Well done all involved. My family has been fishing recreationally for over 40 years on our coastline and we have watched the commercial fishers rape our coastlines then dump their unwanted catch back into the sea. Most of these fish are legal size for recreational fishers to feed the family [hello]. This whole thing is wrong and we should push it loud and clear through the papers, TV etc. Look what the minority can do with other things in this country.

Commercial fishers should be 25k's off our coastline or islands. Simple - no fish, no money, no food. Greed kills.

Well done, keep up the good work.

(Abridged)
DP

I am particularly concerned at the blatant over-riding of opinion of interest groups who, among other reasons, are fighting to protect sustainable practices for the benefit of our future children.

Govt and people come and go, but some decisions made now can have far reaching effect on future generations. As always it is the dollar that drives business, but already it is known that materialism and human comfort cannot be sustained, as we know it in the western world.

Due to the geographical placing of NZ we have a unique ability to stand strong and protect what has often been referred to as " gods own land ". This is for the generations to come.

RP

It seems to me Jim Anderton is asking for assistance from us, the recreational and customary fishing groups (and the public), to help him push back on the industry lobby groups that would (and did) challenge his decisions to reduce commercial take in the High Court.

Keep up the good work option4 / NZBGFC et al by continuing to lobby for the recreational/customary right AND sustainability.

I agree that lowering the information threshold is dangerous if the Minister of Fisheries (and MFish) are not to be trusted however, why in 2008 we don't have (mostly) sufficient information is beyond me. (Are MFish being too scientific and long-winded in their studies?)

My perception is that Jim Anderton is actually quite a reasonable Minister of Fisheries. MFish and their actions make me more suspicious.

Could there be some parameters set that are relatively easy to determine without millions of dollars of study each year? For example, in the 1950's a recreational fisher in Snapper 1 could easily catch seven snapper of 40-60cm on four out of five fishing trips lasting no more than 3-4 hrs each, using rods only; therefore that is where we want to get back to and this is easily surveyed. Because you can’t achieve this today, commercial catch (TACC) needs to be reduced until it can be again. Or something similar!

Then we could have MFish staff, or an independent third party, fishing at survey locations providing a sanity check that fish stocks exist in sufficient number, with individual fish of a good size within the stock.

I know NZ fish stocks are relatively good compared with many countries around the world, but it is easy to determine that in 2008 NZ fish stocks are poor compared with the 1950’s - just look at photos from fishing trips back then and talk with the older fishermen at any fishing club around the country.

We need the Minister and MFish to act with urgency before those collective memories of the way fish stocks were (and should be now) are gone. Otherwise the target of getting back there will never be able to be set.

And a message to the commercial fishing industry - 'Show more integrity by acting more responsibly and you will have a good income forever, otherwise sooner or later the people will rise up and grab the power and you will SUFFER'. Lets just hope this occurs before you go out of business because of no fish. For a lesson, read the book 'The three Fishing Brothers Gruff', it shouldn't be beyond any of you.

Once again, keep up the good work option4 / NZBGFC et al, and Jim Anderton, what about some small funding for these great lobby groups!!

(Abridged)
PG

Commercial fishing at the moment is destroying our stocks. This is a worldwide problem and needs to have the government answerable to the people and the environment.

This Government have done very little for the environment. The carbon tax money could have been better spent on fisheries protection and stopping abuse.

HF

The Ministry of Fisheries (under the current government) is acting with arrogance and total disregard to the reason it was originally established, "to manage the nations marine resources".

If they were being successful in their management approach they would be able to demonstrate the following:

Do we see this?

Instead we have a history of fisheries destruction, falling catches, falling quotas, less participants, accumulation of national assets in a few large companies, quota holders in small communities leaving the industry, political confusion and increasing bad decision making.

Where are the totally supported and agreed win-win solutions for all fishers based on clear strategic long term sustainable planning and sustainable/growing of the resource with agreement amongst all parties to a longer than 3 year or 1 year fix?

