WA Fisheries Management Deep Dive Part 1 – What is a Demersal Fish?

By John Ogilvie

The article on WA’s new fishing restrictions sparked such overwhelming positive feedback that we’re launching a series of deep dives. Each will spotlight a critical angle on these rules, or fisheries management in general.

This week let’s talk about the one-size-fits-all approach that the government has taken to these new demersal fishing rules. It’s bureaucratic overkill that demands scrutiny and reform.

Under the new restrictions commercial fishers are permanently barred from targeting demersal species in the West Coast Bioregion (Kalbarri to Augusta) starting January 1, 2026, with a 50% catch reduction statewide (except for the Gascoyne). Recreational boat-based fishers will be barred from taking these species until at least September 2027. The trigger? Stock assessments flagging severe risks to WA dhufish and pink snapper (and to a lesser extent, baldchin groper).

Sounds straightforward, doesn’t it? But as is often the case with government programs, peeling back the layers uncovers a policy riddled with flaws.

“Demersal” is a Broad Category

Hapuku

The “demersal” label covers far more than just the three at-risk species listed above. You don’t have to take my word for it; you can consult the official WA recreational fishing guide published by DPIRD. Out of dozens of species across 24 categories (including emperors, coral trout, and tropical snappers), only WA dhufish, pink snapper, and baldchin groper raise major alarms. Yet the ban hammers them all, from red emperor to crimson snapper and beyond.

You might assume this curbs bycatch in shared habitats. Fair point for shallower dwellers like emperors and coral trout. But this isn’t the case for all demersal fish.

What about deep-water species like hapuku, bass groper, blue-eye trevalla, and bight redfish (nannygai)? These thrive at extreme depths, often 100-500 meters or more, far beyond the 20–100 meter depths of dhufish and snapper.

Recent surveys confirm these deep-drop species aren’t at risk, so why lump them in? This arbitrary grouping defies logic, exposing the policy’s lazy design.

Effects on the Industry

If commercial fishermen were able to continue targeting deep-drop species like bass groper, hapuku and nannygai, it could cushion the blow from shallower bans and preserve livelihoods.

Instead, the government’s rigid stance forces a brutal choice: Switch to pelagic fishing (if feasible) or exit entirely. The fallout? Thousands blindsided, with a $29.2 million support package woefully inadequate against soaring fuel, gear, and vessel costs. Regional hubs like Geraldton and Augusta face economic hardship.

Skyrocketing Prices and Lost Choices

For everyday Australians, the pain is just as acute. With local demersal supplies vanishing, expect seafood prices to surge, potentially doubling for staples as demand shifts to alternatives and imported fish.

It defies logic that an entire category of fish is protected, and an entire industry is destroyed just because two or three species are threatened. This one-size-fits-all fiasco underscores a deeper flaw in fisheries policy (and government policy in general): Ignoring nuance for blunt force.