native fishmovements and restocking

Native Fish Strategy Objective 12. To ensurenative fish populations are not threatened fromaquaculture

3.3 Achieving the Priority Objectives

To pursue the priority objectives highlightedabove, and their associated actions set out below,the workshop recognised that a number ofinstitutional and policy initiatives are needed.These are as follows:

3.3.1 Institutional and policy actionsThe management of Murray cod is a multi-jurisdictional issue, and requires integrated,multi-jurisdictional responses. Actions needed to provide this approach are as follows:

1. Establish a Murray Cod Reference Groupunder the Murray-Darling BasinCommission’s Fish Management and ScienceCommittee (FMSC) (similar to the FishPassage Reference Group) to provide regularadvice through the FMSC to the MinisterialCouncil, the MDBC Community AdvisoryGroup (CAC) and the NFS CommunityStakeholder Group, on key managementissues such as the:

• size, structure, status and dynamics ofMurray cod populations;

• levels of fishing catch from codpopulations;

• levels of recruitment;

• impacts of stocking efforts;

• incidence, severity, causes of, andresponses to fish kills;

• adequacy of current managementarrangements, including the impact of set lines on Murray cod populations,appropriateness of current bag and sizelimits and seasonal closures and futuremanagement options;

• feasibility, design and implementation of potential additional Murray codconservation measures that are widelyemployed in the management of otherfreshwater and marine fisheries. Optionsinclude closed areas, catch and releaseareas, identification, definition anddeclaration of critical habitats andmanagement as trophy fisheries.1

2. Prepare the national Recovery Plan forMurray cod (required under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999– EPBC Act) in close collaboration with theproposed Murray Cod Reference Group (see above). The Reference Group shouldliaise with and provide advice to the Victorian Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, the agency contracted by theCommonwealth Department of Environmentand Heritage to prepare the Plan, inconsultation with other relevant State andTerritory agencies. This should ensure thatthe Plan reflects the priorities presented hereand in the Native Fish Strategy, and any newresearch findings that address key knowledgegaps. The Recovery Plan and the priorityactions identified by this workshop couldthen form the basis for developing a long-term plan of management for Murray codacross the Basin.

3. While the current legislative and regulatorymanagement arrangements for Murray codwithin the Basin States and the ACT arelargely consistent, there remain anomalies.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 13.To ensure community and partnerownership and support for andunderstanding of the Murray codmanagement vision above.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 10.To manage recreational Murray codfisheries in a sustainable manner whilerecognizing the social, cultural, economicand recreational value of the fishery.


1 The Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body (VRFish)does not support special ‘catch and release’ designatedareas for Murray cod angling and recommends thedecision for ‘catch and release’ should always remain as an individual choice. VRFish does not supportcompulsory closures for Murray cod recreational fishing,this includes catch and release and trophy waters. There is already a 3 month closure of all areas across the Basin.

Where possible and sensible (that is, there are no biological reasons for differencescontinuing), such cross-jurisdictionalanomalies should be investigated and rectifiedto provide a uniform and unambiguousadministrative framework across the Basin

4. Responses to recent fish kills involvingMurray cod have highlighted deficiencies in how agencies respond to such incidents,and there is a need to clearly identify legalresponsibilities and develop, refine andimplement fish kill protocols in somejurisdictions. The refinement of these fish killprotocols will need to take account of EPBCAct reporting requirements, co-ordinate cross-border events through the MDBC and informother relevant bodies (such as the NaturalResource Management Ministerial Council).Jurisdictions should harmonise these protocolsacross the Basin States and the ACT. Recoveryactivities following fish kills also need to bereviewed and strengthened, with actions suchas restocking, temporary closures andpreparation of local recovery plans considered.

5. Noting the importance and benefits to Murraycod populations of having appropriate waterquality and flow regimes operating, eachjurisdiction is urged to pursue more integratedmanagement efforts between their fisheriesand water management agencies.

