Print Page | Close Window

Reccs are taking too much

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: Saltwater Fishing
Forum Name: The Captain Morgan Briny Bar
Forum Description: The place for general chat on saltwater fishing!
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=131788
Printed Date: 19 Sep 2019 at 5:50am


Topic: Reccs are taking too much
Posted By: pjc
Subject: Reccs are taking too much
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 2:18pm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm


Obviously done inconjunction with commercial,numbers do not stake up.


-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?



Replies:
Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 3:04pm
There's often a NIWA person doing surveys at my local boat ramp. I have always been accommodating towards them, but often wondered whether the information collected would be used against us.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 3:20pm
Amazing they can tell us the actual numbers we catch but not commercial.

14 percent of the population that is about 500,000 now. 7,000,000 divided by that is 14 fish each per year. Average of just over one a month.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 3:29pm
the key word is estimate. translated--dont have a clue or at best -wild guess.
So we are doing the damage. Really. How many of you guys and gals own recreational trawlers.??

I would also go as far to say there are less recreational fishing with each year.
Go back 10-15 years. At weekends -Okahu bay there were trailers parked halfway to mission bay as carpark full. 
These days always able to get a park. Even times like labour weekend. 
Unless trailers are parked in outer space the availability of parks would indicate less fishing.


Posted By: Kevin.S
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 3:33pm
Where does it say anything about taking too much?


Posted By: MATTOO
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 4:10pm
To me that confirms as they say the demand for recreational fishing.

That it's a substantial interest to many.

Hence the need for a bigger slice for the benefit of recreational fisherman.

This should also see now a demand for improved and increasing access to our fishery for recreational fisherman.

It also shows that some areas are only accessible for safe boating in the area described.
This allows over 80 percent of our coastline and hence fisheries being barely touched by recreational fishers.

That would suggest a need to balance the take towards recreational fisherman as they do not have large commercial craft worthy of safe use in the other areas.

I see it as a huge win for recreational fisherman.


-------------
Just cruising in my now sweetas pimped out Southern 755 HT0!


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by Kevin.S Kevin.S wrote:

Where does it say anything about taking too much?

It looks like the projected numbers for some species are very close to, or in the case of Snapper, exceed, the TAC allowance for recs.

They reckon around 4600 tonnes of Snapper caught by recs. Seems like a lot when the commercial catch is supposedly a little over 8000 tonnes but what do I know.

Also interesting to note that roughly 50% of recreational fishing effort is on the east coast of the north island, between North Cape and East Cape. Having seen the number of boats in Mercury Bay over easter I can believe it, a busy busy day in Wellington is maybe 50 trailers at the ramp.


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 4:13pm
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm


Obviously done inconjunction with commercial,numbers do not stake up.


Even when confronted with this survey you still believe there is collusion between those doing the survey and commercial. I haven't read all the findings yet, there's a lot to digest but judging by the article recreational are doing just as much harm to the stocks as commercial. Even Scott MacIndoe tried shifting the blame squarely with commercial on the AM Show news rather than accept any fault by recreational. Little wonder this US & Them mentality exists.


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 4:27pm
I have decided that my interest in this can not be in a thread called "Reccs are taking too much", so Im opening another thread.
 


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 5:39pm
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm


Obviously done inconjunction with commercial,numbers do not stake up.


Even when confronted with this survey you still believe there is collusion between those doing the survey and commercial. I haven't read all the findings yet, there's a lot to digest but judging by the article recreational are doing just as much harm to the stocks as commercial. Even Scott MacIndoe tried shifting the blame squarely with commercial on the AM Show news rather than accept any fault by recreational. Little wonder this US & Them mentality exists.


It is an MPI release Tzer.

Why are recs at fault? The numbers just don't stack up as recs being at "fault".


Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by MightyBoosh MightyBoosh wrote:

There's often a NIWA person doing surveys at my local boat ramp. I have always been accommodating towards them, but often wondered whether the information collected would be used against us.

I believe we also see Bluewater Research folk there measuring and recording catch data also Andy, I wonder if John Holdsworth or Pete Saul will comment.


-------------
"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever." - Jacques Cousteau


Posted By: FizFisho
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 6:45pm
What do the commercial guys do with undersized fish, arent they 25cm still? I mean long liners, those new nets seem to let the babys out.

Im wondering do they count the dead undersized fish in their commercial estimates?


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 7:32pm
Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:

What do the commercial guys do with undersized fish, arent they 25cm still? I mean long liners, those new nets seem to let the babys out.

Im wondering do they count the dead undersized fish in their commercial estimates?
No as they are not landed,

-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: Catchelot
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 9:00pm
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:

What do the commercial guys do with undersized fish, arent they 25cm still? I mean long liners, those new nets seem to let the babys out.

Im wondering do they count the dead undersized fish in their commercial estimates?
No as they are not landed,

I hear that is why berley mincers were fitted to discard the undersize catch, as in under 25cm for snapper and everything else not targeted.

Mince it below, sight unseen, lesser public complaints... industry keeps slaughtering as fast as they can.


-------------
"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever." - Jacques Cousteau


Posted By: terrafish
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 9:13pm
I've often had a discussion with the chap at Waitangi boat ramp, and one of the things that he really notices about rec catch is the old catch phrase (10% catch 90%) is generally true. The only time the odds narrow up is when the snapper are schooling and any idiot with a fishing rod can go and catch a fish or 7. What does this say about our breeding stock. I have no problem with taking a large fish or my limit, but we should have some sort of restriction during these times. Over the Years I have seen a big reduction in the size of these spawning schools and then listening to people blame it on the longliners. Yet at best we might have 2 in the bay but often none. Yet there is more rec boats than you can count.

There is simply no easy solution or way of compiling accurate hard data


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 9:44pm
Maybe I'm missing something but there is what looks like an oddity in the methodology. They contacted rec fisherpeople based on their "avidity", basically how much they went fishing. Long story short, the more you fish the more you got contacted. Surely this is going to skew the **** out of the results because it seems to treat all fisherpeople as being of equal skill, when it is not hard to notice that people who fish lots will generally be better at it and catch more fish? Therefore if you survey "avid" fisherpeople more, and they are catching more fish, this will surely cause some major shift in your survey outcome? Or am I missing something?

-------------
</div><h1>Bug Squishing...


Posted By: terrafish
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2019 at 9:48pm
Nope. Basically that 10% is more likely to be surveyed because they are out doing it as opposed to the yearly dabbler or schooly warrior


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 5:28am
I have personally averaged 10.66 fish taken per month over the past year.


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 6:28am
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm


Obviously done inconjunction with commercial,numbers do not stake up.


Even when confronted with this survey you still believe there is collusion between those doing the survey and commercial. I haven't read all the findings yet, there's a lot to digest but judging by the article recreational are doing just as much harm to the stocks as commercial. Even Scott MacIndoe tried shifting the blame squarely with commercial on the AM Show news rather than accept any fault by recreational. Little wonder this US & Them mentality exists.


It is an MPI release Tzer.

Why are recs at fault? The numbers just don't stack up as recs being at "fault".


While this may have been initiated by MPI it was done with National Research Bureau (NRB) and NIWA (the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research) help.

So if you lot dont accept the survey results tell me should have conducted the survey?

It appears to me that as recreational fisherman you dont want to believe that recreational aren't doing harm to fish stocks and not matter what commercial are solely to blame for what ever state our fisheries are in. Before last elections you all believed that a change in government & Stuart Nash was going to be the saviour for our fisheries, so how did that work out for you.



-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 10:16am
Two parallel threads here. One saying recreational take two much.
The other providing figures that say recreational catch in sn1 has fallen by around 21%.  Umm-----???


