Print Page | Close Window

Proposed marine park for Tutukaka

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: Politics - Have your say
Forum Description: Have your say about the future of recreational fishing, marine reserves etc
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11096
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 11:59am


Topic: Proposed marine park for Tutukaka
Posted By: KingfishSi
Subject: Proposed marine park for Tutukaka
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 9:07am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectID=10350977">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectID=10350977

Your thoughts?

-------------
Keep knockin', nobody's home.



Replies:
Posted By: Bender
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 9:12am

HALF bag limits. Don't like the sound of that. If that had been in force earlier this month Si and I would have had to cut the single fish we caught in half!!!

I like the idea of recreational only zones. The Hauraki Gulf came close to being that ... but its chief motivator , Allan Brewster, died before he could see it through.



-------------
Nobody has ever come up with a great idea after a second bottle of water.




Posted By: KingfishSi
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 9:18am
Hey, I'd be able to catch my limit... Wait a minute, what's half of zilch?

-------------
Keep knockin', nobody's home.


Posted By: Rockhopper
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 9:19am

Blueprint drawn up for national park at sea

Planning is under way to create New Zealand's first marine national park off Northland's east coast.

The 1800sq km park, running north from Whangarei Heads to Cape Brett, would not be as restrictive as a marine reserve.

Recreational fishing would be allowed throughout 90 per cent of its area, but commercial fishing would be banned.

The concept originated from the Northland Conservation Board which wants feedback on the initiative from economic, social, cultural and environmentally sustainable viewpoints.

A proposal is now being floated by Jeroen Jongejans a director of Northland diving charter company Dive! Tutukaka, who is to present the plan and an accompanying discussion document to a Northland Regional Council meeting in Whangarei today.

Mr Jongejans said yesterday the park would be several steps down in environmental and fish stock protection levels from a formally designated marine reserve.

"We've seen issues around the proposed [Department of Conservation] reserve for Mimiwhangata and wherever a marine reserve is proposed, it seems to engender a lot of controversy.

"What we're proposing could be a blueprint for other places. It's about a level of protection for the marine environment and increasing fish stocks.

"We have national parks on land so why not at sea?"

The park discussion document suggests that recreational fishing would still be allowed over 1620sq km but with allowable catches of only half normal bag limits.

The 180sq km no-take zone would include the existing 20sq km Mimiwhangata no-take area and the current 24sq km area around the Poor Knights Islands.

Mr Jongejans said the rules would have to be simple.

There were also likely to be employment spin-offs through fishing, tourist and other charter operators working the area, as well as shore-based eco-enterprises supplementing the park's attractions.

Details of who would manage a park have not yet been decided and will be one of a number of issues still to be discussed in talks with the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Ngatiwai and other coastal hapu, Whangarei District Council, commercial and recreational fishers, charter operators and tourism representatives.

A public meeting may also be called to consider the proposal.

The regional council's manager of planning and policy, Glenn Mortimer, is recommending to today's council meeting that the marine national park concept should be supported in principle.

But he notes that for the proposal to advance, it would need support from DoC, the ministry and the district council.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectID=10350977">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectID=10350977

hmmm , hardly worth going to toots for a couple of snaps !!



Posted By: Bushpig
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 9:31am
Fishing allowed in 90% of the area. For how long? Until some green b@stard decides it needs protecting.





-------------
I would rather laugh with the Sinners, than cry with the Saints


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 9:43am
Exactly Bushpig, isn't this the same way the reserve at the Knights got started? And the same "people" behind it.

From Bream Head to Cape Brett, that is a lot of accessable coastline being included.




Posted By: Rockhopper
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 10:20am
Where is this 180km no take zone ? doh , silly me the map is the no take zone.


Posted By: Tomsta
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 10:34am

If it means still being able to fish recreationally. Anchor, Dive..etc. But excludes all commercial activity.... drag netting, long lining..etc. It can't be too bad can it?... May increase or help to preserve fish stocks and allow spawning season to get a fair go in this area....

Bring Back the Greens!!!



-------------
Don't Moan about it, Just Do it!


Posted By: ohsif
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 10:44am
So how do you get on if you set out from Tutukaka but fish outside the marine park and catch your limit? Surely you cannot land back at Tutukaka. How much pressure does this area actually get and is it a known spawning area? With all the marine reserves and parks does this mean that other areas will have to stand more fishing pressure?


