The report by think tank The New Zealand Initiative said New Zealand has some of the most relaxed recreational fishing rights in the world but new management ideas are needed in order to keep it that way.
Author Dr Randall Bess said the depletion of some fish stocks and increases in New Zealand's population and tourism numbers meant fishing would increasingly come under threat.
About 600,000 New Zealanders go fishing every year, but New Zealand has no recreational ocean fishing permits or reporting requirements and generous bag limits.
This was not sustainable for a population projected to increase from 4.7 million to 6 million by 2060, he said.
"Minimum size increases and reduced bag limits means catching legal-sized fish is becoming increasingly difficult," Bess said.
Stringent catch limits and seasonal restrictions, like those implemented in the Marlborough Sounds blue cod and scallop fisheries, could be replicated in other regions, he said.
In recent decades significant change had also been imposed on the Snapper one region which covers the east coast between North Cape, 30 kilometres east of Cape Reinga, and Cape Runaway, 90 km northeast off Whakatane, out to a distance of 370 kilometres.
The daily bag limit reduced from 30 snapper in 1985 to the current limit of seven snapper set in 2014 while the legal size limit had increased from 25 centimetres to 30 centimetres.
Last year the Government announced plans to create recreational fishing parks in the inner Hauraki Gulf and the Marlborough Sounds, and compensate commercial fishermen for the loss of their catch in those areas.
The way total catch was allocated between commercial and recreational fishermen was a highly politicised process with lobbyists pressuring the Government to allocate more of the total catch for their particular interests, Bess said.
"New Zealand needs a robust system where the catch allocation decisions are not politicised to the extent they are currently."
There was also an underlying problem of complacency in recreational fisheries management and a lack of fisheries policy leadership and technical competence, he said.
"This hands-off management approach is not sustainable, as growth in New Zealand's population and tourism further increases the demand for recreational fishing."
The institute's next report would investigate international best practice and policy recommendations to enhance the recreational fishing.
“Alongside his extensive international connections, Hilborn has deep links to the New Zealand seafood industry,” says Tim McKinnel, Research and Investigations Manager at Greenpeace New Zealand. “Given this revelation, there are questions we need to be asking here.”
Hilborn has published widely on New Zealand’s fishing industry and has been a regular global advocate for New Zealand’s Quota Management System (QMS). From 2003 to 2010 he was on the editorial board of the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research.
“The seafood industry has given millions of dollars to Ray Hilborn,” said Greenpeace USA Oceans Campaign Director John Hocevar. “Hilborn’s failure to acknowledge the problem of overfishing is the equivalent of climate denial and every person who reads his work should at the very least know that corporate interests are underwriting his commentary.”
Between 2003 and 2015, Hilborn received research funding from a broad range of corporate interests. He also received consulting money - of undisclosed amounts - from industry groups like the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, FishAmerica Foundation, and ExxonMobil.
Hilborn’s funding is rarely disclosed in scientific publications. Of Hilborn’s 138 papers containing acknowledgements, only 26 mention corporate funding. Only 21 industry groups are mentioned by name despite Hilborn receiving funding from 69 groups between 2003 and 2015, as well as many more private consulting fees during the same time period.
In a 2006 paper published on New Zealand’s orange roughy fisheries by the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Hilborn and colleagues stated, “the management of New Zealand stocks has been close to economically optimal and has produced near maximum sustainable yield from the resource.” No funding sources are listed in the acknowledgments to that paper, yet Dr Hilborn received $58,000 in research funding from the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (now Seafood New Zealand) from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006 - to work on orange roughy.
In addition to his New Zealand focussed research, Hilborn regularly promotes the high standard of management of New Zealand’s fisheries - a position often contradicting the wider scientific consensus. As recently as February 2016 he disputed the findings of an international catch reconstruction study by respected international scientist Professor Daniel Pauly and University of Auckland’s Dr Glenn Simmons.
