An old friend who was a game fishing skipper in Hawaii originally gave “Old Blue” to me many years ago. As soon as I used “Old Blue” I started catching more marlin, when other boats were mainly using skip baits.

I made a mould of it because I knew that I would eventually lose it, as happens to all good lures. I then started to make “Old Blue” in difference colours. As the season changes, so doe the feed, then it is time to change the colour of “Old Blue” to suit the new conditions. ON “Te Ariki Nui” I carry “Old Blue” lures in a variety of colours. When fishing the King Bank at the Three King Islands, I prefer a pink “Old Blue” because the marlin are often feeding on pink maumau.

With the selection of colours that are now available, marlin can be raised at any time of the season with this highly successful lure.

Here are a few tips for you on putting “Old Blue” to work. “Old blue” has a special weighted insert, which makes it swim like a fish, so treat it like a fish and allow it plenty of water to swim in. The lure performs best when towed from a low angle, so avoid running it at an acute angle from high on the outrigger or rod tip. Allow it to grab the water with its nose, when it does this it will dive beautifully and perform better than any lure you have seen. If you want to run it close to the boat from the outrigger, lower the halyard so that the line is less than halfway up the outrigger in order to reduce the angle. Likewise, if running the line from the rod, bring the line down from the rod tip and attach it with a 32 rubber band to the reel handle or a suitable position low on the boat. The flatter you can keep it on the surface the better “Old Blue” will work for you.

My most successful rig is a single 12/0 hook set level with the back of the skirt, using a double length of leader to space the hook in the right position. All hooks need to be needle sharp.

“Old Bleu” swims like a fish, let the marlin treat it like a fish, too much drag will pull the lure out of the mouth. I use just enough drag to keep the lure in the water without it slipping back. When the fish runs do not touch the drag, the weight of the water on the line as it runs out is enough to drive the hook home (providing it is sharp).

If you use a wire leader “Old Blue w” will not perform as well, use the more flexible mono leader. Do not jam the leader into the lure with a matchstick or whatever. “Old Blue” does not like restrictions, it likes to roll and swim freely and it cannot do this if it is jammed to the leader. Finally wrap some dental floss around the top of your leader, so when the marlin strikes the lure will jam itself on the dental floss keeping it clear of the hook in the fish. You will be able to see the lure at the top of the leader long before you see the marlin. Good luck with your purchase and tight lines.

Bill Hall

The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council Inc

SUBMISSION ON THE SHARED FISHERIES

DISCUSSION PAPER NOVEMBER 2006

February 28. 2007

1. The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council thanks the Minister of Fisheries for this opportunity to present our submission on the Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper to you.

THE COUNCIL AND ITS REPRESENTATION:

2. The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC) represents national and regional associations, clubs, and corporate and individual members. Whilst a number of these have their own policies and will make separate submissions to you, we believe they will be consistent with this submission lodged by the overarching body, the NZRFC. However we acknowledge and respect that where their views are significantly different to this submission or in fact in conflict that these are their own views and as such may not be shared by our greater representation. This we respect.

3. The national organisations represented are N.Z. Angling & Casting Association, N.Z. Big Game Fishing Council, N.Z. Trailer Boat Federation, N.Z. Marine Transport Association, N.Z. Sports Industry Association and N.Z. Underwater Association. The regional associations cover much of the country and these are in the Bay of Plenty/Waikato, Taranaki, Wellington, Tasman Bay, and Otago Marine Fishers Assn. We also support the Ministry led and funded recreational forums of which many of these regional members are now members as individuals.

4. The Council also has some Maori groups as members with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu as a regional association. We also maintain a close contact with many of the tribes affiliated to Te Tai Tokerau in the north. While every effort has been made to consult we do not suggest that this submission is fully representative of their views.

5. Some of our larger member clubs include the members of the Bay of Islands Swordfish Club (1500) Buckland’s Beach Yacht Club (3000), Mercury Bay Ocean Sports Fishing Club (2200), Whakatane Sports Fishing Club (2500) Gisborne-Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club (2500) and Auckland’s Outboard Boating Club (1833). In addition it would be remiss of us not to include the valued representation of hundreds of small fishing and pub clubs who, while having small memberships, have no other representation.

6. The Council membership represented both directly and indirectly is in the vicinity of 300,000 recreational and sustenance amateur fishers. In addition by default we represent the public interest in the fishery and those amateur fishers who are non-members. We say by default because we are the only constituted representative body that has been recognised by Government and the Courts of doing so.

7. It further needs to be noted that most “Maori” fishers exercise rights under the Amateur Fishing Regulations (as distinct from Customary Regulations) and therefore our comments cover the many who fish for food under the Amateur Fishing Regulations and have no other chosen representation.

8. Over one million people, or by recent Ministry of Fisheries figures taken in any one survey period, they say that 20% of New Zealanders fish for sport or sustenance. This does not include those elderly or infirmed those amateur fishers who choose or can no longer actively participate in catching seafood for the table. The 1996 research to provide estimates of Recreational and Sustenance Harvest Estimates found that there are approximately 1.35 million and increasing recreational and sustenance amateur fishers in New Zealand and therefore we effectively, through our associated member groups, and or lack of any other democratically elected or statutory recognised group represent this number also.

9. We make this conservative claim, because we have a track history of representing and achieving benefits in amateur fishing of which all New Zealanders now enjoy. The recent regulation reviews is a clear case in point. In saying this we must advise that to date not one recreational or amateur fisher has argued against the benefits they now enjoy. We do however get many public complaints about what we are not doing and why is this or that allowed to happen. So we remain confident in our claim to represent the wider amateur fishing community.

