NZRFC KAHAWAI SUBMISSION 2004

NZ Recreational Fishing Council

Kahawai Submission

16 April 2004

Overview

This submission is a claim on behalf of the people of New Zealand who fish kahawai for either sport or sustenance. Quite simply we want the return of this important recreational species back to a level we used to enjoy.

The essence of our claim is that kahawai is the second most popular recreational species as determined by the various surveys. (National Marine Recreational Fishing Survey 1987) (NZ Fisheries Assessment Research Document 97/7). Kahawai has a very low economical commercial value 0.50 cents per Kg when caught by purse seine method and an extremely high recreational value and therefore it is our Council's ultimate goal to have kahawai introduced into the QMS at a by-catch level only.

We appreciate that due to the purse seiners, gill netters, and long liners catching kahawai mixed with other species, and random catches, that it can never be a totally recreational fishery, but that does not stop kahawai being introduced into the QMS at low by-catch levels to recognise the value of the fishery to the recreational sector.

Our Council believes that when a species only has a commercial value of 0.50 cents per Kg the resource is being wasted by industry. In past years we estimated that a very generous target to by-catch for kahawai is 8:1 which would have approximated to the following purse seine by-catch tonnages. 200 tonne KAH1, 100 tonne KAH2, 300 tonnes KAH3. As the fishing areas have now been changed we wish to see the new areas capped at a by-catch tonnage only. This can be seen in our recommendations. Our basis for these figures is that in 1993 the Minister of the time told industry that he wanted to trade kahawai with them for jack & blue mackerel. Industry took all the mackerel tonnage offered and kept the kahawai tonnage as well.

Commercial Use

When one has to really consider where kahawai has been seen in retail outlets, it is either a few smoked fish in a supermarket (which would be adequately supplied with the by-catch tonnage we have allowed for, and occasionally the name kahawai can be seen on some tinned fish cans.

We actually showed Minister Kidd one of these cans when he was the Minister. The labels actually read as follows. This can MAY contain kahawai, mackerel, tuna. It is our belief that if the purchaser does not know what they are actually getting in a can then we would support Industry for using Peruvian mackerel in place of the kahawai.

Our Council is also aware that some whole kahawai has been shipped to Iraq and Iran for food which we do not really have a problem with. Where we draw the line is when the second most popular recreational species is boxed and sent to Australia as bait. Quite simply the fishery is too important to our sector to allow this wastage to continue.

TOP

Background

Whilst it is generally acknowledged that purse seine fishing started in the seventies Sanfords launched their first purse seine vessel the Valkyrie in 1965 and a catch of 240 ton (not tonne) was recorded against that vessel in its first year of operation. Industry has had the use of this fishery for almost forty years and has done virtually nothing with it as far as added value goes.   We are saying that we now want our fishery back. It has a far greater recreational value than commercial economic value and this is recognised in the IPP. The authors of the IPP appear to presume that we as a sector are satisfied and will accept the present recreational catch and CPUE, and that is far from the truth. We want the fishery back to the stage where we have a reasonable chance of catching a fish, rather than to see it go off shore at minimum value.

Tagging Analysis

Whilst acknowledging that the tagging study carried out in 1991 was not designed to determine who was catching what, the figures very clearly show a marked decrease in the recreational catch from the 1983 tagging study. Some scientists will say that we cannot use this data for our purpose but there is just too large a variation not to accept that the recreational catch has gone down dramatically since the early 80's.

Results from the 1981 tagging programme show that the recreational sector caught 72% of all of the tagged fish returns. Bradford commented that it is thought that tagged fish tend to head inshore and that would be the reason why so many tags were returned by the recreational anglers. From the 1991 tagging programme our sector only recovered 27% of the tags returned. Now this is a huge variation from the previous tagging programme.

Our Council and our scientific advisors have tried to analyse why there could be such a variation and have come up with the following conclusions:

1. Either the recreation percentage of catch was much higher than estimated by MFish at the time.
   Fisheries Technical report 19 quotes "that there is some problems with the non reporting of tags, it is still clear that the annual recreational catch must have been similar to the annual commercial catch around that time, i.e. in the thousands of tons per year and perhaps 5,000 tonnes or more."
2. Industry decided not to report recovered tags.   (Possibly to try and show that the fishery was in a better state than it actually was.

