Why stick a marine reserve at Tiri when we already have a no fishing and anchoring zone that runs from Takapuna all the way to Hawaii. It is policed too with massive fines and possibly holidays away in the stone house for breaching the conditions set for this huge area.
Damian- THE CHARTER CONNECTION
Maybe Im just getting suspicious in my old age, but do you think that this 'Reserve' at Tiri could be because they are soon to be pumping sewage into that area and they dont want any health issues coming back to bite them on the arse. Just a thought.
Maybe if it is all so safe they could give it over to Aquaculture.
Sorry guys, just kidding
cheers
odin
Maybe Fullers are going to get a backhander or are giving one for being the only provider to transport folk into the new reserve. Just Kidding too!
Wonder how much the DoC permits will go up and how much resource consent you will need to start an operation involved with the reserve. Isn't it wierd how all these stupid ideas come from people who couldn't care less about fishing. Just Kidding Minister or should we call you SINISTER!!
Get used to the reserves guys. Whilst I fully support them, I suggest we all take a different line:
The 10% 'target' is an insurance policy: if fisheries management fails, there is a small population that can repopulate the surrounding areas. Of course the reserves only protect reef fish, not pelagic fish, and therefore result in an under-representation of pelagics and over-representation of reef fish.
This policy does not really make sense as a fisheries insurance policy, because the reef fish are not generally commercially fished, and the big inshore fisheries all seem to be quite pelagic (snapper tarakihi trevally kahawai kingfish gurnard etc). The reserves do not provide MUCH protection to those species.
IF the 10% insurance policy is a valid argument in support of reserves, sufficient to take away our rights to fish forever in certain places, then what about the pelagic species? The ONLY way to provide them with the same protection is to manage the fish stocks at a 10% higher Biomass (ie, Bmsy + 10%).
It is therefore inconsistent to give up 10% of the coast line without giving up 10% of the commercially fished quota. It is the job of the ministry to manage the stocks at Bmsy OR HIGHER.
Take it easy on the Minister - didn't he just turn down an application to extend the Tarakihi harvest in the North?
Reidfish
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 >