FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Recreational Fishing Licences - have your say

Page  <12345 13>
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 5:53pm
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Sth Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 8497
Yep Dave hits the nail on the head... again

So it got bad in the 1980s. Muldoon was subsidising new fishing boats that did not go offshore but thrashed inshore stocks. the Quota System was introduced in 1986 to turn it around. The Quota Appeal Authority undid most of the catch reductions that were made.

 The coastal  Rec fishing was stuffed by the mid late 70s with the 12 or 3 mile cant rem which ) economic zone,  off shore factory ships sitting out nose to tail just over sending their trawlers in after dark....
 Which is why we and many other gave up fishing and went hot roding hunting etc...2nd hand boat market bottom dropped out.. Muldoons tax later didnt help either further taking out many in the boat building industry
 The 200 mile came in international around we brought our quota system in
 Mudloons, from memory was not his special tax exception for fishing boats,  (and farms) but something that came in under  Holyoak to build a non then non existent  industry for exports

Cabinet did not sign off Moyles promise.

 
Colin Moyle was agriculture minister around the 72/ 74(?)  period under Kirk...then stitched up by Rowling and Muldoon on the infamous homosexual BS charges because he was next in line for PM leaving the gate open for both of them
Over a decade and a couple governments before Quota

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Tagit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 4:35pm
Tagit View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Westhaven, Auck
Status: Offline
Points: 15012
We need to accept that for as long as the government see themselves better off aligning with the comm sector, the rec sector will continue to lose ground. We have a major issue in population growth that nothing in the current QMS or government attitudes will fix. 
The only true fix is going to be when the government finally believe that it is in their own personal best interests to align themselves and their decision making with the rec community. That means that until they truly fear the backlash from future decisions that go against the rec community, they will continue with their current process of supporting the commercial industry at the rec industries expense. Right now they still back themselves to produce enough 'spin' to confuse enough people in the rec community to make any backlash negligible. 
The release of their Fishing Park plan at the last minute during the last election campaign was a classic example. There were people on these forums and all over the place saying what a great thing the government was doing. As we now know, these proposals were not properly thought through and are probably now going to be implemented at significant cost to the rec community (again). Even all the various study forums etc being implemented by council and government badly marginalise the rec community by design.
Bottom line is that the only real solution for rec fishing is to get the government making decisions that properly reflect the importance of rec fishing to the people of this country. That is only going to happen once we have a decent degree of unity amongst ourselves.

As I mentioned before, why would this government implement a recreational fishing licence so that the rec community could have enough funds to properly challenge the government and comm industry through the courts? The only reason will be if we can make them politically uncomfortable enough to question whether there are too many votes at risk for them to carry on as they are.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote NumnuT_AUS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 2:30pm
NumnuT_AUS View Drop Down
Gold
Gold


Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 681
G'day Guys,

plenty of good debate about this sensitive issue.

NSW had had saltwater fishing licenses for many years now, for me its a positive.

- bought out all commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour
- improved facilities at existing ramps
- new ramps
- maintenance of around 30 offshore FADS on NSW coast

I know the quota allocations are different in NZ, extremely tough to buy out comms.

I think the toughest part is with such a small population in NZ makes it extremely difficult to properly fund the enforcement of a fishing licence.

As with almost all licencing only the honest people will pay.

As the Kiwi Govt have huge stakes in the commercial fishing in NZ, good luck changing anything that will benefit recreational anglers.

5 fish and 35 cm minimum next?  Thumbs Down

I really hope not.

