Who saved the Snapper?

Page  12>
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Godders Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who saved the Snapper?
    Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 7:37pm
Godders View Drop Down
Gold
Gold
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2014
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 812
Did the David Lange Government save the NZ fishery from being depleted and do we and future Generations owe them .
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 11:12pm
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
Possibly....who introduced the QMS system? I have no idea, it was in the early eighties wasn't it, and I imagine the development and preparations to introduce the qms would gave taken a year or three from proposal to implementation. How do the dates line up?
Had qms not stopped the open slather slaughter, who knows how bad things would be now?
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Godders Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 7:13pm
Godders View Drop Down
Gold
Gold
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2014
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 812
Yes I think they deserve a medal.even if the fishery improved massively and they said you could take 27cm snapper again,I would say no they are too small.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote SaltyC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 8:07am
SaltyC View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Auckland, NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 3700
QMS was introduced in 1986 by the Lange government
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 9:20am
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9760
Wasnt aware that anyone saved the snapper. Their current biomass is a national disgrace.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 9:34am
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
It was heading for way worse though Cirrus. At 20% in the HG it is not as bad as it was, west coast....dunno what they are out there but it would be at least similar I think, the only place that is really crucial is the Bay of Empty, at 6%, that is ridiculously low and BIG changes need to be made there....not to quota I think, but to fishing methods in that area specifically...as we have discussed many times in other threads.
Under the current system they can point to a rebuild in the HG area under this current system of qms, however one wonders if that is not just because the Comms have voluntarily reduced their operations in the area....in the process simply moving all those boats to Tauranga which is hammering the BoP.
As for the way the qms system has concentrated the quota into the hands of a few corporate hands, and by making it a property right hamstringing any efforts to easily reduce excessive captures, well, with the benefit of hindsight, that was a bit of a blunder, but at the time it was less obvious I suspect.
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 9:50am
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9760
Would like to know the estimated bio mass in the various snapper zones. But suspect that in some areas figures are very dated.When did they last  do serious bio mass  research for H.G or Auckland west coast.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote herby Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 11:43am
herby View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6356
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Would like to know the estimated bio mass in the various snapper zones. But suspect that in some areas figures are very dated.When did they last  do serious bio mass  research for H.G or Auckland west coast.

Why?
What use could you possibly have for those numbers? 
Remember, you're a recreational fisher with an opinion, NOT a fishery scientist.

On another note, I took this photo last week 


Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 12:02pm
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
Ooooooooooo...............
The biomass figures MPI had a coupla years back when they wanted to change the bag limit were current Cirrus, that is where they gave out the figures we have so often quoted....20% ( but I think it may have been 22%, can't remember) for the HG, and down to just over 6% for the bay of plenty.
I didn't notice any figures though for the west coast, but that area wasn't covered as the issue was regarding the SNA1 bag limits/quota issue on the table at the time.
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 12:07pm
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
This from the niwa site.....

A new SNA 1 stock assessment was undertaken by NIWA under contract to MPI in 2012/13. This assessment was undertaken in collaboration with the MPI Northern Inshore Science Working Group.
The graphs on the right show snapper spawning stock biomass (the estimated total weight of mature fish) in the SNA1 fishery and its component areas. This is based upon over 100 years of catch and research data, and is the output of sophisticated mathematical and statistical catch-at-age stock assessment models. This analysis was conducted in 2013, using data up to 2012. The width of the grey line shows the uncertainty in the estimate of spawning stock biomass based upon the available data.

The spawning stock biomass is the amount of mature (or spawning) fish in the population in any year. It is often expressed as a percentage of the initial (or pre-exploitation) spawning stock biomass. Note that there are also a large number of immature (non-breeding) fish in the population that are not available to the fishery, and the total biomass will be greater than the spawning stock biomass.

Fisheries managers use the spawning stock biomass compared to the initial biomass (B0), as a percentage, to express the management target. In New Zealand, this is often a number between 30% and 45% — but this depends on the species and the stock. For snapper in the SNA 1 management area, an interim target of 40% has been set by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The status of the stock compared to the management target is an important performance indicator.

