 marlinmarty wrote:Legasea legends may need to be supplemented by legasea warriors for the more actively inclined fishos. But I seriously advocate we do not derail legasea it's the only unified and organised voice we have available love it or hate it. It is seriously organised any new startup will just be a disaster. If we do not agree with some of the suggestions we sure a hell need to get vocal in 2017. In my own opinion MPAa. Are too permenant that is something I will want to debate pretty hard. |
| Muppet wrote: For a start Don I will moan I have download heaps of BS forms to fill out when a simple no way vote will do me. We went through all this with the snapper quota a few years back how they were going to look after the fishery with tidying up the comms, camera's onboard, GPS locators, etc but still we have dumpings happening. Oh yeah they also took two snapper off our daily limit. I think you are missing the point others are raising the fact is once all these areas are gone they are gone for good. Our most treasured and safest fishing spots are gone forever I won't agree to letting Tiri or any more of Kawau Bay being locked off. Shocking to even think that way. I am doing the form it feels like I have done this already |
The Ministry’s smooth assurances encourage recreational fishers to support mataitai applications. The opportunity to trump the commercial fishing sector must seem heaven sent.
What recreational fishers are not told is that they give up their precious common law rights. All recreational fishing in a mataitai is by way of privilege granted by the Maori owners. The very nature of privileges means they can be revoked at will.
The Tangata Tiaki / Kaitiaki can make by-laws that determine the what, how, when, and where of fishing. Recreational can be excluded either by species or through a general closure. Iwi, hapu and whanau are exempt: mataitai by-laws don’t apply to fishing under customary rules.
It’s one thing for recreational fishers to give up common law rights over particular shell beds and reefs. However it’s a very different story when it comes to giving up common law rights over thousands of hectares of prime recreational fishing area and tens of kilometers of coastline.
Parliament never envisaged this sort of madness. Privileges are no substitute for rights. Only a fool would trade away common law rights to fish recreationally over huge areas of coastal water in return being granted a privilege based on someone else’s preferences.
The important point here is that mataitai are no longer what Parliament intended. And no one is accountable. Politicians of the day, like Sir Douglas Graham, gave assurances that mataitai would be small and discrete areas. Now they don’t want to know and don’t care.
| pompey wrote: I think the motivation of Paul Majurey as Chairman of Sea Change is for maori to control the HC. It will be a template for the rest of NZ if he succeeds. |
| Tagit wrote: Don - I think that there is a problem with a couple of your thoughts. The major one is that if the rec fishing community thinks outside it's own self interests they will be the only stakeholder doing so. Comms want $millions in compensation for any changes to their 'rights'. Maori want to take more control over the HG for their own 'cultural reasons'. The government want to generate more money from our fisheries by tying vast areas in fish farms, and the council are just itching to set up another bloated bureaucratic process to justify their existence and increase the funds they collect from the public. Unless there is a hard and fast direct link made to how my children will absolutely benefit from everything we will be asked to give up today, I don't support giving up any more than we have already had stolen from us. We are being taken for mugs by better organised and better politically connected groups aided by a government who thinks rec fisherman are just an annoying pest that should be swatted aside. As for Poor Knights style diving reserves around Tiri and Rotorua - currents and visibility. Too much of one and not enough of the other, plus too much boat traffic for proper safety. Have you been diving at Long Bay, or the marine reserve at the bottom of Waiheke? How about the marine reserve around the back of Gt Barrier? No one bothers because after years of being reserves they haven't achieved any significant change in local fish population. We have one of the biggest marine reserves in NZ running right through the middle of the HG (called the cable zone), but what has that achieved? No mass concentrations of fish or massive sources of food in that untouched sea bottom. You don't create a Poor Knights or a Goat Island just by tying up arbitrary bits of coastline, and you don't create abundance in fish that school over the open bottom by tying up pieces of rocky coastline. Might end up with a few extra crays and some reef species, but the occasional big snapper swimming in a reserve isn't creating mass abundance. You want mass snapper abundance you need to stop mass harvesting, clean up the environment, rebuild the sea bottom food sources, stop mass harvesting of the bait fish, and take care of the nursery areas up the harbours and estuaries. You want great diving spots you need to start by finding clean water. Why is there no proposal to create a reserve somewhere around Little Barrier? Good terrain, clean water, manageable currents, and only relatively minor importance to the rec fishing fleet. Hold on though, very important to commercial cray boats and maybe comm scallop boats (still?). Better not add that to the MPA list. There are some interesting options in the SeaChange report, and many that should be implemented. But here is a forecast for what happens - the only proposals that will get rapidly implemented are the ones that mainly affect the rec fishing community. The ones affecting comms will be tied up in 'negotiations' and legal battles. The ones giving significant control of the HG to Maori will be pushed through, and the MPA's to destroy the fishing pleasure of 1000's of rec anglers will be pushed through, as will a bunch of extra bureaucratic red tape to tie up the charter fleet and quite possibly fishing licences to fund all that extra bureaucracy. Of all the times ever for the rec community to jealously guard what little rights they have left, I reckon now is the time before it is too late. |