10. The Council has been recognised in three court cases as representing the recreational and amateur fishers of New Zealand. The Council was attached to two of these cases without its prior knowledge and the court papers show it was ordered, “to represent the recreational fishing public of New Zealand”. The first of these was the order of attachment to the High Court Action on the Manukau, Taiapure application. The second relates to the SNA1 challenge of the Minister’s decision that was heard by the High Court. The Council also holds “Approved Party Status” for consultations with the Ministry of Fisheries and is recognised by them and the Minister of Fisheries as a stakeholder group. In the third case the Council, along with one of our respected affiliates the NZ Big Game Fishing Council, was the applicant in the recent kahawai case current awaiting the Court’s reserved decision.

11. The Council has a Board of elected officers and members. The Council consults with its members and the public using various means. These include newsletters, both written and electronic, its web site and various press releases. In addition it consults through the various fishing media and meetings it holds and receives input through those forums.

12. This submission has been prepared and presented after consultation via email and our web site to our members and board members.

13. As previously stated, we are aware that many of our National Affiliates and Regional Members are submitting their own submissions and in most cases we have seen and support these submissions where they are not in direct conflict with this submission’s intent or requested outcome. Clearly there will be some submissions representing the recreational fishing fraternity that we may not have seen and as such we can make no comment nor infer support.

14. In this submission we talk of both recreational and amateur fishers as these two descriptions are so intertwined. For the sake of some clarity, recreational fishers referred to are generally those who have an interest in supporting recreational fishing interests, while amateur refers to all fishers who exercise their rights to fish under the amateur fishing regulations.

15. As a further point of clarity, when we talk of commercial fishing vessels we refer to those vessels registered with the Ministry of Fisheries as fishing vessels able to catch quota or ACE. We do not include licensed recreational charter fishing vessels in this description.

BACKGROUND:

16. This submission will initially set out our concerns presently and historically. We have taken the liberty to provide as attachments those papers we believe to be relevant to these discussions.

17. In the release of the Shared Fisheries document, the Government has identified that New Zealand’s shared fisheries are fisheries that are shared between Maori customary, commercial, and recreational fishing interests, and include iconic species such as snapper, blue cod, kahawai, kingfish, rock lobster, paua and the deepwater species of hapuku/bass. Amateur fishers, also value many other species and we see no reason to preclude any species from this project.

18. Effective management of these fisheries is compromised by poor information on amateur catch, and uncertainty in the approach to allocate the available catch. This leads to risks in relation to ministerial decisions to ensure sustainability, and poor incentives for all fishing sectors to conserve, add value to, or cooperate to manage shared fisheries.

19. Since the quota management system was introduced 20 years ago we have seen further erosion of the public’s access to catch a reasonable share of the total allowable catch. In many cases this can be attributed to an over-allocation of key shared fish stocks to commercial in 1986 and the further over-allocation by the Quota Appeals Authority which followed. Records from this time demonstrate the Crown’s efforts to constrain the commercial catch at a sustainable level. It even paid compensation to reduce initial over allocations before the QAA had done its work in reallocating further unsustainable amounts to commercial fishers.

20. Maori were aggrieved to find out that they had lost rights to their fishery and so the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Claims Settlement Act was passed in 1992 to give full and final compensation to Maori.

21. Meanwhile the public’s share remained unaddressed. The National Policy for Marine Recreational Fisheries 1989 set out the foundations of how the public rights to an ongoing unimpeded share of our natural wild marine fisheries could and should be addressed. When formally released at 6pm Monday26th of June 1989, the Minister in its foreword gave what is now recognised widely as the “Moyle promise” where he stated “the Government’s position is clear, where a species of fish is not sufficiently abundant to support both commercial and non-commercial fishing, preference will be given to non commercial fishing”. This position reflects the Government’s resolve to ensure all New Zealanders can enjoy and benefit from our fisheries. This Council believes that this promise is sacrosanct and is in effect the “People’s Treaty” with the Crown as a promise to right the evolving wrongs when the quota management system was first introduced. It was this promise from the Labour Government that effectively separated the public recreational fishing community away from the early discussions with Maori over what became the treaty claim.

22. We must ask that after 20 years of QMS management, why is it we have so many problems within our shared fisheries. This submission will highlight some of the key concerns we have with over-allocation, mismanagement and lack of constraint by the commercial sector. These include, SNA3, SNA8 and FLT 1, the problems associated with waste from having a commercial minimum legal size, deeming and dumping, to just plain fish theft.

23. While catch information from the commercial sector is reasonably good, and efforts are being made to improve reporting on customary take by Iwi, many raise the concerns that there are no reporting or permitting requirements for the recreational sector. In saying this, there is some debate as to whether we need to know every fish taken by recreational fishers, or do we only need to measure trends in fishing and seasonal changes. Clearly this is a complex issue and one that needs to be addressed now to prevent the ongoing practices and past wrongs of over-fishing by commercial being accepted as the norm. We note that section 21 of the present Fisheries Act states:

24. “Matters to be taken into account in setting or varying any total allowable commercial catch – (1) In setting or varying any total allowable commercial catch for any quota management stock, the Minister shall have regard to the total allowable catch for that stock and shall allow for –

25. The following non-commercial fishing interests in that stock, namely –

(i)Maori customary non-commercial fishing interests; and

(ii)Recreational interests; and

(b)All other mortality to that stock caused by fishing.

