Print Page | Close Window

Recreational Fishing Licences - have your say

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: Saltwater Fishing
Forum Name: The Captain Morgan Briny Bar
Forum Description: The place for general chat on saltwater fishing!
URL: http://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=122683
Printed Date: 22 Feb 2017 at 2:55pm


Topic: Recreational Fishing Licences - have your say
Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Subject: Recreational Fishing Licences - have your say
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 8:12am
Thanks for looking at this topic - there has been discussion on the LegaSea sub forum about rec fishing licences being a key part of the way the fishery should be managed. LegaSea is against this idea. One of our fishing net brothers thinks it's a good idea and says levels of success in Australia and Florida proves it has merit for NZ. Check the sub forum for more details if you want more explanation of the positives of this argument. I'm interested to learn if others feel if licensing should be a key part of how our fishery is managed.

Yah or Nay? 



Replies:
Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 8:49am
No. I am not a fan. However, if it were to come in I would want it to be totally independant. No Governemnt/Council/Iwi interference or links to to the Governemnt's/Council's/Iwi's "consolidated funds". It would also have to apply to everyone. Even those New Zealanders with tenuous links to Maori ethnicity.
If it got to the stage where the scheme had excess funds after representing those paying for the license, then money could be donated to Coastgaurd for education/safety et al or to DOC on the priviso funds are only used for the benfit of fisheries. Not Government propaganda.

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


Posted By: Whakalocal
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 8:53am
If their was benefits such as maintained fads down the coast and rec only areas and it wasn't just the government benefiting from it it could be a good idear managed by the right people


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 8:59am
yes,use it to buy quota back off commercial to restore our fisheries ..Only way for more fish in the water is to take less ..Seachange way isnt in our best interests as they back Commercial ,just moving them sideways thats all  

-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 8:59am
Would the licence apply to Maori?


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:04am
Originally posted by LegaSea Community Builder LegaSea Community Builder wrote:

Would the licence apply to Maori?


To everyone using the resource regardless of ethnicity/position/power/religious-spiritual beliefs or money.

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


Posted By: Southern_Jez
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:09am
If the benefits gathered from license fees extended outside of the upper half of the North Island (bloody doubtful) then maybe ... 


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:11am
Agreed,everyone , same as V8 on this 

-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:12am
Yes, definitely, if the revenue could be used to buy out the commercials, at least from inshore waters. It won't happen though, there will be a license and things will carry on just as they are with no benefit to the people that pay for a license.


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:14am
Be it $100 or $200 a year so be it ,NZ wide ,all fishers .It may also reduce the pressure with some not fishing as they have to get a Licence ,Im not against a Licence ....But the MONEY has to go to the right area and not sucked up in collecting it etc

-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: krow
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:18am
A big NAY for now. 
Reasoning: 
Too much of the "fee" would be swallowed up in management.
I'd also suggest unless managed correctly (and I doubt it would be) there would be a pilfering off of funds. The dollars would end up in a government slush fund and not just fishing. 
Many "groups" and I say that loosely will hold their hand up for a share of the newfound wealth. 
No, or very little, policing would take place so very open to abuse. 
I'll expand on this one.................
For starters how the hell is anyone going to get caught? Inspectors will need to actually witness the "offence". Just stopping people at the ramp wouldn't work. Unless the person is solo fishing everyone on-board denies they caught the fish. Can't prove who caught what. 
How would the wages, boat, fuel, etc be funded? Oh by the licence fee. Nothing left for actual fisheries management.
If anyone was caught without a licence they'd first get a warning WOW what a deterrent, next (see above could be years) a minimal fine that is likely less than the dollars that would have been spent if the person had remained legal and this money would go to the government coppers not back to fishing. After that tie up the system and have judges that think this is a waste of time let them off with a wet bus ticket. Most likely a ban from fishing for a month or two. Take a look at what happens now with way more serious offences than fishing without a licence. So don't think for one minute even 100x more paid fisheries officers using up 99% of the licence fee would be effective. 
A lot of people only fish a few times of the year and would be bitter about having to get licences for the family just for the Christmas break etc. 
No doubt lots more reasons too but that's what comes to mind for now. 
Funds would be better gathered and spent if we could somehow get the average fisherman to join a network. 



Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:20am
Legasea is clearly being used to soften the impending blow new regulations and laws will have on the freedoms and rights now afforded your average NZer.
Legasea is clearly not working for us and if you aren't for us you are against us.


Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:24am
Legasea is clearly being used to soften the impending blow new regulations and laws will have on the freedoms and rights now afforded your average NZer.
Legasea is clearly not working for us and if you aren't for us you are against us.

Clutch, please substantiate your comment?


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:26am
Fresh water fishers need a licence ...Krow yes what you say is true ..but set up and managed independent of Government so they cant use it as a slush fund ..Yes there are costs involved...

Imagine if all fishers payed say $150 per year ( 600,000 ) ? =$9mil ? put somewhere it could buy quota back and restore what has been taken away ,Go for it Clutch,your right !!


-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:26am
MM
Be it $100 or $200 a year so be it ,NZ wide ,all fishers .It may also reduce the pressure with some not fishing as they have to get a Licence ,Im not against a Licence ....But the MONEY has to go to the right area and not sucked up in collecting it etc

I think you may find $100 will cover the governance and enforcement costs, to buy the quota would be substantially more. John H noted there was talk some time ago to buy some kingfish quota for a region and that would be several million. By the sounds of things that was one species in one area. 


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:29am
If we all got together we could raise the money to buy it back..lock stock and barrels..It could and can be done  ... fish within 12nm should not be for export ,this is the problem of the fisheries, over harvested with outdated methods and new methods like the PSH nets which are no better ,only 1 cure,get rid of commercial ,Seachange wont do it as Iwi are pro Commercial  and are in with them ,Legasea are connected .!!!

-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:52am
Originally posted by LegaSea Community Builder LegaSea Community Builder wrote:

Legasea is clearly being used to soften the impending blow new regulations and laws will have on the freedoms and rights now afforded your average NZer.
Legasea is clearly not working for us and if you aren't for us you are against us.

Clutch, please substantiate your comment?

LCB, I may be being a little harsh but to me it looks like you are becoming part of the bureaucracy that is becoming more and more complicated.
The Govt. clearly have an agenda and they pander to the punters by offering public consultations and submissions which amount to naught when the appetite for helping us rec fishers is not there.
Seachange is a good example where Legasea was basically given a take it or leave it option according to yourselves.
When your average joe complains the govt. will say ..."Hey Legasea was part of the process...."
Most of us just want to head out into the harbour and be able to catch fish. $100 or $200 for a licence? No thanks. I catch SFA as it is but I consider it my right to do so.


Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:53am
MM - If we all got together we could change govt policy simply by voting, which is free, OR if we all got together and got behind one organisation that represented rec fishing interests, that would also work without the need for licensing? The other part of the equation which seems to be missed is that quota has to be AVAILABLE for sale before it can be sold, do you really believe the comms industry would sell all their quota to recs? 

Regarding the comment about 'Seachange won't do it as Iwi are pro Commercial  and are in with them ,Legasea are connected'

Please substantiate the statement LegaSea are connected?? By connected I assume you meant we sat at the same table with them? 

As you are already aware, LegaSea are working on a clarification paper to explain our part in Sea Change. There are a lot of gaps around the process and our part in it. 


Posted By: herby
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:56am
Sure, you could buy quota, but only if it was for sale. 
What would $9m get you anyway? 5/8 of F all probably. 

I'd support a (well thought out) licence system, perhaps with an annual bag limit in addition to daily bag limits? It works in California for their abalone, why not here? 

Orrrrrr just push to remove all size limits on commercial finfish 




Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:01am
In response to Clutch 
LCB, I may be being a little harsh but to me it looks like you are becoming part of the bureaucracy that is becoming more and more complicated.

Come down to HQ and have a chat and talk to us face to face. The more I think about it the more a few beers for all fish net members is sounding a good idea to me. All questions answered and you can see for yourself. How does that sound? I will be putting up some more info in due course on what we are doing here the next week. (LegaSea sub forum). Please have a read and do some more research on us  LOL

The Govt. clearly have an agenda and they pander to the punters by offering public consultations and submissions which amount to naught when the appetite for helping us rec fishers is not there.
Completely agree. They honestly don't want our feedback, that's one of the reasons LegaSea seldom attends public consultation (although we have discussed recently and decided to turn up more often, even if it's to talk to the other keen rec fishers and try to work with them).

Sea change is a good example where Legasea was basically given a take it or leave it option according to yourselves.

We are currently working on a response paper to clear this up and explain what went down. Watch this space, or better still watch the space on the LegaSea sub forum.

When your average joe complains the govt. will say ..."Hey Legasea was part of the process...."
Most of us just want to head out into the harbour and be able to catch fish. $100 or $200 for a licence? No thanks. I catch SFA as it is but I consider it my right to do so.
Completely agree. LegaSea believes the fishery belongs to the public. The comms should be paying a royalty from the exploitation of a public resource. Rec fishers shouldn't have to pay. We say Nay......


Posted By: herby
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:03am
Originally posted by Clutch Clutch wrote:

Most of us just want to head out into the harbour and be able to catch fish. $100 or $200 for a licence? No thanks. I catch SFA as it is but I consider it my right to do so.

Is it a right? I consider it a privilege, and without careful management it's a privilege we'll lose. If we continue to go out and catch catch catch just because we consider it 'our right' then we'll just destroy it.  


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:06am
Originally posted by LegaSea Community Builder LegaSea Community Builder wrote:

In response to Clutch 
LCB, I may be being a little harsh but to me it looks like you are becoming part of the bureaucracy that is becoming more and more complicated.

Come down to HQ and have a chat and talk to us face to face. The more I think about it the more a few beers for all fish net members is sounding a good idea to me. All questions answered and you can see for yourself. How does that sound? I will be putting up some more info in due course on what we are doing here the next week. (LegaSea sub forum). Please have a read and do some more research on us  LOL

The Govt. clearly have an agenda and they pander to the punters by offering public consultations and submissions which amount to naught when the appetite for helping us rec fishers is not there.
Completely agree. They honestly don't want our feedback, that's one of the reasons LegaSea seldom attends public consultation (although we have discussed recently and decided to turn up more often, even if it's to talk to the other keen rec fishers and try to work with them).