Cheers
Craig


Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 12:29pm
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2651
Originally posted by Tagit Tagit wrote:

I think a lot of people suffer from impatience when it comes to achieving results for rec fishing. That is behind a lot of the calls for more direct action etc. As many people, including myself. have pointed out in various posts, our countries record to date in rec angling is the rec sector giving, giving, and giving, whilst what we so far count as achievements is anything where the 'giving' is reduced or not as big as the government and comm sector are trying to demand. They of course then use this 'concept' in their future demands. 
The perfect example seems to be the new MPA proposals where we have very large MPA's proposed and smaller ones also proposed as being the less intrusive options. In reality this is just game playing with the non-rec sectors trying to force these through as the compromises the rec sector must make before they will do anything about their own damage to the fisheries. By listing both large and small MPA options they are trying to position the 'small option' as what they will accept as a compromise when the rec sector agree to compromise on whatever they are trying to achieve. Accepting the 'small options' is in fact yet another 'give' by the rec sector, but it has been positioned so that it won't appear that way. It is in fact all about forcing the rec sector to agree to the other parties not making any substantial contributions, but at the same time positioning the rec sector to be seen as the bad guy.
This is the rubbish that I personally really hate, and is in fact my fear about been represented when it is obvious that the rec representatives are being politically circumcised by the way the  representative forums are being set up.
What this means to me is that the only real fix to our issues is a political one. Until we create enough political clout to make the government take notice, all the detail type stuff around MPA's and trawl areas etc are just battles that we must fight, but will never win. Best case at the moment is damage limitation until we get the political influencing sorted.
Can a ragtag bunch of rec groups become a political force, NO. Can a consolidated push behind one organised representative party work, yes, but it will take time, and we will all be very frustrated along the way. Is LegaSea the right group to support, that is a question for each person to decide for themselves, but personally I am not judging their success on what has been achieved to date, but more about how they are handling the path into the future.


Absolutely bang on again Dave.
That was the exact plan they implemented in the last round of allowance setting.
Leaked all these horrible scenarios then settled on the one we got. Seven at 300mm.
That was their desired position all along.
It is the standard modus operandi for these people.
What amazed me, was the number of people who actually believed our squeaks made them falter and the rec sector had dodged a bullet.
We in fact lost ground again. Even with the extra 500 tonne of rec allowance.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rgm5drq0dgsm9fk/AACG9VcVfsC-5nsBKgwXIaLea?dl=0&preview=LegaSea+FFTP+Logo+Hrz_Blk.ai
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote RaggedJoe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 12:18pm
RaggedJoe View Drop Down
Silver
Silver


Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 131
I have watched this debate with interest and learned a lot from all the contributors. I am one of the silent majority, I fish now and then for fun and food, but don't have any particular will to get involved politically to protect the right to fish. I have donated to Legasea as I can see we do need representation and am happy to help fund that in a small way. Good on you all for your passion and commitment, keep up the good fight
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (3) Likes(3)   Quote Tagit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 11:54am
Tagit View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Westhaven, Auck
Status: Offline
Points: 15012
I think a lot of people suffer from impatience when it comes to achieving results for rec fishing. That is behind a lot of the calls for more direct action etc. As many people, including myself. have pointed out in various posts, our countries record to date in rec angling is the rec sector giving, giving, and giving, whilst what we so far count as achievements is anything where the 'giving' is reduced or not as big as the government and comm sector are trying to demand. They of course then use this 'concept' in their future demands. 
The perfect example seems to be the new MPA proposals where we have very large MPA's proposed and smaller ones also proposed as being the less intrusive options. In reality this is just game playing with the non-rec sectors trying to force these through as the compromises the rec sector must make before they will do anything about their own damage to the fisheries. By listing both large and small MPA options they are trying to position the 'small option' as what they will accept as a compromise when the rec sector agree to compromise on whatever they are trying to achieve. Accepting the 'small options' is in fact yet another 'give' by the rec sector, but it has been positioned so that it won't appear that way. It is in fact all about forcing the rec sector to agree to the other parties not making any substantial contributions, but at the same time positioning the rec sector to be seen as the bad guy.
This is the rubbish that I personally really hate, and is in fact my fear about been represented when it is obvious that the rec representatives are being politically circumcised by the way the  representative forums are being set up.
What this means to me is that the only real fix to our issues is a political one. Until we create enough political clout to make the government take notice, all the detail type stuff around MPA's and trawl areas etc are just battles that we must fight, but will never win. Best case at the moment is damage limitation until we get the political influencing sorted.
Can a ragtag bunch of rec groups become a political force, NO. Can a consolidated push behind one organised representative party work, yes, but it will take time, and we will all be very frustrated along the way. Is LegaSea the right group to support, that is a question for each person to decide for themselves, but personally I am not judging their success on what has been achieved to date, but more about how they are handling the path into the future.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote LegaSea Community Builder Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 9:28am
LegaSea Community Builder View Drop Down
Silver
Silver
Avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2016
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Originally posted by Tzer Tzer wrote:

Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

]MB
LegaSea is not doing nothing.  See our Annual Report

The profile of recreational fishing in NZ has never been higher.
We supported a feature film on Recreational fishing on the Kiapara Harbour called THE CATCH on in cinemas now.  Last night there was an hour long ITM Fishing Show featuring LegaSea on prime time TV1 and a paid TV ad.

We have a Fish Care campaign starting soon and have been talking to politicians in the build up to election year. 

What you can do is sign up as a LegaSea Legend to make LegaSea more effective.

Or keep up to date with WHAT IS BEING DONE by subscribing for free


John so what has Legasea actually achieved for recreational fishes of NZ. All I seemed to read is a lot of Pr rhetoric.

If I could help answer, John will probably also have his own comments.

A voice. Evident by the growing support from individuals and industry and submissions to govt.      
The What's Fishing Worth study was a landmark achievement. In other countries the same type of report brought about policy changes and developments that valued rec fishing. Establishing the economic value of rec fishing has never been accomplished before. We have always been trying to convince govt of the economic benefits of rec fishing without being able to give hard data. We have the facts now to back up the arguments. 
From my perspective, part of the reason I joined LegaSea was because I could see an advocacy group becoming more organised and recognised and I couldn't remember seeing that before through out the last 40yrs of my rec fishing history. There have been organised fights like Option 4, but the reach, longevity and community getting behind LegaSea is in a whole different league now.

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 7:00am
John H View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Location: Tutukaka
Status: Offline
Points: 1799
Thanks FA for your time

I guess I was just throwing the questions out there....

Had a look at the link and it seems WA limits fishing effort by licencing, particularly in Managed Fisheries. This is applies to an Owner/Operator based on a share of Total Allowable Fishing Effort, where the person with the rights runs the fishing business.

The report calls the NZ Quota management system a strong "Invester - Operator nexus"  based on a share of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), where the ownership of the “assets” is administered discretely from the activity of fishing.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Tzer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2017 at 9:12pm
Tzer View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Location: Gisborne. NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 4732
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

]MB
LegaSea is not doing nothing.  See our Annual Report

The profile of recreational fishing in NZ has never been higher.
We supported a feature film on Recreational fishing on the Kiapara Harbour called THE CATCH on in cinemas now.  Last night there was an hour long ITM Fishing Show featuring LegaSea on prime time TV1 and a paid TV ad.

We have a Fish Care campaign starting soon and have been talking to politicians in the build up to election year. 

What you can do is sign up as a LegaSea Legend to make LegaSea more effective.

Or keep up to date with WHAT IS BEING DONE by subscribing for free


John so what has Legasea actually achieved for recreational fishes of NZ. All I seemed to read is a lot of Pr rhetoric.
www.tzercharters.co.nz
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tzer-Charters/254559404707318
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Fish Addict Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2017 at 7:11pm
Fish Addict View Drop Down
Gold
Gold


Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Location: Perth WA
Status: Offline
Points: 752
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

]

The 2014/15 annual report from the WA Department of fisheries says.
The amount the Government spent on managing commercial fishing and aquaculture around the State was $76 million.

