Recreational fishing facing further restrictions
Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: Fisheries Management
Forum Description: Anything to do with fisheries management here please
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=121144
Printed Date: 30 Jan 2026 at 2:41am
Topic: Recreational fishing facing further restrictions
Posted By: Gatekeeper
Subject: Recreational fishing facing further restrictions
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 5:58am
|
This is an article on stuff at the moment.
Recreational fishermen face reduced daily bag limits, increased size limits and seasonal bans unless New Zealand's fisheries are better managed, a new report says.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. - Stuf
-------------
There is never a better time to go fishing than now, live the day
|
Replies:
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 6:26am
There is complacency the way it is managed and the recreational fishers themselves . Major changes are going to see their ability to catch a feed reduced as population increases.To show how much interest the recreational fishers have or concern about the future of their fisheries was highlighted last night with the sna1 management plan...I was the only recreational fisher that turned up.
However a very constructive and informative 2 hour meeting was held with them and commercial representives.
From snapper to scallops and crayfish plus the thoughts of a commercial free Zone that some wanted between cape Rodney to Colville
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: Gatekeeper
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 7:03am
|
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.
-------------
There is never a better time to go fishing than now, live the day
|
Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 7:16am
Here's the link the TV programme Story did on this.
http://www.facebook.com/thestorynz/?fref=nf" rel="nofollow - http://www.facebook.com/thestorynz/?fref=nf
|
Posted By: Tagit
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 7:58am
|
NZ as a country needs to decide how we prioritise the use of around 10% of our fisheries. That is around the % of catch that comes from shared fisheries. Do we continue to say that a tiny % of our commercial catch should be prioitised over a traditional and very important component of a Kiwi lifestyle? What these types of programmes don't tend to do is put into perspective how easy it would be to cater for the recreational fishing needs of Kiwis by making very small adjustments to our commercial take (say 5% of total commercial catch).
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 8:32am
|
That TV program must of been organised by someone in commercial whos got a real hate of recreational fishing....also...
Overfishing denier fails to disclose millions in seafood industry cash for researchPress release - May 14, 2016Documents 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.
“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" rel="nofollow - 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" rel="nofollow - http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 8:34am
quote >>>>> we need our officials to be hearing the truth from scientists, not industry funded spin.”
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 10:43am
 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" rel="nofollow - 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" rel="nofollow - http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier |
Yep.
That was the first thing that came to mind.
He was a paid mouthpiece for the comm sector.
It seems, according to him, that it is unrestrained recreational fishing that is causing the fish stocks to decline.
Having said that he was never challenged on any of his assertions and it came across as propaganda so one must also assume it was a paid/sponsored piece.
-------------
Legasea Legend Member
|
Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 11:21am
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,not more
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.
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 11:25am
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1326763250668432&id=100000043092851
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 2:39pm
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.
|
I am in that category John,every opportunity I would be out,now the the boys have lost interest,number 2 would sit all day/night catching/releasing undersize or ky,now he says whats the point,he too has noticed a decline of fish in his short span of fishing 3/4 yrs,no longer getting yellowed mullet in bays or yellow tail in numbers. i tend to only go when I know the fish are local,why chase them?several rsa members I know sold/selling their boats/gear not just because they wont spend money chasing fish but economics dictates fuel bait etc mortgagees?boats/fishing are a luxury item now days,I would love to sell my boat and go landbase but I am not in the give away market as many are,even give away prices still not selling,To use the term from the ACT leader David Seymour,"Boat owners/Fisherman are rich pricks" stated at fishing symposium 2016.
|
Posted By: sposman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 5:05pm
|
The quota is owned by 8 of the richest most powerful men in NZ who who also own the National party so don't expect any favours. They will only be happy when all recreation fishing disappears and shut up so they can carry on fishing out what is left of the stock. When that becomes unprofitable they will move on to the next venture.
|
Posted By: Tonto2
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 5:47pm
|
"Minimum size increases and reduced bag limits means catching legal-sized fish is becoming increasingly difficult," Bess said.
Is it just me or does this make no sense at all??