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 10:51am
Tomsta, the problem is that they propose halving the rec bag limit within the "park". So, lets say you have a boat based at Tutukaka, under this proposal if you want to go out and get a feed for the whole family you will have to go all the way up past Cape Brett or down to the Hen and Chicks.

Why?

This would be a major imposition for small boat and land based fisherman in this area, they would have to travel outside the area and what scientific basis has been used to set the proposed halving of bag limits?

It is proposed as a "Marine National Park", do we stop or half recreational activity in our land based National parks?

Also, do I believe that as soon as the "Marine Park" was established we wouldn't have the research community applying for grants to do studies on how the park status has singularly failed to increase the fish stocks so we will now have to upgrade the whole area to full reserve status so we can apply for grants to study etc etc etc.....

I would bet my house that the Minister of Conservation would be put on a boat and taken out into the area and convinced that it is a uniqe area and that all fishing is bad and that he should proclaim a reserve within 5 years. Deja vu .....you bet!!


There is currently 44 sq km of no take area within this zone, they propose that be inceased to 180 sq km, or by 400%. Don't loose sight of that as I suspect that the fall back postion will be..."well we'll forget the park but give us the increased no take zones in compensation"


Posted By: The Dog
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:27am

Too big too soon ,i agree with salty ...There is more to this agenda than they will ever tell the mortals....I like the no commercial but rec only part but with that much coast going into any sort of protective legslation i suspect the mortals are being lined up for another shafting....Why would they start all of a sudden and outta the blue caring about rec fishos concerns ,suspect they have learnt from the barrier debarcle "honesty costs money,better to slime the initial proposal just to get it out of the public arena' then once its before the commitee we will have a free reign to lock it like the knights(not that i have a problem with the knghts reserve its all good)

............I hope im wrong but suspicion abounds around this park....



-------------



Posted By: JK
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:36am
Hmmm no sir I don't like it

-------------
LedgeNZ LBG


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:41am
TSW where are you...I was certain I had enough berley in the water.....


Posted By: Bushpig
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:44am
Tobes would be upset i think. isnt HSB in the proposed area

-------------
I would rather laugh with the Sinners, than cry with the Saints


Posted By: JK
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:45am

Actually on 2nd read it doesnt look too bad.

So 90% of the area we can fish with half size bag limits and the other 10% ie the 180sq km no-take zone includes the existing 20sq km Mimiwhangata no-take area and the current 24sq km area around the Poor Knights Islands. 

So yeah no real change I guess. I never take my bag limit anyway, partly cuz I dont usually catch that much but also I never need that much. Just take enough for a feed and I'm good.

And no commercial fishing pressures? thats gotta be good

Just where this may lead to in the future is the worry...



-------------
LedgeNZ LBG


Posted By: SaltyC
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:50am
a 400% increase in the no take zones and halving of bag limits elswhere is "no real change"   ..........Yeah right


Posted By: KingfishSi
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:51am
If it's that simple, why don't they just say "Commercial fishing ban proposal"???

-------------
Keep knockin', nobody's home.


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:52am

Sounds all very well, BUT, like others have said, it is merely the thin end of the wedge I am sure, and before long, it would be moved from the marine park to a total marine reserve, you can bet yo' ass!

Stu.



-------------
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: Boz19
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 11:57am

So half of our limit of 9 snapper each = 4.5 snapper per person.

 Hmmm whats the bet they make it 4 p/p rather than 5p/p?

 



-------------
http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Bender
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 12:05pm

Its a bloody big area too.

This bloks who is proposing it doesn't actually sound very Kiwi does he? Perhaps he could take the idea "home" with him.



-------------
Nobody has ever come up with a great idea after a second bottle of water.




Posted By: Naki
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 12:56pm

C'mon, it is better than a full reserve and if it is managed by the right people then it can work. We have had a marine park just off Port Taranaki for 10 years or so and it works.

Almost everybody says "NO" to reserves, "there are other options" and when another option is proposed, still they grumble.

 

Ducking for cover.....



-------------
President of the "Pontoon Owners Club".
I started off with nothing and now I still have most of it left!!!


Posted By: JK
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 12:58pm

Yeah a bag limit of 4 snappes doesnt sound like much at all does it.


Heres hoping it doesnt go thru or maybe just no commercial fishing in that area. that would be good.



