SOUTHERN SPORT FISHING CLUB SUBMISSION

Submission Paper:
Document: "Beneath the Reflections"

Draft Integrated Management Strategy for Fiordland Fisheries and Marine Environment.

History

The Southern Sport Fishing Club (SSFC) is a recreational fishing club based in Gore, New Zealand.

The club was formed in 1992 and was resurrected from the Fiordland Gamefishing Club which operated from 1970 to 1986.

The club has 30 members who fish the waters from Kaka Point in the east around to Haast in the west including the waters around Stewart Island. Many members also fish outside these areas for a variety of fish species.

The majority of club members spend at least 3 - 7 days fishing in the fiords of Fiordland and adjacent coast line.

Club members have been fishing the Fiordland area for over 30 years and have a wealth of knowledge about fishing history, stocks of fish and changes occurring within the area.

The SSFC is affiliated to the NZ Big Game Fishing Council and to the International Game Fishing Association.

Current Issues

There are a number of key recreational fisheries management principles that the SSFC agrees with and are the cornerstone to any agreement relating to recreational fishing.

These key points are outlined below:

1. Principles developed during the Soundings process

The principles are:-

1. A priority right over commercial fishers for free access to a reasonable daily bag-limit to be written into legislation.
2. The ability to exclude commercial methods that deplete recreationally important areas.
3. The ability to devise plans to ensure future generations enjoy the same or better quality of rights while preventing fish conserved for recreational use being given to the commercial sector.
4. No licensing of recreational fishers.

These principles have been policy of the NZRFC for many years and were reaffirmed at their AGM in July 2001. This endorsement took place at the annual general meeting. Ministry of Fisheries staff witnessed this process of arriving at consensus. NZBGFC have also endorsed these principles, as have option4. We note to day that only one of these principles have been adopted by Government with your clear statement that there will be no licensing of recreational fishers.

2. Cornerstone statement in the 1989 Recreational Fishing Policy

The "cornerstone statement" in the 1989 Recreational Fishing Policy, signed off by the senior Labour Party Minister, the Hon Colin Moyle, states: -

"The cornerstone of the policy is presented in the first national objective: to ensure recreational users have access to a reasonable share of fishery resources. 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 Government's resolve to ensure all New Zealanders can enjoy and benefit from our fisheries."

This very important policy document is still very much alive. It has never been repealed by any subsequent Government, or the Ministry. It was however ignored by the National Government and the Ministry during the 1990s.

To the recreational sector, the 1989 Policy is the equivalent of the Treaty of Waitangi to Maori. For many years, neither recreational/sustenance nor the Maori sectors were recognised by the Ministry. The recreational sector will not rest until the statement confirming preference to non-commercial fishing (as stated by the Minister in the 1989 Policy) is recognised by Government.

3. Need for Legislative reform

The SSFC have agreed on the need for legislative reform and for the defining of the public's right in the legislation. We are open to further discussion on how this can be achieved but before firming views and policies we have awaited the occasional papers and legal documents that were promised in the paper "Recreational Fishing Reform: Action 2002-03" released by the Ministry in January 2002.

4. Rejection of the proportional share concept

The recreational sector has, and always will, totally and unanimously reject a capped proportional share concept because of the Moyle Promise referred to above. We accept that management of fisheries will continue under the QMS but this needs to reflect the public right of access and priority.

We reject capped proportionalism because the fish in the sea are a public resource, and the public right to be able to expect to catch a reasonable number of fish on a fishing trip must come from commercial interests within the requirements of a sustainable fishery. The surplus should be available to the commercial sector once they have paid the Crown for the access right to generate revenue from a public resource. We reject any agenda to cap the recreational catch in order to preserve some "fixed/defined proportion" of the TAC for commercial concerns. As the High Court stated in the judgement on SNA 1 (CA82/97) "If over time a greater recreational demand arises it would be strange if the Minister was precluded by some proportional rule from giving some extra allowance to cover it, subject always to his obligation carefully to weigh all the competing demands on the TAC before deciding how much should be allocated to each interest group."

5. Improved Information

It is agreed that a fundamental element of sustainable fisheries management is to ensure that management decisions are based on accurate estimates of all sector's catches. The disparity between recent estimates of recreational harvest and the historical recreational harvest estimates that have been used for fisheries management decision making to date, clearly indicate the need for more resources to be deployed to prevent errors of such magnitude occurring in the future. It is also agreed that better information regards "all other forms of fishing related mortality" by all sectors need to be developed.

Management

Until the rights of the public are clearly defined the public role in the management of New Zealand's fisheries cannot be determined. If we are to become involved in management, surely we have to define what it is we will be managing. We accept that the recreational sector needs to play its part in managing stock to sustainable levels and suggest there is already adequate evidence to that effect. The recreational MLS and reductions in bag limits in the past are examples of our resolve to support sustainability. At the same time the playing field has to be leveled and the public sector representative organisations need to be assured that adequate resourcing is available for the level of management responsibility that comes out of the rights definition process.

