Snapper (SNA2)

This IPP paper to the Minister provides no credible critique of the stock assessment model. There is also no mention of the uncertainty associated with the 1996 recreational survey. It is the Ministry’s job to point out these uncertainties and the caution needed in the face of these uncertainties. The Act requires that the Minister take these into account. It should not be left to the recreational sector (that couldn’t afford to attend meetings in Wellington) or the Minister, to do the Ministry’s job for them.

The quality of this year’s IPP papers clearly shows there is a lack of robust debate on the results and implications of TACC changes in key shared fisheries such as SNA 2, TAR 1 and PAU 5. This is a role that option4 has taken up, so that the recreational right to a quality fishery is not eroded further.

To propose an increase of 43% in a TACC based on a model which estimates in its’ base case that the biomass is 10% below BMSY is ridiculous. The available data indicates that the fishery is not yet stable, and that a precautionary approach is needed in the fishery.

For these reasons we are opposed to the proposed increase in TACC in SNA 2 for 2002-2003.

For the full document (10 pages) :

If you have Microsoft Word www.option4.co.nz/ippdocuments/sna2.doc (153Kb)

Or in a PDF document www.option4.co.nz/ippdocuments/sna2.pdf (40Kb)

If you do not have Acrobat reader (or need to upgrade) click here »»