FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Lets get ready to rumble!

Page  <12
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Pottie (2) Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Dec 2002 at 11:49am
Pottie (2) View Drop Down
New User
New User

Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 5


I agree that the commercial fishers and their quotas are to blame for much of the depletion of our fish stocks. However, there has been a National Marine Recerational Fishing survey: Harvest Estimates (carried out in 1999/200) completed in a report form on September 2002. This survey when compared to an earleir survey conducted in 1995/1996 varied greatly by 300% (harvest increase). This amount was considered phenominal and hence a review was conducted to evaluate both of the survey techniques and see why there was such a difference. The latest survey accroding to the review was believed to be the more accurate and precise of the two. If this is true it meant that for some fish species the recreational harvest was greater than the commercial.

(I can email a copy of both the survey and the review to anyone interested)

I think that cummmulatively  recreational fishers must be having some effect on the ocean (even if 300% is over the top!) as well as commercial and that both need to be managed to some extent perhaps commercial more so. The sea is considered a public resource but "Tradgedy of the commons" comes to mind.

The main issue we are being asked to comment on in the report is a Marine Park, not a Marine Reserve. A marine park will cover a larger area and allow for recreational fishing therefore keeping commercial fishers out to 4 nautical miles.

Barrie - wouldn't a marine park, not reserve 'force the commercial fishers out wider' as you suggest is needed? I know what Treavlly is saying about Mfish etc should be doing there job but they clearly are not so I think someone needs to step in.

Barrie if a marine park will keep commercial fishers out to 4 nautical miles, surley this is in our top 10 of looking after the fishery?


Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote trevally Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Dec 2002 at 7:29pm
trevally View Drop Down

Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 51
I will not accept a marine park run by a bunch of people yet to be determined & they will be able to decide what happens on the west coast. The initial proposal was to have a board of 16/ 18 of which one would be a rec representative. The rest would be arc, doc, f & b, local iwi, residents & council staff. The one rec rep would have to represent fishers, surfers, 4wd drivers & other users. It wouldnt be what I would call adequate representation.

Apart from this I object to them having the rights to determine what I can or cannot do in the area, we already have enough controls on our lifestyle and dont need any more. It is still a management issue, whether we are talking the land or the sea.

As for keeping the commercials out, the issue is bigger than this - it comes back to our (non-commercials) basic right to a reasonable daily bag limit ie. option4 principle # 1
This is part of a nationwide problem and is yet to be determined. Once our rights is clearly defined then we will have the ability to exclude commercial fishing activities which have an adverse affect on our ability to catch fish.

Agreed non commercial fishers have a huge impact on the total fishery as the recent figures suggest. But it still comes back to management of the fishery overall. Example, figures for SNA1 (north cape to east cape) TAC 7550 tonnes, rec take 6800, TACC 4500 not including other mortality & maori customary. The TAC being the sustainable harvest that can be taken from this area. At this rate the fishery will be extinct in no time at all. Who do you think are going to take the cuts to their harvest when the Minister of Fisheries makes his decision on this fishery?
Back to Top
Page  <12
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.