In addition to a target, fisheries also assessed in terms of the risk of the stock being below some limit. In New Zealand, we have two limits:

The soft limit – a biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be 'overfished' or depleted and needs to be actively rebuilt. This is often set at 20% B0.
The hard limit – a biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be 'collapsed' where fishery closures should be considered in order to rebuild a stock at the fastest possible rate. This is often set at 10% B0.
These limits reflect current international best practice. When the spawning stock biomass of a population falls under 20% of its pre-exploitation amount, it can be difficult to successfully rebuild a fish stock. At biomasses below 10% this risk may become far more serious, and may even result in an ecosystem shift where species numbers are reduced to the point where other creatures may fill the niche the species used to inhabit. Actual safe levels are very hard to establish because of annual variations in the ocean environment and the influence of other species, but practical advice can be given based on a detailed analysis of each stock and its history.

For snapper in SNA1, the most recent advice given by NIWA was that the biomass in 2012 was about:

24% B0 in East Northland
19% B0 in the Hauraki Gulf and Bay of Plenty combined.
At current catch levels, and with recent levels of recruitment, the spawning stock biomass in both areas is expected to increase over the next five years, but only very slowly. However, if recruitment is at the level of the long term average, current catch levels will result in the spawning stock biomass decreasing slowly over the same period. In either case, current catches will not result in the stock rebuilding to the 40% level.


THERE..... Those figures were based on up to 2012' so moderately recent, and I am sure that research and monitoring will be on going.
The retesting part is in this report they have combined the HG And BoP figures, whereas at the MPI meetings in akld etc, they had separated those figures out, giving the BoP numbers the 6% number that so shocked and dismayed me.
There, looked up SNA8 figures, latest I could find at the moment is....stock is at between 38-62% of the MSY, with the fish stocks at 8-12% of unfished biomass.
I will keep hunting around, see if I can find some better figures....
Right then....
More.
Catch figures before inroduction of the qms...
SNA1, 1970-1973- 4 years, ave annual catch 9,785tonnes.
Then a lull til the three years of 1978-1980, ave 9320tonnes.
TACC is now 4500 tonnes as at 2008.

SNA8- west coast.... 1974-1980, ave 4,270 tonnes. TACC now set at 1300tonnes as at 2008.

So....those are some pretty major numbers of fish, not too hard to see where the fish went really, is it? The west coast was considered particularly hard hit, and the TACC was set very low to enable a rebuild..., and I think this has happened if anecdotal fish reports from out west are to be believed eh.
Be nice if they did the same out east actually....just saying.
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 1:06pm
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9760
Interesting figures Capt A. But notice how suddenly we have 19% BOP and H.G combined.
Before it was BOP at 6%. Suddenly they regard BOP & H.G as a combined fishery.Is this to Fudge the 6% BOP.
Further it was regarded that 2011-2012 was an unusually productive year for snapper,with general consensus that decline followed 2012 year.

Even if the figure of 22% H.G and 6% BOP were added and divided ,that would become 14% combined total.  So can only conclude they dont really have a clue.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 2:56pm
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
I am guessing they may well have combined the HG, BoP and Northland areas actually.

There are also quite a few different levels they measure, Original biomass, TAC, TACC, MSY, BBC and SPQR. Two of those may be fakes thrown in for fun.
However, after the introduction of the QMS system, there has been a very marked drop in tonnages caught....irrespective of how much credibility one assigns to their biomass data, halving the commercial take MUST be doing some good!
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 3:06pm
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9760
Agree.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 4:53pm
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
Cirrus, stop that! We're not supposed to agree! I think it breaks some law, violates some sacred codex somewhere or something! Geez mate, you'll get us in trouble.,😱😳
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Lethal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 4:14am
Lethal View Drop Down
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: In our thoughts
Status: Offline
Points: 23636
remember this from Tagit????

here is what he worked out from the papers he managed to get from MPI...

Whats commercial fishing worth to you?

I am not sure if I have all this stuff below correct, so if anyone can find a major flaw in it please let me know so I can correct it. They way I worked it out the whole thing seems to bizzare to be true.

So how does the average Kiwi benefit from Commercial Fishing which we are told by the sector is a critical part of our economy.

