The introduction
of kahawai to the Quota Management System provides the Minister
with the opportunity to make some well-considered management decisions
in this fishery for the first time in many years. Mismanagement
of this fishery to date has seen a clear decline
in availability of kahawai to non-commercial fishers.
The Ministry
of Fisheries has chosen to ignore the well-founded concerns
of non-commercial fishers expressed over many years and has proposed
the continuation of the status quo by basing quotas on recent
catch history. We believe this will seriously constrain future
Ministers from making any management decisions to rebuild the
customary and recreational fisheries because it will then require
compensation to commercial fishers for any reduction in their
quota. The time to decide on the future of the kahawai fishery
is now.
There is
very little difference in the method used to catch kahawai for
customary, traditional or sustenance purposes. Poor management
of kahawai affects all non-commercial fishers equally. If a decision
is made that continues to permit excessive commercial catches
it will adversely affect customary Maori harvest.
Failure to allow for both customary Maori and recreational interests
is in contravention of section 21 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
Non-commercial
catch rates for kahawai have plummeted in many areas. We attribute
the decline to the impact purse seine fishing
is having on kahawai stocks. Purse seine boats capable of taking
entire schools of kahawai in a single set land 75% of the commercial
harvest. The unrestrained use of this method produced a collapse
in the catch-rate during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Inevitably,
this has led to an encroachment on the rights of all non-commercial
fishers. The injustices caused by this overfishing have not been
addressed by MFish's proposal to allocate quota in perpetuity
to commercial fishers.
Under the
Deed of Settlement the Minister is required to provide for and
protect customary Maori fishing rights as well as providing a
commercial allocation of 20% of new species to Maori. In this
case, sustainability of the resource and adequate
access for non-commercial fishers must have priority over commercial
allocation. It is a delusional exercise to "allow for" a 1500
tonne customary catch when the fishery is so depleted that nowhere
near that amount can be caught.
Commercial
fishers land most kahawai as bulk fish to keep the purse seiners
and the factory staff working through the off-season. Industry
have had thirty years to develop a value added product from bulk
kahawai catch. They have not managed to do this. Its time to give
our fish back to the people. The Government has a very clear
choice before it: it can promote the corporate interests of a
handful of marginally economic purse seiners fishing off-season,
or find the moral courage to recognise the legitimate interests
of over one million New Zealanders: Kiwis who value kahawai as
taonga, as a fish great for eating and for whom the sheer athleticism
of this fighting fish provides them and their children with moments
of sheer delight and triumph.
All non-commercial
fishers place a high value on kahawai. For some coastal communities
it is the primary source of protein. Before the advent of the
targeted commercial fishing referred to earlier, kahawai were
the most reliable source of finfish kaimoana used to celebrate
the various hui that punctuated the lives of our Tangata Whenua.
Others, including a growing legion of international fans, enjoy
the sport of catching them on fly or lure, while for many the
value is in the wonder generated by the almost lost spectacle
of vast schools of kahawai moving through our harbours and up
our coasts. The spectacle of diving birds, working dolphins and
kingfish associated with such boil-ups fills the observer with
joie de vivre. It would be a sad reflection on New Zealand, our
policy makers and our industry chiefs to repeat the errors of
our history by plundering yet another natural resource without
recognition of its place in our heritage,
tradition, culture and recreation.
The kahawai
IPP proves once again that the Ministry's goal is to promote development
of any commercial fishery, no matter how low its value, at the
expense of the cultural and recreational values held by the public
of this country. We fail to see how the Ministry has fulfilled
its statutory obligation to take into consideration
the social and cultural values of the non-commercial sector. We
believe that acceptance of this IPP will entrench the ongoing
hardships and perpetuate the injustices caused by MFish's failure
to recognise the just claims of the non-commercial fishing community.
The Minister
of Fisheries (the Minister) has invited stakeholders to provide
submissions on the Ministry of Fisheries' Initial
Position Paper – Introduction of New Species into the
Quota Management System on 1 October 2004 (IPP), prior to
the Minister taking his (or her) final decisions on the setting
of Total Allowable Catches, Total Allowable Commercial catches
and the measures taken to allow for non-commercial catch. It is
noted that the deadline for submissions for 19 species was originally
Friday 27 February but an extension was granted for kahawai submissions
following requests from a number groups.
This document
comprises the primary submission from the following non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) that promote the interests of non-commercial
marine fishers in New Zealand.
option4
was formed in the year 2000 by a concerned group of recreational
fishers, in response to MFish's invitation to participate in the
process of redefining the nature and extent of the rights of the
public to fish and gather seafood in New Zealand.