Sea change is a good example where Legasea was basically given a take it or leave it option according to yourselves.

We are currently working on a response paper to clear this up and explain what went down. Watch this space, or better still watch the space on the LegaSea sub forum.

When your average joe complains the govt. will say ..."Hey Legasea was part of the process...."
Most of us just want to head out into the harbour and be able to catch fish. $100 or $200 for a licence? No thanks. I catch SFA as it is but I consider it my right to do so.
Completely agree. LegaSea believes the fishery belongs to the public. The comms should be paying a royalty from the exploitation of a public resource. Rec fishers shouldn't have to pay. We say Nay......

Thanks, for the response bud.
I try to, and surely will read, all info in the Legasea sub forum.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:06am
Quote." Rec fishing licences being a key part way fishing should be managed."

Since when has our inshore fishery been managed. Exploited would be more to the point. So why would a licence bring about good management.
When the quoted 1 million undersize fish crushed in trawl nets in Sn1 ,or fisheries such as sounds and Tasman bay scollops closed due to neglect and overfishing are actually addressed  properly,then maybe people can talk management.

To date management includes us having cuts in increased size and in limit numbers and we want to thank them by paying for it by way of a licence.

So what would a licence achieve. Cant see anything on the table yet.

Like it or not our fisheries are a political issue.When a fishery is run by the government for economic benefit of fishing companies then it cant be anything but .
For me it is a decided NO. I expect value for money,and not illusion or maybes.

" Geeks like to think they can ignore politics,you can leave politics alone,but politics wont leave you alone."

Richard Stallman. quote.



Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:08am
Without significant enforcement/compliance it won't work. Question is, how much are we prepared to pay for enforcement/compliance, plus the cost of the administration, plus the costs of making licences available (tackle shop fees etc) BEFORE we start putting anything towards creating benefits for the rec fishing sector in terms of quota buy-backs etc, or even just money for political lobbying. Unlike many countries, our Coastguard are not an enforcement agency, our maritime police setup is extremely small, and we have a pretty light, mostly volunteer fisheries enforcement group. On the other side we have a massive marine area and huge coastline to cover. Then we will have huge Treaty of Waitangi issues that may not even be resolvable, but will have to fund what will no doubt be years of legal actions as some groups fight the need to pay and others try to work out how they can claim a share of licence sales in 'their' areas.
There are also significant issues around managing the licences for people who fish just once or twice per year. Too expensive and we disenchant a big part of the fishing community. Too cheap and the costs outweigh the income.

The idea of a fishing licence fee to directly benefit the rec fishing community doesn't bother me. The practical issues around seeing more than a tiny fraction of that fee disappear into 'overhead costs' to me seem almost insurmountable. Inevitable result will be a fee so high that we will 'criminalise' huge numbers of otherwise law abiding citizens and end up having to stop for licence checks everytime we head out. I just can't see how it can really work for our benefit.

The reality would have a pattern like this (actual numbers are arbitrary guesses). The term used is "Price Elasticity" -
No fees - 1,000,000 anglers fish each year in NZ
$20 annual fee - 800,000 anglers fish each year in NZ
$50 fee - 600,000 anglers fish each year in NZ
$100 fee - 400,000 anglers fish in NZ each year
$200 fee - 300,000 anglers fish each year in NZ
$300 fee - 200,000 anglers fish each year in NZ
as the licenced angler number decreases (fee goes up) the number of 'illegal' anglers increases and we need more enforcement and we criminalise more otherwise good people who didn't want to pay $100+ to go out on the one fishing trip for the year.

Imagine the new standard over the fence chat with your neighbour - 
- Hey Bruce. Going fishing tomorrow but my mates had to pull out. Want to go? 
- Sounds great, haven't been fishing for years. Got my Father in Law visiting from Dunedin and they don't go fishing down there so can I bring him along. 
- No problem, got plenty of gear. 
- How much should we chip in for fuel and bait etc. 
- Probably cost around $50 each if you want to help out. 
- Cool. What time are we off? 
- Early bite at the mo, so lets get away at 6.00am. 
- Great. 
- Oh, by the way, don't forget to buy $100 fishing licences for each of you before we go out and make sure to bring some ID with you on the boat for when the police stop us to check our licences.

What part of the above scenarios have I got wrong?


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:10am
Originally posted by herby herby wrote:


Is it a right? I consider it a privilege, and without careful management it's a privilege we'll lose. If we continue to go out and catch catch catch just because we consider it 'our right' then we'll just destroy it.  
Yeah, a bit of both I guess. It is a privilege and I personally feel that it is in jeopardy of being taken away. Not because there are no fish but because of who gets the fish and how it is managed.

I seriously take home 4 snapper maybe 6 times a year max.


Posted By: herby
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:11am
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Quote." Rec fishing licences being a key part way fishing should be managed."

Since when has our inshore fishery been managed. Exploited would be more to the point. 

Cirrus. Our inshore fisheries have been managed for quite a while and we are in a much better place now than we would be if the QMS had not been implemented. QMS is Quota MANAGEMENT System.
No, it is not perfect, but it is much better than nothing. 


Posted By: herby
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:14am
Originally posted by Tagit Tagit wrote:

...................................

What part of the above scenarios have I got wrong?

A $5 24 hour licence option?


Posted By: smudge
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:15am
No. It has worked in Aussie? Mate you're dreamin'! People in remote communities won't get a license. The people we used to see on coast watch won't get a license. The People that fish our local boat ramp that leave behind piles of rubbish while their kids go a scribble on things won't get a license.

And the revenue from that system? They will rebrand a couple of officers from MPI, employ a couple of others and there will be no more enforcement than we already have.

If LegaSea were to support licensing they will alienate the people that they desperately need the support of.




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


Best gurnard fisherman in my street


Posted By: KikBac
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:22am
A licence fee will do absolutely NOTHING to increase abundance. Many mechanisms already exist to manage abundance (manage commercial take via TACC and ACE, manage recreational catch via daily bag limits and minimum size limits, method restrictions, seasonal closures, non-take areas etc.) If abundance is the end goal, any number of these measures could be implemented WITHOUT the introduction of a complex licencing system.

-------------
Beer: the most important meal of the day.


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:27am
I think the purpose(s) of any license should be clearly considered.
1. To raise money, would be good, provided it went solely to a body who's objective was solely protection of fishing. The fresh water fishing body Fish and Game, appears to achieve worthwhile protection - and even though it exists at the pleasure of government, it still appears to give independent advice.
2. To regulate and police fishing - now this is done by a government department MPI. So its paid for by all taxpayers, which does not seem fair. User pays is fairer I believe, ie paid for by a license fee. Further - MPIs regulation is conflicting with its commercial fishing responsibility. So, naturally  recreational fishing can lose ground. This tends to be worse, with a national government heavily favouring "business" dogma. An independent body would give fairer consideration to recreational, that would be an improvement.
3. But, bringing in a license, where there has been none, would be hugely offensive to many people, including me. The insidious creep of new regulation is a I think obnoxious. Therefore, I assume that there would be huge resistance, which would result in ever-expanding management cost in trying to control things. I see  disaster, with the fee sky-rocketing.
 
In summary - even though I see benefits, I think "peoples traditional rights" are more important, and I oppose it.
 
 


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:47am
Originally posted by herby herby wrote:

Originally posted by Tagit Tagit wrote:

...................................

What part of the above scenarios have I got wrong?

A $5 24 hour licence option?

Closest example would be the trout day licence at $20. That is with a tiny fraction of the enforcement issues to fund and all the Treaty etc stuff settled years ago at the governments cost. Also no quota to buy back, and a fraction of all the legal/political issues to work through as there is no commercial fishery.
Another issue is that if we assume an annual licence with any sort of contribution to improving our fisheries is going to be $150 plus (I figure more like $200. You issue $5 day licences and only a fraction of anglers will buy the annual licence because they don't fish more than 30 times per year. So you cannibalise your main income stream and then the price has to go up again because your income model has failed. Reality is that a $5 day licence will contribute nothing back to the fishery after costs are taken out and actually hurt the whole attempt to achieve improvements.


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:54am
I think we definitely need a licensing system. A thirty dollar a year licence with funds going to an independent rec fishing body, NOT govt coffers.
Licence to apply to all fishers including Maori , who however have a free licence if at point of sale can produce evidence they are on the Maori electoral role... Maybe even so, if free, there will be a proviso on the licence to allow them to donate their $30 to the cause anyhow. (Although that would be seriously difficult to administer.) Applying online would make donating the equivalent to the fee easy, and by ticking that box would include them in the draw for prizes. Basically, make it easier for them just to buy the licence really.
Kids under 13 free, kids under 18 half price. Full adults, say $30-$40, or roughly the price of a day's bait and berley.
Funds collected to be used for enforcement and education, , and a contribution to the HFO system, coastguard, but mainly to fund rec fishing research and POLITICAL CLOUT.
Include in the licence a chance to go in the draw for a new boat and trailer packag or something, as per the annual coastguard fundraiser, only paid licences are eligible...ie, not free kids or any Maori who claimed free licences.
Licences could easily be sold online, easy to do, as trout licences and hunting licences are done now. Once you buy your licence you have an electronic receipt on your phone or whatever, print out if you want, and in due course, a proper plastic licence will be mailed out to you for your wallet.

The benefits.... MONEY, and therefore lobbying clout, for rec fishing interests.
A database of nz rec fishers, to get some decent information on the numbers of rec fishers out there and contact details for them, to help in rallying support for rec fishing interests.
It would hugely help research into rec fishing itself. Simply ticking a few boxes in the licence form, ie, how many times you fish a year, where mainly, main target species, usual catch (ie, how many you normally expect to get), it'd be a massive help.
If half a mill fishers got paid for licences , that is 15mill to fund rec fishing causes....if admin etc ate up 90% of that money, and left only a tithe of the licence money (10%) to actually go to rec fishing organisations, that'd still be the biggest support to rec fishing bodies by orders of magnitude than is currently funded.
Should it be even more efficient and return say a third of the fees to rec fishing, then those funds could be used for enforcement, coastguard, maybe even some ramp building/fish handling facilities a is done in W.A.