Posted By: Bigfishbob
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 10:43am
A headline suggesting that recreational fishers taking 3 times more over thirty years, is nothing more than disingenuous headline grabbing. You have to wonder about the motivation of MPI. 

Only when you go to their website do they tell you that recreational Catch has declined since 2012.


-------------
www.waikatosportfishing.co.nz


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 11:28am
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00378/new-survey-measures-recreational-fishing.htm


Obviously done inconjunction with commercial,numbers do not stake up.


Even when confronted with this survey you still believe there is collusion between those doing the survey and commercial. I haven't read all the findings yet, there's a lot to digest but judging by the article recreational are doing just as much harm to the stocks as commercial. Even Scott MacIndoe tried shifting the blame squarely with commercial on the AM Show news rather than accept any fault by recreational. Little wonder this US & Them mentality exists.


It is an MPI release Tzer.

Why are recs at fault? The numbers just don't stack up as recs being at "fault".


While this may have been initiated by MPI it was done with National Research Bureau (NRB) and NIWA (the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research) help.

So if you lot dont accept the survey results tell me should have conducted the survey?

It appears to me that as recreational fisherman you dont want to believe that recreational aren't doing harm to fish stocks and not matter what commercial are solely to blame for what ever state our fisheries are in. Before last elections you all believed that a change in government & Stuart Nash was going to be the saviour for our fisheries, so how did that work out for you.



Didn't vote Labour.

The setting of rec limits is a silly concept because 2 million Kiwi adults could legally remove 7 snapper from the stocks today.

That does not happen though.

So lets look at the average and it turns out the average rec take is low.
So how can such a low average take across 100s of thousands of people be as bad as a trawler scooping everything that swims up? It is just not comparable.
Why do we have to live with mass fish dumpings because of numbers set by an idiot behind a desk? When people are going hungry.
Is the rec sector killing rare dolphins etc?

And after all is said and done the total comm catch landed dwarfs the rec sector with only snapper being close but new numbers show a big drop in rec take.

And we all know what that means.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 11:50am
Those figures showing rec snapper catch falling dramatically indicate that by increasing our size limit and dropping our catch has worked.
It also means that recreational have taken all the pain in propping up sn1. Commercial ,to my knowledge,took no cuts whatsoever. In effect a fish transfer from recreational to commercial.

So the great quota management scam continues to work according to plan.
No genuine management system based on science ,reason and logic would continue to allow the levels of waste and undersize dumping that are known,but never officially recorded,while clamping down on recreational, who partake in one of the great joys in life,and the self responsibility that comes from catching your own.


Posted By: wayno
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 4:10pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Two parallel threads here. One saying recreational take two much.
The other providing figures that say recreational catch in sn1 has fallen by around 21%.  Umm-----???

Shows just how wonderful "statistics" are, and how they can be manipulated according to point of view...



-------------
http://www.legasea.co.nz" rel="nofollow">
To be old and wise you must first be young and stupid.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:

What do the commercial guys do with undersized fish, arent they 25cm still? I mean long liners, those new nets seem to let the babys out.

Im wondering do they count the dead undersized fish in their commercial estimates?


"NO"



-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: FizFisho
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 7:00pm
But the thing about under 25cm comms fish is they are landed, they are most often dead (long lines) due to suffocation. so why are they not taken into the comms figures? Is there publicly available info on how many comms long line fish are undersize and dead?




Posted By: Big -Dave
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2019 at 7:22pm
I know my catch quantity has decreased in the last 5 years...

-------------
you can't fix an idiot with duct tape, but it does muffle them for a while...


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2019 at 11:18am
Just had a thought,
My last post is not 100% correct.
My memory is a little hard to access these days.
There "IS" approximately 4000 odd tonnes of mortality allowed for annually in commercial quota.
However, a few years ago I went to a couple of MPI meetings and when given this figure, both representatives spoken to told me it was already an old original estimate and both suspected it was well understated.
So I guess technically, mortality is accounted for.
Just not accurately as it may be too unpalatable to stomach.
As for non allocated by-catch, market grading and over species limit, well that is another wasteful story for another day.

-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: Coutta
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2019 at 1:06pm
I live in Rotorua so don't get out as often as I would like. When I go I fish out of Tauranga. I don't know whether I'm an average or below average fisherman. I don't really have an ego so it doesn't bother me. I don't go for big fish, I just go for a feed. I just went through my diary and this calendar year I've been out 11 times. Eight of those times my wife has been on the boat. This year we have kept 69 snapper, an average of just over six per trip. I use big hooks so catch very few undersized. Sometimes theres a couple of hundred trailers at the ramp but thats on a weekend and during the summer. During the week maybe 30 on a busy day. I'd say a lot get out about the same amount I do and probably catch round about the same amount, some more, some less. I don't think the rec fishers are doing the damage commercial would have us believe.


Posted By: Sanchez
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2019 at 5:21pm
It's probably been posted before but this is a pretty good summary of the cameras on boats proposition. It's got to happen. It just makes sense.


https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/381912/fishing-industry-letter-to-stuart-nash-opposes-cameras-on-boats" rel="nofollow - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/381912/fishing-industry-letter-to-stuart-nash-opposes-cameras-on-boats




Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2019 at 9:15pm
Thats like a recreational fisher saying to a fishery officer that they strongly oppose having their catch checked because they have nothing to hide.
The whole bitter debate about cameras shows there is no trust. And when trust is gone the what do you have. Very little.
Surely it would be in the industries interest to have a sustainable industry for all. There is much investment,jobs and dollars tied up in the fishing industry. And if fish numbers do decline then it will be the industry effected if a fishery becomes commercially non viable.
This country cant take many more economic setbacks.
And recreational should not take anymore setbacks either.

But what would cameras achieve. They would record undersize fish being landed by gear that is fully capable of catching undersize fish.
They would then record those undersize  being thrown back again,mostly dead or dying because the law requires that also. Our fishery deserves better than that.

Article says minister Nash,  is considering removing the law requiring to throw back undersize. What has happened to that. Is he still considering. Brain fog.? Or maybe gnashing.
Land all catch makes great sense. Some say --Oh but that would create a market for small fish. There already is a market for small fish.
Thats why we import small fish. Yet we dump our own. Maybe these people should visit Asia or the Mediterranean,or the Baltic. They love small fish.
Strange thing is. Gurnard for example have no minimum commercial size limit,while snapper do.
In SN1 the snapper quota is 4500 Ton or there abouts. 
But in reality that is not true. The art of deception comes into play.
Its 4500 T of legal size fish,but does not include the unknown amount of undersize that must be returned. So in reality the Quota figure is more than that,possibly much more.
So how can it be accessed how many fish are taken when they dont really know. After all dumped fish are still fish,but not counted. And on that basis how can future catch planning be determined. It cant.
So when we have land all catch then cameras would be essential to make sure it is landed. And at that point the quota figure would be come the actual figure.








Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2019 at 9:47pm
If the commercials had to land everything they caught and their quota was based on total biomass landed, they would soon sort their **** out and use more selective fishing methods. Assuming the rules enforced of course.


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 8:58am
Originally posted by MightyBoosh MightyBoosh wrote:

If the commercials had to land everything they caught and their quota was based on total biomass landed, they would soon sort their **** out and use more selective fishing methods. Assuming the rules enforced of course.


I have made that suggestion at each of the meetings I have been to.
The reply from the commercial sector representative is basically if bring all home is applied to industry then it should apply to the rec sector as well.

-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 9:48am
Why we are not selling it for profit.