The Ministry
of Fisheries (MFish), in conjunction with the New Zealand Recreational
Fishing Council, compiled a discussion document called "Soundings".
This document suggested three options for the future management
of the public's rights and access to public fisheries.
In option4's
opinion, none of the three options presented were acceptable for
future management of New Zealand's recreational fisheries, nor
were they capable of improving the lot of non-commercial fishers.
This was because all the proposed options in the "Soundings" document
allowed for the continual erosion of the fishing public's individual
rights.
option4.co.nz
was developed to ensure that the fishing public, clubs and organisations,
as well as individuals, could send a clear message to the Government's
fisheries managers on precisely what is required to ensure that
the rights of current and future generations of non-commercial
fishers are protected.
Since its
formation four years ago, option4 has gained widespread support
from the recreational fishing public, clubs and organisations
of New Zealand. In 2001 over 61,000 individual submissions supporting
the principles of option4 were made to the Minister of Fisheries
on the "Soundings" process. This represented an overwhelming majority
of 98.3% of total submissions received on the issue.
Since then,
more than 35,000 further individuals have made their support known
to option4. Through its nationwide network, its website www.option4.co.nz
and with on-going support from recreational fishing clubs
and organisations, option4 has established that it has the support
of a large section of the recreational fishing public of New Zealand.
The NZ Big
Game Fishing Council (NZBGFC) was formed in 1957 to act as an
umbrella group for sport fishing clubs and to organise a tournament
that would attract anglers from around the world. Club membership
has grown steadily and it now represents more than 33,000 financial
members in 61 clubs spread throughout NZ. They still run New Zealand's
only nationwide fishing tournament, which has evolved over time
and remains successful.
NZBGFC
compile and publish the New Zealand records for fish caught in
saltwater by recreational anglers. The Council identified kahawai
as an excellent sport fish and in the 1970s was instrumental in
having the species recognised by the International Game Fish Association
as a qualifying species for world record catches.
In the
early 1980s the NZBGFC was instrumental in establishing and funding
the NZ Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC) to ensure better representation
of non-commercial fishers at national level. The NZRFC continues
to be recognised in this role.
NZBGFC has been a consistent
contributor to the fisheries management process for many years.
It was a key contributor to discussions on kahawai purse seine
limits in the early 1990s, has regularly sent representatives
to MFish working groups, and has made written submissions on a
wide range of management issues and species. In recent years its
membership has expanded beyond the traditional deep-sea angling
clubs to include many local clubs targeting inshore species.
Kahawai
has a long history of use in New Zealand. It was a frequent
catch, and an important food for Maori in some areas. Early New
Zealand authors have described the abundance and sheer visual
spectacle of huge schools of kahawai. They describe the hard fighting
qualities of kahawai on rod and reel and lament the decline of
this major inshore species. Some of this history is best described
by the authors of the time.
'On reaching the scene
of the schooling, four or more lines were trailed from each
canoe, to the end of each line there was attached a hook formed
of a shank of hard
wood, inlayed with a
piece of the bright green iridescent paua shell (halieotus)
to which was fitted a sharp, barbed point of bone-no bait.
The canoes were then
paddled quickly to and fro, up and down, with the tide, across
it and against it; racing, twisting, turning amongst the thousands
upon thousands of jumping, sprat-catching kahawai that "took"
the bare hooks as salmon take the fly. There was great
excitement amongst the Maoris: yells of glee, shouts of success,
boasting of cleverness, and songs of joy. The shouting of the
human beings, the activities of the kahawai, the flip-flopping
of the frightened sprats and the raucous screaming of the sea-birds
made a commotion that was bewildering to watch and ear-splitting
to listen to, as men, fishes and birds pursued their fishing
competition.'
Rod Fishing
in New Zealand Waters By T. E. Donne 1927
Page 112
'The schooling or "shoaling"
of the kahawai is a truly wonderful sight and one not to be
forgotten on a long summer day; thousands upon thousands of
these active fishes enter into a riotous ravenous feed of small
mullet; amongst the myriads of these "sprats" the kahawai dart
hither and thither, never for a moment ceasing to snap and swallow
their prey, the jumping, splashing, twisting sea salmon, as
he is termed, lashes the surface water into violent agitation
as if a huge super-heated cauldron were at it greatest activity
in the midst of the calm sea; it appears as if fishdom has gone
quite crazy, and, to add additional turmoil and a tremendous
accession of noise, ten thousand sea – birds – gulls
and terns – appear like a huge, animated black and white
cloud, falling on and rising from the sea. They dart down on
the unlucky sprats that have no rest either in the sea or out
of it; the voracious kahawai drive them to the surface and the
hungry birds drive them down again until the bewildered sprat
does not know whether in the immediate future he is to become
bird or fish. The general melee and the calling, crying, discordant,
air-piercing shrieking of the birds, creates a pandemonium that
is indescribable.'