Also this is called a report?? Who asked for this report and who paid for it?
-------------
slowly going where everyone else has already been
|
Posted By: graham 99
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 6:18pm
but, john key is still on 48% ,so bye bye rec fishing
|
Posted By: o Neill
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 6:42pm
|
So what should 600,000 rec anglers do next year?
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 6:54pm
Start banging your feet on the street.Needs revolution .there are enough of us.Just most kiwis will talk but won't stand up and do anything
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: veitnamcam
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 8:35pm
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. |
Most would not even be aware of these meetings...I am not. Where are they published/how are we so-post to know they are on and when and where?
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 8:37pm
All over fish.net and face book..plus the herald
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: veitnamcam
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 8:46pm
|
So practically no notification at all then.
Not everybody is on facebook especially in the over 30 age group and this forum has how many of the 600,000 odd NZ recreational fishers?
Im a member and wasnt aware of any meetings.
Its pretty piss poor it should be on the radio and tv.
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 8:55pm
Like I have said in previous posts..we are being sold out.I don't know how many members Legasea have got..question...did they email Anyone???
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 9:02pm
|
Mpi need a roadshow van and visit various ramps etc but proberly just going through the motions as mind already made up like the last round of cuts.
|
Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 9:07pm
Correct
me if I'm wrong but didn't this same person & his think tank come
out a few months back with another report condemning the practices of
the commercial sector and also supporting the findings of the Auckland
University. If it is, then all the rec's thought he was correct but now that
he produces a report showing rec's need to do their bit your all up in
arms and calling his findings rubbish.
|
Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 9:20pm
Tonto 2 said ,who asked for this report and who paid for it. Very good and relevant question.
Because there is not a freeflow of information then the undertones can only be sinister.
Suspect reason virtually no one turned up at yesterdays meeting,firstly few knew,and secondly it goes back to the snapper cuts a couple of years back. Back then the venues were packed with recreational fishers,all hoping their input would make some difference. It didnt. The decision had already been made. Recreational were walked over,trampled into the mud. The great fish transfer from one sector to another was all but complete. The meetings were just a P.R,look good scam.
Most recreational now think,whats the point. Dosent matter if we attend or not.Decisions will go ahead regardless. Many have lost faith in the system.
If anyone seriously wants to see profit and sustainability from our inshore fishery then fishing tourism will ,if given time and a chance outstrip all other sectors.
But not likely to happen when powerful vested interest sees our fishery as cartons of chilled fish labeled product of New Zealand.
However that line of exploitation has a limited time frame before it inevitably ends .
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 9:22pm
Tzer that was Glen Simmons wasn't it ?
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 9:35pm
John not letting the public know is a repeat tactic of Mpi..However last night was only 1 meeting .I sure most know by now and still the turnout for the others will be p poor.
If they knock the recs much more it will get them off their butts to try save what is left..
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2016 at 9:54pm
mowerman wrote:
Tzer that was Glen Simmons wasn't it ? |
No, I know Glenn Simmons did the report but Im sure there was a follow up piece by this think tank and many rec's including Legasea agreed with his comments but now that Randall Bess has made comments against recreational fishing people are against his now published views. So if this is the case it would appear to me that recreational dont know what they want and are quite easily swayed depending on view points at the time
Have look here for more by Randall Bess and his group
http://nzinitiative.org.nz/Research/agoodcatch.html" rel="nofollow - http://nzinitiative.org.nz/Research/agoodcatch.html
|
Posted By: Old_Man_of_the_Sea
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 4:07am
|
Just saw the article in the NZ Herald about the catch limit for Snapper may be reduced to 2 per person/per day. Since I only catch kahawai off the wharf, I hope they don't limit that
|
Posted By: Gatekeeper
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 6:31am
veitnamcam wrote:
So practically no notification at all then.
Not everybody is on facebook especially in the over 30 age group and this forum has how many of the 600,000 odd NZ recreational fishers?
Im a member and wasnt aware of any meetings.