Posted By: MightyBoosh
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 9:48am
OK, I'd go with it. It's daft to apply it to recs, but if that's what it takes.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 9:50am
Plus if it is a tit for tat attitude like that all size limits should be the same.


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 11:23am
Originally posted by v8-coupe v8-coupe wrote:

Originally posted by MightyBoosh MightyBoosh wrote:

If the commercials had to land everything they caught and their quota was based on total biomass landed, they would soon sort their **** out and use more selective fishing methods. Assuming the rules enforced of course.


I have made that suggestion at each of the meetings I have been to.
The reply from the commercial sector representative is basically if bring all home is applied to industry then it should apply to the rec sector as well.

Maybe the comm sector rep has a point.

Size limits create waste. Does it really matter if a rec brings home 7 20cm snapper or 7 snapper in the 40-60 cm range. Either way its still 7 snapper. Better than killing and discarding 10 undersize in the quest for 7 legal. That would mean 17 fish killed as opposed to 7.
If a rec is unlucky or unskilled enough to catch numbers of undersize ,and if they are in such condition that they will not survive release then he should keep them as part of the limit.
Would also give a more even take across the biomass,rather than culling the big productive fish and protecting smaller fish,many of which will probably never grow to be big fish due to their genetics.
But would recs be honest enough to obey such a rule. 


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 11:31am
exactly "cirrus" there have been a couple on this site when I suggested take the first 7 snapper.The comment was "thatll make a short day out"well fish smarter!

Comms are pointing the finger at us reccs so maybe we need to just take first 7 legal no sorting but how would you police it?


-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: JasonEdward62
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 12:04pm
Gotta say people, there is a huge lack of understanding that the quota system can cut our rec catch just because surveys show we're catching more. Even if a fishery is clearly stressed recreational TAC can be cut but it would be the first time ever if regs were used to cut recreational catch directly - only daily bag limits can be used to cut catch.

Look at CRA2 - everyone knows there is a problem so bag limits get cut and noone really minds. Or do you? I'm pretty pleased about it after watching myself dive get less and less crays over the past 20 years.

Would you guys really mind if the recreational bag for snapper or terakihi was cut in the same proportion as commercial...if there is an identified problem? e.g. how much would a 20% cut in snapper (7 to 5 a day for most of us) or 20% tarakihi (20 to 16 each per day) affect your fishing? Not much loss for reccies as we doin't normally take our limit yet for commercial it is a 20% cut in income. And a huge cut in catch for commercial but in reality, only a very few of us would be able to catch less...and would you have a problem with that?

Guys we can't have it both ways - many reccies (used to?) say "We don't need to report our catch as the MPI/NIWA scientists can do it accurately without us reporting." Legasea has said this on many occasions when I have suggested some form of reporting for reccies.  (How bout we push for the same as current snapper/H Gulf etc surveys but for ALL main species in ALL areas?).

Now the figures suggest higher catches than before so now we hear the same scientists have climbed into bed with the commercials.

Jezuz wept some of the you posters just defy logic.

But I work with the commercial sector so I'm biased and everything I write or say is crap...FFS the highest read social media (FB anyway) fishing person in rec fishing (Ben) works in sales - does that mean everything he says is a sales pitch? Does noone listen to him when he's selling because he is paid to sell so must be lying? No, they take into account he is in sales but also that he is or should be expert in what he is selling, and they listen to him then make their decisions. They don't call everything they don't agree with bull**** because he has a vested interest...

I'll say it again. Commercial, recreational, and customary MUST work together IF we want good outcomes for all.

And people, the huge voting power of us reccies mean we will never get kicked out of or even severely restricted in our fishing unless there is real need for that. And we'll never need to be licenced until we agree to the benefits of such a system.

Stop getting paranoid and start using your knowledge and passion alongside  - not against - the knowledge of MPI, NIWA, Maori, all stakeholders and yes, even commercial.

I guarantee that would result in more rec only areas given up voluntarily by commercial fishers.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 2:09pm
That is good advice above, if you lived in fantasy land. But time and time again problem blame is normally landed on one party and NZ is more prone to it than most countries.

If you disagree that proportionally comms do far more overall damage to the fisheries and environment then you need your head looked at.

The very fact comms try to rope us in with them is frankly absurd. And just takes focus off the bigger picture of the overall NZ fishery and not just the small percentage that rec can target.


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 2:36pm
Trout fisheries always traditionally had size limits - various limits for various places, but basically below a certain size, chuck them back. That has for some years now been abandoned and now you can take home what you would have been prosecuted for having in posession before. Because all the good breeding stock were being removed from the rivers etc. Catch limits still prevail. Maybe one or two per various rivers. If you want to take a little guy home, that is your catch for the day. Everything else goes back. Complete reversal of decades of regs, but seems sensible. Possibly the survival rate of the C&R bigger guys is better also. 
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Sanchez
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2019 at 8:54pm
I was fishing with an ex NZ commercial guy today. Alot of the by catch on his boat was Marlin. Which they had to throw back dead as they were licensed for tuna. The worst he experienced personally was 30 dead Marlin in one day. That's one boat. Cameras would make the pointless carnage more accessible to the public followed by the outrage it deserves. So things would change. No doubt about it. And they know this.


Posted By: JasonEdward62
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 1:01am
Commercial fishers now must report undersize returned to the sea.

For the last year or two snapper fishers have done this voluntarily and all boats that catch much snapper have voluntarily had cameras and all undersize has been literally held up for the cameras.

Snapper fishers have also had lots of observer coverage over many years so everyone now knows exactly what they catch, as had already been done and continues in the deepwater fisheries.

I stress the cameras and reporting were voluntary and the sky has not fallen and perhaps surprisingly, little has changed - and I assume commercial fishing practices of the cowboys that exist in any industry have sharpened up.

Quota were originally loosely based on landed fish, not undersize returned to the sea, so if all fish is brought back to shore - as is being considered right now - more quota would logically and reasonably have to be issued.

As for raising commercial fish sizes to recreational ones noone wants that because that would mean commercial fishers must return much more mostly dead undersize fish to the sea and they don't come off quotas.



Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 5:50am
Put up the footage then or links to the footage. Is it for all comm methods? Or cherry picked?

I have seen a doco on the snapper fisherman up north using one of those fancy new trawl nets. From memory he got heaps of Terakihi which has been in the headlines recently. And please don't pin that on recs even MPI graphs show the comm effort on Terakihi is way above the rec catch.

I am not saying raise comm sizes I am saying lower rec sizes.

What Sanchez says is the same as what I have heard too adding in sharks, rays and the problem of the dolphins too.


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 6:12am
Originally posted by Sanchez Sanchez wrote:

I was fishing with an ex NZ commercial guy today. Alot of the by catch on his boat was Marlin. Which they had to throw back dead as they were licensed for tuna. The worst he experienced personally was 30 dead Marlin in one day. That's one boat. Cameras would make the pointless carnage more accessible to the public followed by the outrage it deserves. So things would change. No doubt about it. And they know this.


If public outrage was the outcome of having cameras on boats what point would it serve. Commercial surface liners within NZ waters have to release marlin dead or alive, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this was part of the requirement of the bill-fish moratorium fought for by the New Big Game Fishing Council now the NZSFC to make marlin a recreational only species. So you cant blame commercial for that perhaps the law should be changed to allow them to land dead fish, I can just hear all the howls of protest of that happening. Tell me how many marlin let alone other species do recreational return to the sea either dead or dying, perhaps cameras on rec boats would solve this problem. As JasonEdward62 says there are cameras on many commercial vessels and has anything changed, not that I'm aware of.