-------------
LedgeNZ LBG


Posted By: Blue Asparagus
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 2:02pm
Quote: Originally posted by KingfishSi on 19 October 2005
Hey, I'd be able to catch my limit... Wait a minute, what's half of zilch?

sweet F.A

oh well it will happen what can we do, nothing as usual. but a total ban on commy stuff well blow me over and a half on mine well why not after all unlike a lot i only take what i need not take my limit.

 



-------------
Ultimate GAME Fishing Adventures. Northland



Posted By: JK
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 2:44pm

exactly eh steve. Wont make too much of difference for people that only take enough for a feed etc.

Here's hoping it all works out



-------------
LedgeNZ LBG


Posted By: Paul M
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 4:37pm

Looks like a great idea to me.

Rec's drop 50%, commercials drop 100%

How can you grumble about that.

If your really just after a feed, go to the fish shop...its cheaper.

Anyway

1-2 Kings, 4-5 snapper and 6 other fin fish per person hardly sounds like your gonna starve to death.



Posted By: JW
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2005 at 5:37pm

My first thoughts reading this was that it was the first step to creating a marine reserve. Get people used to the marine park thing and oh what a good idea it is then make it a reserve.

If something is put into legislation to stop that then the idea seems quite good. But then I don't live there and fish for food so that's easy for me to say.

 



Posted By: doctor fish
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2005 at 8:39pm
Problem is you cant trust the buggers, Hidden agenda I recon, and once the legislation is in place just a stoke of pen to create a total marine reserve it would only be a matter of time.  A little bit like taxation by stealth, calling a tax a fee or levy instead of a tax. There would be no going back.


Posted By: Plow
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 10:12am
I think it is a bloody good idea but limiting recreational guys to 4.5 snapper from 9 is a bit silly.
 
Consider the commercial guys are coming in every other night along the coastline with state of the art technology sweeping up large schools of snapper in a couple of rounds...
 
If there are 10 recreational boats out there each getting their limit a day, that is still only a tiny fraction of what each of the commercial guys are getting every trip.
 
One thing I reckon that needs to be considered in this debate of Recreational fishing vs Commercial fishing is, think just how much the recreational fisherman keeps the NZ economy rolling over and the wealth that is spread throughout the nation with boat purchases, TAS attacks, fuel needs, bigger cars, garage for the boat and not to mention the good times we all have out there and the bloody good mood it puts us all in when there is fish a plenty to take home for the family....  The commercial guys take the resource for themsleves, its hardly sharing New Zealand about and doesn't generate many smiles. 
 
Im all for it.
 
Absolutely.  Go hard hope it happens but the 9 snapper limit is fine as it is.


-------------
Legasea Legend, the rest of you should be too, $10 a month.

http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Bushpig
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 10:44am
if anyone thinks it will stay a park and not turn into a reserve, you are dreaming. 

-------------
I would rather laugh with the Sinners, than cry with the Saints


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 2:33pm

It looks good in theory if the govermant and we are willing, its the perfect area for a no commercial fishing zone and recreational only. Why not give it 30-40 years as a recreational only area reduce Snapper limits to 7 per person per day that should'nt hurt too many people really should it? There should be no extension to the current no take zone's though Mimiwhangata is enough.

If its a success it makes us rod n reel fisherman look as good as we know we are and make's those netter's n longliners look the greedy buggers they know they are.  


Posted By: JB
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 3:04pm
Watch your livie tanks lads as I'm sure that halfing your limit will put alot over the limit if boarded (on the fin fish limit that is).
Concept OK - but 4.5 snapper each does not really mean a feed for a larger familer for more than 2 nights -lets say you only catch 4.5  35 snapper - how much is that going to feed- not much really.
 
The lets say the MAF team enforce the high grading rec rule and play that one out. You go out see some sign of the sounder and can't tell 27cm snapper from 50cm snapper. accidentially catch your 4.5 in 10 minutes and have to piss off home..... sounds unrealistic but can you really trust these people running 'helen's nanny state??
 
 


Posted By: Finatic
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 3:18pm
Has there been new talk of this reserve???
    

-------------
What's the cheapest type of meat? Dear balls. They're under a buck.


Posted By: Blue Asparagus
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 5:27pm
have heard nothing but you know what DOC are like and puting the CON in conservation will drop it on us or try and sneak 1 up the back passage or is that me old mate Cris C.
 
admin please feel free to delete it might offend the delicate types who lurk in here.