In our 1993 submission, we explained through our "sink" hypothesis (stated below), how we believe the purse seiners have been responsible for the overall decline in kahawai around New Zealand. It must be remembered that kahawai moving on average of 50nm are considerably more mobile than snapper which move only a few kilometres. (MAF Information pamphlet No.18)

We have been meaning to ask Brent Wood if it is true as stated on P.5 of the FARD produced by B. Jones that " The 1983 samples were not selected at random since large fish were selected for ageing and comparison with the fish being currently tagged in the Bay (Wood pers.comm) Mark Feldman has contacted Mike Bradstock and I believe Gavin James (the other two main people involved in the 1983 tagging programme). They were certain that MAF would always tag by proper random selection of fish. Therefore provided that Brent Wood can confirm that the fish were tagged at random, the 1983 data should be used as the best available data at the time.

As such, the analysis (refer to Figure 6 in the FARD) that Jones produced should be used, but it should be highlighted in a different way. Jones states "Two landings in 1991-92 had larger mean sizes than the 1983 samples and eight had similar mean sizes." What is totally neglected, is that there must have been a further 19 samples (from the total of 29 samples) that were smaller than the 1983 samples, and this more realistically states the true reflection of the decline in the fishery.

The bottom line is that in 1983 the fish averaged 51.3cm, whereas (as shown by Fig 5 (fig 3 in the McKenzie report) in the Jones FARD) the fish averaged 46.1cm in 1991 (1991 does not include small fish in the 30-35cm range) and 45.3cm in 1992. Even if the 30-35cm fish were removed from the graph (for whatever reason) the average size for 1992 would still only increase to about 46cm. As a result we are showing a clear reduction of a mean size of 5.2cm over a period of eight years, and a further drop of 0.8cm over the next year.

We acknowledge that  the 1983 purse seine data may be a bit scant, but when combined with the Kaharoa report (discussed below), it suggests that it all starts to add up towards evidence of kahawai overfishing, and an explanation as to why the recreational sector started seeing drops in catch levels about this time.

The Jones FARD also attempts to compare purse seine length data from East Cape to Gisborne in the 1970's to the Bay of Plenty 1990's data. The comparison is invalid because the area has been confounded, and it is like comparing apples with oranges. The comparisons must be from similar areas. As has been shown between the Gulf-Bay of Plenty and Tasman Bay-Kaikoura coast. We are aware that there can easily be large length differences between areas that are not that far apart so do not believe Jones comments to be relevant as an explanation.

We consider that the large purse seine catches in two relatively small areas (the Bay of Plenty (actually Waihi to Whakatane), and the top of the South Island (although not discounting the purse seine activity in KAH2) have led to the overfishing of the kahawai fishery around the entire coast of New Zealand. The results of the 1981-84 tagging programme showed that on average the kahawai moved 50 miles in a 2 year period. Thus since the early to mid 1980's when the first large purse seine extractions were taken, the kahawai could easily have moved considerable distances. e.g. the 150-200 miles from the north-west coast to the top of the South Island. We suggest that the concentrated purse seining in these hotspots creates a void into which kahawai from other areas ultimately sink.

MAF tagged and released 4,600 kahawai near Whale Island in 1991. For those people not living in the Bay of Plenty, Whale Island is only 4 miles off shore and probably the most fished area in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.  There is only Whale Island, and the Rau Rimu Rocks in shore, and the Volkner Rocks and White Island 30 miles off shore, so there should not be any surprises at the high percentage of recreational tag returns. Most weekends in excess of 100 boats leave the Whakatane Ramp (NIWA kahawai returns data 2001-2003) and each weekend additional boats depart from Ohope and Thornton ramps. The latter two are adjacent to Whakatane, so the percentage of kahawai tags returned by recreational anglers fishing the Whale Island area is certainly no surprise to our Council.

TOP

Kaharoa Trawl Survey Data

A report prepared by Langley was written summarising the Kaharoa trawl survey results from 1982-1993, which includes a section on kahawai. Pg16 states " In the West Coast North Island survey area, the mean length of fish comprising the 30-55cm length range declined from 41cm in 1986 to 36.7cm in 1991.   Similarly, in the Bay of Plenty the mean length of adult kahawai declined from 47.4cm in 1985 to 44.7cm in 1992."