Greenpeace USA has sent a formal complaint to the University of Washington urging the university to conduct its own investigation around the apparent research misconduct of Professor Hilborn. The organization asked the university to address the lack of disclosure of these funds in scientific and popular publications, along with the conflicts of interest posed by Dr. Hilborn’s personal financial gain. Greenpeace also requested that UW disclose the Facilities & Administrative overhead funds received indirectly as a result of Dr. Hilborn’s industry funds.
“Throughout his career, Hilborn has fought alongside corporations against ocean conservation efforts, and in fact, just last year he attacked Greenpeace’s campaign to stop labor abuse and unsustainable fishing by tuna industry giant Thai Union,” continued Hocevar. “It isn’t just that the seafood industry is funding Ray Hilborn. The problem is that he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge these conflicts of interest in violation of publication requirements, even as he has taken millions of dollars in industry funding.”
Tim Mckinnel concludes, “there are not just questions about Hilborn’s relationship to the New Zealand industry, but about the influence his work has had on New Zealand fishing policy. New Zealanders know what a hammering our fish get from industrial fishing, we need our officials to be hearing the truth from scientists, not industry funded spin.”
ENDS
To access the documents obtained by Public Records Act, the complaint letter sent to the University of Washington, and a summary of Hilborn’s funding, please click here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/search/projectid:%2026534-doubt-fishing-in-america
For additional information on Hilborn, please click here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier
 mowerman wrote:That TV program must of been organised by someone in commercial whos got a real hate of recreational fishing....also... <h1 style="outline-style: none; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb0, 51, 0; font-size: 28px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="outline-style: none;">Overfishing denier fails to disclose millions in seafood industry cash for research</span></h1><div ="happen- article-" style="outline-style: none; padding: 13px 0px 0px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div ="on-page" style="outline-style: none; : right; width: 180px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;"> <div ="text" style="outline-style: none;"><span ="author" style="outline-style: none; display: block; color: rgb102, 102, 102; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0px;">Press release - May 14, 2016</span><div ="leader" style="outline-style: none; color: rgb51, 51, 51; margin: 10px 0px 12px; font-weight: 700;"><div style="outline-style: none;">Documents obtained by Greenpeace USA through two Public Records Act requests reveal that University of Washington fisheries biologist Ray Hilborn has received at least $3.56 million from 69 fishing, seafood and other industry groups. Hilborn, an outspoken denier of overfishing and a critic of marine protected areas, has violated the policies of several scientific journals by failing to disclose these conflicts of interest in multiple publications.<div style="outline-style: none;"><p style="outline-style: none; font-stretch: normal; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; color: rgb14, 15, 14;"><br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">“Alongside his extensive international connections, Hilborn has deep links to the New Zealand seafood industry,” says Tim McKinnel, Research and Investigations Manager at Greenpeace New Zealand. “Given this revelation, there are questions we need to be asking here.”<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">Hilborn has published widely on New Zealand’s fishing industry and has been a regular global advocate for New Zealand’s Quota Management System (QMS). From 2003 to 2010 he was on the editorial board of the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research.<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">“The seafood industry has given millions of dollars to Ray Hilborn,” said Greenpeace USA Oceans Campaign Director John Hocevar. “Hilborn’s failure to acknowledge the problem of overfishing is the equivalent of climate denial and every person who reads his work should at the very least know that corporate interests are underwriting his commentary.”<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">Between 2003 and 2015, Hilborn received research funding from a broad range of corporate interests. He also received consulting money - of undisclosed amounts - from industry groups like the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, FishAmerica Foundation, and ExxonMobil.<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">Hilborn’s funding is rarely disclosed in scientific publications. Of Hilborn’s 138 papers containing acknowledgements, only 26 mention corporate funding. Only 21 industry groups are mentioned by name despite Hilborn receiving funding from 69 groups between 2003 and 2015, as well as many more private consulting fees during the same time period.