What it could not do is buy back or retire quota, sorry guys, that is not how the system works, as I am sure you are aware. Quota works on tacc, total allowable commercial catch. If recs were to buy and nit take say half the quota, the tacc would be reallocated to those holding the remaining quota, so they would get to simply catch MORE. However, if rec fishing actually had the funding, and therefore the political clout (yes, in politics, as everywhere, money talks, bull-spit walks), then perhaps changes could be effected in the halls of power to change things.

The main point of the licence is not to control fishermen, it is to fund fishing interests, to give us the political clout. The other stuff, like Maori licensing, kids, family tickets, prizes etc etc, are all secondary.
I buy my trout licence every year for $130 or whatever it is, I buy a W.A. Fishing licence for I think $30 every year, it is not big deal. I surely would be happy to fork out $30-$40 for a saltwater licence, to give nz rec fishing interests the teeth to fight for us properly.


Edit, just read the above....re $5 day licences. Nope, none, for exactly the reason Tagit gave, it dilutes the income stream too much. Keep the licence fee small enough, $35 say, make it payable online, so it is in your smartphone or whatever, that'd be easy as.
Kids licensing, although technically kids would need a licence to fish, it is free, so no one is gunna bother about checking kids fishing off wharves etc for their licences, it just ain't worth the bother.

So what's one more?

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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 10:59am
Originally posted by LegaSea Community Builder LegaSea Community Builder wrote:

MM - If we all got together we could change govt policy simply by voting, which is free, OR if we all got together and got behind one organisation that represented rec fishing interests, that would also work without the need for licensing? The other part of the equation which seems to be missed is that quota has to be AVAILABLE for sale before it can be sold, do you really believe the comms industry would sell all their quota to recs? 

Regarding the comment about '<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Seachange won't do it as Iwi are pro Commercial  and are in with them ,Legasea are connected'</span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">
</span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Please substantiate the statement LegaSea are connected?? By connected I assume you meant we sat at the same table with them? </span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">
</span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">As you are already aware, LegaSea are working on a clarification paper to explain our part in Sea Change. There are a lot of gaps around the process and our part in it. </span>


Go ask Scott Macindoe..While there ask him about Mooks Honeck..Ngatiwai and NgatiManuhiri connections and testing of the new psh net 2 years ago..By the way none of the Iwi groups were voted in by their own tribes..
Mooks Honneck is a self appointed Mouthpiece piece..and has very dirty underwear..Enjoy sitting down at the table with them..

-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:10am
Originally posted by herby herby wrote:

Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Quote." Rec fishing licences being a key part way fishing should be managed."

Since when has our inshore fishery been managed. Exploited would be more to the point. 

Cirrus. Our inshore fisheries have been managed for quite a while and we are in a much better place now than we would be if the QMS had not been implemented. QMS is Quota MANAGEMENT System.
No, it is not perfect, but it is much better than nothing. 
So what you are saying is that stopping unrestrained commercial rape of our fisheries to the point where the comms had almost completely devastated whole species was really clever. I think we can all agree with that. 
Trouble is, if you bother to research the history of the QMS, and look where we are at today, it has shifted $Billions of publicly owned assets into private ownership. It has lead to incredibly slow improvements in the shared inshore stocks, but rapid improvements in some of the comm only offshore stocks. It has lead to massive cuts in recreational fishing rights on the basis that the inshore stocks need improving, but virtually no cuts on the commercial take. Our government can't even make changes to the commercial take without the comms agreement because of how they set the system up. For years we had systematic rape (to build catch history) of any new species as soon as it was known that it was going to be introduced to the QMS. We have the small commercial fisherman today controlled by the large quota owners and 'allowed' just enough income to survive whilst the non-working quota holders take most of the value.

What an awesome QMS we have. Yes it eventually stopped the unrestrained destruction of our fisheries, but the cost to the public of achieving that has been devastating. Hence where we are all at today trying to work out how to save our inshore fisheries again.

Do you know that when Quota was first given (yes free) to the comms, the government subsequently decided that they had issued too much quota (I think it was in Snapper but not sure) and then paid them over $40m in 1980 dollars to buy back the quota that they over-issued! To put that in perspective, govt stats say that would be around $200m in todays dollars. If the government gave rec fishing $200m today a quota buy back would solve a big piece of our inshore problems. I guess that won't happen though huh!!

The more you read and understand the real history of our QMS, the more you realise that it is probably the biggest example of gross mismanagement and quite possibly corruption in the history of this country. Over $4B of public assets given away to a small group of people along with our right to properly manage for fisheries for the future. It is a wonder that the profanity checker on this forum still allows us to type QMS.


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: herby
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:23am
What would you prefer - no management, or poor management? 

It would be nice to have a government with the balls to just reduce various TACCs and be done with it.


 


Posted By: LegaSea Community Builder
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:26am
Awesome to see some serious dialogue about an issue we all clearly feel strongly about. Some good reasoning and well thought out answers. Licensing is a tool to help manage an industry/resource. Theoretically people would support if they knew the desired results could be guaranteed. That unfortunately is not the case.
We all pay taxes to a govt who is mandated to look after our country and it's resources for the people. They should be doing a better job for the people. 
LegaSea is looking for people to back us in our efforts to make govt do a better job, subscribe if you can lend your support. Try our our newsletter, if you don't like it, unsubscribe, it comes out about once a month.
https://www.legasea.co.nz/subscribe/" rel="nofollow - https://www.legasea.co.nz/subscribe/  


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:28am
Yes definetly to a license. It won't solve everything straight away but over time it will help and give us a voice in government. Guys it would need a central government branch and people overseeing it, sorry but that is the only way it will work by paying our way in to those in the Beehive. I would rather that than say pay Auckland or any other regional Council Dead Fair for one and all top to bottom, Maori, P.I.ers, Asians whoever all in no discremintations. It can also help tidy up a lot of the mess we see in rec fishing and untangle ourselves away from anything to do with comms and MPI.       


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:28am
Originally posted by Capt Asparagus Capt Asparagus wrote:

I think we definitely need a licensing system. A thirty dollar a year licence with funds going to an independent rec fishing body, NOT govt coffers.


The trouble is that $30 per licence would probably only cover the setting up and running of the independent body you want, with nothing left over for enforcement.  And without heavy enforcement no one would bother paying.


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:29am
Absolutely true herby...but they know they would then face a legal challenge they'd likely lose, and the size of the compensation package is just too massive for them to be able to "sell" to the NZ public. Sadly it is far easier and cheaper to nail the disorganised rabble known as the recreational fishing community.
Muppet, I hear what you are saying. The W.A. license has money going to the govt, there is a lot of niggle by recs to this, however it does mean then that enforcement is carried out by the oz police/water police, something we don't have here, but to my mind, we should. These guys keep an eye on idiots on the water....ie drunk, overcrowded, no or insufficient safety equipment etc etc, and they have tacked on to this the checking of licences.
Pretty much every trip I have done to W.A. we have been checked for licences, fish sizes etc etc, and I have to say, it is not a bad thing, I think.
To help fund something like this, I would also support a basic boat registration scheme, say $30 a year tacked onto your boat trailer rego, that'd give you a list of boats to owners etc, and help fund water police just a little. But boat rego only, NOT boat licensing!

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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:35am
Originally posted by Capt Asparagus Capt Asparagus wrote:

I think we definitely need a licensing system. A thirty dollar a year licence with funds going to an independent rec fishing body, NOT govt coffers.

I just don't think that you are going to run effective nationwide enforcement, run and administer the licence system, buy political lobbying, and do some form of effective commercial take buyout, pay GST and whatever other 'tax' the government demand, deal with Maori interests etc etc with $10m - $15m per year. I don't think that number is even close. Just for a start, we currently have 220 HFO's in Nz according to MPI. How often do you see one. Once every 10 trips maybe if you live in a big city. How often if you boat in rural NZ? Not a reflection on their efforts, just a reflection of the funding being applied.
 For licencing to be effective would we need to double, triple, or quadruple that number of Fisheries Officers? I am figuring maybe 500 to 1000. More if unpaid due to varying availability, and less if paid due to programmed availability. Even if you could get that many volunteers (might be a struggle) who can be regularly active, what is the cost just of hiring, equipping, training (and ongoing training) those people plus of course providing the paid management layers, plus all their out of pocket expenses, plus any sort of prosecution management, fine collection etc etc. Maybe some of that would come from government coffers, but I am guessing that isn't how the government would see it once they identify a new income stream. 

I am guessing that we without any government support we will need closer to $50m than $15m. Trouble then is 'price elasticity' and less people having to pay higher licence costs. If we could achieve our goals with a $150 annual licence I would be delighted. I would save that in fuel not having to travel miles each trip to hunt out the small stock of fish.


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 11:42am
Originally posted by herby herby wrote:

What would you prefer - no management, or poor management? 

It would be nice to have a government with the balls to just reduce various TACCs and be done with it.


What I would prefer is a very public examination of our QMS system and what/how/who allowed this to happen, and who needs sacking/prosecuting. Yes it is a bit old now, but the fact that the government won't change it suggests to me that there is plenty of stuff still going on that needs to be exposed.

On the 2nd statement I think you and I have reached a 'rare for us' consensus Beer


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: Baru
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 12:24pm
Fishing Licence
Advantages
•     Provided the administrative body is independent of direct Government control will provide a legitimate body that represents the interests of recreational fisherman. Currently, there is no body that can legitimately say they represent the recreational fishing sector, Legasea and NZ Sport Fishing Council etc. are doing a good job, but probably represent say no more than 20 % of recreational fisherman.

Disadvantages
•     There is a real danger of creating a new “unproductive” industry. In recent time the biggest growth industries in NZ have been in compliance/administration, management systems, QA. RMA etc. etc. overseen by local, regional and central government plus groups of self-interest companies, all mostly unproductive, consuming a huge amount of time and resources.
•     I live in the Far North and a significant percentage of the population live a subsistent lifestyle and view collecting seafood not as recreational fishing but as obtaining food for the table, no different to a townie going to the supermarket.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Quote." Rec fishing licences being a key part way fishing should be managed."

Since when has our inshore fishery been managed. Exploited would be more to the point. So why would a licence bring about good management.
When the quoted 1 million undersize fish crushed in trawl nets in Sn1 ,or fisheries such as sounds and Tasman bay scollops closed due to neglect and overfishing are actually addressed  properly,then maybe people can talk management.