Before setting or varying a total allowable commercial catch for any quota management stock, the Minister shall consult such persons and organisations as the Minister considers are representative of those classes of persons having an interest in this section, including Maori, environmental, commercial, and recreational interests.

After setting or varying any total allowable commercial catch under section 20 of this Act, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, give to the parties consulted under subsection (2) of this section reasons in writing for his or her decision.

26. When allowing for Maori customary non-commercial interests under subsection of this section, the Minister shall take into account any Mataitai reserve in the relevant quota management area declared by the Minister by notice in the Gazette under regulations made for the purpose under sections 186 of this Act.

27. When allowing for recreational interests under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall take into account any regulations that prohibit or restrict fishing in any area for which regulations have been made following a recommendation made by the Minister under section 311 of the Act.”

28. The NZRFC acknowledges the difficulties faced by the Minister in setting this allowance, given the lack of specific information of what the amateur catch is. We believe that information as to what the actual amateur catch is in any given year will always be difficult to obtain. This means that setting any fixed or specific tonnage within which the amateur sector is constrained to will always be impossible to enforce.

29. For this reason the imprecision of the actual recreational catch is one good reason why strict proportionality would be nearly impossible to achieve. This in turn makes it difficult to imply any obligation to achieve it. Once one retreats from the proposition that strict proportionality is required, there can be no satisfactory solution other than that the Minister must act reasonably to seek to stop the saving resulting from TACC reductions being lost to recreational fishing. Tipping CA82/97

30. Any policy changes made from the shared fisheries project will need to keep in mind the variable nature of recreational catch.

Section 1

Introduction

31. The issues considered in this policy initiative are not new, and have been approached several times before without significant success. The Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper is the latest in a long line of similar papers developed over the years identifying gaps in our fisheries management and allocation framework. It recognises the difficulties surrounding the allocation or access to our fisheries by a diverse range of participants from extractors of the resource to those who only want to know that it is there. Within the extractive users, different management regimes are required to provide acceptable outcomes.

32. The many reports referred to include:

National Goals and Objectives for Recreational Fisheries 1983

Building On Progress (The Pearce Report)

National Policy for Marine Recreational Fisheries 1989.

Fisheries Legislation Review 1991

Sustainable Fisheries (The Wheeler Report)

Recreational Entitlements. (Jon G Sutinen Report 1996)

Soundings.

33. Those in decision-making roles will gain a better understanding of amateur fishers views and why they hold these views so strongly from reading these papers. Just as an example let’s look at priority access. In many of these papers priority access over commercial for the public has been consistently portrayed as a desirable policy outcome. Investigation and implementation of this has been consistently delayed while other users of our marine resources, rights have been strengthened. This issue surfaces again in the Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper and we seek a resolution to this.

34. There are a number of possible policy and legislative changes proposed within the Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper. Although the Shared Fisheries project offers opportunities to address some of the difficult issues confronting amateur fishers, opportunity also exists within the present Act and we would say that this has been a matter of interpretation rather than needing complex changes and question why this has not been done before today.

35. One might have expected that the Ministry would have dedicated part of the document to explaining why the provisions in the current Act are deficient. Unfortunately we can’t help but wonder whether the problem is not so much due to recreational fishers but rather with administrative systems within the Ministry.

36. The NZRFC is interested in seeing the policy changes needed to give effect to maintaining open access and improving management of our shared fisheries. We recognise there are others who have a legitimate right to our fishery resources, including Customary, Maori, Commercial and Non-extractive users. We agree there are many New Zealanders who must buy their fish rather than catch it and ask why is seafood so expensive. There is a view that seeking absolute priority allocation for the minority of New Zealanders who fish for a feed may be both unreasonable and unrealistic. However we do not accept that exporting our fish for profit should take priority over feeding our families and friends. This after all is one of the joys of living on an island group in the South Pacific. Nor do we accept that better defining the recreational allowance by the creation of a “fixed or proportional share” of the now available fish in a depleted fishery is an acceptable outcome.

Section 2

Getting better information on catch and value

37. We accept that good fisheries management is impossible without good information. New Zealand appears to have a poor record in acquiring and using amateur catch information and needs to do better. However within the commercial sector New Zealand is probably a world leader in gathering catch information.

38. To date there appears to have been no benefit accruing to the amateur sector for providing information. On the contrary, rather than having the apparently undeniable property rights issued to Commercial based on at times questionable catch history, results of amateur catch surveys have been largely ridiculed. Available information has been used by those wishing to protect their own commercial interests in various ways, suggesting during allowance discussions that amateur catch estimates are too high and therefore shouldn’t be fully allowed for, to arguing the exact opposite during TAC/TACC reviews. They contend that if the amateur catch is that high then any catch reductions ought to be spread evenly across all sectors thus reducing the impact on the TACC. It often appears these management discussions are more about property right protection than real fishery management.

39. We understand that the statutory responsibility for fisheries management in New Zealand falls on MFish and as such they are responsible for ensuring adequate information is gathered to make informed decisions. We would point out that given this submission is a public document and will be read by non-fishers and fishers alike, the problem of inadequate information cannot be blamed on recreational fishers. There have been numerous national and regional studies, and one point common to all surveys has been a strong support from the recreational fishing public to provide information.

