This is why it is so hard for recreational anglers to have a voice. Here we have an industry leader, quoting international science (yeah I know - I'm sure those scientists work for the industry), putting forward a very credible sounding claim that our fishery management system is one of the best in the world.

A couple of things that this guy says are very true.

1/ You don't have to look far to see that the QMS is indeed a whole lot better than what most countries do
2/ The best fish guide put out by Forest & Bird is so far off the mark it's not funny. I mean pilchards, rock lobster, skipjack & albacore tuna are in the best category, yet spiny dog fish are in the worst. Ever noticed how hard it is to catch a skippy these days? Where are the big pilchard schools?  Do your bit and buy Kaveman's lures .

So this industry guy makes some claims that sound very good and when you read what he says, it is easily backed up. There you go - it's the truth! Of course there is a lot of stuff that's not said but of course that's business and politics eh.

And here we are. As recreational fishermen we are seen as a bunch of individuals getting all hot and bothered over details and when we do get a group together to  give recreational anglers some political clout, the recs do their best to tear that group apart by stamping our feet and throwing insults at each other on social media.

Do you think this guys colleagues are arguing with him about the finer points of what he's written for the media? Nope they will be congratulating him for a job well done. And he has done a fine job. A lot of us can see through it but 90% will believe it.

We don't have that credibility, we're disjointed and as a unit we're not politically savvy.  That's why I put my trust in LegaSea.

Just read that article . Find it difficult not to feel a little concerned about that article. Seems more like an attack on forest and bird. Or on attempts to reduce seabird by catch. Put another way -a problem with seabird by catch remains.
Credibility comes from being credible ,not by puling down someone else like F&B
The same old word sustainable used over again. What really is sustainable.? Does that mean skimming of the small rebuild of the Tasman Bay Snapper stock after years of low stocks.
Awards from the Marine stewardship council. Orange roughy now has the sustainable tick. Orange Roughy that was fished almost out of existence here, and N.Z boats plundered the Seamounts off Mauritius to keep it going.

How valid is the MSC.?

"Fish customers duped by Marine Stewardship council"--The Guardian.
Says many accredited fish have plunging stocks

"Marine stewardship council blue tick questionable"--Stuff News.

If  SFC want to earn points then how about refining presentation on our domestic markets.
1/ Fresh. The word has nothing to do with the quality of fish,but simply that it is not frozen .Could be a month old and still able to be labeled fresh. How many consumers are duped by that word.
2/ Best before date. Every single product ,especially perishable products such as meat ,dairy etc have a packed on date and best before date. Even all processed food has this ,including country of origin and added ingredients .
Fish neither has the date caught ,location ,processed date ,or best before date. Pretty poor for such a perishable product.
How do they get away with this
3/ Preservatives are often used on fresh fish overseas ,and almost certainly used here. Why are they not listed.

How does the seafood council who claim to have product of integrity not follow the above guidelines. All other food products do. One could easily get the impression something is being hidden ,or neglected.