To date management includes us having cuts in increased size and in limit numbers and we want to thank them by paying for it.

So what would a licence achieve. Cant see anything on the table yet.

Like it or not our fisheries are a political issue.When a fishery is run by the government for economic benefit of fishing companies.then it cant be anything but .
For me it is a decided NO. I expect value for money,and not illusion or maybes.

" Geeks like to think they can ignore politics,you can leave politics alone,but politics wont leave you alone."

Richard Stallman. quote.





That is why I agree with Herby. Shock horror. Remove all size limits for fin fish within the comm sector. In effect land all and process it as required for different customer bases. I have raised this o[tion a few times at various meetings, emails to various ministers and the media. Seems a reasonable idea to cut down on wastage and a way to efficiently use catch mortality yet it is always shot down by the comm sector and Governemnt. Too hard apparently. They also argue if the comm sector is expected to do it, so should the rec sector. A few line caught fish are a hell of a lot different to the hundreds crushed to death and wasted in the cod end of a net in one trawl.

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


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by Capt Asparagus Capt Asparagus wrote:

I think we definitely need a licensing system. A thirty dollar a year licence with funds going to an independent rec fishing body, NOT govt coffers.
Licence to apply to all fishers including Maori , who however have a free licence if at point of sale can produce evidence they are on the Maori electoral role... Maybe even so, if free, there will be a proviso on the licence to allow them to donate their $30 to the cause anyhow. (Although that would be seriously difficult to administer.) Applying online would make donating the equivalent to the fee easy, and by ticking that box would include them in the draw for prizes. Basically, make it easier for them just to buy the licence really.
Kids under 13 free, kids under 18 half price. Full adults, say $30-$40, or roughly the price of a day's bait and berley.
Funds collected to be used for enforcement and education, , and a contribution to the HFO system, coastguard, but mainly to fund rec fishing research and POLITICAL CLOUT.
Include in the licence a chance to go in the draw for a new boat and trailer packag or something, as per the annual coastguard fundraiser, only paid licences are eligible...ie, not free kids or any Maori who claimed free licences.
Licences could easily be sold online, easy to do, as trout licences and hunting licences are done now. Once you buy your licence you have an electronic receipt on your phone or whatever, print out if you want, and in due course, a proper plastic licence will be mailed out to you for your wallet.

The benefits.... MONEY, and therefore lobbying clout, for rec fishing interests.
A database of nz rec fishers, to get some decent information on the numbers of rec fishers out there and contact details for them, to help in rallying support for rec fishing interests.
It would hugely help research into rec fishing itself. Simply ticking a few boxes in the licence form, ie, how many times you fish a year, where mainly, main target species, usual catch (ie, how many you normally expect to get), it'd be a massive help.
If half a mill fishers got paid for licences , that is 15mill to fund rec fishing causes....if admin etc ate up 90% of that money, and left only a tithe of the licence money (10%) to actually go to rec fishing organisations, that'd still be the biggest support to rec fishing bodies by orders of magnitude than is currently funded.
Should it be even more efficient and return say a third of the fees to rec fishing, then those funds could be used for enforcement, coastguard, maybe even some ramp building/fish handling facilities a is done in W.A.

What it could not do is buy back or retire quota, sorry guys, that is not how the system works, as I am sure you are aware. Quota works on tacc, total allowable commercial catch. If recs were to buy and nit take say half the quota, the tacc would be reallocated to those holding the remaining quota, so they would get to simply catch MORE. However, if rec fishing actually had the funding, and therefore the political clout (yes, in politics, as everywhere, money talks, bull-spit walks), then perhaps changes could be effected in the halls of power to change things.

The main point of the licence is not to control fishermen, it is to fund fishing interests, to give us the political clout. The other stuff, like Maori licensing, kids, family tickets, prizes etc etc, are all secondary.
I buy my trout licence every year for $130 or whatever it is, I buy a W.A. Fishing licence for I think $30 every year, it is not big deal. I surely would be happy to fork out $30-$40 for a saltwater licence, to give nz rec fishing interests the teeth to fight for us properly.


Edit, just read the above....re $5 day licences. Nope, none, for exactly the reason Tagit gave, it dilutes the income stream too much. Keep the licence fee small enough, $35 say, make it payable online, so it is in your smartphone or whatever, that'd be easy as.
Kids licensing, although technically kids would need a licence to fish, it is free, so no one is gunna bother about checking kids fishing off wharves etc for their licences, it just ain't worth the bother.

So what's one more?


"Licence to apply to all fishers including Maori , who however have a free licence if at point of sale can produce evidence they are on the Maori electoral role".
Why? Are we not all New Zealanders using the same resource? I am a fifth generation New Zealander and have no access to any other passport. How many so called New Zealanders of Maori descent have access to different passports? Why should they get preferential treatment?

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


Posted By: Mr Moritz
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 1:09pm
A $100 annual licence would be a major problem for those on minimum wages.
Many of whom go out fishing to help put food on the table as they do in the pacific
islands. Be the usual story as per dog licences, most will pay but there will be a lot who
don't and there will be weak enforcement.   


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 1:32pm
There is no doubt that licences might work to some extent in some countries, but does their government take care of enforcement? Does their government actively create policies to the detriment of recreational fishing? Is their government heavily in bed with the commercial interests? Remember that we will have to pay to supply or fight all those issues.
My only experience with buying a fishing licence (outside our own trout licences) was up in Alaska where they have a tourist licence. Locals can fish for free as part of their food gathering, but visitors pay a licence fee and operate under heavier restrictions (lower limits etc). It was all pretty sensible so no problem with paying for it. Big difference though is the ranger service isn't relying on licence funding, and there is a much stronger political focus on making things right for the people rather than the businesses. But that is where they got to after mass commercial destruction of their fisheries and the almost collapse of them. They have created a huge tourist fishery though because even the depleted fishery is better than in most other places. 

Main point is that a tourist licence won't need as much enforcing. The charters they mostly use can be incentivised to sell the licences if required, and with a developing fishing tourism industry we could probably generate some reasonable income without having some of the big overheads and political issues to deal with. The other thing is that most tourists will expect to have to buy a fishing licence. It won't be a whole lot of shock to have to do so as it is a pretty normal thing in most countries. We have 2 or 3 tourists out today on a charter and probably regularly have 100 or more over a 12 month period. Used to be a lot more but we changed one of our products and this has reduced those numbers whilst growing our local market. Some boats next to us specifically target the Chinese tourism market at the moment and there would be 100's of tourists going out on their boats. Multiply that by all the charter boats, plus add in a whole developing fishing tour business model and there might be 1 or 2M dollars to be collected nationally with a decent portion of that available for use beyond just admin costs etc. That won't fix all the problems, but it avoids some issues and would certainly help with buying a stronger political presence. 


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 1:47pm
Licence could quickly become another tax with nothing to show for it. A bit like car rego.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 1:51pm
Fishing licence YES Licence for maori YES having said that.Even go further and boat registsration and owner/skippers ticket.
People who think they fish to feed the family are dreaming,
Could turn Kelly Tarltons in to a all year round spawning ground,enough space for different species and could/maybe able to truck fertilized species back to their native parts of nz.re stock blue cod in the south ,snapper in the north etc


Posted By: Men In Black
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 2:41pm
Licensing may happen but not for all. Too many gray areas that will never be black or white in our lifetime. The Treaty comes to mind, just how do you think you are going to inforce a licence to go fishing for Maori and ignore that signed agreement of freedom to gather and harvest.
Wake up....
Licensing would be a waste of money , it will never be properly inforced as it will be under resourced, it will never be fair for all, it's just another encroachment of our freedom to go fishing and hopefully it will never happen.
Commercial fishing operations are licensed are you all happy and tickity boo with how that's all panning out, and that's supposed to be closely monitored and controlled.

-------------
www.synit.co.nz


Posted By: smudge
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 3:07pm
Originally posted by Men In Black Men In Black wrote:

Licensing may happen but not for all. Too many gray areas that will never be black or white in our lifetime. The Treaty comes to mind, just how do you think you are going to inforce a licence to go fishing for Maori and ignore that signed agreement of freedom to gather and harvest.
Wake up....
Licensing would be a waste of money , it will never be properly inforced as it will be under resourced, it will never be fair for all, it's just another encroachment of our freedom to go fishing and hopefully it will never happen.
Commercial fishing operations are licensed are you all happy and tickity boo with how that's all panning out, and that's supposed to be closely monitored and controlled.


Great points Mr P. and Happy birthday :)


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


Best gurnard fisherman in my street


Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

People who think they fish to feed the family are dreaming

That was my thought too, can't see the financial argument. Perhaps if you kayak fish in your local area or have a small tinnie and fish close to where you launch, then maybe, otherwise no.

I do accept that fishing is a way of life for some, it probably applies to many on this forum. 



Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 3:23pm
All that is absolutely true, it COULD go unenforced, it COULD be unfair, it could be all those negatives....but it is also the only way rec fishing representation will ever be sufficiently funded. Voluntary contributions by a very small minority to the likes of legasea etc will never ever be sufficient.
The licensing system would indeed take quite a while to become accepted and become widespread, and yes, it will take a fair amount of the stick as well as the carrot to get it to be implemented properly, but that is aside from the point....money will be going to back the rec Fishermans voice.
Yes, it is bureaucracy, yes, it is going to upset people, but we need to fund our representatives, we need to give them the financial clout to give them the political clout.
If Maori do not want to participate, then stuff em. Let them freeload. Feel free to point that out should it ever come up too. Make getting the license an entry into some great prize packages, only available to paid licence holders.
Whatever else, the licence is purely to raise funding....and a lot of it....to give us a voice in the halls of power, one to at least start to match the influence of commercial fishing. The man with the biggest wallet has the loudest voice.

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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: Men In Black
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 3:52pm
A licensing fee unless outrageously high and out of reach of most will never fund, police, and administer what you are hoping for. If you think it will you are seriuosly out of touch with just where any licensing money will actually be gobbled up in reality.
And I would be very cautious on the racial comments about Maori as you are broad brushing them as all being free loaders when majority are not... Maori under the Treaty have the right to gather and harvest and you don't have the power to change that no matter what your views are.