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Sanchez
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 10:50am
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:


If public outrage was the outcome of having cameras on boats what point would it serve. Commercial surface liners within NZ waters have to release marlin dead or alive, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this was part of the requirement of the bill-fish moratorium fought for by the New Big Game Fishing Council now the NZSFC to make marlin a recreational only species. So you cant blame commercial for that perhaps the law should be changed to allow them to land dead fish, I can just hear all the howls of protest of that happening. Tell me how many marlin let alone other species do recreational return to the sea either dead or dying, perhaps cameras on rec boats would solve this problem. As JasonEdward62 says there are cameras on many commercial vessels and has anything changed, not that I'm aware of.

Are you serious in making the average rec voyage comparable to a commercial vessel ? that's nuts if you are.  The riveting footage of my 3 undersize live snapper and one surprised looking little Gurnard I returned yesterday would be excruciatingly pointless. 

Thus far cameras on boats are, as far as I know, only done so voluntary. I would voluntarily put a camera on my boat also, but the vessels of Hawkes Bay seafoods would not have volunteered to put cameras on their boats because they were busy misreporting their catch and raping the fishery. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html


Posted By: the croc
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 1:30pm
****, can't win eh. Legasea fully backed the results of the last survey.

Use the exact same method, results are a bit different based on changing demographics, bag limit changes for SNA1 etc and now it's some enormous anti-rec conspiracy 😂


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 2:15pm
Hawkes Bay Seafoods. Posterchild of the QMS


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 2:25pm

National Panel Survey
Dear Fishers

New survey measures recreational fishing

A Fisheries New Zealand national survey of recreational fishing has confirmed the ongoing importance of recreational fishing.
The National Panel Survey – which is conducted every 5-6 years – provides a snapshot of recreational fishing activity around the country, says Fisheries New Zealand Director of Fisheries Management, Stuart Anderson.


 We estimate that 13 per cent of the country’s population over the age of 15 years went fishing at least once during 2017-2018.
“We also found that recreational fishers catch a large proportion of key recreational fish species such as snapper, kahawai, blue cod and kingfish. There’s been little change in the proportion of these fish caught by recreational and commercial fishers since 2012.
The survey contacted more than 30,000 people and about 7000 recreational fishers had their fishing outings recorded over a 12-month period from 01 October 2017 to
30 September 2018.


Other key findings include:

  • about half of all recreational fishing occurs around the north-east coast of the North Island along the coastline from the tip of Northland to East Cape
  • an estimated almost 2 million fishing trips were taken in 2017-2018
  • in 2017-2018, recreational fishers caught an estimated 7 million individual finfish and
    3.9 million individual shellfish
  • Southland is the only area in the country where recreational fisher numbers appears to be increasing, by about 14 percent
  • Species of importance to recreational fishers are snapper, kahawai, blue cod and kingfish.  Recreational catches of these species have increased substantially since 1990.
  • The average recreational snapper catch has seen a lot of fluctuation, almost tripling in the last 30 years, but trending down since the last survey in 2012.
  • The average recreational kahawai catch has more than quadrupled in the Hauraki Gulf.
  • Interestingly, the decreasing number of recreational fishers (3%) seems to be in line with international trends.
  • Southland is the only area in the country where the number of recreational fishers appears to be increasing, by about 14 percent.
In April 2014, a bag limit reduction from nine to seven snapper per person per day was placed on waters from Northland to East Cape.


You can access the full survey results by clicking on the links below.

  https://govt.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5865438dbf58d52c251962cdf&id=d4f8dc5f90&e=fe9945c0e7" rel="nofollow - Survey results  

  https://govt.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5865438dbf58d52c251962cdf&id=98389a5d23&e=fe9945c0e7" rel="nofollow - How the survey was run

 

Kind regards,
Recreational Fisheries - Fisheries New Zealand

Fisheries Management | Fisheries New Zealand – Tini a Tangaroa 
Charles Ferguson Tower | PO Box 2526 | Wellington | New Zealand
Web:
https://govt.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5865438dbf58d52c251962cdf&id=a8d6721b6c&e=fe9945c0e7" rel="nofollow - fisheries.govt.nz


Not the whole Email but those interested can click on the survey results/conducted. It would appear that there has been a drop in take and nimber of recreational fishers since 2012.



-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: REIVER
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 4:42pm
  

 2 million trips for 7 million fish doesn't show a particularly good return for the effort put in. 3.5 fish per trip Confused. Who cooks up these 'estimates'?


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 5:30pm
Just looking at the table the drop in snapper take alone is more than 10 times the amount of the species that show an increase. And that total includes pilchards lmao


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 5:31pm
Originally posted by REIVER REIVER wrote:

  

 2 million trips for 7 million fish doesn't show a particularly good return for the effort put in. 3.5 fish per trip Confused. Who cooks up these 'estimates'?

I reckon it's insanely on the high side. If this purports to represent recs as a whole, how many of the "average punter" anglers do you think averages 3.5 Snapper per trip per person?


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 5:34pm
We are taking 30% less snapper than what we were taking 30 yrs ago or when Qms was introduced.
And there is a very good reason as to why,something those over 45 would know the answer too.LOL


-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: the croc
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 8:27pm
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

We are taking 30% less snapper than what we were taking 30 yrs ago or when Qms was introduced.
And there is a very good reason as to why,something those over 45 would know the answer too.LOL






https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://seachange.org.nz/assets/Sea-Change/SWG/Recreational-Fisheries-in-the-Hauraki-Gulf-Bruce-Hartill-NIWA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjTks2e27HkAhVSg-YKHV0PBHoQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw22hixT5Dq-CkF6BOQH09Yy



Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 8:29pm
Originally posted by Sanchez Sanchez wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:


If public outrage was the outcome of having cameras on boats what point would it serve. Commercial surface liners within NZ waters have to release marlin dead or alive, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this was part of the requirement of the bill-fish moratorium fought for by the New Big Game Fishing Council now the NZSFC to make marlin a recreational only species. So you cant blame commercial for that perhaps the law should be changed to allow them to land dead fish, I can just hear all the howls of protest of that happening. Tell me how many marlin let alone other species do recreational return to the sea either dead or dying, perhaps cameras on rec boats would solve this problem. As JasonEdward62 says there are cameras on many commercial vessels and has anything changed, not that I'm aware of.

Are you serious in making the average rec voyage comparable to a commercial vessel ? that's nuts if you are.  The riveting footage of my 3 undersize live snapper and one surprised looking little Gurnard I returned yesterday would be excruciatingly pointless. 

Thus far cameras on boats are, as far as I know, only done so voluntary. I would voluntarily put a camera on my boat also, but the vessels of Hawkes Bay seafoods would not have volunteered to put cameras on their boats because they were busy misreporting their catch and raping the fishery. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html


Obviously you only read or your brain only comprehended that I mentioned putting cameras on recreational boats and not that commercial cannot land marlin.
So based on your comment about an ex-commercial discarding 30 dead marlin, tell me how would cameras make things change when commercial cannot land them due to the bill-fish moratorium. Public outrage may force the government to change this law by-where marlin could now be landed by commercial rather than be wasted, be-careful what you wish for.




-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Sanchez
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2019 at 9:16pm
Yep. What you said about Marlin being a rec only species and the fact the commercial boats following the law and dumping perfectly awesome fish they could otherwise take to market was far more worthy of a reply than your cameras on rec boats idea.   The com fishing guys I know absolutely hate doing it. I don't know any fish industry desk dudes like croc might have been, but the guys who work the boats, I know a few. To tell you the truth I don't have the answer. But it's pretty clear that we can't just continue like we are now. We both agree on that right ? But since opinions are the stuff conversations like this are made of I would say that I quietly believe the solution is keep what you kill. However Marlin or any struggling species would be worth far less at market , and so it follows that the motivation to modify methods to avoid catching what isn't cost effective would be greater than it is now


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 5:50am
Tzer the recs have to release fish because of size restrictions. There has been frustration because of the size limit going up.