The Saltwater
Angler By Wal Hardy 1966
Page 222
'But to see the kahawai
at its best we have to go to New Zealand. There, huge shoals
of these fish range the coast and work away up the inlets and
rivers. One of these big bodies of fish on the move is a stirring
sight.'
Hook, Line
& Sinker By Ray Doogue 1967
Page 216
'Kahawai are certainly
prolific. I counted 35 schools, none of less than an acre, in
a 5 – mile flight along the coast one calm morning last
summer.' ( flying out from Tauranga )
Fighting Fins
By Neil Illingworth 1961
Page 146
The kahawai is an excellent
fighter, leaping higher and more often, and running further
and faster than many trout of comparable size. They average
about 3 or 4lb, but they can grow up to 16lb, and a fish of
anywhere near this size can take up to an hour or even more
to land on 4-lb nylon.
Many fishermen of wide
experience have claimed that the kahawai takes a lot of beating
in the seven oceans and one, Colonel John K. Howard, of Boston,
Massachusetts, was so fascinated with them on his first visit
to Mayor Island that he devoted the whole of a Press interview
to singing their praises, saying he considered them to be one
of the best game fish, size for size, in the world.'
New Zealand
Fisheries By J. G. Watkinson & R. Smith 1972
Page 42
In New Zealand there
is little market demand for kahawai, although the fish was formerly
popular with the Maori. Until recently there was no fishery
for kahawai and it was caught as a by-catch in other fisheries.
Small amounts are caught by trawlers but most are discarded
at sea'.
The Golden
Years of Fishing In New Zealand By Phillip Holden 1984
Page 223
The kahawai ascends
many of New Zealand rivers, and frequently be taken in fresh
water, though more generally it follows only as far as the tide
flows. Out at sea the fish is to be found in great schools
and it is no uncommon sight in Auckland waters to see schools
or shoals many acres in extent'.
MFish have been aware
of the poor state of the fishery for many years and ignored
the advice given. The debate over the need for kahawai management
has been going on for almost twenty years. In 1987 Lew Ritchie
wrote, " Right now we may be witnessing the end of kahawai
as we know it. The commercial catch of kahawai has risen from
an insignificant level 10 or even five years ago to currently
(1985, the most recent year for which full catch statistics
are available) second in landed weight among coastal and sixth
in finfish overall in the New Zealand 200 mile exclusive economic
zone. This is nothing short of a tragedy. It is a classic case
of the last available and easily exploited coastal fish being
plundered just "because it is there" by the greedy, the thoughtless
and the over-capitalised. It is a sad reflection on New
Zealand, its policy makers, and its industry chiefs that virtually
every available natural resource is plundered, whether valuable
or not, and irrespective of its place in our heritage, tradition,
culture and recreation. [1]
Kahawai is a very
important customary and subsistence food source for Maori and
non-Maori. Traditional fisheries such as those at the mouth
of the Motu River, Bay of Plenty, are a mere shadow of what
the once were. Many people struggle to provide fresh fish to
supplement their diets because the fishery has been so decimated,
especially in northern waters.
Kahawai is a treasured
part of New Zealand's marine heritage. The presence of large
kahawai schools gives the impression of a healthy marine ecosystem.
Now the total absence of kahawai schools for much of the year
leaves the ocean looking empty and lifeless – something
is wrong with the way this species has been managed.
Until the mid 1970s
kahawai was caught as a by catch of commercial fishing methods
targeting other species such as snapper, the preferred table
fish on the domestic market. Some kahawai was used for bait
but much of it was dumped at sea. In the mid 1970s domestic
purse seine vessels started fishing for skipjack tuna in the
summer and other species during the winter, mainly in the Bay
of Plenty and around Poverty Bay. By the late 1970s purse seining
for kahawai during the winter and spring months had extended
from Northland to the Wairarapa Coast, into the Taranaki Bight
and around the north and east of the South Island. [2]
Catches peaked in the late 1980s and began to fall before the
Minister set purse seine catch limits.
| Kahawai
were once present in numerous and at times vast schools.