-------------
www.synit.co.nz


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by Men In Black Men In Black wrote:

A licensing fee unless outrageously high and out of reach of most will never fund, police, and administer what you are hoping for. If you think it will you are seriuosly out of touch with just where any licensing money will actually be gobbled up in reality.
And I would be very cautious on the racial comments about Maori as you are broad brushing them as all being free loaders when majority are not... Maori under the Treaty have the right to gather and harvest and you don't have the power to change that no matter what your views are.

Its the Iwi Maori ( self appointed  mouth pieces with Honneck ) whom you have to watch out for as they are in for their pockets and Commerical fishing... Legasea are sitting down at the same table with them and Scott Macindoe thinks Honneck is a great Guy ..." quote "

Poor Mr everyday Maori are being ripped off by them ..


-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: Men In Black
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by mowerman mowerman wrote:

Originally posted by Men In Black Men In Black wrote:

A licensing fee unless outrageously high and out of reach of most will never fund, police, and administer what you are hoping for. If you think it will you are seriuosly out of touch with just where any licensing money will actually be gobbled up in reality.
And I would be very cautious on the racial comments about Maori as you are broad brushing them as all being free loaders when majority are not... Maori under the Treaty have the right to gather and harvest and you don't have the power to change that no matter what your views are.


Its the Iwi Maori ( self appointed  mouth pieces with Honneck ) whom you have to watch out for as they are in for their pockets and Commerical fishing... Legasea are sitting down at the same table with them and Scott Macindoe thinks Honneck is a great Guy ..." quote "

Poor Mr everyday Maori are being ripped off by them ..



The simple fact that the pro-licence guys can't get is that New Zealand does not and and never will have the population base where a licensing fee will give them the clout they want. Sorry do the math... 1.5million fishermen maybe a few more or less, work out from that what you would need to pay for a licence to achieve the result you are looking for.
Even at $100 it's not going to be anywhere enough and that's if everyone is licensed. Ok there's a possible $150m, sounds a lot until you start paying management, admin, policing, just where are all the other things going to be paid from, vehicles, travel etc.
Gonna need a shyt load of volunteers just like MPI and those guys are struggling.

Sorry if the pro licence guys just can't grasp the fact that licensing doesn't necessarily fix a problem.


-------------
www.synit.co.nz


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 4:53pm
If that is the case MIB how does anyone get caught out now poaching and taking undersized fish without any of us funding a system? Its not just 0800 Poacher but there are already checkpoints in place its just that we will go a few steps further. 

$150 million a year is a lot of money. My old company only turned over 2.2 million and employed 18 people. You could employ a heap of people with $150 million LOL I would not expect it raise that amount anyway half that would be unreal and lets say we did get 75 million that is worth nearly four times the amount of snapper export value! 


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 5:15pm
W.A. has a population considerably smaller than NZs, and a smaller angling  percentage as well, yet their licensing revenues pay for a lot of stuff. Because it does to the govt though, they do not get the input into decision making on the fisheries that we would want.
 However, perhaps if license money were to go to the govt, it could well be used to pay a big chunk of on the water policing, not a bad thing to my mind, with a substantial amount of these funds being forwarded to rec fishing representation.... say that tithe I mentioned before... although I would doubt the honesty of the govt in keeping their costs down and thereby not absorbing the whole costs to fund bureaucratic expansion.
But the benefits to rec fishers outweighs all that, in raising money, even if just a million or two...for rec fishing representation, that is five if not ten times more than is being received now, and to get a database of fishermen in NZ to use for mailouts etc to garner political support, research into fishing habits etc, all good stuff. I certainly do not see any need for a license to be over $40, even if admin and bullspit like that took 90% of that, we would be winners. forty bucks time half a mill holders, that is 20mill there.... take off even just 2 mill for rec fish representation, that 18 mill would most certainly pay for a BIG chunk of policing!


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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: Men In Black
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 5:24pm
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

If that is the case MIB how does anyone get caught out now poaching and taking undersized fish without any of us funding a system? Its not just 0800 Poacher but there are already checkpoints in place its just that we will go a few steps further. 

$150 million a year is a lot of money. My old company only turned over 2.2 million and employed 18 people. You could employ a heap of people with $150 million LOL I would not expect it raise that amount anyway half that would be unreal and lets say we did get 75 million that is worth nearly four times the amount of snapper export value! 


Don't know where you are quite coming from, a privately owned smallish company is totally different to an organisation needing lots of dollars to keep it feed and moving. You would soon see a licence fee jump to cover costs.
I worked for a just such and organisation for many years and trust me money gets eaten away very fast no matter how well managed, even millions of dollars. Just ask any Court administrator what a trial costs to prosecute someone on even a petty crime.

A licence simply isn't fair on all, only those that can afford it, plus it will never cover everything.
Its not just fishermen that could have a licence fee imposed on them, firearm owners face the same thing and I can't see the Govt funding the Police for the extra costs needed to empower the admin of it. I know my Arms Officer sees the horse as having already bolted and a licence fee is like trying to stop a leaking dam with your finger.

I'm Anti on it enough said.


-------------
www.synit.co.nz


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 5:43pm
If folks can afford Rods, Reels, Bait, Nets, Kontiki's, etc, etc. Did I mention boats? No then surely $100 a year is a drop in a bucket and affordability the poorest of excuses.  


Posted By: *tonic*
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 5:47pm






Posted By: Fish Addict
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:00pm
As has been said Western Australia has had a requirement for fishers to possess fishing licenses for some years now. Initially the majority had reservations with regards to the licensing system however I believe most would now be in favour of it as they have seen what it can achieve. The estimated population of WA in 2016 is approx. 2.7M and the funds raised from licenses is in the order of $6M.
The yearly license fees are as follows:
Recreational Fishing License               $30
Rock Lobster                                        $40
Abalone                                                $40
Marron (like freshwater crayfish)          $40
Freshwater Angling                             $40
Netting                                                  $40

The Recreational Fishing License does not apply to land based anglers and concessions apply for minors and senior citizens and in addition there are discounts where multiple licenses are purchased in one transaction. Licenses can be purchased online 24/7.
Given the population of NZ is in the order of 4.7M and applying the same pricing structure as WA and assuming a similar fishers per head of population ratio as WA you could expect that approx. $10.4M per annum in fees alone could be raised in NZ.

The following is a cut and paste from the WA Department of Fisheries website to provide you with some general information.

"Supporting recreational fishing
Each year about $19 million is spent on the management and improvement of our recreational fisheries.
Recreational fishers contribute about $6m to this cost through licence fees, every cent of which is spent, by law, on recreational fishing.
The State Government contributes the remaining $13 million to ensure the continuation of sustainable management of recreational fishing in Western Australia.
Our approach to maintaining sustainable fisheries is underpinned by:
•     Research – including making assessments of fish stocks, researching key recreational fishing species and undertaking surveys of recreational fishing activity.
•     Management – including the identification and management of risks to recreational fishing and fish stocks, consultation with the recreational fishing community, developing new fishing laws and managing recreational fishing projects.
•     Compliance – educating recreational fishers and the community about sustainable fishing, enforcing recreational fishing rules and protecting fish stocks and fish habitats.
The peak body representing recreational fishing interests in Western Australia, Recfishwest, advises and represents the interests of recreational fishers and provides advice to the Government.
Increases in money from recreational fishing licences in recent years and additional government money have funded several new initiatives that have enhanced recreational fishing in Western Australia.
New recreational fishing initiatives
Additional fisheries mobile patrol units
$2 million has been spent on thirteen additional Fisheries and Marine Officers and extra vehicles now operating around the State. The patrol units play an important educational and enforcement role in the long-term promotion of sustainable fishing practices and compliance with the rules.
Artificial reef pilot study
$520,000 of licence fees have been invested towards a $2.38 million project to trial the State’s first artificial reef.
Lake Kununurra barramundi restocking project
$700,000 is being invested over four years to restock Lake Kununurra with barramundi for the enhancement of recreational fishing. This project is aiming to establish a world-class trophy barramundi fishery – a major boon to the recreational community and tourism in the Kimberley.
Western Australian Recreational Boat Fishing Survey
The third recreational boat fishing survey began in the autumn of 2015. Information is being collected until August 2016 and this time the survey has been expanded to include shore-based fishing.
In the previous two surveys - carried out over 12 months from March 2011 to February 2012 and May 2013 to April 2014 - approximately 3,000 fishers kept logbooks in each survey. Almost 7,500 boat fishers were surveyed around WA in the 2013/14 survey.
The results from this project provide important data about who is fishing where and what they are catching.
This is critical information for the effective management of the State's fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, helping to ensure there are fish for the future.
Recreational Fishing Initiatives Fund
A proportion of Recreational Fishing Licence fees, ranging between $1 and $1.5m, is set aside each year to provide grant funding for initiatives, projects and research that directly benefit recreational fishing.
Any academic institution, community, government, or non-government organisation can apply for these grants.
Examples of some grants that have already been approved include:
•     Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) to be deployed off the WA coast between Cervantes and Jurien Bay;
•     Contributions to the artificial reefs program;
•     New fish species identification signs around Esperance;
•     Preliminary work on a Recreational Fishing Catch and Effort Electronic Data Capture System;
•     Funding for about 250 tackle stores and other outlets to provide recreational fishing brochures, stickers and other important information to recreational fishers throughout WA.
•     Educational fishing trips for underprivileged children in the East Kimberley; and
•     Manufacture of ‘brag mats’ in Broome to educate fishers about size limits and improving fish release techniques.
Further information about the initiatives fund, including how to apply for small grants and large grants is available from Recfishwest."

What you need to remember is that you do not need to set up a new gov. dept or infrastructure. You already have a Dept of Fisheries complete with fisheries inspectors. The license funds supplement the existing structure and could pay for a few more inspectors as has been the case over here.


Posted By: *tonic*
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:12pm
Mate. There are plenty of fish if commercial weren't allowed to take so much and if they were properly policed.

Ya know those fish just turn into net profit for a select few right?


Posted By: lips/hooked
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:27pm
No fee for me thanks! it will only go to seat polishers and probably end up subsidising comms in some way?
I just don't trust govt to keep their hands out of the fund! been proven time and time again.