<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">In a 2006 paper published on New Zealand’s orange roughy fisheries by the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Hilborn and colleagues stated, “the management of New Zealand stocks has been close to economically optimal and has produced near maximum sustainable yield from the resource.” No funding sources are listed in the acknowledgments to that paper, yet Dr Hilborn received $58,000 in research funding from the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (now Seafood New Zealand) from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006 - to work on orange roughy.<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">In addition to his New Zealand focussed research, Hilborn regularly promotes the high standard of management of New Zealand’s fisheries - a position often contradicting the wider scientific consensus. As recently as February 2016 he disputed the findings of an international catch reconstruction study by respected international scientist Professor Daniel Pauly and University of Auckland’s Dr Glenn Simmons.<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">Greenpeace USA has sent a formal complaint to the University of Washington urging the university to conduct its own investigation around the apparent research misconduct of Professor Hilborn. The organization asked the university to address the lack of disclosure of these funds in scientific and popular publications, along with the conflicts of interest posed by Dr. Hilborn’s personal financial gain. Greenpeace also requested that UW disclose the Facilities & Administrative overhead funds received indirectly as a result of Dr. Hilborn’s industry funds.<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">“Throughout his career, Hilborn has fought alongside corporations against ocean conservation efforts, and in fact, just last year he attacked Greenpeace’s campaign to stop labor abuse and unsustainable fishing by tuna industry giant Thai Union,” continued Hocevar. “It isn’t just that the seafood industry is funding Ray Hilborn. The problem is that he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge these conflicts of interest in violation of publication requirements, even as he has taken millions of dollars in industry funding.”<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">Tim Mckinnel concludes, “there are not just questions about Hilborn’s relationship to the New Zealand industry, but about the influence his work has had on New Zealand fishing policy. New Zealanders know what a hammering our fish get from industrial fishing, we need our officials to be hearing the truth from scientists, not industry funded spin.”<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">ENDS<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">To access the documents obtained by Public Records Act, the complaint letter sent to the University of Washington, and a summary of Hilborn’s funding, please click here:<br style="outline-style: none;">https://www.documentcloud.org/search/projectid:%2026534-doubt-fishing-in-america<br style="outline-style: none;"><br style="outline-style: none;">For additional information on Hilborn, please click here:<br style="outline-style: none;">http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier |
| cirrus wrote: Article says N.Z has some of the most relaxed recreational rights in the world. If that is the case then same statement would doubly apply to commercial.. Constantly hear that increased recreational pressure will cause need for further cuts. What i see is that there are less recreational. Thats right less. Go back 4-5 years i would struggle to find a park at Aucklands main ramps,and weekends would be virtually impossible. Now i can easily find a park ,even weekends there are still plenty of empty spaces. Same out on the gulf. Am seeing less boats. Surely this would indicate less recreational. I also know several keen long term anglers who have sold boats . One does all his fishing overseas now,and not here as previously. Considering we are net exporters of fish,inshore and offshore species ,then fish will need to be diverted from export to domestic to feed demand as population increases. So dont be sucked in by mis information that will lead to cuts when we still feed the world with fish. |
| Gatekeeper wrote: Agree about most recreational fisherman not getting involved in issues apart from the keyboard warrior. Commercial fisherman are organised and because its their livelihood they take a huge interest in what is going on and do attend meetings. I know its the same here in Nelson, i went to the latest MPI rounds around the snapper and blue cod, scallops as well and it was a very poor turn out by recreational fisherman. Things are going to change and unless people come out from behind the keyboards and go and front up at some of these meeting it may not change the way you would like it. Everyone has a right to fish but also protect the fishery while doing so. Once its gone it will be to late, you wont get it back for a very very long time if at all. |
Snapper, cod and marlin on the menu Despite the weather we have had recently, when... Read More >
Snapper out deep in cooler water As happens at this time of the year, the... Read More >
Small snapper the norm Over the last 10 years I have noticed with great concern the... Read More >
Fishing will be exceptional when water clears The massive amount of rainfall to hit the... Read More >
Major Bites
Minor Bites
Major Bites
Minor Bites
Forum Topics
New Posts
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Topic Options
Post Options
Likes(2)