A camera will be most welcome on my kayak, anytime any NIWA/MPI feel the need all good.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 7:17am
Another thing regarding cameras. What about the end product commercially caught fish. I know no one who buys it, along with a lot of people who don't like it.

We had the stat that 20-30 percent of food is thrown out of supermarkets, how much is seafood? What is the point of overstocking the shelves of precious fish if it is not selling?

So if anyone has answers from the big food chains on waste numbers I would like to see them as well as most would I guess.


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 12:51pm





https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://seachange.org.nz/assets/Sea-Change/SWG/Recreational-Fisheries-in-the-Hauraki-Gulf-Bruce-Hartill-NIWA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjTks2e27HkAhVSg-YKHV0PBHoQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw22hixT5Dq-CkF6BOQH09Yy

[/QUOTE]
While I am not poking a finger at you Croc, there is something seriously wrong with this synopsis. I don't know any details about how this data has been established (what methodologies in 1991?). But this is waaay wrong in the fishing I have been doing since late 80s. Eg instead of catching a few decent puka a summer in a minimal boat, no GPS, or sounder I can now goa whole summer and lucky if I land a pup where I used to catch serious puka. I hate catching pup grouper, but the chances of a bigger one are near infinitesimal. Gurnard? I can now expect to spend a day catching 2-3 sometimes. They were the staple fish in our area for a decade or more from the 90s.
Something not quite right with that data. According to that I should be catching more puka and gurnard than I was in early 90s??
Regards
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 1:29pm
Alan. Are you saying your catch rates have fallen since  QMS.?


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 2:54pm
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:






https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://seachange.org.nz/assets/Sea-Change/SWG/Recreational-Fisheries-in-the-Hauraki-Gulf-Bruce-Hartill-NIWA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjTks2e27HkAhVSg-YKHV0PBHoQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw22hixT5Dq-CkF6BOQH09Yy

While I am not poking a finger at you Croc, there is something seriously wrong with this synopsis. I don't know any details about how this data has been established (what methodologies in 1991?). But this is waaay wrong in the fishing I have been doing since late 80s. Eg instead of catching a few decent puka a summer in a minimal boat, no GPS, or sounder I can now goa whole summer and lucky if I land a pup where I used to catch serious puka. I hate catching pup grouper, but the chances of a bigger one are near infinitesimal. Gurnard? I can now expect to spend a day catching 2-3 sometimes. They were the staple fish in our area for a decade or more from the 90s.
Something not quite right with that data. According to that I should be catching more puka and gurnard than I was in early 90s??
Regards
Alan
[/QUOTE] 

Alan I think you will find that some areas of NZ there probably was some localized depletion but I can tell you our catch rates have either gone up with some species but overall catch rates for our area have been fairly well steady for best part of 20 years.


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 3:00pm
I think we fit in the 'localised depletion' category. Having fished the same area every year since late 80s. The decline is dramatic.
However - having the plunderer from HB Seafoods working your doorstep for years probably never helped. Interestingly, last summer, our fishing did seem to pick up. That was the period he had 4 boats impounded for several months previous. Nothing near what it used to be, but an improvement on the previous string of years.
Regards
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 3:04pm
Grand daughter has lost interest in fishing. I don't take her now unless I know I can get on to fish. Like having fished a spot a day before a particular way, and done OK, I will persuade her to come, and hopefully have fish on in a time span within her patience. After a morning and maybe a single gurnard, she starts to loose interest, and I don't want her turned off fishing. So I have to be selective when I take her out. The gurnard fishing off our beach used to be the Go-to way to get a feed, and great for kids - bring home a catch of their own to feed the family - all within an hr or two.
On a bad day I can spend a morning now collecting a couple of gurnard (or worse).
Regards
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 3:18pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Alan. Are you saying your catch rates have fallen since  QMS.?
They are down aprox 30% from intro of QMS.
Pre 1985 snapper bag limits were almost what you caught was your limit.(no bag limit)
bag limits for sna1 over the years,quick glance. 
pre 1985 nil
      1985 [email protected] 25cm
      1993 20 @25cm
      1995 15 @ 27cm
      1997 9 @   27cm
      2014  7 @  30cm

be interesting to see if commercial rates have dropped in comparisonto reccs




-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: v8-coupe
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by Sanchez Sanchez wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:


If public outrage was the outcome of having cameras on boats what point would it serve. Commercial surface liners within NZ waters have to release marlin dead or alive, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this was part of the requirement of the bill-fish moratorium fought for by the New Big Game Fishing Council now the NZSFC to make marlin a recreational only species. So you cant blame commercial for that perhaps the law should be changed to allow them to land dead fish, I can just hear all the howls of protest of that happening. Tell me how many marlin let alone other species do recreational return to the sea either dead or dying, perhaps cameras on rec boats would solve this problem. As JasonEdward62 says there are cameras on many commercial vessels and has anything changed, not that I'm aware of.


Are you serious in making the average rec voyage comparable to a commercial vessel ? that's nuts if you are.  The riveting footage of my 3 undersize live snapper and one surprised looking little Gurnard I returned yesterday would be excruciatingly pointless. 

Thus far cameras on boats are, as far as I know, only done so voluntary. I would voluntarily put a camera on my boat also, but the vessels of Hawkes Bay seafoods would not have volunteered to put cameras on their boats because they were busy misreporting their catch and raping the fishery. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html


Obviously you only read or your brain only comprehended that I mentioned putting cameras on recreational boats and not that commercial cannot land marlin.
So based on your comment about an ex-commercial discarding 30 dead marlin, tell me how would cameras make things change when commercial cannot land them due to the bill-fish moratorium. Public outrage may force the government to change this law by-where marlin could now be landed by commercial rather than be wasted, be-careful what you wish for.




As an aside Tzer, If what he said is correct, how is it the commercial operator was able to catch 30 Marlin while fishing for Tuna?
Are there no viable anti Marlin methods available such as those for sea birds?
Not being smart, just interested is all.
Cheers.

-------------
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 6:20pm
I would say that Marlin are a given bycatch when longlining for Tuna.

In the 1970s literally hundreds of Japanese longliners fished for Tuna off our coast. Many came into Auckland to bunker for the journey home.
Had a chance to look closely at some.
Not only were they laden down to the plimsol , presumably  with fish,
they had cords strung between the masts with literally hundreds of sharkfins drying in the wind and sun, and the scuppers and elsewhere were littered with uncountable numbers of billfish swords. The bycatch of marlin and possibly broadbill was clearly substantial 



Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 9:00pm
Originally posted by v8-coupe v8-coupe wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by Sanchez Sanchez wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:


If public outrage was the outcome of having cameras on boats what point would it serve. Commercial surface liners within NZ waters have to release marlin dead or alive, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think this was part of the requirement of the bill-fish moratorium fought for by the New Big Game Fishing Council now the NZSFC to make marlin a recreational only species. So you cant blame commercial for that perhaps the law should be changed to allow them to land dead fish, I can just hear all the howls of protest of that happening. Tell me how many marlin let alone other species do recreational return to the sea either dead or dying, perhaps cameras on rec boats would solve this problem. As JasonEdward62 says there are cameras on many commercial vessels and has anything changed, not that I'm aware of.


Are you serious in making the average rec voyage comparable to a commercial vessel ? that's nuts if you are.  The riveting footage of my 3 undersize live snapper and one surprised looking little Gurnard I returned yesterday would be excruciatingly pointless. 