40. We are somewhat confused as to the long-term role MFish sees for itself and the consequent flow-on effects for resource users. The long-term consequences of information gathered on, by, or for the amateur sector and the uses it may be put to are crucial to future outcomes for the wider recreational fishing sector.

41. We would reiterate at this time that the people of New Zealand since the first migrations have relied on the sea as a food basket to sustain themselves, and this is now seen as a fundamental right for all New Zealanders who choose to fish for seafood to feed their families. In saying this we acknowledge and it is accepted that Maori are significant harvesters of fish and shellfish taken under the Amateur regulations. In fact Sonny Tau, Chairman – Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi is quoted as saying “for 99.9%of the time when Ngapuhi go fishing to feed their babies they are now categorised as recreational fishers.”

42. The ability to exercise this right must remain paramount and not risk erosion by commercial pressure and over-harvesting to meet corporate balance sheets. We repeat that the recreational fishing fraternity who fish under the amateur regulations as prescribed both regionally and nationally that “we catch what we catch” and in effect in most fisheries the public is no longer able to catch what is recognised as a fair share or even a hint of the daily bag limit in most species.

43. Recognition of seasonal and climatic impacts must be taken into account when assessing the recreational harvest. Localised depletion caused by commercial bulk fishing methods also impacts on the recreational fishers ability to catch their share in the near shore area. All these considerations need to be taken into account when assessing trends and harvest levels for the amateur catch.

44. Given the depth and principle aim of the Policy document we would have expected that one of the principle objectives of the Ministry was ‘to provide an adequate catch for recreational fishers’. This basic objective remains unclear in the document and we seek to have this addressed.

45. MFish policy direction has altered on a regular basis over the years and it is difficult to predict future changes or what uses the information gathered may be put to. The present position appears to be one of using a Fish Plan process with MFish having the controlling position. This does appear to be something of a fallback position subsequent to the individual stakeholder plan idea and perhaps recognises the inequality of resources available to the different user groups. We are concerned about the possible financial implications on our sector resulting from Government policy changes and note the proposal for recreational fishing trusts later in the document.

46. For example a future policy change may result in the entire cost of information gathering to enable the recreational sector to participate in MFish management systems surrounding Fish Plans falling on user groups. Resultant financial pressure could be stifling for a group unable to sell its catch. We suggest Commercial interests would be looking for greater equality in cost sharing in this plan process, further placing MFish in a difficult position and forcing them to implement a cost recovery regime on recreational/amateur fishers. This would be an unacceptable outcome and one that any future fishing trust or foundation would need to be able to address with adequate funding.

47. While we support improved information gathering we believe this can be achieved without legislative changes to the Act. However the method needs to have acceptance within the working groups before vast amounts of money are spent only to find the information gathered fails the scrutiny of other stakeholders.

48. We want to see some real commitment from MFish and the Government surrounding the ongoing costs of collecting information and its uses. If MFish simply becomes a policy watchdog rather than a fisheries manager what will guarantee our place at the table?

49. Most of the desired outcomes from the Shared fisheries Discussion Paper rely on this information section. Bad information is going to lead to continued conflict between sectors as is continued uncertainty surrounding TAC’s. Urgency must be given to finding or developing more accurate information or allowances/allocations will continue to be disputed. It is unacceptable to the amateur fishing sector to have a share of the current TAC given as some form of property right given the poor state of some stocks and the lack of catch knowledge.

50. In many fish stocks amateur fishers just cannot catch the perceived allowance given by the Minister. For many in the commercial industry the uncertainty of this allowance is unacceptable while others treat it as a handy buffer to protect their commercial catches. This also has implications in determining values or can under-value the recreational right to fish and just how this is to be applied.

More survey and monitoring work

51. This, coupled with the poor information available on the actual catch by users other than commercial, continues to hold difficulties in both management and allocation decisions. Lack of information has made it impossible for those making allowances for catch between sectors to have the degree of certainty required to stand up in court. Consequently decisions tend to go in favour of those either supplying the information (catch history) or those most likely to engage the Crown in expensive litigation. This has created a climate where decisions granting priority to non-commercial users have been few and far between thus failing to give effect to the desired policy outcome referred to earlier.

52. Many non-commercial users believe the opposite is in operation with Commercial catches being protected at the expense of our own. In fact many recent decisions appear to have followed some type of proportional system where, when reduced extractions are needed to assist in fish stocks recovery, all users have had allowance reductions. This has occurred even when it is abundantly clear that the non-commercial sector has played little or no part in causing the initial stock depletion. The best (or worst) recent example of this can be found in the SNA8 fishery decisions where the commercial catch has exceeded the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) for many years.

53. Problems associated with deemed values and the ability for commercial fishers to go fishing knowing they are going to catch species for which they hold no quota is unacceptable to the public. To add injury to insult the catch taken over and above the TACC is like taking a loan from the bank (fish stock), but deeming only pays the interest and commercial fishers are not required to pay the capital back (rebuild the stock). SNA8 is a classic example.

54. The deeming problem is further compounded by the Ministry driven deemed values, in that they are now setting the benchmark for the ACE value in many key inshore species. We have it on good authority that many smaller commercial fishers cannot afford the ACE price nor the price of deeming to the Crown so the unwanted catch is stored until is can be disposed of during the hours of darkness. Illegal yes, but the Ministry has no ability to effect compliance and so this loss of fisheries resource remains unaccounted for and by default is lost in the public share.

55. Therefore we see a continuing erosion of the public’s rights and ability to catch a feed at risk. Refer to recreational fishers submission on deeming.