They form an important traditional food source. Fishers
from around the world marvelled at the sight and sound
in the presence of a melee of birds, bait and kahawai.
These authors were also impressed by the strength and
aerial displays of kahawai on a line.
The commercial
fishery went through a rapid expansion in the 1980s.
|
[1]
Ritchie, L. D. 1987. Northern Advocate
[2]
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 1990. Kahawai - Proposals
for the management of the kahawai fishery.
TOP
2.
Management Objectives
2.1 Harvest
strategy and objectives
There is no harvest
strategy for kahawai. There are a number of sectors competing
for an important inshore species but there has been no discussion
on what kahawai management should aim to achieve. Each sector
will have a different expectation of what a well-managed kahawai
fishery will deliver for them. How can the Minister possibly
weigh up the expectations of competing users with no overall
objective or target in place?
The objective is surely
to maximise the benefits of this fishery for all New Zealanders.
The single goal of the MFish Strategic Plan 2003 – 2008
is: " Maximise the value New Zealanders obtain through the
sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the
aquatic environment ". Nowhere in the IPP is MFish's single
strategic goal stated or referred to. MFish also fail to mention
Strategy 2 in their plan which is headed ' Enable people
to get the best value from the sustainable and efficient use
of fisheries. ' These are major omissions on the part of
MFish, not only in words, but also in intent.
Non-commercial fishers
insist that MFish address the words and intent of their single
strategic goal in the Final Advice Paper to the Minister. Without
a clear idea of the strategic direction of fisheries management
how will the new Minister be able to get the balance right when
setting the TAC and TACC for kahawai?
| The Minister
needs to take a strategic view for the management of kahawai
and maximise the value of this fishery for all New Zealanders.
|
2.2 Sustainability
The Ministry may claim
that the overall objective is to ensure sustainable management
of kahawai. However, there are different interpretations of
"sustainability". For example, Japanese tuna scientists insist
that the southern bluefin tuna catch is sustainable although
the stock has been fished down to just 3% of virgin biomass,
and it seems MFish agree with that principle.
The kahawai Plenary
Report discusses a sustainable kahawai stock at about 20% of
virgin biomass [3]. This stock
size may meet the criteria for maximising commercial harvest,
but is totally unacceptable to non-commercial fishers who require
the Minister to consider the social, economic, cultural and
ecological benefits of a kahawai stock more abundant than one
fifth of its heyday.
Last year the Minister
introduced kingfish to the QMS with controls aimed at reducing
harvest levels. The intent was to manage the fishery at a level
above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) to allow for more
large kingfish. This decision angered some commercial operators
because this particular harvest strategy had not been widely
discussed or agreed to. Now we are heading down the same path
with kahawai, where management decisions are taken in the absence
of agreed objectives.
United States fisheries
managers aim to find the Optimum Yield from a fishery that provides
for the best value to the nation as a whole. It is clear the
kahawai fishery is currently below the optimum yield that will
provide for non-commercial fishers in New Zealand.
| What is the
sustainable yield for kahawai? There is no single
number . Even if we had good data on kahawai stocks,
there would still be many sustainable harvest levels to
choose from, depending on the management objective selected. |
[3]
Annala, J.H. et al. Report from the Fishery
Assessment Plenary, May 2003: stock assessments and yield estimates.
2.3 Core area
management
Selecting a sustainable
yield for a single nationwide kahawai stock without having a
harvest strategy is hard enough. Understanding how catching
a large proportion of that harvest in one region or taking entire
schools of fish affects the population in that area and surrounding
regions must also be considered.
There maybe regions
in New Zealand where kahawai are still abundant, due to low
fishing pressure or migratory paths that concentrate older fish.
Tagging studies have shown that there is a " tendency for
movement of tagged fish between North and South Islands to be
predominantly southward. This suggests that a substantial
proportion of recruitment to the east coast South Island may
consist of adult immigrants from further north". [4]
Kahawai tagged off east Northland were mainly recaptured
in Northland, Hauraki Gulf and Bay of Plenty. Some kahawai are
highly mobile but movement appears to be restricted by natural
boundaries such as North Cape and East Cape.