-------------
$hit happens


Posted By: smudge
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:43pm
Originally posted by Fish Addict Fish Addict wrote:

As has been said Western Australia has had a requirement for fishers to possess fishing licenses for some years now. Initially the majority had reservations with regards to the licensing system however I believe most would now be in favour of it as they have seen what it can achieve. The estimated population of WA in 2016 is approx. 2.7M and the funds raised from licenses is in the order of $6M.
The yearly license fees are as follows:
Recreational Fishing License               $30
Rock Lobster                                        $40
Abalone                                                $40
Marron (like freshwater crayfish)          $40
Freshwater Angling                             $40
Netting                                                  $40

The Recreational Fishing License does not apply to land based anglers and concessions apply for minors and senior citizens and in addition there are discounts where multiple licenses are purchased in one transaction. Licenses can be purchased online 24/7.
Given the population of NZ is in the order of 4.7M and applying the same pricing structure as WA and assuming a similar fishers per head of population ratio as WA you could expect that approx. $10.4M per annum in fees alone could be raised in NZ.

The following is a cut and paste from the WA Department of Fisheries website to provide you with some general information.

"Supporting recreational fishing
Each year about $19 million is spent on the management and improvement of our recreational fisheries.
Recreational fishers contribute about $6m to this cost through licence fees, every cent of which is spent, by law, on recreational fishing.
The State Government contributes the remaining $13 million to ensure the continuation of sustainable management of recreational fishing in Western Australia.
Our approach to maintaining sustainable fisheries is underpinned by:
•     Research – including making assessments of fish stocks, researching key recreational fishing species and undertaking surveys of recreational fishing activity.
•     Management – including the identification and management of risks to recreational fishing and fish stocks, consultation with the recreational fishing community, developing new fishing laws and managing recreational fishing projects.
•     Compliance – educating recreational fishers and the community about sustainable fishing, enforcing recreational fishing rules and protecting fish stocks and fish habitats.
The peak body representing recreational fishing interests in Western Australia, Recfishwest, advises and represents the interests of recreational fishers and provides advice to the Government.
Increases in money from recreational fishing licences in recent years and additional government money have funded several new initiatives that have enhanced recreational fishing in Western Australia.
New recreational fishing initiatives
Additional fisheries mobile patrol units
$2 million has been spent on thirteen additional Fisheries and Marine Officers and extra vehicles now operating around the State. The patrol units play an important educational and enforcement role in the long-term promotion of sustainable fishing practices and compliance with the rules.
Artificial reef pilot study
$520,000 of licence fees have been invested towards a $2.38 million project to trial the State’s first artificial reef.
Lake Kununurra barramundi restocking project
$700,000 is being invested over four years to restock Lake Kununurra with barramundi for the enhancement of recreational fishing. This project is aiming to establish a world-class trophy barramundi fishery – a major boon to the recreational community and tourism in the Kimberley.
Western Australian Recreational Boat Fishing Survey
The third recreational boat fishing survey began in the autumn of 2015. Information is being collected until August 2016 and this time the survey has been expanded to include shore-based fishing.
In the previous two surveys - carried out over 12 months from March 2011 to February 2012 and May 2013 to April 2014 - approximately 3,000 fishers kept logbooks in each survey. Almost 7,500 boat fishers were surveyed around WA in the 2013/14 survey.
The results from this project provide important data about who is fishing where and what they are catching.
This is critical information for the effective management of the State's fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, helping to ensure there are fish for the future.
Recreational Fishing Initiatives Fund
A proportion of Recreational Fishing Licence fees, ranging between $1 and $1.5m, is set aside each year to provide grant funding for initiatives, projects and research that directly benefit recreational fishing.
Any academic institution, community, government, or non-government organisation can apply for these grants.
Examples of some grants that have already been approved include:
•     Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) to be deployed off the WA coast between Cervantes and Jurien Bay;
•     Contributions to the artificial reefs program;
•     New fish species identification signs around Esperance;
•     Preliminary work on a Recreational Fishing Catch and Effort Electronic Data Capture System;
•     Funding for about 250 tackle stores and other outlets to provide recreational fishing brochures, stickers and other important information to recreational fishers throughout WA.
•     Educational fishing trips for underprivileged children in the East Kimberley; and
•     Manufacture of ‘brag mats’ in Broome to educate fishers about size limits and improving fish release techniques.
Further information about the initiatives fund, including how to apply for small grants and large grants is available from Recfishwest."

What you need to remember is that you do not need to set up a new gov. dept or infrastructure. You already have a Dept of Fisheries complete with fisheries inspectors. The license funds supplement the existing structure and could pay for a few more inspectors as has been the case over here.


Sounds great! What WA has is a coast line that isn't as accessible as our harbours and loads of people putting to sea in all sorts of tubs. Yes we already have a dept all set up but it is horrifically understaffed with most fisheries inspectors being HFO's. I fished 20 years at my local popular boat ramp without ever having my catch inspected. Now we have a local HFO and he has checked my catch maybe 6 times in the last 5 years.

Would I pay it if it was going to work? Yes. Will it work? Not a chance.



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


Best gurnard fisherman in my street


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:46pm
The good ol Kiwi can do attitude in play there Smudge LOL 

That is one thing we can pay for more paid pro inspectors. 


Posted By: smudge
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:48pm
Originally posted by Baru Baru wrote:

Fishing Licence
Advantages
•     Provided the administrative body is independent of direct Government control will provide a legitimate body that represents the interests of recreational fisherman. Currently, there is no body that can legitimately say they represent the recreational fishing sector, Legasea and NZ Sport Fishing Council etc. are doing a good job, but probably represent say no more than 20 % of recreational fisherman.

Disadvantages
•     There is a real danger of creating a new “unproductive” industry. In recent time the biggest growth industries in NZ have been in compliance/administration, management systems, QA. RMA etc. etc. overseen by local, regional and central government plus groups of self-interest companies, all mostly unproductive, consuming a huge amount of time and resources.
•     I live in the Far North and a significant percentage of the population live a subsistent lifestyle and view collecting seafood not as recreational fishing but as obtaining food for the table, no different to a townie going to the supermarket.


An excellent appraisal. Agree 100%


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


Best gurnard fisherman in my street


Posted By: MATTOO
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 6:57pm
No!

-------------
Just cruising in a pimped old Surtees!


Posted By: Fish Addict
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 7:19pm
Originally posted by smudge smudge wrote:

Originally posted by Fish Addict Fish Addict wrote:

As has been said Western Australia has had a requirement for fishers to possess fishing licenses for some years now. Initially the majority had reservations with regards to the licensing system however I believe most would now be in favour of it as they have seen what it can achieve. The estimated population of WA in 2016 is approx. 2.7M and the funds raised from licenses is in the order of $6M.
The yearly license fees are as follows:
Recreational Fishing License               $30
Rock Lobster                                        $40
Abalone                                                $40
Marron (like freshwater crayfish)          $40
Freshwater Angling                             $40
Netting                                                  $40

The Recreational Fishing License does not apply to land based anglers and concessions apply for minors and senior citizens and in addition there are discounts where multiple licenses are purchased in one transaction. Licenses can be purchased online 24/7.
Given the population of NZ is in the order of 4.7M and applying the same pricing structure as WA and assuming a similar fishers per head of population ratio as WA you could expect that approx. $10.4M per annum in fees alone could be raised in NZ.

The following is a cut and paste from the WA Department of Fisheries website to provide you with some general information.

"Supporting recreational fishing
Each year about $19 million is spent on the management and improvement of our recreational fisheries.
Recreational fishers contribute about $6m to this cost through licence fees, every cent of which is spent, by law, on recreational fishing.
The State Government contributes the remaining $13 million to ensure the continuation of sustainable management of recreational fishing in Western Australia.
Our approach to maintaining sustainable fisheries is underpinned by:
•     Research – including making assessments of fish stocks, researching key recreational fishing species and undertaking surveys of recreational fishing activity.
•     Management – including the identification and management of risks to recreational fishing and fish stocks, consultation with the recreational fishing community, developing new fishing laws and managing recreational fishing projects.
•     Compliance – educating recreational fishers and the community about sustainable fishing, enforcing recreational fishing rules and protecting fish stocks and fish habitats.
The peak body representing recreational fishing interests in Western Australia, Recfishwest, advises and represents the interests of recreational fishers and provides advice to the Government.
Increases in money from recreational fishing licences in recent years and additional government money have funded several new initiatives that have enhanced recreational fishing in Western Australia.
New recreational fishing initiatives
Additional fisheries mobile patrol units
$2 million has been spent on thirteen additional Fisheries and Marine Officers and extra vehicles now operating around the State. The patrol units play an important educational and enforcement role in the long-term promotion of sustainable fishing practices and compliance with the rules.
Artificial reef pilot study
$520,000 of licence fees have been invested towards a $2.38 million project to trial the State’s first artificial reef.
Lake Kununurra barramundi restocking project
$700,000 is being invested over four years to restock Lake Kununurra with barramundi for the enhancement of recreational fishing. This project is aiming to establish a world-class trophy barramundi fishery – a major boon to the recreational community and tourism in the Kimberley.
Western Australian Recreational Boat Fishing Survey
The third recreational boat fishing survey began in the autumn of 2015. Information is being collected until August 2016 and this time the survey has been expanded to include shore-based fishing.
In the previous two surveys - carried out over 12 months from March 2011 to February 2012 and May 2013 to April 2014 - approximately 3,000 fishers kept logbooks in each survey. Almost 7,500 boat fishers were surveyed around WA in the 2013/14 survey.
The results from this project provide important data about who is fishing where and what they are catching.
This is critical information for the effective management of the State's fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, helping to ensure there are fish for the future.
Recreational Fishing Initiatives Fund
A proportion of Recreational Fishing Licence fees, ranging between $1 and $1.5m, is set aside each year to provide grant funding for initiatives, projects and research that directly benefit recreational fishing.
Any academic institution, community, government, or non-government organisation can apply for these grants.
Examples of some grants that have already been approved include:
•     Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) to be deployed off the WA coast between Cervantes and Jurien Bay;
•     Contributions to the artificial reefs program;
•     New fish species identification signs around Esperance;
•     Preliminary work on a Recreational Fishing Catch and Effort Electronic Data Capture System;
•     Funding for about 250 tackle stores and other outlets to provide recreational fishing brochures, stickers and other important information to recreational fishers throughout WA.
•     Educational fishing trips for underprivileged children in the East Kimberley; and
•     Manufacture of ‘brag mats’ in Broome to educate fishers about size limits and improving fish release techniques.
Further information about the initiatives fund, including how to apply for small grants and large grants is available from Recfishwest."

