Property Rights and Recreational Fishing: never the twain shall meet?
by Jennie McMurran, (38K pdf)
Ministry of Fisheries (pre July 2000)
"The focus of this paper is on the nature of the work now underway in New Zealand to better specify, and in so doing, strengthen the rights of the recreational fishers. As well as improving fisheries management generally, the work is designed to improve the quality of recreational fishing and enable recreational fishing and enable recreational fishers to play a greater role in the management of recreational fishing." (38K pdf) |
|
Response to Option4: by Peter Ellery
"As I read "option4 - The Answer", on your website, I am struck by the unnecessarily alarmist and confrontational overtones of it all and the complete lack of accommodation of any other points of view.
The Soundings document is no threat to anybody or anything, least of all, our recreational right." |
|
Reply to Peter Ellery: by Bill Ross
"Mr Ellery is obviously a consummate political animal. He articulates his points well and goes into considerable detail but fails to answer the fundamental question; as do most politicians."
....read the complete rebuttle » |
|
Reply to Peter Ellery: by Paul Barnes
"It is a pity that Peter Ellery was not in attendance at the public meeting concerning Soundings at the Papatoetoe High School on Wednesday 6th September, 2000.
At this particular meeting a question was posed to Jennie McMurran who works for the Ministry of Fisheries Strategic Policy Unit. Jennie was also heavily involved in creating the Soundings Document. Jennie was asked
'What are the primary objectives of MFish Strategic Policy in the Soundings Document and in the redefinition of the publics right to fish in the sea?'
Jennie clearly stated that their primary objective was to cap or limit the recreational catch. " |
|
Reply to Peter Ellery: by the option4 Group
The Option4 group has discussed Peter Ellery's paper in depth. The group has sought advice of fishers and fisheries managers/researchers with considerable experience in fisheries planning and research and we would make the following comments » |
|
Reply to Peter Ellery: by Stu Davidson
It could be naive to believe that option4 in it's simplified and current version would in anyway represent the final decision by government. I believe the final outcome may well be a combination of all four options, and further submissions. However, in saying that I hope the outcome is closer to option4 that the three proposed at present. |
|
Reply to the replies: by Peter Ellery.
"Firstly, congratulations to the group, for producing a good site that is providing people with an opportunity to air their views and carry on the debate. I am pleased to hear that option4 is now declared to be "at a preliminary stage", and "embryonic" and the admission "that there is much to be done before a fully-fledged proposal is developed". This is in a much different place than as first claimed, i.e. being "The Answer". I am also pleased to hear that the group wants "to remain open minded through the consultation process" however this statement is somewhat at odds with the statement that "option4 representatives are not negotiable on the following objectives and will demand the following." |
|
Angling for a future: by Peter Stevens (November issue of Seafood NZ)
"I can't help thinking that the Recreational Fishing sector would be far better off if they actually did something more constructive than concentrating their efforts on their eternal habit of blaming every one else for their perceived problems. It doesn't surprise me that their years of finger pointing has not produced any sort of result whatsoever, in terms of providing any solutions to their grievances. In fact I think it would be fair to say that ever since they embarked on the grievance trail they have actually gone backwards. In between the prolonged periods of levelling blame upon all and sundry some of their number suggest the sort of solutions that they'd like to see enacted and therein lies another problem. The solutions that they suggest are so devoid of practical reality that it's little wonder that they've not found (ever) any currency in political circles. To claim that the $1 billion per annum that they spend on their sport creates the same economic benefit to the country as provided by the Seafood Industry is as naïve as it gets. Expenditure on rec fishing is internal spending which consumes a lot of overseas currency without returning much by way of revenue to Government, whereas the commercial sector does exactly the opposite." |
|
Peter Ellery comments on option4 submission: December 14 2000
Congratulations to the group on the production of the Funding Paper, Part II of the group's submission.
The proposals in this paper make the important move forward from Part I, in getting to the definitive, in identifying the importance of the Public Right to a share of the fish and an appropriate place in the fisheries management process, for representation of the Public Right to take food from the sea.
I agree with and support all proposals in the Funding Paper. |
|