56. The fact that this excess “by-catch” is legal and apparently accepted by the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) even in a fishery that is scientifically shown, to be depleted is unacceptable. This points to either significant inadequacy in the present Fisheries Act or management failures to implement the Act as it stands. Appendix 1 (See SNA8 timeline, submission, advice papers and decision). The NZRFC rejects across the board proportional cuts and submits decisions on TAC changes should be borne by those responsible for the stock depletion.

Reporting for recreational charter operations

57. Concern has been expressed by various stakeholders about the need to monitor and control take from recreational charter vessels. Charter boat operators take people out fishing – their customers are amateur fishers. It is proposed that charter operators may be required to report catch and effort by their customers. This raises a number of issues pertaining to individual rights and privacy and the powers of search, something charter boat skippers should not have to contend with.

58. The NZRFC acknowledges that better information on recreational take should improve fisheries management decisions and see the collection of catch information from charter boats as one possibility. It is our view that the increase in charter boat and fishing guide activity has come about through non-boat owners’ public demand’s to improve their access to a diminishing inshore fishery.

59. We would strongly resist any move to apply quota to charter boats that take the public out fishing as those amateur fishers are already constrained by the Amateur Fisheries Regulations. Within the charter sector there is a suspicion that requirements for catch reporting signals an intention to introduce quota for the charter sector. This aspect will require some goodwill to rebuild bridges with this important section of the recreational fishing community.

60. To counter the concern that catch reporting is a precursor to quota allocation, the Government could provide an assurance that quota will not be introduced for charter operators, nor will they be required to pay resource levies.

61. There is already provision to collect catch data from the charter boat fleet in the Fisheries Act Section 189 (g) (h) but submit to keep an open transparency it would be better for the data to be collected by a body outside of the Ministry of Fisheries policy section. This could be the responsibility of the recreational or charter boat sector in association with the likes of FINZ, as information could be used to assist with submissions based on any future “values based “ system

Estimating relative values for commercial and amateur fishing

62. We have long contended the non-commercial fishing industry has been undervalued with many millions of dollars of economic activity created within New Zealand and overseas. It will require good policy analysis to support allowance/allocation decisions using these criteria and we appear to be working in something of an information vacuum.

63. The NZRFC is unsure just what is proposed by “a values based system”. Is the definition, “getting the best dollar return in overseas exchange for a measured tonnage of fish”? Other definitions could include, “getting the greatest dollar return in overall economic activity for a measured tonnage of fish,” or “Putting dollar values on pleasure and satisfaction derived from feeding friends and family as well as the more easily measured monetary values gained from economic activity associated with fishing.”

64. Estimation of relative value for commercial and recreational fishing will be difficult if you try to measure a dollar value against an intrinsic value of public utilisation.

65. We believe that much more work needs to be done on fleshing out the mechanisms of the proposals before the Ministry could expect the support of fishers. We do not subscribe to the debate that the Ministry doesn’t have the time to develop the detail given needs legislative timetable. The same argument was used in Soundings; This is the ‘last flight’ the last opportunity in the next decade or more to improve and sort out the public’s recreational rights. We note that when the industry finally voted their support for the QMS it was their confidence in the process that they voted on. In the case of the Shared Fisheries Policy most of the processes have not been explained in detail. We believe “the devil is in the detail” and “opening the books” on the detail is a critical step before recreational fishers can be asked to give their support.

66. This Council recognises this and is grappling with whether to approve a move now or wait.

67. In aiming to improve the value obtained from shared fisheries, several of the proposals in the document rely on being able to estimate the relative value of resource use by different sectors. Value includes commercial profit and economic activity associated with harvest from both the commercial and recreational/amateur sectors (such as employment, retail sales, and foreign exchange earnings from exports and tourism). Value also includes non-market values associated with the enjoyment and personal well being, healthy outdoor activity, relaxation of body or mind and satisfaction of going fishing for food or fun.

68. In saying this the value added community benefits ranging from the tackle retailer, bait sales, fuel and repairs and maintenance on private vessels and food, travel and accommodation all of which returns dollars into the local communities.

69. If we are to look at the values of the recreational catch report in 1999 we find the author noted 5 species of key value to recreational fishers.

Snapper, kingfish, blue cod, kahawai, rock lobster.

So let’s take a simple comparison from the report:

• Commercial value of fish caught by amateurs: $26,149,027

• Value of recreational fishing $219,616,298

• Value of money spent fishing $973,470,572

“The top 12 ranking species include pilchard, blue moki, tarakihi and trevally, however, even these better fisheries still have problems,” Forest and Bird’s Conservation Manager Kevin Hackwell said.

“The worst 12 include orange roughy – which ranks worst of all – as well as hoki, oreos, rig and snapper. These are fisheries that need quota reductions and which need to improve their fishing techniques to do less environmental harm,” he said.

“The industry has a real challenge ahead of it. So far the only fish that is being sustainably harvested with a minimum of damage to the marine environment is the chocolate fish. We hope the fishing industry pulls up its stocks so we can lift the rankings next year,” he said.

“Consumers increasingly demand that their food be sustainability produced. But until now have had no way of knowing which fish are sustainably caught,” he said.

To help consumers make better choices about seafood, Forest and Bird has brought together a huge amount of information and ranked fisheries in three colour categories:

· Green – relatively well managed, with low habitat damage and/or bycatch
· Amber – concerns about the status of stocks, fishing methods, habitat damage, management, bycatch or lack of knowledge
· Red – fishery has a lot of problems because it is over-fished, poorly managed, has high bycatch, damages marine habitats, and/or there is a lack of knowledge.