Thus far cameras on boats are, as far as I know, only done so voluntary. I would voluntarily put a camera on my boat also, but the vessels of Hawkes Bay seafoods would not have volunteered to put cameras on their boats because they were busy misreporting their catch and raping the fishery. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/hawke-s-bay-fishing-family-fined-nearly-1-5m-for-misreporting-catch.html


Obviously you only read or your brain only comprehended that I mentioned putting cameras on recreational boats and not that commercial cannot land marlin.
So based on your comment about an ex-commercial discarding 30 dead marlin, tell me how would cameras make things change when commercial cannot land them due to the bill-fish moratorium. Public outrage may force the government to change this law by-where marlin could now be landed by commercial rather than be wasted, be-careful what you wish for.




As an aside Tzer, If what he said is correct, how is it the commercial operator was able to catch 30 Marlin while fishing for Tuna?
Are there no viable anti Marlin methods available such as those for sea birds?
Not being smart, just interested is all.
Cheers.


Marlin are caught by commercial surface liners targeting tunas such as y/fin, bigeye, albacore etc and cannot be caught & landed within NZ waters due to the bill fish moratorium. As with all baited hook & line fishing you cannot control what eats the bait but the point was made or implied that by having cameras on boats would stop this from happening.


.


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: FizFisho
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 11:11pm
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

[QUOTE=v8-coupe] [QUOTE=Tzer] [QUOTE=Sanchez]
Marlin are caught by commercial surface liners targeting tunas such as y/fin, bigeye, albacore etc and cannot be caught & landed within NZ waters due to the bill fish moratorium. As with all baited hook & line fishing you cannot control what eats the bait but the point was made or implied that by having cameras on boats would stop this from happening.

What do they do then if a Marlin is caught?


Posted By: puff
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 11:12pm
Just to clarify, is this topic saying that recreational fisherpersons take more than commercial fisherman?
Isn’t that a little ironic?
So people who do it professionally catch less and the amateur fishermen is taking more out of the ocean?
What a whole lotta bovine effluent...
The problems of this world even outside of fishing is commercialism....
Greed is the reason the world is such a bad state...
No difference with fishing stock...


Posted By: the croc
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 11:14pm
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:






https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://seachange.org.nz/assets/Sea-Change/SWG/Recreational-Fisheries-in-the-Hauraki-Gulf-Bruce-Hartill-NIWA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjTks2e27HkAhVSg-YKHV0PBHoQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw22hixT5Dq-CkF6BOQH09Yy


While I am not poking a finger at you Croc, there is something seriously wrong with this synopsis. I don't know any details about how this data has been established (what methodologies in 1991?). But this is waaay wrong in the fishing I have been doing since late 80s. Eg instead of catching a few decent puka a summer in a minimal boat, no GPS, or sounder I can now goa whole summer and lucky if I land a pup where I used to catch serious puka. I hate catching pup grouper, but the chances of a bigger one are near infinitesimal. Gurnard? I can now expect to spend a day catching 2-3 sometimes. They were the staple fish in our area for a decade or more from the 90s.
Something not quite right with that data. According to that I should be catching more puka and gurnard than I was in early 90s??
Regards
Alan
[/QUOTE]

It refers only to snapper and kahawai in the Hauraki Gulf, not other species or areas.

It's Bruce Harthill's presentation. Pretty much all the recreational fishing research in New Zealand is carried out by Bruce, other than the national panel survey and some of the stuff John does.

I reckon pūka are in bad shape around the country, your experience doesn't surprise me at all. I haven't looked into gurnard for a while.


Posted By: FizFisho
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by v8-coupe v8-coupe wrote:

Originally posted by MightyBoosh MightyBoosh wrote:

If the commercials had to land everything they caught and their quota was based on total biomass landed, they would soon sort their **** out and use more selective fishing methods. Assuming the rules enforced of course.


I have made that suggestion at each of the meetings I have been to.
The reply from the commercial sector representative is basically if bring all home is applied to industry then it should apply to the rec sector as well.


I use 9/0 circle hooks and have close to 100% catch and release.

I spearfish and shoot legal fish.

So f that I say. But perhaps it is a wake up call to how we all catch and handle (wet gloves etc) our fish?


Posted By: the croc
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2019 at 11:25pm
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:

Grand daughter has lost interest in fishing. I don't take her now unless I know I can get on to fish. Like having fished a spot a day before a particular way, and done OK, I will persuade her to come, and hopefully have fish on in a time span within her patience. After a morning and maybe a single gurnard, she starts to loose interest, and I don't want her turned off fishing. So I have to be selective when I take her out. The gurnard fishing off our beach used to be the Go-to way to get a feed, and great for kids - bring home a catch of their own to feed the family - all within an hr or two.
On a bad day I can spend a morning now collecting a couple of gurnard (or worse).
Regards
Alan


Are you Hawke Bay Alan?

Bruce Hartill did some work a few years ago comparing fishing club data to survey data.

"Broad trends in catch rates can still be inferred from the three most recent research provider creel surveys, however, and a direct comparison of these with similar catch rate indices (number of fish landed per boat trip) calculated from the HBSFC data can be used to corroborate (or not) the latter. The
degree of similarity between pairwise comparisons of catch rate indices derived from the two data
sources for each species is the same, regardless of whether catch rates are expressed in terms of average catch per fisher or average catch per boat.

The similarity of the snapper and kahawai catch rate indices calculated from the two data sources
suggests that the HBSFC data provides a reasonably reliable indication of the changes in fishing success
experienced by club members over the past ten years, but similar comparisons for red gurnard and
tarakihi are less promising."

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/19292-far-201743-review-of-competition-creel-survey-data-provided-by-the-hawkes-bay-sport-fishing-club


Posted By: the croc
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 12:10am
Originally posted by pjc pjc wrote:

Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Alan. Are you saying your catch rates have fallen since  QMS.?
They are down aprox 30% from intro of QMS.
Pre 1985 snapper bag limits were almost what you caught was your limit.(no bag limit)
bag limits for sna1 over the years,quick glance. 
pre 1985 nil
      1985 [email protected] 25cm
      1993 20 @25cm
      1995 15 @ 27cm
      1997 9 @   27cm
      2014  7 @  30cm

be interesting to see if commercial rates have dropped in comparisonto reccs




There are areas outside of SNA1 Paul.

Recreational size limits for snapper are as follows:

Auckland East: 30cm
Auckland West: 27cm
Central: 27cm
Challenger: 25cm
Marlborough Sounds area: 25cm
Kaikoura: 25cm
South-East: 25cm
Fiordland: 25cm
Southland: 25cm

Feel free to look for yourself: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/travel-and-recreation/fishing/fishing-rules/

Two snapper stocks have been reviewed in the last few years.

SNA1 was reviewed in 2013.

The recreational allowance was increased by 17% (450 tonnes). The commercial allowance wasn't touched.



SNA7 was reviewed in 2016.

The recreational allowance was increased by 178% (160 tonnes) and the commercial allowance by 25% (50 tonnes).



Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:17am
Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

[QUOTE=v8-coupe] [QUOTE=Tzer] [QUOTE=Sanchez]
Marlin are caught by commercial surface liners targeting tunas such as y/fin, bigeye, albacore etc and cannot be caught & landed within NZ waters due to the bill fish moratorium. As with all baited hook & line fishing you cannot control what eats the bait but the point was made or implied that by having cameras on boats would stop this from happening.

What do they do then if a Marlin is caught?


By law they have to be released dead or alive.