The amount the Government spent on managing recreational fishing around the State was $18 million. (corrected)

" 752,000 was number of West Australians estimated to have fished recreationally in the reporting period. Recreational fishing in Western Australia continues to have considerable social value as a popular WA lifestyle activity.

" 170,094 was the number of recreational fishing licences we issued for specific recreational fishing activities. All revenue raised from licence fees goes back into recreational fishing management."

It is not clear how much commercial fishers pay towards fisheries management.

It wasn't clear from your post above however I presume it was directed at me to make comment.

Clearly there is an imbalance between number of West Australians estimated to have fished recreationally during the reporting period and the number of recreational fishing licences issued for specific recreational fishing activities and I guess this was your point.  Based on the figures provided only 22.6% of the estimated total number of recreational fishers were licensed.  However this doesn't necessarily mean that 77.4% of the estimated recreational fishers failed to purchase a fishing licence as perhaps was your inference.  In WA persons under the age of 16, persons of aboriginal descent, all shore based anglers and persons fishing from an unpowered boat are all exempt from purchasing a fishing licence.  Whether the exempt group make up the total of the 77.4% to which I refer I don't know and I don't have any facts to support this one way or the other.

The other point you raised was how much commercial fishers contributed towards fisheries management?  Once again this had me searching for info and I was unable to locate any estimated values.  This search was useful however as it did provide me with some information with respect to how the commercial fishing in WA is structured, something which I had little knowledge of previously.  In short commercial fisheries are licensed by the Dept of Fisheries and annual lease / access fees apply and I would expect these fees to be proportionate to the size of quota.  Once again I do not have exact figures of the magnitude of the fees however from more general comments from others they don't come cheap.  The following is a cut and paste from the Fisheries website.

"Commercial fishing Licences

Operators in commercial fisheries and aquaculture in Western Australia must be licensed by the Department of Fisheries.

Licence fees ensure an appropriate return to the community for a degree of exclusive access to community resources (fish or water) for commercial purposes. Industry also benefits from our management and research to help ensure Western Australia’s fisheries remain sustainable and profitable.

All the funds raised from commercial licences are used only for the purposes set out in the Fisheries Research and Development Account (established under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994), which includes commercial fishing and aquaculture management, enforcement, community education, research and monitoring of fishing activity. The funds cannot be used for recreational fishing."

I also came across a paper titled "Improving Commercial Fishing Access Rights in WA" which I found rather interesting.  Two sections within the paper address 'Ownership of Fish' and 'Fishing Access Rights'.  Whilst I have no first-hand knowledge of how these are addressed in NZ I suspect a somewhat different approach has been adopted.  Link to document added below.

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop102.pdf

 

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote LegaSea Community Builder Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2017 at 9:49am
LegaSea Community Builder View Drop Down
Silver
Silver
Avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2016
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 246
PJC, it is evident to all you care deeply about the fishery and are upset about the various issues getting in the way of change. I think John H is correct in pointing out the negative tone your statements and questions carry (often toward LegaSea) - you're entitled to your opinion but (as far as I can tell), LegaSea hasn't been antagonistic back and hasn't returned the frustration in kind. We've spent a lot of time patiently answering questions and trying to be part of the solution. You make some genuine clear arguments at various times however what concerns me is that for every person who appears on this forum to comment, a greater number of people watch and don't comment. I am concerned the perceived 'in fighting' will turn them off from actually participating in being part of the solution. That doesn't automatically mean joining LegaSea, even talking to their own MP etc would be a good idea. We already understand that there are too many fishers who are too complacent about the future of our fishery. Providing more obstacles to people from getting involved further delays any progress.  Hope you see where we are coming from.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2017 at 6:40am
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 10109
qk you made some good points but i cannot see how the increase to 40% will happen until trawlers are outside the hen n chicks to outside mokes/barrier down to curvier,basically the 100m  mark as per legaseas call.
Reccs are doing there bit soft baiting ,bigger hooks recurves etc and may not be fishing as often as we use to(I am certainly not)twice in 3 months where 2 yrs ago out at every opportunity
Would I fish more if I payed a fee??most likely yes/no but with 700th anglers paying a fee to some board, we would surely out weigh any inshore export revenue?plus what we spend just to go fishing,I feel mpi would have to listen then and only then.
I appreciate the time/effort put in talks with mpi but are they under obligation to sit and talk to any lobby groups?
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 9:13pm
John H View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Location: Tutukaka
Status: Offline
Points: 1799
PJC