There are essentially only two explanations why there can be a decrease in average fish size: either there has been a major increase in the numbers of smaller fish (recruitment), or there has been a major increase in adult removals (overfishing). Up until the Kaharoa results, it was not possible to distinguish between these two hypothesis because there was no kahawai recruitment data. However for the Hauraki Gulf   P.16 of the Langley report states " The YCS (Year Class Strength) indices indicate strong 1981, 1984, and 1986 year classes and weak year classes from 1980, 1983, and each year from 1987 to 1991 " (my emphasis). The Gulf is likely to be a major juvenile nursery area for kahawai because the kahawai in this area are consistently smaller than in the Bay of Plenty and Northland.

The Kaharoa recruitment data is especially significant because it strongly suggests that recruitment had been poor in the last few years and that therefore the decreases in average size are most likely due to overfishing. As the catch statistics show, there had been a major increase in adult kahawai mortalities through the excessive purse seine catches over the previous 15 years.

Recreational Catch

Over past years we have been trying to get removed from the stock assessment papers the statement that keeps appearing, that recreational anglers only catch small kahawai because they do not fish as far out as the purse seine fleet. This statement is far from the truth. Whilst it may have had some bearing twenty or thirty years ago it certainly does not apply in 2004. More and more recreational anglers are purchasing modern trailer craft and these vessels are travelling out seventy miles off shore, and in the Bay of Plenty, large numbers of recreational anglers are fishing foul ground areas ten to twenty miles off shore.

Whereas in the past recreational anglers were able to catch a reasonable days catch in shore they are now having to travel further out to catch a reasonable daily bag limit, and are targeting species like Blue Nose that used to be caught only when recreational anglers chose to fish off charter boats.

Adult kahawai are found at all depths from inner harbours out to approximately 200 metre depths but they are unlikely to have the same density at all depths (Bradford). While the statement is correct it does not stop the purse seiners from fishing in shallow water as the photo below shows.   The only condition that keeps the purse seiners out further is the damage that can be done to their nets due to foul bottom. In areas of sand or mud bottom they are fishing inside the recreational fleet, as has been witnessed on many, many occasions by our sector.

TOP

Recreational Catch Tonnage

For some time we have suspected that our sector's catch has been far more than the 2,000 tonne estimation. Pre 1980, the recreational catch could have been as high as 4,000-5,000 tonne or even higher.

Kilner allowed 2,000 ton to the recreational sector when N.Z.'s population was one third of what it is today, so we would have estimated the recreational catch to be in excess of what has been allowed.

One scientist (I cannot remember his name, or find the paper covering the subject) but he calculated that if each recreational angler caught one kahawai per week for twelve months, then the tonnage that should be allowed for recreational fishing would be in the 8,000-9,000 tonnes per year. As can be seen later in this submission, the anglers taking part in the Central Diary survey based in Hawkes Bay said that they caught 60 kahawai per year, so the scientist who came up with this figure may not have been too far off the pace, when he suggested such a high tonnage.

Our Council has found it ridiculous the way Bradford deduced the recreational kahawai catch of 700 ton. To simply suggest that 100 ton per year can be deducted from 2,000 ton and a magic figure of 700 ton becomes an important part of the equation. We would have to ask where is the science that dreamed up a figure like this, and it is our sector who are the ones being accused of supplying anecdotal evidence.

We believe this to be theft from recreational fishers with the proceeds being given to the purse seine companies, and we believe that it is a gross social injustice .

We are not asking to have the fishery returned to the good old days of the 1950's but there has to be a level between what we had then, and the pathetic fishery that we have now where the ramp surveys have shown that we are catching 0.4 kahawai per trip. The 2004 data looks like showing even a less catch rate than 2003.

Although the data for the year has not been finally collected, and myself being involved in the collection of kahawai data for NIWA. Interviewers are required to obtain 50 heads per ramp and are limited to collecting a maximum of 4 heads per boat. We have previously stated that 100 boats on average use the Whakatane ramp each day of a weekend.

After 28 weekend days in 2004 (not allowing for bad weather) with 100 boats per day, 2,800 boats fishing for say five hours each or 14,000 boat hours and I still do not have my 50 heads as required. Whilst some anglers refuse to give us kahawai heads, they would equate to less than 5% of the total, and this shows the true state of the recreational kahawai in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

Value of Kahawai to Recreational Fishers

The SA Centre for Economic Studies report Sep 1999 (RRPG-1999} quotes:

" The only species that has a recreational value higher than the commercial gross production value on a catching fish basis and the general fishing basis is kahawai ."

