fish-feeder wrote: Ahh,so we have to buy a magazine to get answers. Makes sense. |
Tzer wrote:
Good marketing ploy |
Mudfish marquand wrote: The idea is good, but it's not good enough. NZ Fishing News is New Zealand's biggest fishing magazine so it's a great way to get information to those in the fishing community who buy it. However, this is NZ's biggest fishing forum so we need the answers here too, and without delay, after all, this is where the questions have originated from. This forum would be far better to deal direct with MPI and get the answers post haste to its members. That's what I reckon anyway. |
fish-feeder wrote:
and, expecting mpi to come to the front on this site.....chances are slim to none. That's like what my doctor said after a vasectomy,you won't have kids after this....I got home after the operation and they were still there. |
Catchelot wrote: Why isn't Snapper 1 management plan area divided into three distinctive areas? |
Grunta wrote:
Good question Al. Just to clear a few things up. We did run a thread some time ago with questions for MPI (now Fisheries New Zealand) but it got to the point that some forum members were so rude and insulting that MPI decided to engage in other ways and that thread was locked off. Thankfully those particular individuals have moved on however in the event this thread gets into a slag-fest of NZ Fisheries it will suffer the same fate as it rapidly becomes a waste of everyone's time. As we get answers we'll post them here and I believe that was always the intention. Miah's been away for a few days so will follow up tomorrow. The idea was also to have a column in Fishing News magazine for readers that may not be active on the forums as no doubt the questions and answers would be interesting to a wider audience. |
Tzer wrote: All well and good Grunta but this thread has been up for nearly 2 months and no answer to any of the questions raised have been forth coming. If members are to engage then there needs to be answers here first before publicising in Fishing News. |
Steps wrote: I often wonder why after around 40yrs of quota management...I assume quota is to replenish, maintain fish stocks of all species... I am referring to inshore fish , shell fish species in particular. The targets set have yet to be reached.. And quota is based on solid 'scientific data' In that time frame in far too many, coving huge areas, many species have increased, but far too many have all but become extinct? This would, in all common-sense call into question one or more of these factors 1/ the scientific methodology 2/The data 3/ The interpretation of the data 4/ Legal limits based not on the above, but rather commercial influence upon the political, law making decisions. Regardless of which of or combo of the above, for many species over the last 40 odd yrs, are still in decline or extinct near extinct. The question then becomes where is the system breaking down? And bottom line it is the law makers who make the final call... So why over around 40yrs so many of our inshore species are still in decline or extinct, and why are there still quota for those species? |
Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >
Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >
Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >
Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >