|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