Comms currently harvest around $1.2B per year from NZ’s ‘public’ fish stocks. They do this by owning a share of the TACC (Total Allowable Commercial Catch), and through the allocation of ACE (Annual Catch Entitlement) proportional to their TACC share once the Minister of Fisheries signs off the TACC for each species each year. The commercial operators pay no ‘lease’ or similar payments to the government (the people of NZ) for their TACC or ACE. These ‘property rights’ were gifted to them by the government during the establishment of the QMS (Quota Management System). So the companies and individuals who were gifted the TACC take $1.2b out of our supposedly publicly owned fishery for their own benefit and pay nothing to the people of NZ for doing so.

So what do the 99.99% of Kiwi’s who don’t work in commercial fishing receive?

-          We get overpriced fish in our stores

-          We get severely depleted recreational angling opportunities

-          We get the tax paid by the fishing companies who work in the industry. Using the publicly available 2012 Sanfords accounts as an example, they paid tax of $9m on $460m of revenue. So if this is typical of the industry, the $1.2b of seafood harvested by our commercial operators would return $23.5m in tax take. Now we know that another large player just dumped $10’s of millions into failed offshore ventures and posted a loss, so using Sanford’s as the base example may be optimistic.

-          We also have PAYE from the estimated 5680 (full time equivalent) jobs in the industry. We don’t know the average wage, but it is unlikely to be very high even if some individuals do very well, the bulk of the jobs are relatively low paid. Let’s say that the average wage is $40k, which gives $6k in tax per wage earner. Total for 5680 jobs is $34m.

So the effective 'resource rental' that the people of NZ get from the commercial fishing industry for them taking $1200M worth of publicly owned seafood is around $58m collected in taxes. By comparison, 400,000,000 kg’s of seafood are harvested by the owners of TACC (and hence ACE). Snapper ACE is between $2.50 and $4.95 per kg, but other species will be higher or lower, with some high volume species definitely lower, so let’s say that average ACE is $1per kg. So whilst the people of NZ received $58m from ‘their’ asset, the small group of companies and individuals who were gifted the TACC received a ‘resource rental’ somewhere around $400m.

So the question is, why do the asset owners (i.e the people of NZ) receive $58m in annual ‘benefit’ whilst our government gave away the other $400m of annual income to the fishing industry. When you think of how we have just sold a bunch of public assets like power companies, Air NZ etc, to get a cash return for the people of NZ, why did we give away one of our largest and best performing assets, a $4B fishery returning 10% per annum (to the TACC holders).

Just to make it even better, our government holds of our behalf TACC in some species where it was not all issued to commercial operators. If the commercial sector fish one of those stocks down until a TACC reduction is needed to protect the stock, our government will GIFT some more of the TACC that (we) own to the operators so that they won't be so affected by the changes. So they take too many fish to line their own pockets, and once the stock is in danger we just gift them $millions more in TACC as a 'reward' for wrecking the stock in the first place. I guess this makes sense to someone, but it isn't me.

Want another view from MPI’s own papers –

“The average port price (the gross price that fishers receive) for the 2012/13 fishing year is $5770 per tonne for SNA 1.”

“The average ACE value (the earnings quota owners receive when selling their ACE) for the 2011/12 fishing year was $4130 per tonne for SNA 1”

Assuming not too much changed between 2012 & 2013, the guys out there doing the fishing received $5770 per tonne for Snapper, and paid the ACE (TACC) holders $4130 to lease the quota. So the guys sitting on the TACC we gifted them, got $4130 per tonne for doing nothing, whilst the guys doing all the work and taking all the risks received $1640 per tonne or $1.64 per kg. Why isn’t that $4130 going into the public coffers instead of making a few individuals super wealthy?
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote marlinmarty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 8:08am
marlinmarty View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Location: West of Tiri
Status: Offline
Points: 1274
A very well intended but rushed piece of legislation
I for one would argue it was unconstitutional the way it was done
Gifted something realised a mistake and then compensated them for the error it was actually a disgraceful screw up

Nationalising assets is a way to wipe it out and apparently is a recognised legal method
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 9:46am
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 4108
Originally posted by Lethal Lethal wrote:

remember this from Tagit????

here is what he worked out from the papers he managed to get from MPI...

Whats commercial fishing worth to you?

