Recs should have proportional share of catch.

Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Recs should have proportional share of catch.
    Posted: 18 Jan 2018 at 8:46am
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 4109
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11976688

From the article: -
"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced by legislation governing all aspects of fishing.
This means that recreational fishing is subject to the full discretion of the minister. In other words, the minister alone decides how much of a total allowable catch will be allocated to the recreational fishing sector and other sectors".
Legasea Legend Member
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (5) Likes(5)   Quote Tagit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2018 at 9:23am
Tagit View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Westhaven, Auck
Status: Offline
Points: 15052
I always come back to the point that only ~5% or so of the commercial take comes from species that are highly utilised/valued recreationally. Why is it so hard to put some half reasonable constraints on commercial fishing of such a small part of their industry to protect an incredibly valued Kiwi cultural heritage. We can ban set nets on the West Coast to save a few dolphins but we can't constrain commercial excess to protect our cultural heritage. Something badly wrong with the governments thinking on this.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2018 at 9:34am
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 6769
Originally posted by v8-coupe v8-coupe wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11976688

From the article: -
"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced by legislation governing all aspects of fishing.
This means that recreational fishing is subject to the full discretion of the minister. In other words, the minister alone decides how much of a total allowable catch will be allocated to the recreational fishing sector and other sectors".

That sounds like total bo**ocks to me, yet another article from the self serving Randall Bess.  I don't know if he's related to the NZ Herald owner, or just has some hold over them, but the amount of coverage he gets is unbelievable.  They seem to report everything he says as if it has some relevance or he is some sort of authority. 
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2018 at 10:49am
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Franklin
Status: Offline
Points: 12849
What Tagit says above...

"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced by legislation governing all aspects of fishing.
This means that recreational fishing is subject to the full discretion of the minister.

 I believe that within the "legislation" there is requirement of the minister to protect the rights of rec fishing before allocating commercial rights... to protect the common law right...
 The issue is  does the Minister/ ministry in deciding those numbers actually achieve that protection..
 And there lays the problem/ issue
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2018 at 12:27pm
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 4109
Originally posted by Steps Steps wrote:

What Tagit says above...

"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The
courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced
by legislation governing all aspects of fishing.
This means that recreational fishing is subject to the full discretion of the minister.

 I believe that within the "legislation" there is requirement of the minister to protect the rights of rec fishing before allocating commercial rights... to protect the common law right...
 The issue is  does the Minister/ ministry in deciding those numbers actually achieve that protection..
 And there lays the problem/ issue


Not sure that is true.
Further in the article I think it states that the Minister only has to give consideration, not actual protection to rec allowance. Allowance, not quota.
As another poster has already alluded to, the author is full of hot air so the article could be full of interpretational inaccuracies.

From article: -
"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced by legislation governing all aspects of fishing".

"The only legal guidance the minister has is that he must consider relevant social, cultural and economic factors when deciding what would be reasonable in the circumstances.
There are no legal limits on the proper exercise of discretion, other than the minister must first "have regard" to non-commercial fishing interests before setting the commercial allocation".

"In fact, the legislation makes clear that no one fishing sector has preference over the others. In other words, there is no legal basis for the right to catch a feed for the table far exceeding the right to make a profit".
Legasea Legend Member
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2018 at 12:48pm
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Franklin
Status: Offline
Points: 12849
I believe that within the "legislation" there is requirement of the minister to protect the rights of rec fishing before allocating commercial rights... to protect the common law right...

Not sure that is true.
Further in the article I think it states that the Minister only has to give consideration, not actual protection to rec allowance. Allowance, not quota.
As another poster has already alluded to, the author is full of hot air so the article could be full of interpretational inaccuracies.

 
I picked that up also.. or maybe the far too common lack of understanding, background checking our reporters and editors no longer do.
 Write , publish, move to the next article with no thought to accuracy or responsibility


This issue , from memory was discussed in great detail and think referenced, way back when we got a cutting in size and numbers....
And from memory it is in the initial pre amble of the Act.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2018 at 2:14pm
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 12468
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Big -Dave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2018 at 11:32pm
Big -Dave View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Location: Hamilton
Status: Offline
Points: 3129
From article: -
"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced by legislation governing all aspects of fishing".

What about Maori rights?
you can't fix an idiot with duct tape, but it does muffle them for a while...
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2018 at 4:58am
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 12468
Originally posted by Big -Dave Big -Dave wrote:

From article: -
"There is no legal protection for the recreational right to fish. The courts have clarified that a common law right to fish has been replaced by legislation governing all aspects of fishing".

What about Maori rights?
Needs clarification but my understanding was 
"The Minister shall allow for recreational,customary rights under the treaty of Waitangi" and what is left commercial got.

Seems times have changed rather quickly and I have never heard of this Randell Bass under  when Nathan Guy was mpi minister.

Said it before the Election,better the devil you know.

Commercial must be hammering Stewart Nash,we have these recommendations,on another thread about all the Waitangi claims may affect us. The luckiest part could be not having Shane Jones in!
Back to Top
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down


This page was generated in 1.023 seconds.

Fishing Reports Visit Reports

Saltwater Fishing Reports
Top of the South Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Bay of Islands Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Inner Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Fishing bite times Fishing bite times

Major Bites

Minor Bites

Major Bites

Minor Bites