What you need to remember is that you do not need to set up a new gov. dept or infrastructure. You already have a Dept of Fisheries complete with fisheries inspectors. The license funds supplement the existing structure and could pay for a few more inspectors as has been the case over here.


Sounds great! What WA has is a coast line that isn't as accessible as our harbours and loads of people putting to sea in all sorts of tubs. Yes we already have a dept all set up but it is horrifically understaffed with most fisheries inspectors being HFO's. I fished 20 years at my local popular boat ramp without ever having my catch inspected. Now we have a local HFO and he has checked my catch maybe 6 times in the last 5 years.

Would I pay it if it was going to work? Yes. Will it work? Not a chance.



You are correct that WA has a huge coastline in comparison to NZ and that much of our coast is inaccessible. The fact the coastline is huge spreads the fisheries officers thin on the ground over here as well. Are you inferring that NZ fishers won't pay for a licence because the risk of detection is low? Sure some won't pay and take the risk of prosecution but we see that in all walks of life. Once educated I would like to think that most will do the right thing.
I fish mainly in Perth metro these days and on average I guess I see fisheries officers maybe 1 or 2 times a year. I know they are out and about though and that's a good thing.
You may well be correct that it won't work in NZ, I don't know. What I do know however is that you will never realise the benefits of a license system unless you implement one. Try it, if it doesn't work, fine, then can it!


Posted By: puff
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:28pm
Yeah na.....


Posted By: brmbrm
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2016 at 9:28pm
YES

Not sure what the font size should mean but people do it.  Yes, in principle everything is fine, but in practice its not.  The chouce is basically

1  - just do what the ferk you want

2  - lets agree common rules

i go for 2, and without any form of official framework then you are bascially in (1). 

Fine.  lets go that way and rape the seas.  Fine by me since i am old and will die before the oceans are barren, but would prefer it if my kids and their kids had a sensible fishery....


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 9:28am
Here is a thought, how about a proportional fishing license then?
Say everyone in NZ can fish for free, no worries. Anywhere, any time (saltwater I mean here by the way), and you are allowed to catch TWO FISH. Of any species. Has to be of size etc to conform to the normal fishing rules.
If you want or expect to catch MORE than two fish, you need to buy a fishing licence for say $40 for a year, no, no one day, one week licences, just a single year long licence.
Then you get to fish for the normal set limits as per normal.
This way, "sustenance" fishers can catch their daily feed, the occasional rock/surf caster can go out to flick a bait out, no problems.
But anyone planning on doing some serious fishing, needs a licence. Charter boats will need to ensure all their clients have licences, fishing clubs etc will encourage their members to get licences so they can catch more than two fish, this way serious or even semi serious fishermen will all be contributing to our fishery, and freeloaders or occasional line wetters can still do their bit of fishing without thinking about a licence.
If you are ever going out with the intent of catching more than two fish, then you need a licence, how hard is that? Maybe exclude kingfish, hapuku etc from the two fish bag too?


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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: John H
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 9:32am
A No from me for a general fishing licence.
It would lead to a fundamental change in who was able to go fishing (legally) in New Zealand.

The snapper "sustainability measures in 2013" was a Ministry lead process that we had little control over but LegaSea had to engage with. We held public meetings, ran an email campaign to Politicians, encouraged submissions, built a database of supporters etc. Our Stop the Senseless Waste campaign struck a cord with fishers and non-fishers and was backed up by the Catch Reconstruction project. (Introduction over)

In 2013 the recreational allowance in SNA1 was increased by 500 t. The average quota price for trades in the 2012-13 fishing year was $82,066 per tonne. So the value to commercial fishers at that time was $41,000,000.

So the Fisheries Act says the Minister "Shall allow for recreational fishing interests". While the system at the moment is far from perfect, how would it look if that sort of money from a National fishing licence was used to buy quota mainly for snapper fishers in the Hauraki Gulf ?  Imagine the pressure on Your Recreational Fishing Representatives if they had to make that decision.  
God help us all if it gets to this. 


 


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


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 9:40am
Its all very good and well to introduce licences rules laws etc.. licence for anything ..
But the has to be the mechanics to enforce those laws / liences are current.
So who enforces the boat skipper licence.. harbour master coast guard?   and who enforces the fishing licences?

We have a small handful of idiots on the water.. very rarely do they actually cause damage/ injury in proportion to the numbers of boats or per capita out there... be it a fizz sail or gin.  Which in,any respects is due to the educational efforts put in by Coast Gaurd and Boat/ fishing clubs.

you have a better chance getting run down by a bus, and even that is usually due to stupidity... like using a cell phone.

So following that logic  we should licince the use of a cell phone before boats.

In saying that, if a boat licence was to be considered , I think it would be far more prudent that  a boating club and/ or coast guard membership be required as min instead.

 Fishing licence.. I dont know about Manukau, but th other side... we have been checked ( one more of a curious) visit out 2 times on the water in the last .. and have been thru 3 check stops ( few questions and told to move on) in the last 4/5 yrs.
 Now compare that to car licence/ wof checks....been thru maybe 20 at least.....in last 4 or 5 yrs
 And drink drive 2 in the last 20 plus.

 Personally I dont support any licensing ... but support compulsory Coast Guard membership at least... which could possibly lead to a compulsory basic skipper coases, (maybe more advanced for larger boats) further into the future
 And maybe complusory boat / fishing club membership.

Now Why would this NOT happen?
 surely it would be reasonable and logical step forward in boat safety education etc?

 Well get all the rec fishers / boating together into one place... that makes communication on things like fisheries issues very easy.. basically it in effect 'unionises' rec boaties and fishermen under one or 2 roofs.... AND provides a income to rec fish organizations thru affiliation fees.
And thru that a well co ordinated, financed rec fishing lobby.

Nah  will not happen
 they will bring in licensing, under staff the enforcement, and put the money towards further 'scientific proven' (just got to love that vague propaganda marketing term in advertising) research that meets the current commercial interests.

Hence Im very anti licensing....



Posted By: pompey
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 10:33am
no


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 10:38am
It seems to me that many folks are anti the fishing license issue as they have no trust in it ever being enforced or policed, and there is a serious (and I think entirely valid and legitimate) suspicion that the money will just be gobbled up by the government bureaucracy with absolutely no positive results for rec fishing interests.
However....if a licensing system were to be established with conditions set where ALL license funds were to be used for set purposes, with no option for the govt bureaucracy to filch 100% for "administration costs" as I suspect we all suspect would happen, but that say 30% be dedicated to funding on the water and land based MPI/HFO policing, 30% to fisheries research on rec fishing issues, 20% to admin and licence issuing etc and 20% to a dedicated rec fishing representative organisation....that last being a non negotiable figure, would that mollify any of you?

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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: smudge
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 11:00am
90% of recreational fishermen go fishing once or twice a year I'm guessing.  A license would certainly alienate all of those people from LegaSea or any group promoting licensing. Apathy is one thing, hatred is another. Divide and conquer and it will be all our own doing Confused


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


Best gurnard fisherman in my street


Posted By: Derek F
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 12:49pm
No. 

I'm sick of costs being added everywhere in our lives. More and more people wandering around with clipboards. People who create nothing but stress and division. 

  


-------------
And the trouble is, if you don't risk anything, you risk even more...Erica Jong


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 1:05pm
fishing licences   reporting catch will come in sooner than we think along with boat rego and skipper licence and no doubt more catch/take limits. I would it give 10yrs max more likely in 5yrs due to increase in boating population.    Rember David Seymour (act party) has already stated we are rich Pr$cks


Posted By: viscount
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 1:35pm
Everyone has valid points for this argument, but unfortunately the kiwi system would let it down very quickly, the model they need to look at is the California fish and game system.

-------------
Rum Bum and Backy


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 5:38pm
Now what about enabling us to claim back the ROAD TAX on our fuel... better still have that proportion of the cost of out fuel go to something relievent to rec fishing..
 Lets see , what is it about 40% of petrol has to do with road taxes going not to roads but into the consolidated government a/c.
 I suppose we would spend around $3500/ $4000 per yr on petrol just for boat ... now wack licences on top of that $1600 of tax already collected...while at it throw in a boat rego....
 And if going by most things all that will go into the consolidated fund as well.



Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 6:17pm
pay to use ramps like westhaven,makes it easy to check licence,trailer wof/rego


Posted By: brmbrm
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 7:35pm
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

pay to use ramps like westhaven,makes it easy to check licence,trailer wof/rego

Thats fine if the ramps have decent facilities, but would you close beaches to launching?


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 9:47pm
Who remembers late last year or earlier this year .The chairman for Sandfords said"report your catch and we will leave the gulf.
Some said no same as a licence some saying no.
We are really are our own worst enemy,Who said our reports on catches had to be correct??
It seems to me we want abundance but do not want to help ourselves achieve it through a simple catch report.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 10:10pm
Dosent matter what the chairman of Sanfords said. People say all sorts of things.Licences ,permits ,parking fees ,who needs them. They disturb the peace.
Get out there and fish cause the years tick by so fast.
N.Z is a nation of laws. ,many poorly thought out and randomly enforced.
Forget Seachange, exclusion zones & fishing licences as all they will do is cause more division in a country that is already divided. Divide and conquer . Dont be sucked in. They are all distractions.

Enjoy tomorrow like it is the last. And if people really love the fishing and all that the gulf ,and the coast of Newzealand has to offer,if they really cherish it then they will fight for it when the time comes.. People always fight for what they love. And if they dont then it was all an illusion,second best.