So it got bad in the 1980s. Muldoon was subsidising new fishing boats that did not go offshore but thrashed inshore stocks. the Quota System was introduced in 1986 to turn it around. The Quota Appeal Authority undid most of the catch reductions that were made.
Cabinet did not sign off Moyles promise.

Snapper and many other species were at a low point in many areas in the mid 1990s.  I can show rebuilds in kahawai, kingfish, snapper 1, snapper 8 (west coast), snapper 7 (top of the SI), and marlin has been kept recreational only since then.  There is now much more focus on protected species and the ecosystem but more work is needed. There are now seasonal closures to all commercial fishing in the inner Gulf and Bay of Islands. 

Commercial fishers are under more pressure than ever to prove to consumers that their methods are sustainable and the Harvest Strategy Standard signed off by the Minister moved the target for species like snapper from 20% unfished Biomass to 40% unfished Biomass.  The target for Kahawai is 63% unfished biomass.

International best practice in developed countries is moving toward greater recognition of non-commercial fishing.

Sure there is more to do.  But don't say nothing has changed in the last 10 years.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote MightyBoosh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 8:41pm
MightyBoosh View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2016
Location: Northland
Status: Offline
Points: 2016
the only positive that i've seen is that people are more aware of the issues. i suppose that's a start, but as to actual positive change, still waiting.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 6:16pm
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 10109
show me the positives

early 1970s when the barrier was getting discovered  18 to 20lb snapper dragged ashore for bbqs that many fish just left for the birds walkers tieing up broken islands and destroying the crayfish same as kawau island comms hammering fairchild reef area
The dropping of the winter/summer trawl lines now allowed right down to tiri across to happy jacks,introduction of seiners taking bait fish in kawau bay etc  call that positive?? the destruction of snapper in the Bay of islands by hermes group. positive?
Longliners allowed right in to reccs fishing areas 1st april to 30th september. positive?
netters around browns island catching tope etc for local markets. positive?? 
sorry John  but I think its all negative
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote John H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 5:54pm
John H View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Location: Tutukaka
Status: Offline
Points: 1799
PJC 
So what are you saying?  That recreational fishers need their own quota?  A fixed amount of the Total Allowable Catch?  Gosh Sanford would love that.  They have been demanding that for as long as I can remember.  That is what Soundings and the proposals from the Recreational Fishing Council and MAF came up with in 2000.  That is what NZSFC fought against in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and Eventually the Supreme Court.

I have been working in fisheries management for 35 years and have seen huge changes in the strength and capacity of recreational fishers to be represented at all levels in the process.  Political, media, industry partners, science meetings, submission writing, spacial planning etc.  However we don't run these processes and can't always control the outcome.  You seem to be quick to focus on the negatives only.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote pjc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 4:34pm
pjc View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Location: papakura
Status: Offline
Points: 10109
cirrus," Our voice would be shut down." really we have a voice??who and are they listening to?
"If the authorities really want a healthy & growing fishery,then cut catch and stop the high waste of undersize fish. " commercial land all catch and reccs drop back to 27cm?
"
And thirdly  we constantly hear that the numbers of recreational fishers are steadily growing,more fish are caught, and this is always used against us and was partly instrumental in our snapper cuts.
Where is the proof of this. Where is that proof that there are more recreational now. This needs to be challenged."   http://www.nzmrf.org.nz/files/New-Zealand-Fishing-Economic-Report.pdf
The value chain of recreational fishing The full technical report for this survey details that on an annual basis more than 700,000 people, residents and international visitors, fish in the sea.     page 10

So with all that info now John you still think we have a voice??nah because we do not own the stock just merely caretakers if you like. 
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Fish Addict Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 4:06pm
Fish Addict View Drop Down
Gold
Gold


Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Location: Perth WA
Status: Offline
Points: 752
Originally posted by letsgetem letsgetem wrote:

Good discussion. Makes you think.
 