| mowerman wrote: http://www.nzcpr.com/maori-fishery-reserves/ <p style="-: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: line; font-family: "Segoe UI", Tahoma, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">The Ministry’s smooth assurances encourage recreational fishers to support mataitai applications. The opportunity to trump the commercial fishing sector must seem heaven sent.<p style="-: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: line; font-family: "Segoe UI", Tahoma, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">What recreational fishers are not told is that they give up their precious common law rights. All recreational fishing in a mataitai is by way of privilege granted by the Maori owners. The very nature of privileges means they can be revoked at will.<p style="-: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: line; font-family: "Segoe UI", Tahoma, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">The Tangata Tiaki / Kaitiaki can make by-laws that determine the what, how, when, and where of fishing. Recreational can be excluded either by species or through a general closure. Iwi, hapu and whanau are exempt: mataitai by-laws don’t apply to fishing under customary rules.<p style="-: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: line; font-family: "Segoe UI", Tahoma, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">It’s one thing for recreational fishers to give up common law rights over particular shell beds and reefs. However it’s a very different story when it comes to giving up common law rights over thousands of hectares of prime recreational fishing area and tens of kilometers of coastline.<p style="-: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: line; font-family: "Segoe UI", Tahoma, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">Parliament never envisaged this sort of madness. Privileges are no substitute for rights. Only a fool would trade away common law rights to fish recreationally over huge areas of coastal water in return being granted a privilege based on someone else’s preferences.<p style="-: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: line; font-family: "Segoe UI", Tahoma, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">The important point here is that mataitai are no longer what Parliament intended. And no one is accountable. Politicians of the day, like Sir Douglas Graham, gave assurances that mataitai would be small and discrete areas. Now they don’t want to know and don’t care. |
| Don18025 wrote: All those comments are appropriate but none address the issues all Gulf users, just fishers. The important thing is that Tagit, Muppet, V8 and myself are taking part in the discussion, without which we will have a decision imposed on us. Where is the rest? Farmers (the largest land owners) in the Waikato have just woken up to the realisation that they are in the minority when it comes to protecting the Waikato River catchment from agriculture pollution. The Councillors know who votes for them (townies) and can push through change. The Sea Change folk are doing a better job presenting a future vision for the Gulf than MPI and Recreational Fishers and I expect they will have significant influence on the final model for managing the gulf. Their Chair Paul Majurey is a smart guy. They will gather the green, non fishing public, the yachties, the scuba divers all voters. At the moment the discussion here is about going fishing yesterday and I will be going out again tomorrow, which is the status quo - and many including MPI, Sea Change and lots of urban voters know that is not sustainable. |
v8-coupe wrote:
Just looked at this guys CV. You could be correct. |
| letsgetem wrote: The "gloves need to come off" - otherwise non-maori recreational fishing, is going to be shafted. I had hoped that maori and recreational fishing interests would be aligned, but the cracks in that idea, are already showing. Mataitai areas are already in place, that give exclusive rights to local coastal communities (not only maori but in practise, they are). Now, proposed are MPAs that allow maori cultural take, plus the whole coastline out to km offshore, being controlled by maori. The Gulf "Spatial Plan:..... "was promoted by the Environmental Defense Society and sponsored by Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council". That means, it was set up to further the desires of environmentalists, and then combined with local authorities, mainly maori interests. To make it look more wide ranging, token involvement was arranged from recreational fishing and commercial fishing. Obviously the power was carefully kept in environmental and maori. The result clearly is heavily favouring these two groups. Government, via MPI, does not appear to be seen in this initiative. This is very strange. They must be looking on with amusement (bemusement?). It is past time for government to take leadership. I have to say, that Legasea seems to have let recreational fishing down. They should have - - insisted on far more research and consideration in the plan for recreational fishing. There is huge detail about things that benefit Maori and aquaculture; but virtually nothing about how recreational fishing will be affected. - refused to agree to a draft plan, that does not protect recreational fishing. If Legasea is not going to stand up and fight on behalf of recreational fishing, its relevance is in question. |
Tarakihi on the bite Trips are few and far between at this time of year,... Read More >
Fresh and salt turning it on! It is not very often I get to say... Read More >
Lures paying dividends We finally had a break in the SE winds that have been... Read More >
Snapper and gurnard in the harbour The weather has finally taken a turn for the... Read More >
Snapper still in Tasman Bay Well, we are now at the end of May and... Read More >
The bluefin are here The talk of the town is that the annual run of... Read More >
Major Bites
Minor Bites
Major Bites
Minor Bites
Forum Topics
New Posts
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Topic Options
Post Options
Likes(0)