I am not sure if I have all this stuff below correct, so if anyone can find a major flaw in it please let me know so I can correct it. They way I worked it out the whole thing seems to bizzare to be true.

So how does the average Kiwi benefit from Commercial Fishing which we are told by the sector is a critical part of our economy.

Comms currently harvest around $1.2B per year from NZ’s ‘public’ fish stocks. They do this by owning a share of the TACC (Total Allowable Commercial Catch), and through the allocation of ACE (Annual Catch Entitlement) proportional to their TACC share once the Minister of Fisheries signs off the TACC for each species each year. The commercial operators pay no ‘lease’ or similar payments to the government (the people of NZ) for their TACC or ACE. These ‘property rights’ were gifted to them by the government during the establishment of the QMS (Quota Management System). So the companies and individuals who were gifted the TACC take $1.2b out of our supposedly publicly owned fishery for their own benefit and pay nothing to the people of NZ for doing so.

So what do the 99.99% of Kiwi’s who don’t work in commercial fishing receive?

-          We get overpriced fish in our stores

-          We get severely depleted recreational angling opportunities

-          We get the tax paid by the fishing companies who work in the industry. Using the publicly available 2012 Sanfords accounts as an example, they paid tax of $9m on $460m of revenue. So if this is typical of the industry, the $1.2b of seafood harvested by our commercial operators would return $23.5m in tax take. Now we know that another large player just dumped $10’s of millions into failed offshore ventures and posted a loss, so using Sanford’s as the base example may be optimistic.

-          We also have PAYE from the estimated 5680 (full time equivalent) jobs in the industry. We don’t know the average wage, but it is unlikely to be very high even if some individuals do very well, the bulk of the jobs are relatively low paid. Let’s say that the average wage is $40k, which gives $6k in tax per wage earner. Total for 5680 jobs is $34m.

So the effective 'resource rental' that the people of NZ get from the commercial fishing industry for them taking $1200M worth of publicly owned seafood is around $58m collected in taxes. By comparison, 400,000,000 kg’s of seafood are harvested by the owners of TACC (and hence ACE). Snapper ACE is between $2.50 and $4.95 per kg, but other species will be higher or lower, with some high volume species definitely lower, so let’s say that average ACE is $1per kg. So whilst the people of NZ received $58m from ‘their’ asset, the small group of companies and individuals who were gifted the TACC received a ‘resource rental’ somewhere around $400m.

So the question is, why do the asset owners (i.e the people of NZ) receive $58m in annual ‘benefit’ whilst our government gave away the other $400m of annual income to the fishing industry. When you think of how we have just sold a bunch of public assets like power companies, Air NZ etc, to get a cash return for the people of NZ, why did we give away one of our largest and best performing assets, a $4B fishery returning 10% per annum (to the TACC holders).

Just to make it even better, our government holds of our behalf TACC in some species where it was not all issued to commercial operators. If the commercial sector fish one of those stocks down until a TACC reduction is needed to protect the stock, our government will GIFT some more of the TACC that (we) own to the operators so that they won't be so affected by the changes. So they take too many fish to line their own pockets, and once the stock is in danger we just gift them $millions more in TACC as a 'reward' for wrecking the stock in the first place. I guess this makes sense to someone, but it isn't me.

Want another view from MPI’s own papers –

“The average port price (the gross price that fishers receive) for the 2012/13 fishing year is $5770 per tonne for SNA 1.”

“The average ACE value (the earnings quota owners receive when selling their ACE) for the 2011/12 fishing year was $4130 per tonne for SNA 1”

Assuming not too much changed between 2012 & 2013, the guys out there doing the fishing received $5770 per tonne for Snapper, and paid the ACE (TACC) holders $4130 to lease the quota. So the guys sitting on the TACC we gifted them, got $4130 per tonne for doing nothing, whilst the guys doing all the work and taking all the risks received $1640 per tonne or $1.64 per kg. Why isn’t that $4130 going into the public coffers instead of making a few individuals super wealthy?
 
