Great Barrier Marine Reserve Application

Objection by Haydn Luckman

September 2004

Director General of Conservation

Department of Conservation

Auckland Conservancy

Private Bag 68 908

Newton

AUCKLAND

Objection to the Application for the Proposed Great Barrier Marine Reserve

Dear Sir

I wish to oppose the proposed marine reserve for Great Barrier Island. I believe this proposal does not have public support and it is contrary to the public interest for this proposal to proceed.

Public meetings held on Great Barrier Island have rejected the proposal and votes taken on these occasions have consistently produced results confirming in excess of 90% opposition to the application.

I am concerned at the effects this reserve will have on existing usage of recreational and sustenance fishers that frequent the area. The only secure anchorages on the eastern coast are locked up within the reserve's boundaries. Most of those that use this area for fishing, do so for the security that the anchorages at Arid Cove, Harataonga and the northern end of Whangapoua beach provide. There are no suitable anchorages further south as the severe swells running in here and the exposed coastline make this impossible.  

The proposal singles out two families for special dispensation to fish within the reserve. Singling these two families out in this manner is not something New Zealanders will accept. Where is the legal authority to sanction such a move? If this proposal proceeds on this basis, it will open up a can of worms that will have far reaching implications for every New Zealander.

Although I don't live on the island, I cannot recall a time that Great Barrier and Rakitu (Arid) Islands did not form an important part of my life. Some years ago as a secondary school student, I undertook a science project, which extended over a 5-year period. This involved the developing of a bait station to trial different baits and to define feeding patterns for a range of feral animals (e.g. mustelids, rodents, possums and wallabies etc.)

Much of the field trials on rodents (ship rats and kiore) for this project were undertaken on Rakitu Island. The project was later recognised by an environmental award from the Auckland Regional Council and of special importance and value to me, a Young Conservator Award from the Department of Conservation.  

The project was undertaken in conjunction with trips to the island with my family. Recreational fishing was always a feature of our trips out there. In conjunction with the enjoyment of such a wild and beautiful place, fishing was (and is) the focus of our journeys there.

There have been comments made from the Department of Conservation that fishers (from Auckland) travelling out to Great Barrier, can go elsewhere to fish. I reject this and feel comments such as this have served to harden attitudes towards the Department of Conservation and have stiffened opposition to this reserve.

Auckland City ratepayers pay their rates to the same council, as do the residents on Great Barrier Island, i.e. the Auckland City Council. In fact some of the infrastructure and services that are enjoyed by DoC on the Island are supported and subsidised to the tune of something like 2.3 million dollars per year by metropolitan ratepayers.

To suggest that because I do not live on Great Barrier, I can go elsewhere to fish, is a bit rich from an organisation enjoying the financial support of city ratepayers like our family.

The Department of Conservation has chosen to apply for a blanket 'no-take' marine reserve when presenting this application. If it (DoC) deems this area worthy of protection, why has such an austere method as a no-take marine reserve been chosen, especially in the face of such overwhelming public opposition? A number of other tools are available to give protection (e.g. Mataitai) whereby the concerns of local residents and the wider community could have been addressed. DoC has brushed aside the views of these people in favour of their own agenda here.

The Department of Conservation conducted a 'Boat survey Count' in support of this application. The preamble in the application document (5.7) points out "only low to moderate" boat numbers were counted on the days the survey was conducted. If this was so, how is it that recreational fishing is deemed to be the greatest threat to the area?

The methods employed in conducting this survey are so flawed that they render the survey totally meaningless in assessing boat numbers plying the area. The survey does not take account of the key anchorage of Arid Cove, where I have seen 90% of boats find shelter on this coast.

I liken the survey to Lord Nelson with a telescope to a blind eye and only seeing what is wanted to be seen. This survey is not worth the paper it is printed on and is/has been a total waste of time and money.

Because the only secure anchorages on this coast are locked within the reserve, traditional rights of access and use of the area will be affected by both recreational and sustenance fishers. No fisherman will feel comfortable going in there with fish on board and the distance from the safe anchorages to any other fishing locations on that coast will make it an impractical exercise to recreationally fish this coast from a vessel.

All our family regard ourselves as conservationists. When fishing we take only what we need for sustenance.   We never take our full daily limit of fish and adhere strictly to the size limits. When we have visitors on board, sometimes much to their annoyance, they are made to roll up their lines when we have caught enough.  

We have areas that we regard as no-fishing reserves and although these are not designated as 'marine reserves' they are non-the-less sanctuaries that are left alone. One such place is the cave at the entrance to Arid Cove. I think every boatie that goes to Rakitu Island respects this area as a place to be left alone, to be enjoyed only by snorkeling and diving through and seeing fish in their natural environment.

I have to tell you that the methods employed in promoting this application have not endeared anyone towards your organisation. In fact the opposite is the case. I am unhappy with misleading media statements put out by the Auckland Area Office claiming the proposal has widespread support when in fact the opposite is the case.  

This does the reputation of the Department of Conservation no credit and has served to harden public attitudes. Actions like this are having the effect of turning away your most ardent supporters. It is also putting in jeopardy, the respect and goodwill that already exists towards non-designated marine reserve areas as I have outlined above.

This proposal should not proceed. It does not have the support of either the residents of Great Barrier Island, or the wider community. A no-take marine reserve is not appropriate for this area and it will neither carry the goodwill of the public, or their respect. This reserve is never going to be another Leigh reserve where people and families can visit for the day.

Instead, it will shut out many that currently enjoy visiting the area now and adversely affect Great Barrier residents who rely for sustenance on the location.

Yours faithfully

Haydn Luckman

TOP