Bad legislation follows bad legislation... if it was working well, having a vision we could all aspire to; then we wouldn't be involved in last minute fixes, court cases, late night rushed bills under urgency (pothole fixes), one day to comment on bills in a process called "consultation".

Jim Anderton, "economic development minister" has turned into an unfortunate puppet of the short thinking, ill-sighted, bureaucratic bunglers who dash from disaster to disaster, wearing suits and blinkers ("save my backside brigade").

The concept of social benefit, " a short-term cost for a long-term gain" has been lost; we are suffering from the illusions of grandeur that is resulting in ongoing severe "social cost".

If one compares this to recreational and customary fishers, we see huge values in placing sustainability at the top of the values stream. Greater understanding and awareness of sustainability/conservation, more fishing/diving/eco-tourism, expanding marine industries, better boats, more land-based industries/service/support/publications and involvement, improved marine education/conservation/eco-management, school/university programs and spin-offs, new sustainable community developments, all amounting to greater participation and enjoyment of New Zealanders of our marine environment and traditional food gathering.

Who has it right in their approach, the Ministry or the public of New Zealand?

Please do not proceed with another ill-conceived fix for someone else’s blunder. Let’s take some time to put the grand sustainable vision on paper, with a new political will and work collaboratively to achieve what all parties really want and deserve, "long-term access to a healthy and sustainable marine resource and environment".

(Abridged)
NT

This resource is well overfished by commercial interests now and they have money. How can we win against the almighty dollar? It should not be, but the day of casting a line for the family tea is just about history.

In our area if the commercials were reined in, how they should have been years back, I believe we would all have fish on our plates for the long haul, for many years to come and even longer.

KN

You have covered everything I can think of extremely well.

Would seem that again that the Commercial sector in self interest and to get what they want is using this election year to leverage a desperate government to agree to their wants.

Wonder sometimes if MFish and/or DOC have lost their focus on their basic responsibilities, as what they are really there for. Certainly not to cast a blind eye to the Law/Rights of Customary and Recreational Fishers.

KO

I strongly believe the government is for the people, by the people....... mismanagement of resources within our sphere needs to be addressed. We have become a government by the people for selfish gain.

Canada's west coast salmon fishery is DEAD: due in total to Federal mismanagement of this once super resource. Stupidity and greed abound throughout the world.

We have to change the government bureaucratic mess and rid ourselves of politicians without integrity and purpose.
PB

Yet again the rights of the common people are usurped while commercial interests are given priority.

It would be great to mobilise the voting power of recreational and customary anglers and rid ourselves of those who pander to big business rather than those they claim to represent.
CH

This Bill simply seeks to allow continued use of MCY management data (etc) as far as I can tell, and does require them to be considered in the context of the goals of the Act. I am pretty relaxed about it really.

In my opinion, your time would be better spent at this time publicising the various political parties' views on whether or not Bmsy is a suitable management level for stocks. Simply highlighting persistent falls in TAC's in some of our important fisheries is sufficient to show that management with Bmsy as a target is not reliable and the precautionary approach is not being applied sufficiently.

Don't forget the general public is generally horrified to learn that the government wants to maintain fish at 20% of Bo. This is the very time you should be highlighting that, raising awareness, and putting the heat on politicians to take public opinion into account.

Keep up the good work.
RQ

I moved to Hawkes Bay at the end of 2004. We have fished all over the Bay out to about 20km for four summer seasons and in that time have captured one small snapper, about 30 gurnard, 23 kahawai, one kingfish and heaps of spiny dogfish and small sharks.

When my father fished here in the 1960s and 70s he would always come home with a feed of snapper or gurnard and he never ventured further than 10km.

I do not believe that MFish have any idea of the serious decline in breeding fish stocks and their understanding of sustainability seems to be at odds with the evidence experienced by recreational fishers.
KP