As an aside.
You have to also bear in mind that quota allocated as Treaty Settlements also receive favourable tax status. Thus incur other benefits over and above legitimate deductions of other quota holders. In other words, some are paying less again than their fair share of their already minimized corporate taxes.
Legasea Legend Member
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 10:05am
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Franklin
Status: Offline
Points: 12849
In the mid 60s jap / korean trawlers and factory ships turned and where basically laid up end to end around our coast ... the lights could be seen at night from shore.
By the mid 70s the rec fishing was far worse than what it is now or even a few yrs back.
From memory, in the 70s there where a lot of moves internationally to change economic zones and a few other off shore limit stuff... then around the ealy 80s the international rules on this stuff changed and we got a 200 mile economic zone. At the same time we where building our own fishing fleet.
During the 70s when filling out ones tax returns bank accounts/ investments for a fishing trawler, super and think home loan savings account got tax breaks, maybe even subsidies  (???? ) This was all part of the muldoon think big philosophy to become economically independent.
 How the quota system came in, reasons I do not know.
OK in retrospect it is flawed....but also consider that back then we did not have the technology or science as we have today.. so pointing fingers/ blame respectfully.
So the whole process started under a muldoon government and final system put in under an extreme right wing labour Douglas  (pre Act) government

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 10:06am
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
So you are saying that.....what? The govt should compulsorily repurchase all snapper quota, then act as the quota holder to commercial snapper fishing boats? Or that these boats should also be bought and run by the govt, making the snapper fishing industry a govt run business (like NZ rail or solid energy), or hell, just ban commercial snapper fishing.
You have not given any value to the actual jobs of those, you merely state their taxes are X amount...so what? They are JOBS,each and every one. They pay people's mortgages, they feed families, you would gave them all wiped out, put them all out on the dole? Then instead of "only" paying a little tax, our taxes will be paying them each 20k or more each . So instead of a 34million tax take, it would be a 113million tax payout.....147million dollar difference.
And that is not counting the money spent buy the industry on fuel, supplies , chandlery, all that stuff, all jobs for someone.
Commercial fishing is here to stay. Nothing you, me or anyone can do about, it is the source of income for thousands of people, it does indeed earn export dollars for NZ, which is important as this helps pay for everything here in NZ, so just get used to it.
The devil is in the details of just how the resource is used.
The qms system is, I totally agree, very flawed, in that by making it transferable and a tradable item, it has concentrated it all in the hands of larger corporate entities, not in the hands of the small operators it was initially hoped for.
Saying the return to the public for the use of this asset worth X billion is bad is also deeply flawed....as if you ban the fishing as is the back door inference to hopefully get a better return on that X billion....then the asset immediately be one zero asset. The resource is worth exactly what it earns from being caught. Leaving it in the water makes the value zero.
Back to the quota itself..., by making those tonnages a property right, reducing the size of those quotas to rebuild stocks or reassign catch allowances...to say, rec fishing for example, in the case of snapper, means that the owners of that quota have a right to sue the govt for their loss of asset, costing big bucks and forcing the bureaucrats to shy away from this option until things are intolerably bad.
So banning commercial fishing is impossible and suggesting it is bonkers. Nationalising is only possible if you accept that the govt should run any and all businesses it so desires, extreme socialism, and that model has spectacularly failed everywhere in the world it has been tried, look at Venezuela, where they nationalised the oil industry. Catastrophic results.

Changes SHOULD be made....tweaks, not wholesale destruction of the system. Especially in areas where the commercial and recreational spheres conflict, recreational fishing....that I'd us folks, should gave absolute priority, I agree with that. I think the system should be to 1/ ensure a strong biomass, 2/ Ensure recreational access to a fair proportion of this resource, and then 3/ allow commercial harvesting of such excess as will allow 1 & 2.

Anyhow, that is what I think.
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Capt Asparagus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 10:10am
Capt Asparagus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 13168
Bloody autocorrect, changes IS to I'd , HAVE to GAVE, throughout the above rant. Please excuse. It is Steve jobs' fault, him and his Apple autocorrect demon.
It is only my overwhelming natural humility that mars my perfection.

Captain Asparagus, Superhero, Adventurer.
Back to Top
Page  12>
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down


This page was generated in 0.269 seconds.

Fishing Reports Visit Reports

Saltwater Fishing Reports
Top of the South Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Bay of Islands Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Inner Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Fishing bite times Fishing bite times

Major Bites

Minor Bites

Major Bites

Minor Bites