Major Areas of Concern

The document itself is unique in that it is much more than a fisheries plan complete coastal management strategy for the region likes of which have not been introduced elsewhere in NZ. As with all new innovations being tested, caution should apply on implementation for unexpected and/or adverse results may occur that were not the intention of the Guardians or more importantly the very people who use Fiordland and coastal area the most, the locals.

In developing the draft document there has been a lack of wide consultation among the public.
In discussion with many fisherman, they have never heard of GOFF or the document under discussion.
The meeting at the Working Men's Club in Invercargill was not widely advertised. The SSFC had to make contact with GOFF and ask to attend.
The SSFC was not invited to the launch of the draft document, which is unusual as it’s the Southern most sport fishing club with Fiordland as its home waters. This typifies the lack of consultation that has taken place.

The draft strategy is lacking data that might help us assess the impacts of fishing by various methods. What are the number of vessels that would fish the most accessible Sounds at peak times? When the weather is poor is there much effort at all? Where do fishers come from and do they contribute significantly to the economy of Milford, Te Anau and the wider area? What estimates have been made of total harvest by species from Fiordland? The only figures given is the case of a charter boat in the "most excessive case" taking 672 rock lobster in 7 days. Commercial vessels can catch this much in a week and sell them and that's fine. We agree that recreational fishers should not take quantities of fish for sale to pay for their trip. Surely an investigation by fisheries compliance staff at the time could have uncovered black market sales and resulted in prosecution. What we need to know is the total harvest of crayfish by sector from the area? Obviously crayfish were plentiful at that time.

Without hard data it is difficult to know what the Guardians want to manage. Is it existing fishing pressure from thousands of recreational fishers all catching limit bags or is it that "increasing pressure, if not managed, will result in local depletion" (page 27) at some time in the future. It is clear that the Guardians believe that the recreational fishing rules that apply to the rest of the Southland and Westland coast should not apply in the Fiords.

There is a theme running through the document that recreational fishing pressure in the Fiords is damaging the marine environment. Compared to what? The Marlborough Sounds, the Coromandel, the Bay of Islands or compared to the relatively virgin fisheries that existed in the Fiords until access was improved. It is a biological fact that when fishing in any quantity occurs in an area (commercial, recreational or customary) the virgin fish stocks are reduced. Maori recognised this before the Pakeha arrived and protected their rohe from outsiders and used rahui to manage their fisheries. It is also a well established principle of fisheries management that the sustainable yield increases as fisheries develop. The Guardians have not acknowledged this.

Recreational fishers should be encouraged to fish in the most productive areas. If the fish are bigger and easier to catch in those areas this shouldn't be too hard. Splitting bag limits over small areas when there is no proof of where the vessel has been fishing we believe is complicated and hard to enforce. This is especially true if fishers don't "buy into" the need for the 3 fish bag limit in the first place.

The following is a table of the bag limit reductions and the percentage changes proposed.

Recreational fishers
Bag limit reductions:

	Daily Bag limit reduction outside habitat lines	Reduction in 3 day bag limit outside habitat lines
Blue Cod	-33%	-77%
Groper	-0%	-66%
Rock Lobster	-0%	-16%
Jock Stewart	-66%	-88%

We note the limits suggested inside the habitat lines appear overly conservative. We accept the marked difference in habitat either side of the transition zones and its effect on marine life. This zone also appears to be a practical area to differentiate the boundaries on where recreational fishing activities are restrained to within, during unsuitable weather.

So it must be acknowledged that inside the habitat lines is going to face the most recreational fishing pressure. Unfortunately the proposed daily catch limits inside the habitat lines will have an immediate effect on rec fishing. The steps proposed is an ounce short of a total fishing ban inside the sounds, which will in all likelihood, have that effect anyway. There is no argument that fishing is harder inside these zones when compared to the outer areas. However this does not mean that fishing is unsustainable at the current levels. It is highly plausible that catch per unit of effort (CPUE) has always been considerably higher outside the zones given the habitat that has always existed there. Therefore CPUE inside the zone even if the Sounds were in a virgin state was poor. So while fishers need to expend considerably more time to catch their fish this does not necessarily mean the fish stock is under stress. More scientific study is justified before changes are made that will drastically alter the current recreational enjoyment and utilization of the inner sounds. The minimal catch limits as offered inside the habitat line are effectively unusable to recreational fishing especially given the normal routine of shared boats and multiple day trips.

What the guardians need to clarify is what they are trying to protect. If it is a virgin fishery then the whole area needs to be closed to all fishing, which would be unacceptable to the public, if it truly is the "wider fishery experience" then a balance needs to be reached. It is our firmly held view that bag limits of 3 Blue Cod and 3 Groper with no accumulation do not provide sufficient incentive for people to come to the Fiords at all. If the Guardians objective were to keep people away this would surely be effective. After all the Fiords were at their best before anyone went there. Exclusion of the New Zealand public who fish in favour of international eco-tourists is unacceptable.