The report goes on to say that: " The exception is kahawai, where the MWTP $ per kg is $2.80 and the average retail price paid is $2.31 per kg, illustrating that kahawai have a higher value as a recreational fish than a commercial or eating fish."

  " The Centre calculated average values for the total recreational fishing estimates on a fish and a per kg basis.   The fish species that has the highest recreational fishing value estimate is snapper, with $85.1 million (estimated from average WTP/Kg caught).   Kahawai is the second highest with a value of $73.6 million".

The above statements reinforce the values and importance that our Council places on the kahawai species for our sector.

TOP

Dependant Data

We are aware that Sanfords have been collecting length data and that they have had a person employed 80% of the time measuring snapper, trevally, and kahawai. As the work being done is unaudited and has not been validated, the results are totally rejected by our Council. Those collecting the data have a vested interest in the results and therefore they should have an independent person carrying out the work not a paid employee. This type of work is similar to the aerial sightings data and we cannot accept the results. It is too easy to select the fish that they want for measuring and rejecting those that go against the grain. We will treat data from this research no different than anecdotal evidence. We would expect the same response from Industry for any collecting of data carried out by our sector that hadn't been validated.

Voluntary No Go Areas

The NZRFC was one of the parties involved in establishing the voluntary no go areas for the purse seine vessels. At the time we believed that anywhere we could keep the purse seiners out of was better than giving them free reign to all of our inshore waters.

Having now had time to gauge the effectiveness of the closures we consider that the no go areas are far too small, and the areas given away by industry were areas that they very seldom fished, so in reality they gave away nothing. Kahawai are a very mobile fish and therefore a 2-mile limit is really pretty insignificant. When one considers that a great deal of the area classed as no go is really too shallow for their nets, or over foul ground which would damage their nets so they gave us nothing of any consequence but when the total area was written on paper it did look impressive.

One area that should be closed to all purse seining is the Hauraki Gulf.   It was supposed to be closed in 1988 after a Sanfords boat made a couple of shots in the Kawau Island area. The Hauraki Gulf is recognised as a juvenile fishery (B. Jones) and the closure was supposed to come into the Regulations. However it was withdrawn at the last minute and included in the Fishery Management Plan, then it was pulled out of there and included in the voluntary agreement.

We regard the Hauraki Gulf as a vital nursery area and the main gulf area should be excluded from purse seining by regulation.

The industry voluntarily offered the recreational sector a "no fishing period" from December through to Easter. This was effectively a meaningless bargain as this was the period that skipjack was targeted and had virtually no impact on their kahawai fishing

TOP

Research

In 1996 our Council asked to have a recruitment programme introduced. We could not see how a reliable stock assessment could be carried out if we did not know what the recruitment was into the fishery. The draft report "Juvenile Kahawai Recruitment Index Feasibility Study" really didn't tell us anymore than what we had already suggested, that the fishery was under stress and the recruitment into the fishery was dismal. However, the scientists had other answers and said it was the way that the recruitment tests had been done. We had asked for the prior tests to be duplicated so that we had a margin to work from. From the results, we fail to understand any other reason why the sampling failed. We note that Bradford quoted 1995 " the recruitment variation is likely to be important and a recruitment index may be necessary to adequately assess the kahawai fish stocks."

Our Council still believes that a recruitment study is required for kahawai. Kahawai first spawn at 35-40cm (Eggleston) and from recent ramp survey studies in the Eastern Bay of Plenty we are seeing more and more fish in the 40 - 50cm sizes whereas in the past the majority of fish exceeded the 50cm length.

In the past we have asked for duplicate shots of the 1983 data, 1991 data, and 1992 data to be carried out. We can appreciate that the numbers are low, and too low for some scientists whilst some of our scientific advisors suggest that some sectors carry out too much number crunching and smoothing out.

As a Council we offered our labour free to assist with a duplicate tagging programme simulating the '83, 91' and '92 tagging programmes but our offer was never taken up by Industry or the Ministry. (obviously they are not gamblers or they already knew what the results would be.)