Its pretty piss poor it should be on the radio and tv. |
It was on the radio on 3 different occasion i know of as i was the one telling everyone to go to them. If you are in Nelson Newstalk ZB 1341am every Saturday morning i do a 10 minute fishing show with details of anything like this i know of as well as fishing competitions, updates on where the fish are biting etc.
You can also subscribe to get info on anything coming up, send an email to this address mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow -
|
Posted By: bite
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 7:31am
|
its just standed mass media scare mongering by keys , quite standed stuff into days poltical world
|
Posted By: the angler
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 8:16am
Think tank my ar se.
Wish they would declare where there funding comes from .
|
Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 8:51am
cirrus wrote:
Suspect reason virtually no one turned up at yesterdays meeting,firstly few knew,and secondly it goes back to the snapper cuts a couple of years back. Back then the venues were packed with recreational fishers,all hoping their input would make some difference. It didnt. The decision had already been made.
|
Exactly, not just that but the "meetings" were just a series of posters to look at. All very deliberately set up to avoid any confrontation or discussion. You weren't even able to give any feedback there, but had to make an online submission later. Total waste of time, so I suspect anyone who went to the last meetings wouldn't bother going to any more now.
|
Posted By: veitnamcam
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 7:19pm
Gatekeeper wrote:
veitnamcam wrote:
So practically no notification at all then.
Not everybody is on facebook especially in the over 30 age group and this forum has how many of the 600,000 odd NZ recreational fishers?
Im a member and wasnt aware of any meetings.
Its pretty piss poor it should be on the radio and tv. |
It was on the radio on 3 different occasion i know of as i was the one telling everyone to go to them. If you are in Nelson Newstalk ZB 1341am every Saturday morning i do a 10 minute fishing show with details of anything like this i know of as well as fishing competitions, updates on where the fish are biting etc.
You can also subscribe to get info on anything coming up, send an email to this address mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow - /g,'>');l.href='mailto:'+t.value}}catch(e){}}}catch(e){}})(document);/* ]]> */
Ok thanks. Do radioes still have an AM button? I am nearly 40 but dont recall ever listening to AM radio. Most workplaces (where most people listen to the radio) would be on the rock/hauraki/edge fm. I dont watch mutch tv but it is always on so I cant help but hear adds and dont recall ever hearing one about quotas have your say or whatever like you do with elections.
Quite simply nobody will turn up if they dont know it is on.
When and where is the next one?
edit to add I have suscribed to your link I think but as I might look at my email once a year at the most I am still unlikly to hear about meetings in time.
it needs advertising. /* .href;s=a.indexOf('/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection');m=a.length;if(a&&s>-1&&m>28){j=28+s;s='';if(j/g,'>');l.href='mailto:'+t.value}}catch(e){}}}catch(e){}})(document);/* ]]> */
|
Posted By: Big -Dave
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2016 at 7:39pm
Makes me wonder if there is something else happening in political circles, and they threw this morsel out to catch the attention of the nation while they slide something else through parliment un noticed..
-------------
you can't fix an idiot with duct tape, but it does muffle them for a while...
|
Posted By: sposman
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2016 at 10:07pm
|
The new management plan for snapper 1 gives commercial another 500tonnes. They don't have to improve any of their practises but can market themselves as sustainable. Looks like it has already been signed off by Nathan Guy
|
Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2016 at 10:44pm
The word sustainable without genuine research and science is just another trendy con word which sounds fashionably good.
Another 500t. That will be interesting. Wonder where they will come from. Any guesses.
As for their meetings that were not advertised,no one turns up.
A meeting is a gathering of like minded people. So can hardly call them meetings. Call them non events.
Decision already made,just like before.
Another wealth transfer in progress.
Looked carefully at snapper fillets on special in N.W today. None were obviously from fish over 30cm,and most from fish well under that size.
The size we were forced to give up last round, yet acceptable for public sale today.
|
Posted By: kitno
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2016 at 11:09pm
|
Are the proposed changes only for SNP1 area?
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2016 at 12:35am
The 500 tonns will come from the recs..interesting how the plan is written..it's all in the wording..but your allowance is reducing .