Bag limit changes outside the habitat line have little to justify any change to current take. Small regional population, remoteness and prevailing weather all offer natural barriers to excessive catch. Once again there is no science and in this case even anecdotal evidence that further restrictive recreational fishing measures are necessary. It is unacceptable that no reduction in the commercial take is deemed while the recreational take is severely slashed, particularly for multi day trips. Will the result just be better fishing for commercial operators, an increased commercial CPUE therefore an increase in proportion of quota caught in Fiordland? A reduction to recreational take outside the habitat lines is an unfair and unnecessary expectation for the public fisher to bear.

The split bag limits suggested by the guardians do not meet the criteria in Appendix 4 Mfish compliance objectives and strategies that include:

• Understanding and accepting the rules as fair and necessary.
• Believe that rules are being administered fairly and equitably.
• There is a reasonable chance of any cheating being detected.
• There is a high probability of being successfully prosecuted or penalized.

The guardians objectives state that they're trying to encourage a shift in harvesting pressure from inside the fiords to the entrances and outer coast.
The SSFC believes the document as written encourages people not to fish in Fiordland at all. The restriction on bag limits and non accumulation discourages all fishing.

The closure of Milford and Doubtful Sounds to blue cod fishing for 2 years and then a possible further 2 years is a major concern. The temporary closing of the fiords with the right to a further 2 years closure has not been devised with any logic.
If after 2 years there is no increase in stocks, what will a further 2 years do to stocks - probably nothing. If after 2 years the stocks have not increased then it's obviously not from fishing pressure. Then what?

It has been acknowledged by members of GOFF that the charter sector are one of the main culprits in taking large numbers of fin fish and lobster, from the Fiordland area.
It's unfair to target all recreational fishers as a result of one sector abusing the system.
Would it not be better for GOFF to put its efforts into formalizing an agreement between charter operators to act more in keeping with acceptable fishing practices?

The SSFC has serious safety issues that are raised as a result of this document. By limiting fishing ability inside the sounds and having no accumulation policy in place you are forcing recreational fishers, who often fish in trailer boats, to fish outside the sounds where weather and sea conditions can be unsuitable.
The safety of small boats and their crews will be compromised.
This is unacceptable to the SSFC.

The SSFC would like GOFF to investigate further the effect on fish stocks by the commercial travel sector in the Fiordland area.
A large number of people are ferried around the fiords which must have a detrimental effect on the environment. Discharge from boats, casual fishing and pollution are all consequences of such operations.
The impact of these operations needs to be assessed before limiting recreational fishers' ability to fish.

The document calls for significant additional reserves beyond the existing reserves in the Sounds. There are some features of the Sounds we have total support for increased protection that a marine reserve would provide. The "China Shops" are accepted as particularly fragile, rare and distinctive marine life that requires this level of protection. However the need for additional areas beyond those to protect the "China Shops" needs close scrutiny. The document pre-empts the review of the Marine Reserves Act by stating that generic and representative areas are required. The SSFC does not support such claims. The need and justification of representative reserve areas as proposed by the Guardians need more justification. As a fisheries management tool they are widely acknowledged within NZ as inappropriate when the full range of fisheries management measures are taken into account. They are not proposed for scientific purposes and do not contain underwater scenery, natural features or rare marine life that preservation is required in the national interests. What is there, is also found with regular intervals outside of the proposed representative areas so what is being protected? Finally, if the use of representative areas is to fulfil marine diversity claims of the Government Marine Biodiversity strategy then argument needs to be submitted on what diversity is being protected and why full marine reserve status is the only way this can be achieved.

As stated in the introduction we are mindful also that the appropriateness of additional reserves within the Sounds however should be at the discretion of the majority of the users to ultimately decide. So therefore leave any further pursuit of this argument to the fishing clubs that utilize the areas concerned. If this plan is a living document, as it should be, we should not try and do it all at once but have an ongoing process that will identify issues as they arise and provide a standard way of addressing them. There are some very practical and relatively easy management suggestions offered that could and should be introduced earlier rather than later i.e. clean boats before entering the area and no discharge of ballast water. Also "China Shop" protection should be high on the agenda. The fisheries management proposals need further research and this is acknowledged by the Guardians, so before any bag changes are introduced they should at least wait until this is completed.

The SSFC has concerns about the future direction that GOFF is heading with the submission process.
Discussion with GOFF members indicates no process or order in weighting of submissions on how they are going to be acted upon.
The SSFC would have hoped, that prior to the document being released, that there is written policy on submission handling, weighting and means by which concerns raised will be dealt with.

Conclusion

The SSFC would like no change in legislation until the concerns outlined in this document are addressed.

We would like to be included in any future correspondence and meeting notification.

Regards

Lyle Forsythe
President
Southern Sport Fishing Club