For each of the priority objectives the workshopconsiders the following as the key actions:

3.3.2 Management information

Priority actions

6. Critically review and synthesise existinginformation on the population structure, statusand dynamics of Murray cod (Step 1); develop(Step 2) and implement (Step 3) a Basin-wideplan to measure and monitor these parametersat the Basin and management unit scale. [Note this action is indicated for attention by the proposed Murray Cod Reference Group – Action 1 above]

7. Use the measures and monitoring of Murraycod population structure, status anddynamics (as collected under steps 1-3above) to re-assess the priority and activitiesconducted under the 13 Native Fish Strategyobjectives.

3.3.3 Habitat repair and protection

Priority actions:

8. Identify appropriate management units forMurray cod (jurisdictional, habitat zones,genetic Evolutionary Significant ManagementUnits) across their range and then applythese to:

a. map Murray cod habitats and fromamong these identify the critical habitats;

b. identify, prioritise and address the threats to Murray cod within eachmanagement unit;

c. develop, cost and implement a recoveryplan for habitat and threat reduction ineach management unit (valley, region,State). Plans should identify areas forrehabilitation to facilitate the expansionof Murray cod populations into areasformerly occupied;

d. monitor the impact of these recoveryplans.

9. Ensure that habitat rehabilitation for Murraycod includes actions to see important nativeprey species retained or restored.

10. Further promote Catchment ManagementAuthorities (and the equivalent regionalnatural resource management bodies) tofactor into their catchment plans andassociated investment strategies actions toimprove habitat conditions for Murray cod.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 1. To repair and protect key components ofaquatic and riparian habitats important for sustaining Murray cod populations.

Overarching Objective. To establish and maintain fundamental information on population structure and dynamics for Murray cod across the Basin to guide and assess all other priority objectives.


3.3.4 Flow regulation

Priority actions:

11. Develop and implement protocols formanaging flow regimes (the timing ofreleases, volumes, rate of rise and fall etc) to rehabilitate Murray cod populations.

12. Monitor the response of Murray cod (andother native species) to flow managementactivities and incorporate such knowledgeinto improved flow management practices.

3.3.5 Managing recreational fisheries

There is some evidence based on limited scientific data, reports from recreational anglersand articles in popular fishing magazines andnewspapers to suggest that there has been arecovery of Murray cod stocks in some NewSouth Wales waters. However, the extent of thisrecovery, the role of fish stocking programs andother causative factors, and the actual status ofwild populations of Murray cod are unknownand need to be determined.

Priority actions:

13. Through the proposed Murray CodReference Group (see action 1 above), assessthe appropriateness of current or potentialfishing regulations and practices such asangling methods, bag and size limits andseasonal closures.

14. Develop and implement a Basin-widemanagement plan for Murray cod (see action2 above) that has reference points built inthat result in appropriate ‘precautionaryapproach’-based management responses;

15. Adopt, enforce and regularly evaluaterigorous harvest controls for Murray cod foreach management unit (see action 8 above)based on the best available information.

16. Adopt the ‘best available practice’ stockingpolicies and practices (see Phillips. B, 2003:Managing Fish Translocation and Stocking in theMurray-Darling Basin )

3.3.6 Community and partner ownership

It is important to pursue ways to encouragepublic ownership of the issues affecting Murraycod and seek to gain a broader connectedness torivers from among the community, rural, urban,city and country dwellers.

Priority actions:

17. Improve communication between allstakeholders (such as managers, scientists,Indigenous communities, regionalcommunities, local governments, regionalbodies, State government agencies,environmental groups, recreational. fishers etc)to share knowledge, promote understandingand develop appropriate managementapproaches for Murray cod. More specifically:

a. through stakeholder consultation, fostersuitable fishing competition policies toensure sustainable angling practices;

b. compile and widely disseminate availableinformation on cod habitat needs tosupport remedial actions beingundertaken by a range of stakeholders;

c. promote community reporting of illegalactivities and threats to Murray cod andinvestigate the establishment of ‘riversentinels’ to monitor river/fish health andassist in prevention of illegal activities.

d. involve the community in thedevelopment and implementation ofaction statements and recovery plans forMurray cod (see various actions above).

18. Indigenous participation in the managementof Murray cod is essential, with Indigenousissues and participation considered as part of the mainstream, rather than peripheral orseparate. To assist this happening, providemechanisms for greater communication andinteraction between Indigenous stakeholders

Native Fish Strategy Objective 13.To ensure community and partnerownership and support for andunderstanding of the Murray codmanagement vision above.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 10.To manage recreational Murray codfisheries in a sustainable manner whilerecognizing the social, economic andrecreational value of the fishery.

