| Open
Letter to Chris Carter
In reply
to statements made on Stewart Island while announcing the Paterson
Inlet's Ulva Island Marine Reserve
10 June 2004
Dear Sir
Would you
please explain to the public of New Zealand how you are able to
lay claim that the recreational fishers of this country are against
the governments plan under the Biodiversity Strategy to place 10%
of the New Zealand Marine Environment, including the exclusive Economic
Zone (out to the 200 Mile limit) under Marine Protection, when to
the best of my knowledge, at no stage have you or your department
ever truly asked for the opinions of the recreational fishers, other
than a recent research carried out by CRESA on behalf of the Department
of Conservation. In the case of a meeting that I attended, finished
short of asking the question that were of most concern to those
that were there.
Nor sir have
either you or your department ever made any attempt to hold meaningful
discussions of any significance other than through submissions with
any representative groups in an attempt to over come problems created
by your input and the department's inability to listen to the concerns
of others.
In your most
recent outburst you have made claim that the Recreational Fishers
Association has opposed the reserve to the bitter end
It would appear
to me that you have failed to read the Biodiversity Strategy document
because if you had, then you would surely have known that the Recreational
Fishers Association were in fact supporting the Department of Conservation
by wanting to place the area under mataitai, which is one of the
protection options suggested in the Biodiversity Strategy document.
Could you please
explain to the public of New Zealand where in the Biodiversity Strategy
document, provision has been made for 10% of the New Zealand
coastline to be placed in Marine Reserves as per a statement
made by your, or are we to now believe this has been your personal
decision which seems to have been picked up by those that are actively
supporting this vision and laying claim that perhaps 20% would be
a better option.
You have made
mention of the new marine reserve ACT when passed will be needed
to streamline the passage of reserve proposals, is this not just
another way to fast tracking reserve proposals against the wishers
of the public that to date have clearly shown that they are not
in support of what is being put forward by the Department of Conservation.
Yet given the
ability to have had proper input we the public would likely to have
been more supportive, and prepared to support these proposals from
the start.
You have stated
that you are mystified why recreational fishers are not your greatest
allies, if you cannot work out the answer to that then there is
no hope at all for any of us.
I will end with
one final statement by you "I'm impatient about marine protection,
I feel worried about the future of our marine environment."
Having just
read this I am now even more concerned given that this would suggest
that future reserves may now be pushed through with or without the
support of the public at large purely because of your impatience
and that there is still insufficient scientific knowledge to support
that marine reserve are the correct solution, this also is mentioned
in the Biodiversity strategy Document.
Regards
John Friend
For
ORNZ Marine
Committee
reserves@hyper.net.nz
Back to Paterson
Inlet index page » »
|