Most of the commercial
kahawai catch in northern New Zealand in the last twenty years
has been taken from the Bay of Plenty. Why is it then that recreational
and commercial fishers in the Bay of Plenty have been able to
maintain reasonable kahawai catches, while there appear to be
far fewer kahawai beyond the Bay of Plenty, in east Northland,
Hauraki Gulf and from the Motu River to East Cape? Bradford
comments on the change in recreational catch by region between
the 1994 north region survey and the 1996 national survey and
found "the numbers of kahawai caught increased slightly
in the Bay of Plenty but declined in other sub-regions in the
North region ." [5]
The Bay of Plenty
appears to be a core kahawai area. This area could be
receiving the benefit of migration from northern areas.
This means that the greater the harvest from the core area the
greater the migration from surrounding less preferred regions.
Catch rates can be maintained in the core area while local populations
on the fringes are depleted.
| While overall
management of the stock is important MFish must also consider
that core areas in large fisheries can act like a sinkhole
i.e., removing fish from the middle draws fish in from surrounding
areas, thus having an impact over a vast area. |
[4]
Wood, B.A. Bradstock, M.A. & James, G.D. Kahawai
( Arripis trutta ) tagging programme in New Zealand waters,
1981-84.
[5]
Bradford, E. 1998. Harvest comparisons
for major recreational species between regional and national
diary surveys.
TOP
3.
Management Structure
3.1 Statutory
obligations and policy guidelines
MFish state, "The
management options seek to ensure sustainability of the stock
by setting a TAC." We suggest sustainability is questionable
if "current utilisation" is progressed and the Minister accepts
MFish's recommendations.
The Minister is obliged
to have regard to the social, cultural and economic factors
when moving a stock to a level that can produce MSY (section
13 FA 1996). With kahawai we have no idea what the MSY or biomass
is. This lack of adequate information should mean the precautionary
approach to management decisions should apply for this stock
as per section 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
MFish proposed TACs
would have social and economic consequences. While MFish consider
the economic effects to be minor (pt
65c IPP), the decimation of this fishery has impacted on
many communities. To underestimate the social and economic effects
is to ignore the rights of future generations to this fishery
and contrary to sections 8 and 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
The assumption that
the decline in the fishery is due to the fishing down of the
stock ignores the evidence currently available.
Bulk industrial purse
seine fishing has had a major impact on the availability and
abundance of kahawai and other dependent species. The impact
on predatory fish cannot be underestimated. Anecdotal evidence
suggests the reduction in kahawai schools has also affected
the numbers of terns and shearwaters. There has been a noticeable
decline in the numbers of feeding birds at sea. The impact on
associated and dependent species must be taken into account
under section 9 iv of the Fisheries Act 1996.
| The kahawai
fishery needs to be cautiously managed in order to rebuild
it. Preserving the status quo will only see this once healthy
fishery ravaged to the detriment of the public. MFish will
then be responsible for another scandal that will outrage
the public, but this time it would be a fishery near and
dear to its heart. |
3.2 Kahawai
and the QMS
We agree with section
13 management of this fishery.
We object to only
one management option being presented for consideration by the
Minister in the IPP. A range of options would have been better,
as this fishery has been the subject of public concern for twenty
years.
MFish's management
option is based on maintaining the status quo and ignoring the
facts of a declining fishery, and proposes to allow the continued
destruction of this most valuable inshore-shared species.
Ministry must allow
for fishing related mortality. In the IPP MFish have only taken
into consideration purse seine incidental mortality at 5%. They
have not allowed for the considerable amount of kahawai caught
in set nets and dumped at sea dead. In particular kahawai caught
in set nets overnight become unmarketable due to damage from
lice. Fish damaged in trawl nets is unmarketable and
is dumped at sea. Some longline caught kahawai may be
used as bait and not reported.
| This paper
provides an alternative management approach to the single
option in the IPP. Our approach acknowledges the damage
to the fishery by purse seining and argues that consideration
should be given to rebuilding the kahawai fishery by minimising
targeted purse seining in the future. All sources of incidental
fishing related mortality must be allowed for. |
3.3 Allowing
for non-commercial harvest
Section 21 of the Fisheries
Act 1996 states that the Minister shall allow for non-commercial
interests including Maori customary, recreational and other
sources of mortality before setting the commercial TACC.
We contend the provisions
of section 21 have now been in place for a sufficient period
to place an obligation upon the Minister to make such allowance
on an informed basis. The Ministry should be required to take
reasonable steps to determine the extent of non-commercial catch.
Government policy
is to increase population by immigration. Government must take
this into account as per the statutory obligations. If the Minister
fails to allow for this population growth the Crown could face
compensation issues in the future.
