 pjc wrote:Well I spoke to Scott Macindoe tonight and raised a few concerns regarding Iwi,Basically they need "legasea" and "legasea" needs them to achieve on some points. He has spent close to or over 3000hrs in 6 months or so get what is believed to be the best result.At the time of voting had to agree to what was being proposed.There was no option to disagree. So it is a wait and see game now.Mpi/Doc etc On mpa zones 12/13 proposed and you could not vote say 2 you had agree to all.(roughly translated) |
v8-coupe wrote:
"On mpa zones 12/13 proposed and you could not vote say 2 you had agree to all.(roughly translated)" Yep, and I suspect that is exactly what will happen during the so called "public consultation" stage. The public should have been consulted before the plan was negotiated between party's. Not after their ideas were a fait accompli making the faux public consultation a tick the boxes excercise.. |
Tagit wrote:
Don't get me wrong Scott as I am not trying to criticise LegaSea who I see being in a very tough position and doing their best in the circumstances, but unless their is some protection for recreational fishing written into the management rules, I don't want my children to be the ones looking back and asking how our generation ever agreed to the complete destruction of their fishing rights. The fact that maybe everyone is playing nice right now is no protection at all for the future once we agree to being marginalised out of the management structure. This really is a very serious issue as far as I can see from the current documentation. Saying that the whole plan has failed recreational fishing 10 or 15 years from now because the people and attitudes have changed is not going to be any consolation. I would love to see this work, but without protective legislation around it, it is likely to become a political mess with only one big loser. I guess the question is, have I missed something about how our rights will be protected from the self interest and bias of the other groups who will have the majority voting powers in the management groups? |
| Tagit wrote: Moving the trawl line doesn't mean any less fish being removed does it? Same biomass, same amount of extraction, more or less same damage done. Have never quite worked out how shifting the fishing effort a few miles is going to help the stock rebuild |
| Tagit wrote: Legasea Comm Builder (Scott) - yes I will try to get to the meeting. I work 7 days a week now during our busy season, but if I can get free I will. Just let us know where and when. |
| tiri4 wrote: WOW, a lot of passion, a lot of misunderstanding, and a lot of personal attacks. The Stakeholder Working Group Report on SeaChange is just that, a Report. It has no future pathway for implementation besides political processes. Any actual proposals to implement change will have the usual statutory consultation obligations and time for people to make their voice heard. <div style="-sizing: border-;"><ul style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; padding: 0px; font-family: " Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.6;"><li ="larger"="" style="-sizing: border-; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.9;">The NZSFC is not opposed to the establishment of marine reserves in situations where it has been clearly established that a need for special protection exists. This should not include average or typical examples of marine habitats, but rather areas that are “particularly fragile and/or vulnerable to a range of potential impacts and enforcement is more practical than other mechanisms.” The onus should be on the proposer to justify the need for marine reserve status.<li ="larger"="" style="-sizing: border-; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.9;">Justifying the establishment of reserves by arguing the benefits of spillover effects, genetic variation and regeneration of juvenile fish are extremely tenuous arguments at best, which we do not support. Whatever the possible benefits, marine reserves cannot be justified as fisheries management tools.<li ="larger"="" style="-sizing: border-; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.9;">The nature of our fishing activities utilizes many of our offshore islands, many of which appear to be targeted for marine reserve status. The NZSFC will vigorously oppose any marine reserve proposal that attempts to take the total area around any offshore island, such as has occurred at the Poor Knights. Such action seriously disadvantages our members. If marine reserve status can be justified in the case of any offshore island, it must follow the basic pattern of the Tuhua (Mayor Island) reserve, where only a portion of the waters are reserved for “no take”, such compromise to be reached through genuine negotiation between our members and other stakeholders.<li ="larger"="" style="-sizing: border-; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.9;">That all marine reserves applications have had ample notification in a timely manner to enable meaningful submissions and consultation by the public, affected NZSFC clubs and the Council itself.<div ="msgSignature_wrapper clearfix" style="-sizing: border-; padding: 5px; color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px;"><div ="msgSignature_container col-sm-9 col-sm-offset-3" style="-sizing: border-; : relative; min-height: 1px; padding: 5px; : left; width: 620.625px; margin-left: 206.875px;">MM posted this ages ago and apparently no one read it... That is official NZSFC policy that binds LegaSea and anyone advocating on their behalf. This policy will be what drives NZSFC/LegaSea if any MPA proposals are made. You need to separate what the Stakeholder Working Group could jointly agree to going forward in a Report for wider discussion, and what the NZSFC/LegaSea policy is. There is no doubt that the recreational fishing sector lacks support at local government level, where environmental sympathies seem to flourish. Not a great deal of difference is given between commercial and recreational fishing - both are killing fish. MPAs are their preferred fisheries management tool. If you agree with the NZSFC policy on MPAs, why would you not support their efforts as the SeaChange Report is rolled out for further discussions? The relentless attacks on organisations taking a lead and gaining political influence seems self defeating. Some sense of realism is needed. The reality is this. Within the territorial sea the economy and value generated from non commercial fishing dwarfs that of commercial use. There is a huge upside to that non commercial economy by promoting high value tourism, without the need to kill any more fish. Why would a government enable commercial exploitation so high that it prevents high value use from occurring? It likely wouldn't if it new the real numbers for tax revenues collected and GDP generated was known the Minister of Finance. It is up to us to research the economy of recreational fishing, analyse the data, and present the case to MPs. Alongside this demonstrate just how socially important recreational fishing is to New Zealanders and how deeply they care for their rights. Think snapper in 2013. The intensity of the backlash to proposals surprised Wellington, and in the end forced a decision to raise the TAC and increase the Allowance for recreational fishing. Not a perfect result I agree, but given the toxic advice being bandied about by officials it was perhaps as good as could be expected. Think SeaChange. If we keep ourselves informed, keep watching for the tricky sidesteps in the shadows, we will have time to organise and rally for anything stupid that comes out. So far there is nothing, and given the Sanford response I wouldn't expect anything soon. In the end though, the more we kick each other in the guts the easier we are rolled. Debate the issues, avoid the personalities. Happy New Year to y'all |
| letsgetem wrote: The idea that a marine reserve makes fishing better outside the reserve, needs to be challenged. Fish will be in the reserve because the conditions are better than outside - shelter, food, security. Any fish that moves outside, by mistake, will soon realize it is worse, and move back; or get caught. Migratory fish like snapper, kingfish, kahawai, will certainly move away. In their normal travels, they move a long way, not just nearby. So, there is no reason to think reserves are going to make a net improvement to fishing. That is an idea that is suggested by environmentalists to try and reduce opposition. Don't be fooled. |
Change in seasons, change in tactics Not a lot to report in the ‘big fish’... Read More >
Fish galore! Coming off the back of Easter Weekend and with some very nice weather... Read More >
Excellent snapper action There is some excellent autumn snapper fishing straight out and up the... Read More >
Whangarei Harbour fishing well Like the weather, the fishing has been patchy throughout Bream Bay... Read More >
Major Bites
Minor Bites
Major Bites
Minor Bites
Forum Topics
New Posts
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Topic Options
Post Options
Likes(0)