“New Zealand consumers may be surprised to find out that no NZ fishery ranked green. We are not able to show that any New Zealand fishery is well managed, with low habitat damage or bycatch and has good information on the status of stocks,” Mr Hackwell said.

Around half the fisheries ranked amber, meaning that there are concerns about these fisheries, or there is simply no information on which to make a robust assessment. The remainder ranked in the red. Around half of New Zealand’s fisheries are clearly not sustainable because they are overfished, poorly managed, have high bycatch, damage marine habitats and/or have poor information about the state of the fishery.

“The findings of our assessment contradicts claims by the Ministry of Fisheries and the fishing industry that New Zealand’s fisheries are sustainable and well managed,” Mr Hackwell said.

“Overseas consumers will be shocked to find out that the NZ hoki and orange roughy they buy are from fisheries that are close to collapsing, kill large numbers of marine mammals and seabirds and bulldoze fragile deepwater coral habitats on seamounts,” he said.

Notes:

The criteria used to rank the fisheries are

· status and sustainability of catches;
· fishing method;
· habitat damage;
· biology and risk of over-fishing;
· management and research;
· management plans;
· stock assessment information; and
· protected or threatened species bycatch such as seabirds or marine mammals.

From the assessments of the 62 fisheries

16 are over-fished or there has been a substantial decline in stocks
50 cause habitat damage
23 kill significant numbers of seabirds
28 kill a significant number of marine mammals
56 catch too much non-target fish
60 cause adverse ecological effects

The best 12 fish are
Pilchards (Best of the ‘Amber – Caution’ list)
Anchovy
Sprats
Kina
Blue moki
Blue mackerel
Grey mullet
Trevally
Garfish
Yellow-eyed mullet
Kahawai
Blue cod

The worst 12 fish are
Hoki
Spiny dogfish
Snapper
Rig/Lemonfish
Flounders
Lemon sole
NZ sole
Brill
Turbot
Oreos
Jack mackerels
Orange roughy (Worst of the ‘Red – Avoid’ list))

Contact:
Kevin Hackwell, Conservation Manager, 04 385 7374, 021 227 8420
Barry Weeber, Senior Researcher, 04 385 7374, 021 627 329

“Colossal squid with the scientific name of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni is estimated to grow up to 12 to 14 metres long and has long been one of the most mysterious creatures in the deep ocean.

“The colossal squid has just arrived in New Zealand and it is likely that it is the first intact adult male colossal squid to ever be successfully landed. The scientific community will be very interested in this amazing creature as it adds immeasurably to our understanding of the marine environment,” Jim Anderton said.

The squid is frozen and is being stored in the Sanford’s cool store in Timaru, before being transferred to Te Papa to be preserved for scientific study.

“It was caught by a New Zealand (Sanford Ltd) vessel, San Aspiring, which was fishing for Antarctic toothfish in the Ross Sea. The vessel was skippered by the world renowned captain John Bennett, inaugural winner of the Golden Albatross, an international award made for outstanding commitment to mitigation of seabird bycatch.

“The squid was almost dead when it reached the surface, and the careful work of the crew was paramount in getting this specimen aboard in good condition.”

The vessel was long lining for toothfish and the squid was eating a hooked toothfish when it was hauled from the deep.

“The crew stopped winching in the long-line for two hours, while the squid was manoeuvred into a cargo net and hauled aboard. It was then stored safely in the hold. The diligence shown by the crew and the fisheries observer has preserved this exciting specimen for scientific study. This is one of the many deepwater specimens our commercial fishing fleet has provided to science over the years.

“All New Zealand boats fishing in Antarctic waters have Ministry of Fisheries observers on board to monitor the catch, compliance with rules, and to help with collecting specimens.

“The excellent co-operation between Te Papa, the MFish Observer Programme, and the New Zealand fishing industry, has made this once in a lifetime opportunity an exciting reality,” Jim Anderton said.

“The colossal squid will be photographed, measured, tissue sampled, registered and preserved intact into the Natural Environment collection. On-going examination of this giant will help to unlock some of the mysteries of the deep ocean. Even basic questions such as such as how large does this species grow to, and how long does it live for are not yet known.”

Jim Anderton said toothfish fishing in Antarctic waters is highly regulated and is overseen by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), made up of 24 member nations.

“New Zealand notifies its intention to fish in CCAMLR waters to the Commission on an annual basis depending upon the level of interest from New Zealand companies. The Commission then decides on the number of vessels allowed access to each fishery under CCAMLR management.

“Continued access for a vessel is based on its past performance in the fishery and vessels granted access to fish in CCAMLR water must adhere to strict conservation rules, undertake research work and carry observers so all activity is monitored.

“New Zealand vessels have been fishing down to the Ross Sea area since 1997/98 and have provided much information to the New Zealand scientific community, which is analysed and presented to CCAMLR.”

Mr Anderton said many of the research techniques and environmental standards developed by New Zealand vessels have become international best practice and have been transferred to other CCAMLR areas as mandatory requirements.

Colossal squid are found in Antarctic waters and are not related to giant squid (Architeuthis species) found around the coast of New Zealand. Giant squid also grow up to 12 metres, but are not as heavy.