..........
For example - in a previous post...."in WA. There has just been a reduction in the recreational bag limit from 30 per person to 12. This was supported by the paid recreational reps from RecFish west.". I bet recreational fishers didn't agree with that........... 

In fact the majority did.  Have a look at the link below.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Fish Addict Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 4:00pm
Fish Addict View Drop Down
Gold
Gold


Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Location: Perth WA
Status: Offline
Points: 752
Originally posted by John H John H wrote:

]Thanks for you input FA

What was the reaction of anglers to the reduction in Herring bag limit last year?

 Herring is the most common species in recreational catch in WA. There has just been a reduction in the recreational bag limit from 30 per person to 12. This was supported by the paid recreational reps from RecFish west.  Some commercial restrictions were also introduced on the use of G traps.  The decision was based on a stock assessment and a Political decision by the Minister. As far as I can see no compensation was paid to commercial fishers. It is not clear how a Fishing Licence helped in the allocation process.


The reduction in herring bag limits was I believe generally acknowledged by most as acceptable.  The original 30 herring per person per day in the most part was considered as excessive and more than most would ever really wish to take per day.  Whilst some thought the reduction to 12 was a bit harsh the reduction was not strongly opposed.  The links below give you some idea of the feedback from the locals.

http://fishwrecked.com/forum/herring-bag-limit-be-cut

http://fishwrecked.com/forum/bugger-herring-down-12-day

Like you I can find no mention of compensation paid to the commercial fishers so I am unable to comment whether some form of compensation was paid on not.  It may be the case that the comms were not prevented from fishing for herring but were stopped from using G traps to take herring.

With respect to your comment that it is not clear how a Fishing Licence helped in the allocation process I haven't seen a direct reference to this either.  However the licence fees do provide funding for research so it is very possible that the revenue raised from licence fees ultimately contributed to an improved fishery through research funding assistance.

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2017 at 2:05pm
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 8612
Assume we all had compulsory recreational licence. Then what. Firstly the government would provide us with a hand picked body of "capable"  people to administer the process. We currently have MPI and whats to say the new lot would make MPI look like saints.

So by having a licence we would have signed our independence over to the Govt. Our voice would be shut down. And how long would it take for those administering the licence to start doing sweetheart deals on our behalf and sell us down the river.?

If the authorities really want a healthy & growing fishery,then cut catch and stop the high waste of undersize fish.
But because this has not been done it seems clear that a healthy fishery is not on the agenda.

The irony of dumping healthy undersize is twofold.
Firstly N.Z is a net importer of small fish to meet the growing demand. And we dump ours.!

Secondly dumping makes the concept of size limit a total sham.

Its O.K to dump & waste undersize ,as long as they are not sold ,or more importantly not seen by the public.
So in effect size limits are only a paper exercise and in reality do not exist,because they dont protect the small fish in any way.

Having a healthy fishery inshore is way more complex and important than a having a licence.

And thirdly  we constantly hear that the numbers of recreational fishers are steadily growing,more fish are caught, and this is always used against us and was partly instrumental in our snapper cuts.
Where is the proof of this. Where is that proof that there are more recreational now. This needs to be challenged.
I personally dont accept this. I see far fewer boats on the Hauraki gulf  now than i saw 10 years ago.
And furthermore back then it was common not to get a parking space the ramp. Today there are almost always empty parks,often lots. That to me would indicate less fishers and not more as is claimed.

Back to Top
Page  <12345 13>
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down


This page was generated in 0.127 seconds.