Fisheries no doubt are part of the Waitangi settlement ..look who you have involved. Ngatiwai.ngatimanuhiri.mooks Honeck..Seachange. part of the above .Moana fisheries.new psh boats.legasea is in the know...6 psh trawlers. No doubt legislation will be passed for them to fish inside with the current Danish sciener boundary..cleaner fishing methods..more fish allows for them..balance is minced up and discharged underwater
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2016 at 7:47am
MM is correct on"mook Hohneck" worth researching and who he is involved with,interesting
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2016 at 7:58am
Being a Maori trustee involved with ngatimanuhiri..I am I'm the know .so don't think I'm talking about things I don't know about .I have contact with many and know the history .who's good and who's not so good..7 Maori family's inherited effectively the entire Hauraki Gulf and many islands including little barrier..past history but still relevant ..I represent 1 family .Erurea .. also mooks Honeck is at the centre of controversy and lies .he is not liked by many.bankrupt 3 times as recently as 2013..but was still active with running claims.involved with government..all this was illegal
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
Posted By: mowerman
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2016 at 11:53am
Read carefully.....
Mackenzie
Fiona Mackenzie, MBA, BA , Dip/Cert Tch worked as a teacher, before moving into the finance and investment banking industries, a marketing communications consultancy, and recreational project management. For the last 21 years, Fiona has combined self–employment with parenthood and voluntary work - as a board member/trustee, environmental and recreational worker, community fundraiser, teacher help, and political commentator. She is a passionate New Zealander.
A Grab for the Gulf
Print Friendly and PDF Posted on July 17, 2016
By Fiona Mackenzie
The feeling of having been totally out-manoeuvred has become a common sensation amongst Auckland regional ratepayers – and they don’t know half of what is going on. This powerlessness extends to some of the well-meaning City Councillors who thought they were being elected to work for the people; they now see themselves as fall guys, taking the rap for conniving bureaucrats, greedy iwi and unscrupulous politicians.
Latest Target
Currently, there’s a scheme being executed to gain control of the Hauraki Gulf and its surrounds. It’ll give a few from 26 tribal groups incredible power over a massive and very critical 4,000km² body of water (from near Mangawhai in the North down to Waihi in the south, and beyond Great Barrier Island to the east), along with the significant land catchments bordering the entire eastern coast of Auckland, the extensive Hauraki Plains, the entire Coromandel Peninsula, and the many islands of the Gulf.
Who will be affected by this? Think shipping, the Port of Auckland, aquacultural farms, commercial or recreational fishing, ferries, tourism, leisure, sport, every marina, ramp, buoy or mooring, and landowners – possibly even commercial air space, bridges and roads. And if there’s not enough money coming from these sources to fill the iwi coffers, there are always the defenceless ratepayers of Auckland City to squeeze a bit more from.
Gross Dysfunction
Since 2000, the Gulf has been managed by the Hauraki Gulf Forum with Auckland Council as its administering authority. Its board includes Ministry bureaucrats, elected representatives of all the region’s councils, plus 6 self-nominated tribal representatives appointed by the Minister of Conservation.
Unsurprisingly, there has been gross dysfunction in the Forum. In his 2015 report, management consultant Dr Nigel Bradly put it down to the “inability or unwillingness of members to act as a ‘political peer group’…….the mismatch of willingness, understanding and expectations of members is at the heart of the failure of the Forum to promote the objectives of the Act.”
This highlights the obvious − a fundamental conflict inherent in having elected representatives (some of whom are working in the public’s best interests, i.e. for the region’s environmental and economic health) and those of appointed, totally self-serving parties wanting to increase their power and wealth.
Lack of Due Process
To rid the Forum of its pesky conscientious objectors, a purposely selected team was tasked with coming up with a new governance model – one which would prioritise the tribes’ financial interests in fishing and pursuit of treaty settlements over the Gulf’s many harbours.
On 20th June 2016, the ensuing Report was tabled at the regular meeting. Despite its 83 pages and the serious implications therein (or perhaps due to), Chairman John Tregidga (Mayor of Hauraki District Council) and Deputy Chair Liane Ngamane ignored due process and tried to get the Report’s recommendations accepted on the spot.