Posted By: lips/hooked
Date Posted: 31 Dec 2016 at 10:15pm
I agree totally, I fish only about 4times a yr but did alot more 15+ yr ago.
These days once or twice a yr off the rocks or sand or if the dingy is sweet about 5-8 times a yr. But don't live close to the coast.
Cost of bait, fuel and b.s. already pisses me off! so sic of the general fishes and public putting up with the crap being feed to us! Time to get righteous and take back what's ours!
Silly rant but I feel better... I **** bring on next yr! Here we go again

-------------
$hit happens


Posted By: Barrie
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 6:34am
My main time for fishing is with my family at Coromandel.
I have been out twice so far and taken 3 grand kids, my daughter and my son in law.
For some of them, thats it until next Christmas.
$150 each for 2 trips for 3 adults, and 3 grand kids out and a total of 14 fish kept. $900!
I agree with better policing and support this but as Krow mentioned, the cost of setting up and maintaining a network through out NZ would eat every cent of the fees and then you need to be able to run the day to day things.



-------------
also ran in the great Gurnard Grunta Hunter 2016


Posted By: Titahi
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 6:53am
The system here in WA seems to work fine,without every cent being used to set and run the licensing...And WA is a smaller population spread over a much larger area.
I'm for licensing, the cost here is $40 odd AUD PA, policing, research, fisheries management and facilitates all come from the fund. Oh and indigineous are exempt from the licensing fees, which seems appropriate

-------------
"I love standing by the ocean and just knowing what its for"


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 7:22am
cirrus,forget seachange??no it going to affect us all and as far as kiwis go,stand up and when the time comes really ,we had our chance to stand together in the last round of cuts and what did we do??sat on our how hands.
http://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/commercial-offer-to-leave-the-gulf_topic114021_page3.html

http://www.sanford.co.nz/assets/Press_Release_Hauraki_Gulf_-_issued_28_October_2015.pdf
Titahi,problem right here! First time I have ever agreed with you.


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 7:25am
According to a previous poster, isn't the WA system something like $6m from the licences and another $13m from the government, who by the way appear to have some interest in looking after rec fishing. We won't get 65% of the required funding from the NZ government, and will need even more funding to actually fight the government for our rights given their close ties to the commercial sector. I am not against licencing if it could genuinely work to provide rec fishing with an awesome future, but have not seen/read anything here yet that tells me how to achieve that with the circumstances we are facing. If you (not just you Titahi) want a licencing system, give us some details to look at about how it will actually work here in NZ.

-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: Don18025
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 7:48am
The more I read this worthwhile debate the more likely I am to support recreational fishing licencing. So here is what I support.
1) All NZ recreational fisherman should have a licence - covers all areas and persons fishing (including tourists). This keeps per licence cost down.
2) The cost even at $100 does not worry me, my boat sinks a lot more money each year than that.
3) We cannot ever moan at compliance abiding commercial fisherman if we do not insist on compliance amongst recreational fisher folk. 
4) Licence fees are spent on managing the fishery - must not go to the consolidated fund where Govt will spend it on rail tunnels....

I like the West Australian model. I can live with this proposal, it is not the end of fishing or boating for me. 
Yes they will probably licence your boat as well......



Posted By: John H
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 8:10am
Good debate
Happy New Year to All


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


Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 8:20am
If this lot have their way there will be fishing licences ...

Independent Māori Statutory Board Appointments

Wednesday, 31 August 2016, 12:52 pm
Press Release:  http://info.scoop.co.nz/Independent_Maori_Statutory_Board_Selection_Body" rel="nofollow - Independent Maori Statutory Board Selection Body

Selection Body for Independent Māori Statutory Board

Media Release
31 August 2016

Independent Māori Statutory Board Appointments

The nine members for the next three year term of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) for Auckland have been appointed by the statutory Selection Body. Their appointments begin on 1 November 2016 and continue to 31 October 2019.

Mana Whenua representatives

David Taipari
Liane Ngamane
Glenn Wilcox
Renata Blair
James Brown
Dennis Kirkwood
Terrence (Mook) Hohneck

Matāwaka representatives

Tau Henare
Tony Kake

Tame Te Rangi, Chair of the Selection Body, said the body is excited by the combination of excellence and leadership represented by the group selected for the next term of the IMSB.

“The comprehensive and transparent selection process undertaken has ensured selections have been made thoroughly and on their merits resulting in high calibre representation for the Mana Whenua and Matāwaka of Tāmaki Makaurau,” Te Rangi says.

“It is fundamental to the role of the IMSB that it promotes the issues of significance for the Mana Whenua and Matāwaka of Tāmaki and ensures Auckland Council acts in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Those appointed for this term of the IMSB certainly have all the necessary skills and I am confident they will serve all Māori of Tāmaki Makaurau well over the next three years.”

The IMSB acts to ensure Auckland Council takes into account the view of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau when making decisions. The board works to improve Māori wellbeing and development for the benefit of all New Zealanders, particularly everyone who lives in, or visits, Tāmaki Makaurau.

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 provides for the appointment of a board to promote issues of significance for Mana Whenua and Matāwaka of Tāmaki Makaurau.

For more information on the Independent Māori Statutory Board, see http://www.imsb.maori.nz/" rel="nofollow - www.imsb.maori.nz

ENDS



-------------
The People Protest
    
Actions Speak Louder Than Words    


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 8:40am
2) The cost even at $100 does not worry me, my boat sinks a lot more money each year than that.

There are a LOT of low income households.. of all cultural backgrounds who regularly head out into the channels of the manukau and East coat, kawakawa to get a feed....in their little tinnies , older 14' 6 sea nyphs

Considering  the sea change moari input and other proposals... these people a $100 is a huge amount...
 Bottom line it is these people who will get locked out of rec fishing.
 And itr will be these people who get hit for unlicienced fishing.
Which comes back to so many statements by many here.... rec fishing is a right... for all cultures and all income brackets.

I dont have deep pockets.. cut our own baits, make our own burly, do own maintenance, upholstery, repairs, build equipment ourselves (and lucky to have the tools to do so)
 and could afford a licence.
There are so many who cant...and licence will take them out of the sport.
 Rec Licence fees will not go to rec interests...

If going to licence.. skipper licences and or boat licence that includes a fishing licience for THAT boat or skipper for X amount of ppl....and for boats over say 5.8m bow stern.. bottom of the hull.... along that line.

Give the low income... retired over 65 ppl who lost big on the finance companies a bloody break.for once.
These are/ will be the hard core rec supporters when the crunch really comes.


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 9:06am
Ha Ha "steps" your funny"Give the low income... retired over 65 ppl who lost big on the finance companies a bloody break.for once."
Bugger me,we the one in the middle get no rebate no family support and we keep paying
Gold card over 65s,can get rate rebates, low incomes ?working for families rebates
Car rego??wof?? trailer rego?? the people you are aiming at"steps" a good majority are abusing the system already with rego/wof insurance etc and they are sure not going to pay a licence
low income house holds yep agree,$20 petrol to get boat to ramp $20 fuel fishing $20 bait on it goes next minute $100 day.     better off to spend $100 at supermarket for food than  trying to feed a family with fresh fish Fishing is a hobby/pastime 
Buy 1 less coffee a week and there's your licence fee



Posted By: Clutch
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 9:20am
Fishing is quickly becoming a past time for the rich and some of you seem to support that.


Posted By: Fish 4T
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 10:46am
Originally posted by Clutch Clutch wrote:

Fishing is quickly becoming a past time for the rich...


Totally agreed with that, giving up fishing as a hobby crossed my mind few times.
I'm sure Mrs and my bank manager will be very happy if I do.
my say its NO and Happy New Year.



Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 10:52am
Geeze a while since we have had such bigoted attitudes here... and do so at the slightest persevered opportunity to consistent pick at certain members.
 I know several very respected members on this site who have seen their retirement funds disappear due to finance companies collapsing.. and caught out on the leaky building issues badly.. struggling... and a couple others made redundant.....and people holding low paid jobs along with the missus.. honest hard working ppl .....and very glad to take our regular supply of fames....and when can head out with their next door neighbour for a fish in their little tinny... also struggling to make ends meet... using ramps with no charges.
 Some ppl live in glass house houses who can afford moored boats.. all hey can see is those who are dishonest with high profiles.


Posted By: Capt Asparagus
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 10:55am
I see no reason for the licence tobe anything near $100. I think a $40 licence fee would be heaps. It is not there to pay 100% of mpi policing costs after all they are after all supposed to be doing this themselves already (yeah, i know, big joke), but would indeed go well towards tripling their on the water staff, probably actually giving them a visible presence on the water/ramps for a change, while leaving plenty extra for research and rec fishing representation. Also remember the database of fishermen it'd give us. That is political clout!

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

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.


Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 10:59am
A few people here quoting the WA model as a good one, which from the feedback it appears to be. So lets use that as an easy basis for how it might work in NZ. In the WA case according to a previous post, just under 70% of the total spend on rec fishing management comes from the government and just over 30% from the licence revenue. So lets say we start with a similar licence cost (seems to be AUD$40 from above posts) and lets pretend that our NZD is as strong as the AUD (which it is normally well away from). So we start with say NZD$40 to collect 30% of the required revenue. But our government not only won't contribute, they will actually cost us more money to fight. So to get 100% of the revenue from licences, the basic starting point is now ~$130. But that doesn't include extra funding to fight the government. Hold on, but we have more population so will sell more licences. Maybe, but the difference between buying a $40 licence and a $130 licence will almost certainly drop our licence numbers to the WA level or somewhere around that. So do we add extra enforcement to make sure that everyone buys their licencee? But if we do that, we just end up pouring more money into enforcement which doesn't actually do anything for our fishery improvements. And most all of that extra money is going to come from the poorer sections of our society.

At $130 you will huge numbers of anglers taking a chance on being caught and not buying licences. Maybe so many that you will need $150+ licences to get enough money out of the 'honest few'. Then of course there will be $millions required to fight our government and the commercial sector through the courts and the combination of those two have very deep pockets. Then lets not forget the almost inevitable fight that will develop between rec fishing and Maori interests who see licencing as an additional revenue stream for themselves. They also have deep pockets and quite possibly government funding as well. That is the real wild card in any rec licencing story in NZ.

What we should look at in WA is how they managed to get the government to properly recognise the value of rec fishing. The licencing arrangement doesn't work until you have that part sorted.


-------------
www.dreamboats.com        Bareboat Charters - Fishing Charters - Corporate and Party Cruises


Posted By: Don18025
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2017 at 11:31am
I wish to point out that my season licence for Lake Taupo cost $90 this year.




Print Page | Close Window