-------------
Ultimate GAME Fishing Adventures. Northland



Posted By: Plow
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2006 at 9:18pm
If this proposal goes ahead..  does it mean the Poor Knights area is open again to us recreational guys?  What happens to current areas such as mimiwhangata which are already marine parks with their own restrictions? And there is of course moves in the pipeline to make an even larger marine reserve at Mimi's.
 
Also I thought they were making moves to create a World Heritage Site out of the Poor Knights.. 
 
In my opinion this new marine park proposal seems like a good one, it will certainly leave the areas open to us to fish..  however,
 
Bushie..  What makes you so sure they will convert this into a reserve and block us rec's out?  Do you have some sort of inside reliable information or do you simply not trust the powers that be?
 


-------------
Legasea Legend, the rest of you should be too, $10 a month.

http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Uffy1
Date Posted: 08 Nov 2006 at 9:35am
I spend a fair bit of time fishing in this area and this proposal scares me a bit. I totally agree with those of you who distrust the powers that be. I also think that those proposing it have a vested interest and are possibly set to gain commercially from it (conflict of interest). If the marine park is in place in legislation will it be a simple ministerial "tick the box" to totally exclude fishing?
 
I am totally in favour of reserves (total no take) scattered around the coastline but am frustrated at the processes involved in selecting the areas. A reserve was recently set-up at Reotahi in the Whangarei harbour. Those of you who know this area will be aware of the currents sweeping past and it is hardly a place where you would take your kids snorkelling to see marine life.
 
When the Poor Knights reserve was first proposed my personal opinion was that it was a good idea, it was too unique to take any risks of stuffing it up. However now that it has been in place for quite some time it would be an interesting exercise to canvas all those people whose names were on the petition to set up the reserve and see how many of them have subsequently visited the Poor Knights. I think we all know that would be a miniscule percentage.
 
If this "marine park" talk continues I will be quite happy to assist in any way in the representation of recreational fishers to retain their rights.
 
Just my thoughts and opinons,
 
Uffy.


Posted By: Plow
Date Posted: 08 Nov 2006 at 11:11pm
OK call me stupid but I find it hard to see how an area the size of the one proposed could ever become a total no take zone... Feel free to tell me I am wrong and I will listen to the arguments.

The coastline is scattered with baches and people living beside the sea and a large percentage of people who own these places are there because they want to fish. If the whole area became a total no take zone, imagine the pressure on fisheries just off the edges, BoI, Ruakaka mangawhai etc.. Also consider the effect this would have on real estate values. I'd be willing to bet there would be an sudden supply of people selling up and moving on. Its an enormous area to exclude the public from..

I personlly dont think any politician would have the nads to tick the box.

Also who would gain, who are the people that have vested interests in this? Maybe I am missing something here.. Please feel free to fill me in as i dont want to be ignorant to both sides of the coin.

Uffy, I know the reotahi area well, and agree.. Its even a dangerous place to scuba. Its almost like the Waikato River at mid tide... I wouldn't allow my kids to snorkel there, I dont reckon the Kamo kids thought about that too much when it was first proposed although there are safer areas at changing tides.

Can anyone tell me whats the latest with the Miminwhangata proposal? Im keen to know what going on there...

-------------
Legasea Legend, the rest of you should be too, $10 a month.

http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Uffy1
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2006 at 9:44am
PTC,
 
The proposal has been put forward by a dive charter operator from Tutukaka. With the Poor Knights reserve and the sinking of 2 ex-navy wrecks in the local vicinity the local dive business appears to be doing well. As I stated earlier I feel the Poor Knights to be such a unique environment that having the area as a reserve is a must and the on-going business for the dive operators should be a bonus for the local community.
 
The prposed marine park is a huge area affecting a lot of communities and people and my concern is that it may be effectively "bundled" into one zone. If we are going to have reserves, which I support, I would rather see smaller ones scattered around the coast and established with good consultation amoung all interested parties.
 
I have neither heard nor read any updates on the Mimiwhangata proposal in the local press.
 
I trust you have a good Xmass.
 
Uffy.


Posted By: Free Ocean Fighters
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2008 at 7:18pm
I think its a bloody good idea, northland would become well known for it. so what if you can only get half bag lmits, if you dont like it go some where alse....
 
This will be keeping more fish for the future, for your kids and your kids kids. Small price to pay id say.



Print Page | Close Window