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:23am
Originally posted by puff puff wrote:

Just to clarify, is this topic saying that recreational fisherpersons take more than commercial fisherman?
Isn’t that a little ironic?
So people who do it professionally catch less and the amateur fishermen is taking more out of the ocean?
What a whole lotta bovine effluent...
The problems of this world even outside of fishing is commercialism....
Greed is the reason the world is such a bad state...
No difference with fishing stock...


No this topic was suppose to be about the results of the current recreational fishing survey undertaken and that it has found recreational to be taking more than was previously though.
Many though have chosen not to accept the findings and turn this topic around to blame commercial fishing, by all means discuss/debate the pros & cons of this survey but dont make it about commercial fisherman this is a recreational survey.


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:59am
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by puff puff wrote:

Just to clarify, is this topic saying that recreational fisherpersons take more than commercial fisherman?
Isn’t that a little ironic?
So people who do it professionally catch less and the amateur fishermen is taking more out of the ocean?
What a whole lotta bovine effluent...
The problems of this world even outside of fishing is commercialism....
Greed is the reason the world is such a bad state...
No difference with fishing stock...


No this topic was suppose to be about the results of the current recreational fishing survey undertaken and that it has found recreational to be taking more than was previously though.
Many though have chosen not to accept the findings and turn this topic around to blame commercial fishing, by all means discuss/debate the pros & cons of this survey but dont make it about commercial fisherman this is a recreational survey.


Have already called BS on methodology.

The results do show 1 million less snapper caught by recs so we have done our part and it is trending downwards.

So naturally the focus should return onto comms given the Terakihi news recently.


Posted By: FizFisho
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 12:20pm
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:

Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

[QUOTE=v8-coupe] [QUOTE=Tzer] [QUOTE=Sanchez]
Marlin are caught by commercial surface liners targeting tunas such as y/fin, bigeye, albacore etc and cannot be caught & landed within NZ waters due to the bill fish moratorium. As with all baited hook & line fishing you cannot control what eats the bait but the point was made or implied that by having cameras on boats would stop this from happening.

What do they do then if a Marlin is caught?


By law they have to be released dead or alive.


Thats sad, but people want to buy fish from the super market and this is the price our greatest of fish have to make.

Also it provides jobs. We would be screwed without the comms.

Its still sad though. Well I just hope the dead ones get eaten by a mako and keep the chain going :-).


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 12:50pm
Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Alan. Are you saying your catch rates have fallen since  QMS.?
Sorry - fell behind the conversation - lost internet.
Answer.......... Absolutely, unequivocally, YES.
Been fishing the same water for approx 30 yrs, every year.
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by the croc the croc wrote:

Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:





It refers only to snapper and kahawai in the Hauraki Gulf, not other species or areas.

It's Bruce Harthill's presentation. Pretty much all the recreational fishing research in New Zealand is carried out by Bruce, other than the national panel survey and some of the stuff John does.

I reckon pūka are in bad shape around the country, your experience doesn't surprise me at all. I haven't looked into gurnard for a while.
Well that explains a bit - could not relate to our situation.  Yes, I am in H Bay (southern). We would catch a handful of snapper over a whole summer.
FWIW I fish most days that are fishable over summer - which is prob about 60-70% of the days. And in 30 yrs or so, I have NEVER taken a limit bag of fish home. I take what I need for the day or two. Never (rarely) freeze any.
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: cirrus
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:

Originally posted by cirrus cirrus wrote:

Alan. Are you saying your catch rates have fallen since  QMS.?
Sorry - fell behind the conversation - lost internet.
Answer.......... Absolutely, unequivocally, YES.
Been fishing the same water for approx 30 yrs, every year.
Alan

So your catches are down ,same area over the years. Would expect fishermen in many areas would say the same.
So what does that say about the QMS, and the hidden intent within that system.


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 1:07pm
My general synopsis of our local fishery over 30 yrs would be;
Puka - decimated
Gurnard - a fraction of what they used to be
Snapper - fraction of what they used to be
Kahawhai - prob a bit hit and miss on this - but they seemed to be very short supply 5-10 yrs ago and possibly picking up now
Terakihi - prob stable, but patchy - some areas that used to be good don't yield anything now - and a fair bit of this is I think rec pressure - because they are localised.
Spiny Dogs - used to be minor, now plague proportions. Sometimes better to pack up and go home. How come the trawlers don't clean them out? Croc?
The fishing did improve last summer compared to the last 5-10 yrs - we even caught some snapper. I can't help wondering the HB Seafoods boats impounded had an effect. They trawled our area constantly - 3 days up/down a white trawler. Finally gone, next morning a red trawler doing same. Repeat. To maybe 0.5 km off the beach and out to 7km (puka).
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 1:10pm
Prob worth noting - our spot is a useful benchmark - the rec pressure (unlike most areas) really has not changed over 30 yrs.
Isolated beach area, beach launch (no ramp), over the surf and over a reef (at the same time) , need a tractor to launch. It is a bit self limiting so the fishing is from those with boats/baches and a handful of local farmers. So that has not really changed in 30 yrs.
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Rozboon
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:


Also it provides jobs. We would be screwed without the comms.

How do you figure? It's about 3% of our export economy, and directly or indirectly employs about 13000 people, or maybe 0.3% of the population. It's pretty important to those 13000 people, but if commercial fishing ceased to exist in New Zealand tomorrow, all it would mean is I had to make my own berley and catch more of my own bait. Although presumably that would be trivial, due to the massive abundance of fish that would be present within a few years... hell I would just lure fish in the interim. 
Honestly I suspect that a decent slice of the jobs/economic production would be taken up by the increase in fishing tourism, from visitors coming to "the country that banned commercial fishing".

I'm all for it. The return we get on the relative ruination of our fisheries is ****.






Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by Rozboon Rozboon wrote:

Originally posted by FizFisho FizFisho wrote:


Also it provides jobs. We would be screwed without the comms.

How do you figure? It's about 3% of our export economy, and directly or indirectly employs about 13000 people, or maybe 0.3% of the population. It's pretty important to those 13000 people, but if commercial fishing ceased to exist in New Zealand tomorrow, all it would mean is I had to make my own berley and catch more of my own bait. Although presumably that would be trivial, due to the massive abundance of fish that would be present within a few years... hell I would just lure fish in the interim. 
Honestly I suspect that a decent slice of the jobs/economic production would be taken up by the increase in fishing tourism, from visitors coming to "the country that banned commercial fishing".

I'm all for it. The return we get on the relative ruination of our fisheries is ****.




https://www.nzmrf.org.nz/files/New-Zealand-Fishing-Economic-Report.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://www.nzmrf.org.nz/files/New-Zealand-Fishing-Economic-Report.pdf

It all begins with fishers’ spending, which totals about $946 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is not the whole equation. These dollars then circulate through the national economy supporting 8,100 jobs and stimulating $1.7 billion in total economic activity. And there is growth potential too. Participation in both fresh and saltwater fishing increased by 10 percent between 2008 and 2014, and if fisheries are kept strong and resilient, can grow even more. In economic terms alone, recreational fishing is a substantial and critical industry in New Zealand. Like other industries, its lifeblood is the revenues received from its customers who, in this case, are fishers. The many firms who support fishers include retailers, boat builders, tackle manufacturers, suppliers, marinas, motels, restaurants, charters, media and more. They employ thousands of people who work hard to ensure fishermen can enjoy their day out on the water. In the absence of economic data on the recreational fishing industry the government tends to favour commercial interests who can easily quantify their activity through landings and sales data. But New Zealand has too often overlooked the significant contributions generated by marine recreational fishers.

