Well the idea was United Futures policy but anyway doesn't matter who but it does matter that we get them right.

In our supply agreement with National we are to make submissions and comment on the proposed reserves.

I am writing a briefing paper now for the minister and hope to have it done by end of week. I think I understand all the issues but if anyone wants to add thier pennies worth here please do as I want to make sure I appraise the Minister with what is wrong with thier suggestion and what is needed.

With regards to the Hauraki Gulf my main concern was to extend the reserve boundaries out towards Barrier... wondering if little barrier to Cape Colville would be a good boundary....  What about Northwards ????  Any other things that need addressing?

With regards to the Marlborough Sounds I see extending that out to include western Durville Is and to ban commercial scallop dredging as well. I see this as the most destructive of all the activities in the Sounds... What about port Underwood..????

Your thoughts would be most appreciated.
Alan

Off to the political section I say, or at least 'Fish management'. Shame really.

corosanta wrote: Off to the political section I say, or at least 'Fish management'. Shame really.

Not a shame at all. It's a good thing we do to try and keep this all in it's own forum. Right at the very top of the Briny Bay. Seems to be working ... anyway back on topic, no reply necessary.

I agree with ya Lethal.   Hauraki Gulf recreational reserve should be Cape Rodney to Cape Colville.  Doubtless Bay should also be a Recreational Reserve also.

Snapper stocks are even worse in the Bay of Plenty. I understand MPI estimated only 6% snapper stock (of original stock), compared to about 24% Hauraki Gulf.
Basically it is hard to catch any snapper in BOP.
So, a recreational-only area is needed more in BOP.
I think an area out to the 12nm limit would be the minimum for a worthwhile recreational-only area.

National must accept that other areas are just as (or more) deserving - so I hope this is negotiated.

Why would you compensate quota holders for losing something they essentially got for free in the first place and now consider to be their "right"???  Makes no sense at all to me and will only alienate rec and customary fishers further....

widerange wrote: but rec and customary fishers will apparently will still vote for national anyway so wtf

That would suggest that there is more to life than fishing for the majority of voters, if conservation of anything was a priority, they would have voted Green

I don't think a Rec only marine park is the answer to the issues and would much prefer the government invest the $ 20 million of potential compensation into funding the change to more sustainable fishing methods.

Port Jackson to ( Cape Rodney to Beam Head 5 klm from land ) this could well extended north and South to have fairness to other areas..or just exculsion zone of 100 mtres coastal NZ with limited coms fishing within but only to those with "approved nets " ( square mesh with escape panels )

Was that really the greens policy for the fishery MM?