Native Fish Strategy Objective 4.To modify flow regulation practices tofacilitate Murray cod rehabilitation.


and the MDBC’s working groups/committeessuch as the Community Advisory Committeeand the Fish Management and ScienceCommittee.

19. Promote the Murray cod as an icon speciesand indicator of river health andsustainability through:

a. the development and wide disseminationof a range of awareness-raising andeducational tools about the values andsignificance of the species plus the threatsto it and management responses neededby stakeholder groups to protect andrehabilitate cod populations;

b. using well known (credible) human iconsto promote the river icon, the Murray cod,and to act as champions for the issues andcommunity responses being sought.

c. investigation of the possible applicationof the ‘tidy town’ concept (like ‘Welcometo Sustainable Cod Country’ or ‘We careabout Murray cod, and are doing somethingabout it’) to raise awareness and promoteon-ground actions;

4. Key research needs:For each of the priority objectives above, theworkshop identified the key research needs as setout below. A broader consideration of researchpriorities was undertaken during the workshopalso and the results of this informal survey ofviews is provided as Appendix 1

4.1 Management information

The overarching objective focused on thecollection and maintenance of information neededto guide and inform management actions. Thepriorities in this regard were indicated as follows:

1. Determine the genetic composition of Murraycod populations throughout the Basin.

2. Determine the structure (age, size, spatialconnectivity) and dynamics of codpopulations in each management unit

4.2 Habitat repair and protection

3. Undertake habitat mapping for Murray codwith identification of critical habitats to focusmanagement actions.

4. Establish the appropriate scales (spatial andtemporal) for rehabilitation investments.

5. Develop an improved understanding of thehabitat requirements for all life stages ofMurray cod.

6. Determine the habitat requirements of theimportant native prey species for Murraycod, at all life stages

4.3 Flow regulation

7. Establish the links between flows andMurray cod recruitment.

8. Determine the flow requirements of all lifestages (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults) andcritical life history components (movement,spawning, recruitment) of Murray cod.

9. Develop an improved understanding of theimpact of water quality on Murray cod.

4.4 Managing recreational fisheries

10. Investigate the effectiveness and threatsposed by stocking in the maintenance ofwild Murray cod populations.

11. Investigate reports suggesting that Murraycod numbers may be recovering in someareas in NSW, although not to early-European levels.

12. Establish the total annual harvest (includingcatch and catch and release, unknown,unreported and illegal catch etc) of Murraycod across the Basin, and within prescribedmanagement units.

4.5 Community and partner ownership

13. Define the level of public recognition,understanding and ‘ownership’ of Murraycod, their ecology and the threats andmanagement approaches to secure the long-term future of the species.

14. Document the significance of Murray cod in Indigenous culture and oral history.

15. Clarify the existing uptake of ethicalpractices by recreational fishers, and how topromote these ideals more broadly amonganglers and the wider community.


It is timely for the MDBC to hold a workshop on the ‘Management of Murray cod in theMurray-Darling Basin’ just one month after thelaunch of the Native Fish Strategy for the MDB2003-2013.

The Native Fish Strategy (NFS) aims to ensurethat the Basin sustains viable fish populationsand communities throughout its rivers. The 50-year goal of the NFS is to rehabilitate allnative fish species in the Basin back to 60percent or more of their estimated pre-Europeansettlement levels. A range of threateningprocesses has contributed to the decline in fishhabitat and native fish populations in Australia.Changed river flows continue to add to theproblems of salinity, reduced water quality(including cold-water pollution), alien fishspecies such as carp, and blue-green algal blooms – all of these factors affect decliningnative fish populations.

While it is important to stress that the NFS isconcerned with all native species andcommunities, across the whole Basin, the onespecies that arguably captures the hearts andminds of anglers, conservationists and biologistsalike is the charismatic Murray cod. This greatfish was originally found throughout most of the Murray-Darling Basin, and in large numbers.However, its dramatic decline in range andabundance has resulted in its recent listing as‘vulnerable’ under the Australian Government’sEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct 1999. Also, a commercial fishery for thespecies in South Australia has recently beenwound up, meaning that there now are nocommercial fisheries for native fish in the riversof the Basin.

