|
From Hon Pete Hodgson
28 May 2003
Dear Fisheries Stakeholder
Kingfish is due to enter the QMS on 1 October 2003. I am
writing to inform you of my initial views on options for
sustainability measures and other management controls for
this species.
The estimates of catch for recreational, commercial and
customary interests indicate that kingfish is caught predominantly
by recreational fishers. There is little doubt that recreational
fishers regard kingfish as a key species. Commercial fishers
have recognised the importance of the species to recreational
fishers in the past in accepting management controls for
kingfish. I would like to acknowledge their direct and indirect
efforts in this regard.
My initial view is to continue to recognise the importance
of the kingfish fishery to recreational fishers in the management
controls implemented as part of introduction of species
into the QMS.
The status of kingfish stocks is uncertain. There is no
information on current biomass levels. In this context,
determination of a target level for biomass is, in part,
a theoretical exercise. Nonetheless, I support the concept
of management of the species above the biomass that would
support the maximum sustainable yield. Any increase in the
level of current biomass will improve the abundance and
size of fish available to stakeholders. To provide the greatest
certainty (of the options presented) of some improvement
in biomass occurring my initial view is to support the setting
of a total allowable catch 20% below average landings.
I have noted the discussion on utility in the Mfish paper,
and the uncertainties surrounding use of utility information.
I recognise that it would be ideal to have full and certain
information, but this is, for the most part, not possible
in the fisheries environment. The issue for decision makers
then becomes use of the best available information, and
the weight placed on any uncertainty in the information
at hand. My initial view is to support the use of the utility
concept as a relevant factor in my consideration of management
options for this species. I note that utility value supports
the importance of the kingfish fishery to recreational fishers.
I have noted the alternative allocation options presented.
Based on the importance of the fishery to recreational fishers,
I am of a mind to manage the allocations within the fishery
to improve recreational benefit from the total harvest.
However, I also recognise that a significant proportion
of current commercial catch is bycatch, at least some of
which may be unavoidable as a result of targeting other
species. I do not want to unnecessarily impose costs on
industry by setting a total allowable commercial catch (TACC)
that forces commercial fishers to pay excessive deemed values
or impacts significantly on other valuable target fisheries.
I am therefore interested n exploring ways that allow bycatch
to be kept to a minimum level.
My initial view is to support option three from the paper.
This option involves a reallocation from the commercial
sector to the recreational sector, but I believe that this
is appropriate in the context of the relative importance
of the fishery to recreational fishers.
In relation to management of catch within the allowances,
I support an increase of the minimum legal size (MLS) for
recreational fishers from 65 cm to 75 cm. However, I see
this option as an interim step only and would expect to
move toward a MLS more in line with the age at sexual maturity
for both male and female kingfish in the medium term, as
the range of sizes of fish increase.
I note the range of options for management of the catch
within the TACC. Changes to the MLS will have implications
for the allowance for other sources of mortality, which
in turn has implications for the TACC and allowances proposed
under option three. Ideally it would seem beneficial to
reduce the other sources of mortality to as low a level
as practicable. However, I note that options relating to
the Sixth Schedule of the Act rely on industry developing
a regime to support compliance. I have not formed an initial
view on the commercial MLS. I note the issues surrounding
the options and also the potential socio-economic impacts
related to the TACC set and MLS. I seek submissions from
stakeholders on their views of the options and the impacts,
with supporting information.
I recognise that the setting of the TAC and the allowances
for this fishery may be contentious. While the timeframe
for consultation is short, I believe the introduction of
this important fishery into the QMS provides the opportunity
for stakeholders to work together to produce solutions that
will result in a better fishery. A key step in this process
will be the recognition, by all interests, of the value
that each sector places on continued and in some cases improved
access to this important fishery. I will await the views
of stakeholders on the proposals contained in the Mfish
paper, and my initial thoughts noted above, with great interest.
Hon Pete Hodgson
|