The Court of Appeal
has already considered what allowance actually means. In the
case of New Zealand Fishing Industry Association (Inc)
v Minister of Fisheries CA 82/97 J. Tipping determined,
"To take recreational fishers as an example, the "allowance"
is simply the Minister's best estimate of what they will catch
during the year , they being subject to the controls which the
Minister decides to impose upon them e.g. Bag limits and minimum
lawful sizes. Having set the TAC the Minister in effect
apportions it between the relevant interests. He must
make such allowances as he thinks appropriates for the other
interests before he fixes the TACC. That is how the legislation
is structured."
| It is our contention
that the Minister has to allow for non-commercial interests
before he sets the TACC in the kahawai fishery. |
TOP
4.
Kahawai Ecology
4.1 Kahawai
in the food chain
Kahawai are an inshore
school fish living mostly from mid-water to the surface. Where
the seabed slopes steeply (as at Kaikoura) schools can occur
over moderated depths but generally they remain in waters shallower
than 50m.[6]
They spawn over the
warmer summer months and large females may carry more than 750,000
eggs. Growth rate is moderate with fish reaching about 15 cm
at the end of the first year and 35 cm in four years. A healthy
kahawai stock would produce billions of eggs and hundreds of
millions of juveniles every year. Larger fish form an important
link in the inshore food chain, feeding on plankton and small
fish such as anchovy and pilchard, and in turn become prey to
larger fish.
The 50m contour scribes
a very narrow band around most of New Zealand – about
10 km wide in the Bay of Plenty but down to just a few kilometres
wide on most of the east Northland and Wairarapa coasts. Obviously,
a healthy kahawai population has a major influence on the ecology
of these inshore waters.
The most visible contribution
is the interaction they have with seabirds, particularly the
white-fronted tern ( Sterna striata, also known as
kahawai bird) and red-billed gull. Kahawai is one of
the few inshore fish that push krill and small fish to the surface
where these seabirds can reach them. The absence of kahawai
schools is most often noticed by the absence of flocks of white-fronted
terns, whose darting and diving feeding flight can be seen at
a distance.
The white fronted
tern is an endemic species (breeds only in New Zealand) and
is described as especially common around the northern coasts
of the North Island and northern coast of the South Island.
[7] It seems that these days kahawai
birds are a much less common sight in northern New Zealand,
both in the air and at the once packed rocky roosts. Removing
an entire school of kahawai with a purse seine shot destroys
this interaction instantaneously and the dependent species are
displaced from the area. Under the current Ministry proposal
to extract 80% of kahawai schools it appears the Ministry believe
dependent species like seabirds can expend at least five times
as much energy searching for food sources made available by
kahawai. If the sinkhole theory, where kahawai move to core
areas of preferred habitat is correct, the birds in some areas
may not be able to reach their food supply at all from nesting
sites distant from the core areas.
The decline in kahawai
abundance has also been linked to the sudden influx of large
numbers of barracouta to northern inshore waters during the
early 1990s, as described in Appendix 1 by Evan Daysh.
Kahawai were a highly
productive part of the inshore ecosystem. Even if the
stock was deemed to be productive and technically sustainable
at 20% of the virgin stock size, it does not mean that the natural
balance and biodiversity will be maintained if the Minister
allows kahawai to be fished down to this level.
MFish have
not adequately addressed the effect of a declining kahawai
stock on associated
and dependent species in some areas. |
[6]
Paul, L. 2000. New Zealand Fishes. Revised edition
[7]
Chambers, S. (1989) Birds of New Zealand, Locality Guide
TOP
5.
Kahawai and the public
5.1 Kahawai
as food
A lot of kahawai caught
by non-commercial fishers is for food. Cooked fresh or smoked
at home, it is becoming increasingly popular. Surveys of returning
fishers at some boat ramps have shown that 90% of fishers return
home with no fish. Attitudes to kahawai have changed. Today
a wide range of fish species is taken home for the table, as
prime species have become less abundant.
There are many people
in small coastal communities who rely on the sea for food.
They have no supermarket, maybe no shop at all, where they live.
Many cannot afford to buy fish at retail prices. Of course they
do not eat fish all the time, but without it their standard
of living would drop. They may go hungry. These people, Maori
and non-Maori, are sustenance fishers who rarely have a voice
in corridors of power or the offices of MFish. Maori representatives
(national and Iwi) often have other priorities. Lately it seems
they are more interested in the opportunities provided by commercial
quota, aquaculture development, and a strong customary right.