A key difference between the two species is the size of the mantle (body) in relation to the tentacles. The colossal squid has a much larger mantle and smaller tentacles than the giant squid, and is a much heavier animal.

Another difference is the sharp swivelling hooks the colossal squid has in the suckers at the tips of its tentacles, suggesting it is an aggressive hunter. The giant squid has suckers lined with small teeth.

15 August 2007

New Zealand Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton today welcomed a new report that sets out clear guidelines for managing the world’s high seas fisheries.

The report outlines current best practices the world’s Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) can use to tackle the core challenges of international fisheries management.

“Improving performance of the world’s RFMOs is important,” Jim Anderton said. “It is apparent that many RFMOs have fallen well short of their objectives to prevent depletion of fish stocks and destruction of marine ecosystems in high seas areas.

“The High Seas Task Force – of which New Zealand was a member – recognised that the world’s RFMOs needed to pick up their game if we are to have sustainable management of high seas fisheries. The publication of this report is a step towards achieving this, and New Zealand will now work to progress best practice recommendations within each of the RFMOs to which New Zealand is a member,” Jim Anderton said.

The model RFMO report, entitled Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, was commissioned by the governments of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, in partnership with WWF International.

The report covers issues to do with excess capacity in the world’s fishing fleets; allocating fishing opportunities on an equitable and sustainable basis; and managing the wider ecosystem effects of fishing.

It was developed by an independent panel hosted by Chatham House in London. It was managed by a director from the Round Table on Sustainable Development at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The panel comprised experts from relevant disciplines of law, economics, science and policy.

The report is available through the Ministry of Fisheries’ website (www.fish.govt.nz) or through Chatham House Publishing (www.chathamhouse.org.uk).

August 2007

New accommodation in Petone will ensure that Wellington fishery officers and investigation staff are better resourced to tackle the threat of fish theft, Minister of Fisheries Jim Anderton said today.

“Fisheries offending is like stealing from everyone else”, he said while speaking at the opening of the Ministry of Fisheries Petone office.

“That’s why this Labour-Progressive Government has made it a priority. The Wellington region is blessed with fisheries resources, but there are organised groups stealing it from legitimate fishers.”

“This new Petone office, with its 30 fishery officers, investigators and support staff is well placed to disrupt this illegal activity and safeguard it for everyone else.”

He said the national fisheries compliance budget has increased from $20 million in 2000 to $30 million in 2007 to meet the rise of organised fish theft.

“To get the best value from our fisheries, particularly paua and rock-lobster, they need to be protected. Industry players, customary and recreational fishers need to know we are enforcing the law in a strict and even-handed way.

“The Petone compliance team, their satellite office in New Plymouth and network of honorary fishery officers, who cover the area from Turakirae Head to Taranaki, are a key part of the Poaching is Theft campaign launched last year, and are well supported with information from the public.

“The team is an important part of getting the best value from fisheries. It’s a contribution central government can make to fishers, tangata whenua and environmental groups. Everyone benefits, except offenders.

“I encourage all New Zealanders to report any suspicious activities to the Ministry of Fisheries on the 0800 4 POACHER number (0800 476 224) and support the excellent work of the Petone compliance team.”

Press Release by NZ Seafood Industry Council, 02 April 2007

The New Zealand seafood industry has released the findings of a Colmar Brunton public opinion survey which shows that New Zealanders eat fish regularly, and favour a common sense and fair-minded approach to managing shared fisheries, says Owen Symmans, New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Chief Executive.

“We thought Kiwis would have a long-term view of what’s good for sustainable fisheries and it seems they do,” Mr Symmans said.

Some of the survey findings include:

Nearly all (88%) New Zealanders eat fish at least once a month
Almost half of us (45%) eat fish at least once a week
Only one quarter of all New Zealanders fished recreationally more than once in the past 12 months
25% have never fished recreationally in New Zealand
6 out of 10 recreational fishers report that they are satisfied with their catch
65% of New Zealanders think that both recreational and commercial fishers should be required to catch less if there is not enough fish to meet demand
More than half (56%) of the recreational fishers agree
85% of New Zealanders think that up to 10 fish per recreational fisher is a reasonable daily allowance and 85% of recreational fishers agree (the current limit is 20 for most finfish)
64% of New Zealanders think that it is reasonable to require recreational fishers to record their catch and more than half (55%) of the recreational fishers agree
“The figures are very interesting and suggest that the government proposals are out of step with public views on fisheries management,” Mr Symmans said.

The full report of the Colmar Brunton survey is available at http://www.seafood.co.nz/ and click Hot Topics.

Hon Jim Anderton
31/08/2007

Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton today congratulated local fishers in the East Otago Taiapure-Local Fishery for their initiative in improving the use of set-nets.

“Local fishers from the area, just north of Dunedin, could see that un-retrieved fishing nets were snaring seabirds and marine mammals. They took their concerns to the Ministry of Fisheries and this has led to a new regulation requiring fishers to stay with their nets. This kind of responsible partnership works for the benefit of everyone,” Jim Anderton said.

Known as ‘ghost-fish’ nets, inexperienced set netters are often unable to retrieve nets in the taiapure-local fishery due to changed weather conditions. The nets then get left for several days until the weather improves or they drift with strong tides.

Nets left for an extended period of time can also result in sea-lice and other damage, making the fish that are caught inedible. The Ministry of Fisheries plans to introduce the new rule later this year.