The meeting, apparently, became rather acrimonious when some expressed concern at this attempt to shove the recommendations through. Understandably, they wished to have it reviewed by their respective organisations and obtain a mandate before voting. The inevitable claims of “racism” were made.
Obstacles Simply Eliminated
There’s no suggestion that principles of democracy, good governance or working in the best interests of the entire regional population formed any part of the Report’s recommendations. They require that:
The Forum be based on co-governance, with equal numbers of mana whenua (i.e. people from the 26 tribal so-called “authorities over the land”) and others.
The tribes appoint their eight representative members via whatever methodology their leaders deem appropriate.
The other, non-tribal side of the “partnership” represent the close-on 2 million regional citizens with −
5 members (not Crown representatives) appointed by the Minister of Conservation (who would be guided by the advice of iwi-centric bureaucrats).
3 members appointed by the local authorities (Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and the territorial authorities collectively).
Each term would be for 3 years with the ability to reappoint as desired.
The Forum would gain statutory authority (i.e. be authorised to enact legislation over the Gulf).
This reads more like an aggressive takeover than a democratic solution focussed on what’s best for New Zealanders.
Conflicts of Interest
Notably, this Report was not prepared by appropriately independent or skilled professionals, without potential conflicts of interest. The authors were:
Paul Beverley, Partner in Buddle Finlay Lawyers − the same organisation which has been employed (at ratepayer expense) by the unelected, unaccountable (but with voting rights) Independent Maori Statutory Board. Paul is also ‘Independent Chair’ (sic) of Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari, the Forum’s co-governance planning arm; and he is reputed to be very close to National’s iwi-deal maker, Chris Finlayson, or at least his policy advisors.
Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive, Waikato Regional Council (with part Ngai Tai and Whakatohea ancestry).
Mark Maloney, a bureaucrat − Head of Internal Audit for Auckland Council (he is thought by some to be easily managed).
With input from the Forum’s tangata whenua members − Deputy Chair Liane Ngamane (a treaty negotiator for her tribe Ngati Tamatera) and Terrence (Mook) Hohneck (Chief Executive of the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust). They were to ensure the other three “understood tangata whenua perspectives”.
The conflicts of interest may not end there. At the time of writing, the Forum’s Auckland City Councillors did not yet know if this Report would be reviewed and voted on by their Council’s governing body. There’s a chance it could be directed to a sub-committee for an easier passage from carefully selected participants, plus the two votes from the unelected, unaccountable and totally conflicted members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.
Under Urgency
There’s a real push to get the Report accepted at the Forum’s September meeting before there’s any chance of any more democratically-minded councillors being appointed in the October 2016 Local Body Elections. The plan is to start implementation immediately thereafter.
There’ll also be a wish to progress the statutory objectives well before the 2017 Parliamentary elections, while the very obliging and pro-separatist National Party and its Chris Finlayson are still in power.
Democracy Knifed in the Back
So where is the accountability to the people? Where are the checks and balances to prevent any future harm, corruption or abuse of power from this most undemocratic of proposals? There are absolutely none.
And why hasn’t the NZ Herald covered this issue? The local body reporter Bernard Orsman says he’s not interested − which demonstrates just how much a part of the problem the media is.
What’s so unbelievable is that there are actually New Zealanders who consider this type of co-governance a suitable model in a democratic country. Alternatively, they could be excited by the prospect of rich pickings from showing support for rising tribal oligarchs.
References:
The purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Forum was established in Section 15 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0001/latest/whole.html
Current Members of the Hauraki Gulf Forum: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/aboutcouncil/representativesbodies/haurakigulfforum/pages/home.aspx
20th June 2016 Agenda –http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2016/06/HGF_20160620_AGN_6390_AT.PDF and Minutes – http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2016/06/HGF_20160620_MIN_6390.PDF
Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari, a co-governance entity established in 2013 to produce a Marine Spatial Plan for the Gulf – expected to be delivered late 2016. It is to be implemented by the Hauraki Gulf Forum. http://www.seachange.org.nz/
-------------
The People Protest
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
|
|
|