The Workshop gets its teeth into some of themore pertinent issues surrounding the currentmanagement of the species:

• Are bag and size limits appropriate andconsistent across jurisdictions?

• Should set lines be banned?

• Are current stocking practices appropriate –some anglers tell us that the fishing in theirstretch has never been better?

• Is the ‘springtime’ moratorium on the takingof Murray cod appropriate across the entirerange of the species, including the lowerMurray and the upper Darling reaches?

This workshop is one of a series that have beenconducted over the last few years to addressspecific issues under the banner of the NFS.Previous workshops have focussed on fishways,translocation and stockings, downstreammigration and habitat rehabilitation andmanagement.

The collection of papers contained in thisdocument represents the current body ofknowledge on the management and conservationof Murray cod in the Murray-Darling Basin. The challenge now is to galvanise thisinformation into pragmatic, workable solutionsthat will inform future decisions and secure thefuture for this icon species.

Jim BarrettManagerNative Fish Strategy


Foreword

Workshop participants were welcomed tocountry by the respected Ngunnawal elder AgnesShea, who outlined the importance of fishing toher people when she was a child around Yassand Brungle. Agnes hoped the workshop wouldbe productive and concluded by expressing thedesire that our children will still be able to godown to the river to fish for cod, as she did.

Indigenous perspective onMurray codThe workshop opened with a talk entitled ‘The Mob and the Fish’ by Phil Duncan, SeniorAboriginal Policy & Liaison Officer, AboriginalLiaison & Cultural Heritage Unit of the NSWDepartment of Primary Industries. Phil discussedthe totemic relationships between the Mob andcod, as well as how Indigenous people managedthe catch of this species and how they did it in asustainable manner. This included not catchingfish during spawning seasons, not targeting‘trophy’ fish, moieties, association between fishand people etc. Aboriginal people own significantparcels of land with water frontage, and shouldbe significant players in cod management.Indigenous fisheries issues need to be consideredas part of the mainstream, and not treatedseparately. As explained by Phil, there is nowritten record of Aboriginal interactions withcod, only verbal accounts, and NSW Departmentof Primary Industries is embarking on a majorresearch program with Indigenous people tocollect and record this vital information.

Perspectives from RecreationalFishing RepresentativesThe workshop continued with a series of shortpresentations provided by recreational fishingrepresentatives from Queensland, New SouthWales, Victoria and South Australia. Eachpresenter was asked to address the importance of Murray cod to recreational anglers and theirvision for cod management.

Presentations were given by:

• Les Kowitz (Queensland): Freshwater Fishing& Stocking Association of Queensland Inc.

• Terry Maloney (New South Wales): SouthWest Anglers Association

• Robert Loates (Victoria): VR Fish

• John Winwood (South Australia): InlandWaters Recreational Fishing Council

More detailed summaries, as provided by thespeakers are given in Appendix 2. In summary,while each presentation gave uniqueperspectives, there were a number of commonvalues and issues identified. The iconic status ofMurray cod was highlighted by all speakers, with the species considered the premier nativefish in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The economic value of recreational cod fisherieswas also highlighted by presenters, with thesignificant tourism and angling revenuegenerated by cod of importance to towns alongthe Murray River.

The importance of stocking programs indeveloping and maintaining put-and-takefisheries was emphasised, particularly inimpoundments.

It was recognised that the abundance of cod and other native fish had suffered as a result ofnumerous impacts such as habitat destruction,alien species and inappropriate watermanagement practices, as well as a significantillegal take of fish.

The view was expressed that the majority ofinland recreational anglers accepted andembraced the current management controls on cod such as bag limits, closed seasons etc. The need for adequate enforcement programswas a common theme, with illegal fishingactivities perceived to be having significantimpacts on cod abundance.


Welcome to Country

Documents

Management of Murray Cod in the MDB June 2004...Murray Cod in the MDB Statements, recommendations and supporting papers Workshop held in Canberra, 3-4 June 2004 Rivers KNOWLEDGE JUNE