“Set-netting is a big issue across the country, but particularly where there are sea mammals,” Jim Anderton said. “Putting tighter restrictions in place is one solution but a lot also comes down to making people more aware of better fishing practices and what else is around them while they are fishing.”

The East Otago Taiapure – Local Fishery Management Committee, made up of iwi, recreational and commercial fishing representatives, has been observing netting practices in the area since 1996. Deputy Chair of the Committee, Allan Anderson, says it became clear that action needed to be taken.

“This fishing area is a hot spot for Hector’s dolphins and other marine mammals. Anything we can do to give more protection to these creatures is a step in the right direction.”

While most local fishers are united on the move to keep fishers with nets, some recreational fishers still want to leave nets in areas marked as ‘estuaries’.

“However, the long-term benefits of a blanket ruling across the whole area outweigh making any such exceptions,” Jim Anderton said.

A wider threat-management plan is being developed to address threats to Hector’s and Maui dolphin’s across the nation. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation are working with stakeholders to develop the plan, which is expected to be out by December this year. The draft plan is on track for submissions next month.

After the strangely late fishing season we’ve just had, it seems the next run might be coming early.

Big snapper have been caught off the west coast around Mokau in recent days, fish that normally do not turn up until September.

Best so far is a 12.3kg fish, reports Mokau kite expert Geoff Preston, but there have been plenty in the 9/10kg range.

Normally, once these fish appear north of New Plymouth, they slowly make their way north and catches improve progressively at Raglan then Port Waikato, Karioitahi and Muriwai through September to November.

“They are certainly early this year and I expect fishing will improve earlier up north too,” Preston said. So far off Karioitahi, it’s mostly school sharks.

The kite fishers at Mokau enjoy the benefit of a katabatic wind that flows down from the central plateau and out the river mouth virtually every morning. So even if the wind direction is hard onshore, at ground level and up to about 40 metres, it will be blowing offshore at a strength good enough to carry kites and dropper rigs out.

Preston said the big reds were being caught at dawn and dusk right on the change of light. He uses strips of arrow squid as bait. They are generally out 800 metres or more but he’s caught them right in close, “almost by accident when the kite is flopping around”.

His personal best is 12.3kg caught in September last year.

“Unfortunately, I was by myself and didn’t have anyone to share the excitement.”

Paul Barnes from Paul’s Kites, an ex-commercial fisherman, has his theories about the unusual run of big reds up the coast rather than down.

He reckons they are more low temperature-tolerant than smaller snapper and seek water that does not change temperature readily during winter. Commercially, he used to catch snapper in 100-200 metres during winter. “It may be colder but it doesn’t change much.” So the run north may be to go after food following the winter “hibernation”.

Meanwhile, the major snapper schools are yet to flow down from the Far North and in from beyond the Hauraki Gulf.

At the Bay of Islands, Geoff Stone, on Major Tom II, reported snapper in close on the islands. Further out, “it’s all right when you can get out”. The 71-metre reef is holding kingfish in the 10-12kg range with few barracouta to bother things, as is Cape Brett. Hapuku are more prolific east of the cape rather than north towards Whangaroa. The terakihi fishing is unusually slow.

Around Auckland, a few good catches have been made close-in on Kawau and Tiri and around The Noises. Berley hard and be patient. Soft plastics appear to be encouraging more bites, probably because of the movement.

The Manukau fishers continue to take good numbers of gurnard early in the morning before the wind gets up. There are flounder in the harbour and some kahawai. Try targeting trevally at the creek mouths, using small hooks and fresh shellfish baits or, even better, fresh garden worms. The trevs congregate to eat this sort of wash-down.

The dirty water after recent rains is encouraging runs of whitebait and kahawai chasing them. The whitebait season opens next Wednesday but, as usual, it’s impossible at this stage to say how it will produce.

Trout fishing is peaking at Taupo with good runs in all the rivers. The flow has dropped somewhat but regular rainfall has left some colour in the water. The size and condition of the fish had improved since last month, said Department of Conservation fisheries manager Glenn Maclean. “We have good conditions, there are lots of anglers on the rivers and they’re all doing well,” he said.

Many anglers are reverting to natural nymphs this year, which are working well as are glo-bugs.

Around Rotorua, rainbows are still being taken trolling on the lake. The Waititi and Lower Ngongotaha still have fish running. The north of the Ohau Channel is fishing well, anglers are fishing back to the mouth and the harling is good further off the mouth.

Other shoreline fly-fishing has slowed. Lake Okataina is still producing fish. Tarawera has slowed after a better season than last year, the fish bigger and in better condition, Fish and Game surveys have found.

The Rangitakei River and Anawhenua have been less rain-affected than other areas and continue to fish well.

Three people on board a sinking fishing boat are safe after deliberately beaching the vessel off the Northland coast early today.

The drama began when the 13m Mana Rose started taking on water after running into rocks near the Cavelli Islands in Northland.

The Rescue Coordination Centre of NZ (RCCNZ) received a mayday call at 2.45am from the skipper saying he had decided to try to beach the vessel before it sank.

RCCNZ mission controller, Keith Allen said a rescue helicopter was sent from Whangarei to assist and, if necessary, winch the crew to safety.

“However, at 3.30am we received a further call from the skipper…to say that the vessel had been successfully grounded 100m offshore near the Takou River mouth in Takou Bay.

“The three crew then made their way to shore in the vessel’s liferaft.”

Mr Allen said all crew were safe and well and being taken back to Opua in the Bay of Islands by the rescue helicopter.”

- NZPA