Option 4

The Ministry of Fisheries and the N.Z. Recreational Fishing Council, have compiled a discussion document called 'Soundings'. The document proposes 3 options for the future management of the public's rights in marine fisheries.

Option 4.co.nz is a group of recreational fishing advocates who have formed an action group to respond to the Ministry of Fisheries invitation to participate in the process of redefining the nature and extent of the right of the public to fish and gather seafood in New Zealand and to inform the public of the risks associated with the current proposals.

Option 4 project leader and spokesman Paul Barnes, said, ³Our group is appalled that none of the three options regarding the future management of the recreational fisheries, as presented, in 'Soundings' has anything to do with protecting the individual rights of all New Zealanders to harvest fish or shellfish for food or recreation. All of the proposed options in the Soundings document allow for the continual erosion of the fishing publics individual rights.²

The consensus among the recreational leaders involved in Option 4 is that the ³Soundings² booklet , and the current recreational rights consultation process associated with it, is a cleverly devised plot designed to disenfranchise the publics rights to gather seafood. Mr Barnes said, ³Considering that almost one third of New Zealanders fish in the marine environment the advertising budget allocated for public consultation has been woefully inadequate. At the two Auckland meetings less than 230 people turned up in total, many attendees only found out about the meetings through word of mouth. The rest of the consultation around the country had similarly disappointing attendance levels.²

Mr Barnes said, ³The obvious red herring of licensing or compulsory levies to fish in the marine environment as proposed in ³Soundings² makes the Option 4 group very suspicious. Both the National Government and the Labour Government have already rejected the possiblity of licensing marine recreational fishers. The portion of the public who fish have also previously rejected any form of marine fishing license. Option 3 in the Soundings document is completely dependant on licensing or other forms of compulsory levy. Option 3 simply is not a valid option.²

Mr Barnes commented, ³While the Soundings document pretends to be about improving recreational rights, I have no doubts whatsoever that the primary objective of Government departments involved in the redefining of recreational rights is to limit the public catch and avoid any compensation issues for the crown.

These issues will arise if the Crown has to purchase back quota from commercial fishers to allow for increased need in the recreational sector as the population grows.²

He felt the Soundings document demonstrates this point when it argues against recreational priority over commercial fishers. It states that the main issue with recreational priority over commercial under a Crown management regime is cost. It also tells us significant funding may be needed to pay for commercial quota to increase the recreational share.

Mr Barnes believes,² What they are really saying is that they want the public fishing sector to be given quota or a share of the fishery and that, the quota will be set at the current level of catch or lower. This is because MoF policy and treasury don't want to face up to the massive blunder that was made in 1986 when they gave our inshore fisheries to the commercial sector, in perpetuity, with no regard to the fact that recreational fishers would need them in the future.²

³The proposed capping of the recreational catch is all about protecting commercial rights at the expense of the fishing public. What will happen is our bag limits will go down......, and keep on going down. The fishing public should make no mistake.These are dangerous times and unless we have a united voice we will get rolled.²

Mr Barnes called for the rejection of options one, two and three in the Soundings document.

'We are wasting our time talking about management and funding issues. We have to define a secure right first, everything else is just window dressing.' Once that right is secured then there could be talk about managing it.

Option 4 provided a 'robust set' of four nonnegotiable principles on which he said the publics fishery rights must be built. These principles are derived from the 1989 recreational fishing policy as presented by Colin Moyle.

.That the priority of recreational fishers over commercial fishers be reinstated.

.No licensing, levy or other compulsory scheme.

.That recreational fishers have an area right capable of excluding bulk commercial methods that deplete recreationally important areas.

.A planning right that would ensure any fish conserved for recreational fishers could not be taken by the commercial sector.

Fellow campaigner Bill Cooke was also critical of the Soundings document and says ³It is time for a properly constituted set of priority rights for our children's children in various inshore fisheries in perpetuity.²

He added 'We're in a very strong position on this one. The Crown has to settle this one way or another.'

Submissions close on November 30, and Mr. Cooke is confident Option 4 will continue to attract thousands of additional supporters submitting on Option 4¹s principles.

'Everyone should be concerned about this .... even if they have never held a fishing rod.'