SUBMISSION FROM NEW ZEALAND RECREATIONAL FISHING COUNCIL ON THE INTRODUCTION OF KINGFISH INTO THE QMS

15 JUNE 2003

1. The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council represents the following National Organisations, N.Z. Angling & Casting Association, N.Z. Big Game Fishing Council, N.Z. Trailer Boat Federation, N.Z. Marine Transport Association, N.Z. Underwater Federation, N.Z. Sports Industry Association.
   
   
2. We also represent the following regional associations, Northland, Auckland, Bay of Plenty/Waikato, Taranaki, Wellington, Tasman Bay, and Otago.
   
   
3. We are aware that some of our National Members and Regional Members are submitting their own submissions and we support their submissions unless they are obviously different in the end result produced.
   
   OVERVIEW
   
   
4. Since the early 1970's our Council has made numerous submissions relating to the Kingfish species, and believe that after all of the content supplied, we have now come to the end of the road where it is now up to you Minister to make your final decisions.
   
   
5. We believe that of all the species in the ocean, the Kingfish is the only fish that recreational anglers have truly taken to their hearts not only for sustenance but also as one of the predominant sport species.
   
   
6. There has been no other fish species that has been voluntarily protected by the recreational sector to the same extent as the Kingfish. It was our sector that sought from meetings with the Ministry the reduction in bag limits and the setting of a MLS. Since these conditions were introduced into the fishery, it is our sector again who have voluntarily accepted their recreational leaders advice to increase minimum sizes for contests and limiting anglers to killing only one fish per day.
   
   
7. We also note the omission in the IPP paper of the recognition of the tourist dollars created for the country by this species. Since the early 70's Americans have been travelling to places like Whakatane just to have a chance at catching the mighty kingy, and due to the size of the fish that used to be caught here they referred to Whakatane as the "Kingfish Capital of the World". Due to the decline in numbers and sizes of the average catch, they do not travel here now to the extent that they were in the past.
   
   HISTORIC COMMERCIAL TARGETTING OF KINGFISH
   
   
8. Whilst most commercial fishers would deny it happening, we have complained on a number of occasions in the past where operators were suggesting that they were targeting Warehou and returned to port with one bin of Warehou and 10 bins of kingfish. We anticipate with the introduction into the QMS this practice will cease.
   
   
9. We are also aware of one instance that was highly topical at the time when a purse seine vessel returned to Tauranga Port with a catch of nine ton of Kingfish. It was supposedly by-catch and after all of the noise made by recreational anglers, there has been no further significant by-catch by the purse seine fleet.
   
   
10. A further commercial vessel was arrested at Tauranga with a load of undersized kingfish taken from the White Island area.
    
    
11. Our Council has also been made aware of a skipper who missed out on quota during the introduction of the QMS, and so that he could continue to make payments on a boat he was buying, the only avenue left to him was to target kingfish for which he did not have a permit.
    
    
12. Our Council has serious concerns that the illegal take of kingfish has all been accredited to the commercial "so called by-catch" to determine the commercial catch in this fishery. As the bulk of the fishery has been caught on the West Coast by trawler we would expect to have a percentage deducted from the total tonnage to allow for the fish that were under 65cm and legally retained. We do not believe that the age classes involved under the 65cm cannot be considered in the historic commercial catch, and would expect a percentage to be deducted accordingly.
    
    RECREATIONAL CATCH
    
    
13. Our Council has serious concerns with the allocation models used to determine the historical recreational catch. Whilst our Council has been promoting tagging, releasing, voluntary size constraints, voluntary catch constraints, it has now all gone against us when determining our historic catch. We are now not only being asked to reduce our catch further, but also having an increased size limit introduced to ensure that there is a further reduction.
    
    
14. We are also unimpressed at the methodology used as an average for the average catch from the 96 survey and the 2000 survey. Whilst our Council along with many others have concerns with the 96 survey results, and our concerns have been made loud and clear at the working group meetings, we believe the 2000 survey to be a far more accurate indication of the true catch, and it should be these figures that the recreational catch is based on.
    
    
15. We would remind MFish that the recreational bag limit is three (3) fish and the majority of recreational anglers are voluntarily only taking one fish per day. Based on the 2000 survey results of 1,014 tonnes, the recreational catch could have been as high as 3,000+ tonnes if there were no fish voluntarily released. These are the type of figures that we would expect to be used when determining the recreational catch.
    
    
16. Our Council would also argue that the recreational sector gave their commitment to protecting the species by willingly accepting the 65cm MLS. It was the trawler fishermen who were the ones that fought to the last post and came up with every excuse possible to avoid them having to accept the 65cm MLS. They are now expecting to have their cake and eat it to.
    
    MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
    
    
17. MFish has proposed to increase the MLS to 75cm in order to constrain the recreational catch to within the proposed allowances. By increasing the MLS by 10cm will not constrain the catch, it will significantly reduce the catch. Is this the penalty we suffer for our voluntary management of the species when we were dissatisfied with Mfish's management. The vast majority of anglers are only taking one fish per day now, and MFish is considering reducing that further by increasing the MLS.
    
    
18. We are appalled to think that our catch could be reduced further by an
    increase in MLS after all we have done to protect the species and at the same time MFish are even considering a 65cm MLS OR LESS for the commercial sector. We do not believe that our reward for conservation should be further penalties and a bonus tonnage situation for the benefit of the commercial sector as was the case in SNA2.
    
    
19. All of the National Bodies bar one that make up our Council would agree to an increase in MLS up to 75cm provided that the Commercial sector are prepared to become involved in the rebuild.. The only area of concern is the Hauraki Gulf where one of our National Members has reported that it would be difficult to catch a 75cm kingfish.
    
    
20. We have long memories and it was our sector that supported the SNA1 rebuild and took a significant cut in our bag limits only to find the Industry challenging the Minister through the courts and they maintained their tonnage. On this basis we will not support an increase in MLS if the proportional option is chosen, and commercial do not do their share in the rebuild.
    
    
21. If our Councillors see that MFish and Industry are serious about rebuilding the fishery, we will have very little to complain about and will certainly be prepared to support the actions, but we will not do it on our own. We believe that we have already done enough on our own with very little support.
    
    FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF KINGFISH
    
    
22. Our Council supports the MFish proposal that Kingfish should be managed above MSY. Being the fourth most popular recreational species after Snapper, Kahawai, and Blue Cod. We also support a reduction in catch for all sectors not just the recreational sector, and by reduction we mean a realistic reduction for the commercial sector.
    
    
23. We also have concerns with the different MLS for each sector. When it was suggested to us that by reducing the commercial MLS for scallops from 100mm down to 90mm, we accepted in good faith, the science of the Ministry and supported the proposal. It was meant to be less drags by the boats therefore less damage to the beds to enable commercial to achieve their quota and therefore a lower mortality rate of scallops damaged by the dredges. If there hadn't been an area totally set aside for the recreational sector, then we wouldn't be getting scallops there now. All indications that we are receiving are that you cannot get a 100mm scallop now outside the recreational area. The science didn't tell us that this would happen and hence the reason that we do not support a lower MLS for commercial than recreational. "We have been there and done that."
    
    
24. It has been suggested in the IPP paper that increasing the commercial MLS to 75cm would "increase the other sources of mortality substantially (from 29 tonne to 40 tonnes in both KIN1 and KIN2, from 1 tonne to 2 tonnes in KIN 7 and from 4 tonnes to 13 tonnes in KIN8)" The IPP doesn't properly explain how these increases have been calculated. We fail to see how these figures have been derived at. KIN1&2 show an increase in mortality of 37%, KIN 7 an increase of 100%, and KIN8 an increase of 325% If these figures are based on assessment by the Snapper 8 Company Ltd, then we can understand the variations.
    
    
25. Under the utility proposal, we find it strange that KIN8 has been dropped as though it is of little importance. Our Council has 28 clubs who are members located in KIN8 from the Kaipara down to the tip of the North Island, and all clubs spoken to relate to Kingfish the same as those anglers on the East Coast of the North Island.
    
    
26. We also note from Appendix1 that in the season 2001-2002 a total tonnage of 222 tonnes of kingfish was caught by all methods across all QMA's. In the same year there were 316 vessels that reported catch or landings of kingfish. This equates to 0.7 tonne per vessel average. Based on the 2001-2 port price of kingfish of $3.92 per kg this would equate to an average approx $274.00 per vessel per year. One could hardly suggest that this was an important species to industry.
    
    
27. Under the '96 Act the Minister is directed to take a precautionary approach, and using the best advice available when setting TAC's, we do not believe that taking an average of the recreational catch from the 96 survey and the 2000 survey as the best science available. We know the 96 survey results are flawed yet the Ministry still want to work with these figures. We also know that the 2000 survey tonnages are far more realistic and cannot understand why the Ministry tend to refute them. In our minds, the 2000 survey figures are the only tonnages that should be considered. These figures would also line up alongside the commercial figures for the same period when all MLS applied to all methods.

1. We support the reallocation model
2. We support the increase up to 75cm MLS for recreational and commercial sectors if the the reallocation model is selected.
3. We support the use of the Sixth Schedule if Industry develops a code of compliance.
4. We support the annual deemed value of $8.90 per kg
5. We thank the Minister for allowing us to present our views on this very important species to our sector.