MFish does not define
sustenance fishers as customary. They only take what they need
under the amateur bag limits and it is not for the purposes
of hui or tangi. It is for the purposes of living, supporting
an individual or family, as is the custom in many seaside communities.
Kahawai was once their most accessible fish, caught from the
beach, wharf or rocks, harbours, estuaries, open coast headlands
and reefs. MFish make no mention at all of the sustenance fisher
and have ignored their need for access to a healthy kahawai
stock. Arguably their needs are the greatest of all;
not for the quantity they take, but for the impact on their
lives.
Our objective
is to improve the catch rates of all non-commercial fishers:
customary Maori,
sustenance and recreational. What will the Ministry do to
provide for the needs of sustenance fishers? |
5.2 Customary
harvest
There
have been some large customary kahawai fisheries that have not
been performing well over the last twenty years, notably the
fishery at the Motu River mouth and the mouths of other eastern
Bay of Plenty rivers. The director of the Dominion Museum published
an account by Tiimi Waata Rimini describing what the fishery
was once like, " After the ceremony, word is sent to the
people on the East Coast and northwards that Motu is open for
fishing. This is in early December,and lasts for two or three
months. the shoals of fish are of great size, and thickly packed.
The men and women stand on both sides of the tidal portion of
the river so that all the space is taken up. The river is here
about 100 ft wide. The fish caught during the day are cooked
in huge ovens, over 200ft in length and about 4 ft wide. About
20,000 or 30,000 fish are cooked in an oven ." [8]
Fisheries managers
have failed to protect the customary rights of Maori fishers
in these areas. Dr Mark Feldman quotes catch rates from MAF
surveys at the Motu River mouth. For the period January to April
1982 the local residents caught an average of 4.17 kahawai per
hour, while visiting fishers caught an average of 2.55 kahawai
per hour. More recent surveys in this area show a marked decline
in these catch rates in the wider Motu area. Can MFish supply
catch figures from recent surveys at the Motu? Do they consider
this is or was an important fishery? Can MFish explain how the
management regime proposed in the IPP will restore this and
other customary fisheries for kahawai?
Maori have a customary
right to harvest seafood for hui and tangi. Maori also have
traditionally taken kaimoana to feed their families at home.
The Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992
sec 10 (b) states: The Minister, acting in accordance with
the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, shall- (ii), "Develop
policies to help recognise- use and management practices of
Maori in the exercise of non-commercial fishing rights."
The Minister must ensure that he is meeting his obligations
under this clause of the Settlement Act.
It is not sufficient
for the Minister to just allow for 1500 tonnes of Maori customary
catch when the places traditionally fished for hundreds of years
are no longer capable of providing for customary needs because
of commercial purse seining.
Non-commercial kahawai
fisheries overlap. Much of the catch by Maori for traditional
or customary purposes is taken in the same way as non-Maori,
under the amateur catch limits. Poor management of kahawai will
affect all non-commercial fishers in the same way.
| The Minister
must take action that will ensure that there are fish available
to be caught to meet customary needs. Customary and traditional
non-commercial uses must have priority over (low value)
commercial fisheries. |
[8]
Hamilton, A. 1908. Fishing and sea-food of the ancient Maori.
5.3 The fishing
experience
Taking the kids fishing
is part of the Kiwi experience for many families. Often the
first large fish that kids catch off the wharf or boat is a
kahawai. They pull hard, swim in wide arcs near the surface
and will jump to try to shake the hook free. Catching a kahawai
is a real thrill for anglers of all ages.
Junior sports fishing
anglers often hone their skills catching kahawai and learn the
techniques and culture of catch and release. Marlin and tuna
fishing come later and require a lot more patience and perseverance
than kahawai.
Saltwater fly fishing
is becoming increasingly popular with locals and big spending
international fishers alike. Kahawai is an excellent target
species because the angler can see the fish they are presenting
the fly to; because they will strike at a slow moving fly; and,
once hooked, will jump and run harder than any trout. Small
fly hooks do not unduly harm the fish and catch and release
is widely practiced. It is the sight fishing factor that is
giving kahawai such a wide international reputation.
Kahawai used to be
targeted more easily than many species because they were seen
feeding on the surface during the day, or they seemed to be
in "resident" schools around most rocky headlands or reefs that
break the surface. When kahawai were ubiquitous they were widely
used as bait. There was a time when all gamefish boats caught
kahawai on the way out fishing to tow as fresh skip baits. Snapper
fishers also did not buy bait because it was always available.