 New insights provided by the economic study shows New Zealand receives around $136 million in GST revenues and $52 million in personal income tax annually from the recreational fishing industry. Through these mechanisms recreational fishers are ‘paying their way’; contributing not only to the cost of fisheries management but also to the greater, common good.

How much do the big companies to fish??NIL ,probably get a rebate for exporting?



-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: fish-feeder
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 4:09pm
I can't work out why,or how kahawai is sold overseas at a couple of bucks a kg for salmon food and we have to pay over 10 bucks a kg to eat it?

-------------
dont get my personality mixed up with my attitude,my personality is me,my attitude depends on you.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 4:10pm


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 4:11pm
Prices Tuesday


Posted By: fish-feeder
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 4:43pm
Bought some hoki at $10 a kg 2wks ago,quality was good,so bought another kg today.
My kids like it more than other fish. Also saw kingfish for sale,and hapuka.....size of the steaks was pathetic,at $38 or so a kilo. I remember eating hapuka as a kid of 10,when it was cheap,no way in hell I'd pay that much for any fish these days.

-------------
dont get my personality mixed up with my attitude,my personality is me,my attitude depends on you.


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:07pm
Trevally @ $38 a kg raised my eyebrow


Posted By: pjc
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:19pm
Originally posted by Muppet Muppet wrote:

Trevally @ $38 a kg raised my eyebrow
Hope thats smoked with a parsley sauce and fresh season vegetables served with a glass of chardonnay?


And what did the fisherman get $1.80 on a good day??


-------------
water water everywhere,how many fish does it hold?


Posted By: the croc
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:40pm




Legasea fully endorses the methodology. I am fascinated to hear from the Legasea supporters as to why they disagree with Legasea on this?

To quote Legasea:

"Truth is New Zealand has a world-leading way of estimating recreational catch."




Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by the croc the croc wrote:





Legasea fully endorses the methodology. I am fascinated to hear from the Legasea supporters as to why they disagree with Legasea on this?

To quote Legasea:

"Truth is New Zealand has a world-leading way of estimating recreational catch."




Funny enough Legasea has failed to comment, yet their own advisors have been quick to condemm the results. Know doubt they will say that these were their own personal opinions and not Legasea's views.

-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Muppet
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 6:58pm
Yep the raging success that was the last census.



Posted By: Sanchez
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 8:34pm
Originally posted by Alan L Alan L wrote:

My general synopsis of our local fishery over 30 yrs would be;
Puka - decimated
Gurnard - a fraction of what they used to be
Snapper - fraction of what they used to be
Kahawhai - prob a bit hit and miss on this - but they seemed to be very short supply 5-10 yrs ago and possibly picking up now
Terakihi - prob stable, but patchy - some areas that used to be good don't yield anything now - and a fair bit of this is I think rec pressure - because they are localised.
Spiny Dogs - used to be minor, now plague proportions. Sometimes better to pack up and go home. How come the trawlers don't clean them out? Croc?
The fishing did improve last summer compared to the last 5-10 yrs - we even caught some snapper. I can't help wondering the HB Seafoods boats impounded had an effect. They trawled our area constantly - 3 days up/down a white trawler. Finally gone, next morning a red trawler doing same. Repeat. To maybe 0.5 km off the beach and out to 7km (puka).
Alan


I'm sorry to read this Alan. Every summer holidays, and alot of the winter ones, I went to my Grandpop's in Te Awanga. Ive got a picture on my wall of a huge snapper my dad caught just over the reef there. The stuff of legend. Are HB seafoods back on the water yet ?


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 8:39pm
Yes - HB Seafoods up and running again - under a different name - Iwi bought them. But the management remains the same - the crooks are still in there.
regards
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 8:47pm
I have to say I think our cray fishery is a success. It is probably in similar shape to 30 yrs ago. Went thru a rough patch 5-10 yrs ago, but last 2-3 yrs as good as it has been. I only fish 2 pots generally, and is the one fish I take my limit bag if available. They are not hard to give away and for many it may the only cray they have all year. But one cray a day for wife and I is enough or more than these days. Very good relationship with the local commercial guys and nobody raiding pots etc.
No more than 1-2k from beach all season, altho others go steaming off into the distance in search of gold. They are close by if you know where to look.
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 9:43pm
Croc, I am not sure where MacIndoe stands on this survey stuff . I had a meeting with him at our beach about 18 mths ago, over a few wines. My concern was that Legasea was going to focus on the Hauraki Gulf issues, while there were real issues elsewhere like HB. He was very well versed in the local problems (and the Desposito/HB Seafood  mob)and was clearly of the opinion HB fishery had been pillaged and raped. He seemed very up to date in what was going on.
On another note I omitted Blue Cod status;
Fraction of previous. My take on it is rec fishing. Has declined markedly over last 10-15 yrs. And my conclusion is that it is in response to the decline of the general fishery. When a holiday boatie can't get a feed of gurnard and stumbles over a stash of BC, he fills the bin. Unfortunately. Slow growing, territorial, not hard to wipe out a population. I am not sure if all rec fishers know the pressure they can put on stock like that. Take a couple, leave the rest in peace til you need some next time. But unfortunately, it doesn't take many who think differently to damage the resource.
I am careful who I take out in my boat, and where I take them.
Alan


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2019 at 9:49pm


Originally posted by the croc the croc wrote:


Legasea fully endorses the methodology. I am fascinated to hear from the Legasea supporters as to why they disagree with Legasea on this?

To quote Legasea:

"Truth is New Zealand has a world-leading way of estimating recreational catch."




I dont see any one rushing to answer this question


-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318


Posted By: Alan L
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2019 at 3:59pm
Not quite sure what you were getting at there Tzer, but I will have a go.
There is not really enough data points on the research data that Croc posted to make any long term comparison - but as Croc stated, it generally seems to tie well with the club data.
I have only just been thru it, since posting my own gut assessment of last 30 yrs. I think it agrees pretty well with what I posted. It shows the poor kahawai stocks as I noted for 5-10 yrs previous. It doesn't go back beyond that so what it misses is the earlier period where kahawai were abundant well beyond current levels. In my first few yrs fishing there, big workups/meatballs of them would thrash the surface water. Would see them as a regular fishing occurrence and often Y/F under them. I haven't seen such an event for years. There would be people fishing there now who have never seen it. And Y/F are now non-existent in the area too, whereas they used to be commercially fished in our fishery in the 90s.
I think the terakihi asssessment is close to what I stated, as is the snapper. The one I would have an issue with is the gurnard. Whether there is a difference in the trawling activity in the Napier bay compared to ours, I don't know. I do suspect we are is a go-to spot when things get a bit tough out further weatherwise or fishing wise. They get a bit of lee shelter from the southerly storms and can still do several days trawling between the headlands (Kidnappers and Pauanui point).
So, generally speaking, I think the Croc data is reasonably close to what I have seen, but that data only covers half the span I am talking off. If you had the first half data, I think you would find a big decline from original stocks. In other words this data set is monitoring a period after the bulk of depletion had already occurred. The previous generation to me tell of catching puka in 30m off the reef system. Unheard of in my lifetime fishing there. 70m was productive, now nothing is, as far as puka goes. So I think the data is generally monitoring the bottom of the trough, more or less.
just my best shot at it.
Regards
Alan 


-------------
Legasea Legend member


Posted By: Tzer
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2019 at 4:23pm
Alan L

I think the point croc was making is that Leagsea fully endorses the methodology and states that the truth is New Zealand has a world-leading way of estimating recreational catch.

Now so far since the survey results have come out Leagsea themselves haven't publicly endorsed the latest results, but many of their supporters as well as some of their own team have severely criticized the results. So is this double standards or are they being hypocrites.




-------------
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318



Print Page | Close Window