For the Bay of Plenty, the kahawai in the 1990's are statistically and significantly smaller than the fish from the 1983 sample. The 1983 fish averaged 51.3cm and the 1991 summary has an average length of 46.1 cm. The 1997 boat ramp survey had a mean of 44.1cm (Bradford). Given these results we firmly believe that the 1983 purse seine data (although somewhat scant) must be recognised as valid and robust.

Furthermore, we contend that it must be acknowledged that for the Bay of Plenty that there is conclusive evidence from the 1983 and 1990-1 purse seine catch sampling data that kahawai have decreased in size. Until there is hard scientific evidence conducted by an independent organisation such as MFish or NIWA then the Minister must accept this as the only available information, and it shows that the fishery is in decline.  It is recognised around the world that a decrease in the average size of the fish is hard evidence that overfishing is occurring.

TOP

Aerial Sightings Data

The Ministry through Brian Jones has gone into great detail on many occasions as to the state of the kahawai fishery and has used data such as the aerial sighting data supplied by industry paid pilots to suggest that the fishery was not under any type of stress.  

It is interesting to note that as soon as the kahawai species became political, lo and behold the spotter planes started noticing more kahawai schools than they had logged in the past even though the recreational sector were catching less fish. The spotter plane pilots were being paid by industry and they were certainly not going to say that there were fewer schools when the heat came on.

The aerial sightings data has too much bias. It is not possible to know how much of the total stock of kahawai is on the surface at any particular time. Environmental conditions such as temperature may determine at what depth kahawai are likely to school. This might interact with other environmental variables such as the abundance of prey. Far more work on the behaviour of pelagic fish will be required before we can be convinced that the aerial sightings data can be given any credibility. As the respective fishing areas are not flown every day and fish schools recorded daily, it tends to bias the results. We also note that when the pilots fly a particular sector and no schools are seen, then this information is not logged.

One particular flight the author of this report carried out with three purse seine skippers from Whangarei to Whakatane did not reveal one school of kahawai on the surface and they had been telling us all day at a meeting what a great shape the fishery was in and there were more surface schools now than there had been in earlier years.

Local Concerns

KAH1

Our affiliates contacted from the Bay of Islands in the North to Waihau Bay in the East have advised that there has been NO CHANGE in the state of the Kahawai fishery in the past twelve months. It would appear that the further east that one travels, and the further north one travels from Tauranga, the less schools appear to be showing. While there are some schools out of Tauranga, they are not there in numbers and not consistently visible. Reports from the Motu area are that it has been another poor season. Clubs at Whakatane, Opotiki, TeKaha, and Waihau Bay report that they have all had poor tournament results.

A recent kahawai tournament held by the Mt Maunganui Sportfishing Club over 2 days had 115 anglers and only 57 kahawai were caught. Based on an eight hour fishing day, equates to 17,840 fishing hours or 312 hrs for each fish caught.

A recent tournament held by the Waihau Bay Sportsfishing Club had 92 anglers fishing for two days for an estimated eight hrs / day equating to 1,472 hrs and 9 kahawai were landed.

KAH2

In the past, the purse seine fleet has rapidly filled their tonnage in this area. Up until recently there appeared to be no significant decline in the recreational CPUE. Our club's situated at Gisborne, Mahia, Napier, Waiarapa, and Ngawi have all noted a decline in school sizes and don't want to see any further decline in their kahawai fishery.

The Eades Fishing Tournament run out of Wanganui was held in March 2004. A total of 800 anglers fished for an average of 10 hrs per angler or 8,000 fishing hours and 1 kahawai was caught. This type of result does nothing for the perceived quality of management of our fishery by MFish, and our Council is also placed under pressure for allowing our fishery to deteriorate to this level.

The participants of the Central Area diary survey clearly defined the state of their fishery, and the MFish review clearly acknowledged the concerns of those involved in the study. " Kahawai is one of the most important recreational finfish species in Central Region. Kahawai is being increasingly sought by recreational anglers partly because of the decline in other popular species." "Kahawai catch rates were easily the highest in Hawkes Bay at 60 fish per angler per year, with the next best being Tarakihi at 30 fish per year."  "The concern about kahawai was rated high as 84% of correspondents considered that kahawai numbers had decreased." "The level of concern was highest in the north of the region which is consistent with the high level of concern being expressed about kahawai in the Bay of Plenty and Auckland ." (Kilner)

KAH3

In the past Kah3 has always been recognised as the retirement village for kahawai. This has been acknowledged by (Murray T., Jones B,). Locals are now telling us that there are no mature fish around, they all appear to be juveniles in the sounds with very few schools outside the sounds.   Over the years we have heard many excuses why the tonnage could not be caught in KAH3. To us it is simple. We understand perfectly what is going on in KAH3 where the fishery has been grossly overfished by the purse seiners with excessive catches for five years from 1986/87 which averaged nearly 4,000 tonne per year that was no way sustainable as history is now showing. For most recreational fishermen in KAH3 kahawai are now nothing more than a memory.

TOP

General

Recreational fishing is a significant part of New Zealand's social culture. We are an island nation that lives within 100km of our coastal waters if not the majority being coastal residents. In 1991 the NZRFC managed a National Research Bureau survey on the economics of recreational fishing with a Department of Statistics margin of error of + or – 3%. The survey indicated that one third of our population engaged in recreational / sustenance fishing in the past year. There is no reason to believe that there has been any change therefore we estimate that more than 1 million New Zealanders fish each year for sustenance or recreation on today's population.

In those early days the recreational sector had very little knowledge of the fishery in general and we relied heavily on the ministry at the time to look after our fishery for us. We were virtually unfunded and were all employed in our own spheres which had nothing to do with fishery management.  Since those early days we have found that we had to become involved in fisheries management because we felt that we were not being truly represented by MFish, MOF, MAF.

We have complained through the pelagic working groups, at plenary meetings, and to the various ministers responsible for fisheries over the years,as to the state of the kahawai fishery, and Ministers' Moyle and Kidd were the only ones who really took notice of our concerns and did anything about them.

We are also aware that the recreational fishers have classified kahawai as their second most popular species after snapper and it is for this reason that we wish to ensure that our sectors entitlement is adequately represented when kahawai is brought into the QMS.

One must remember the introduction of purse seining in New Zealand was to catch skipjack tuna and only when the tuna season had finished was the purse seine fleet targeting kahawai, trevally, and mackerel. Each time that we have sought cuts to the commercial catch of kahawai, industry has bleated long and loud about how many people would loose their jobs if there were any cuts.   This has always been a sham and always will be, as the fishing industry is too innovative to allow such a minor species to them to control their business operations.

TOP

Where To From Here

When it was discovered that the snapper stocks were in decline our Council supported the cuts to both the recreational and commercial tonnage in an effort to rebuild the fishery. Whilst we supported the cuts in bag limits, the fishing industry took the Minister to court and through a technicality they kept their existing tonnage and have done nothing since to help rebuild the fishery.

We wish to advise the Ministry loud and clear that the same thing isn't going to happen again with kahawai stocks. Our Council's decision is that we will not give an inch until we get our fishery back. We know how the fishery has been plundered, and the fish has been virtually given away as fishmeal and bait in the past and it is our sector that has seen a very popular species diminished to the stage where we cannot catch them as we did in the past.

We are disappointed and really concerned to see that the authors of the IPP have given the Minister very little room to move when they have suggested only one option to manage the kahawai fishery. We can see that if we keep heading down the same track, we are going to end up with the same result. The longer that the Ministry deny the problems in the fishery, the longer it is going to take to get a rebuild. The recreational sector is now at the stage where they want to see action, and the species will become a political hot potato. We can guarantee the fact that now submissions have closed, the pressure will be applied to all of those involved in making the right decisions.

Over the past decade our Council has continually asked the Ministry, what level they intend fishing kahawai down to? And we have never been able to get an answer. Our sector is now saying that the fishery has been fished down too far, and we now want to see a rebuild.

The 1996 Fisheries Act allows the Minister to manage a fishery above the BMSY, and the kahawai fishery is one of those fisheries that should be managed at this level. We are happy to assist in a fishery rebuild, but not while the fishery is being slaughtered by the other major stakeholder.

Our Recommendations

1. A rebuild of the kahawai fishery is required urgently.
2. Commercial Catch Limits be capped at:

3. Await the nationwide survey to establish the actual Recreational catch and then make cuts etc as necessary. Whatever is done now is only guesswork.
4. Instigate a recruitment research programme
5. Duplicate the 1981 and 1991 tagging surveys as suggested in the submission

Thanking You.

Ross Gildon

President NZRFC.

TOP