Those times have gone, maybe forever. Now anglers buy their
bait, which is caught by purse seine and set net. This, we are
told, is good for the economy, taking a public resource and
selling it back to them.
| As a source
of food, learning or sport, kahawai are highly valued by
non-commercial fishers. |
5.4 Visual
impact
Kahawai have a high
intrinsic value. In other words it is nice to have them around.
You do not have to be fishing to enjoy seeing the ocean
come alive with hungry mouths and rapid splashes. Sharp-eyed
terns race to join the mêlée and make the school visible from
a distance.
School fish on the
surface are becoming an increasingly rare sight in some areas
of New Zealand. The public perception is that this is a reflection
of poor fisheries management and proof that there are far fewer
fish than there used to be. On the other hand, if the kahawai
stock were rebuilt and surface schools become common once more,
the clear impression would be given that fisheries management
is working. The proof is right before the eye.
New Zealand's natural
beauty is a draw card for tourists from around the world. Queenstown,
Rotorua and Bay of Islands are major destinations. Cape Brett
and the Hole in the Rock (Piercy Island) are two of the most
photographed locations in the country. What is missing from
most of the photographs these days is the mass of school fish
on the surface that used to be such a prominent part of the
scenery. It is not just Cape Brett that has been affected, but
also many of the main headlands along the coast. Visitors are
often impressed with any sign of fish or marine mammals.
Imagine the lasting impressions of an abundant ocean that could
be made if the school fish return.
| MFish has not
adequately addressed the intrinsic value of kahawai surface
schools in the IPP or how their management proposal will
protect these values. |
5.5 Non-commercial
harvest estimates
There have been a series
of regional harvest surveys in the early 1990s, and two national
surveys in 1996 and 2000. In 2001 a continuation of the diary
component of the survey allowed an estimate for that year. The
surveys were structured in a similar way. An estimate of the
number of fish from fishers' diaries is scaled up by the estimate
of all eligible fishers and the average weight of each species
caught. The results of the 1996 and 2000 surveys differed enormously.
The surveys in the
1990s estimated that less than 10% of New Zealanders over 14
years old fished in the sea in the 12 months prior to being
interviewed. The 1999-2000 survey estimated that over 30% of
New Zealanders were eligible using the same criteria. Investigation
showed that the difference was due to the way the questions
were asked at the start of the survey. Therefore, the surveys
in the early and mid 1990s are fundamentally flawed.
After
considerable debate the MFish Recreational Working Group has
decided: ' The Recreational Working Group has concluded
that the methodological framework used for telephone interviews
produced incorrect eligibility figures for the 1996 and previous
surveys. Consequently the harvest estimates derived from these
surveys are considered to be considerably underestimated and
not reliable.'
MFish
must not use the clearly incorrect harvest estimates from 1996
in recommending how much kahawai they should allow for recreational
fishers. The 2000 survey results should be used with caution.
' The Recreational Working Group considered that the 2000
survey using face-to-face interviews better estimated eligibility
and that the derived recreational harvest estimates are more
accurate and probably slightly overestimate recreational harvest.
An exception to this are the estimates for QMA2 which are considered
to be erroneous, probably because of an unrepresentative diarist
sample. Harvest estimates from the 1996 survey should not be
used. Harvest estimates from the 2000 survey should be evaluated
with reference to the range of the estimate and coefficient
of variation. '
The Minister is required
to use the best information available. MFish needs to update
its advice in line with decisions made in specialist working
groups. Clearly as kahawai have become scarce the catch per
fisher has declined. Measuring the current catch does not fairly
represent the non-commercial catch prior to the boom in purse
seining.
The law also requires
copies of customary permits and the quantities taken for each
one to be reported to MFish. The authors of the IPP claim there
is no information available. Why not? What is the total number
of kahawai permits issued in recent years and what was the catch?
Even if the system is not yet fully implemented, what data is
available?
MFish do not
have good estimates of non-commercial catch. We do know
that the Minister
is required to use the best information available. Therefore
the Minister should use the 2000 national recreational harvest
survey results except for QMA2 which should be based on
the
2001 survey. |
5.6
Non-commercial harvest trends and values
The public have been
concerned about the decline in the kahawai fishery since the
late 1980s. The discontent was sufficient to spark a discussion
document in 1990 looking at the issues of the time. Under the
heading 'Need for Management Change' the document sums up the
concerns of non-commercial fishers as follows:
'Recreational fishers
state that the recreational kahawai fishery:
