14 January 2003
The Conservator
Bay of Plenty Conservancy Office
P.O. Box 1146
Rotorua
Dear Sir,
SUBMISSION FROM: New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council
SUBMISSION ON: Proposed Te Paepae Aotea / Volkner Rocks
Marine Reserve.
The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council represents the following
National Organisations: N.Z. Angling & Casting Association,
N.Z. Big Game Fishing Council, N.Z. Trailer Boat Federation, N.Z.
Marine Transport Association, N.Z. Underwater Federation, N.Z. Sports
Industry Association.
We also represent the following regional associations, Northland,
Auckland, Bay of Plenty/Waikato, Taranaki, Wellington, Tasman Bay,
and Otago.
As well as the National and Regional Associations, we have 243
clubs as members and in total represent approximately 239,000 members.
All of our associates are affected in some way by the creation
of a marine reserve at the Volkner Rocks. It is one of the few locations
left in New Zealand that most anglers from throughout New Zealand
dream of fishing. Most make the trip at least once in their life
to visit this group of rocks out in the middle of nowhere where
they can have high expectations of catching a fish far larger than
anything that they have caught before.
We are aware that some of the National Associations and option4 are making their own submissions, we support their submissions,
but we do not support the submission from N.Z. Underwater Federation
and they have been made aware of this.
OVERVIEW.
Our Council has some major concerns with the application for the
marine reserve application that has been made for the Volkner Rocks,
or referred to as the Te Paepae Aotea Reserve.
Due to these concerns we do not support
the application
in its present form.
In this submission we will expand out our concerns, and advise
of the ramifications involved if the application proceeds in its
present form.
It is the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council’s policy
that; no new marine reserves should be created until the Governments
Oceans Policy has been completed.
Or
Until the recreational fishing rights have been defined in law which
is presently being negotiated.
The Minister is required evaluate the impact of a reserve on fishing
and recreational use. The Act clearly states ”Any adverse
effect” on recreational or customary fishing is sufficient
grounds for the Minister to decline the application. When one considers
the number of out of town domestic anglers, and the number of International
anglers that frequent the Volkner Rocks, any closure will have an
adverse effect. The effects will not just relate to fishing, they
will also affect international tourism, business for a small community,
etc.
It is our interpretation that the reference to “fishing”
in the Act is not just the act of catching, but it should also be
read as a reference to the quality of the fishing experience.
The 1971 Marine Reserve Act clearly states the conditions under
which the Director General can make a marine reserve application,
and we do not believe that these conditions have been adhered to.
Surely the Volkner Rocks proposal needs to be consistent with the
primary purpose of the Marine Reserves Act (1971), which is scientific
study. Far from it, the creating of a reserve at this location will
severely constrain existing Ministry of Fisheries funded research
into the age, growth rates, and natural mortality of New Zealand
kingfish.
On closer examination, the scientific studies that are quoted by
the steering committee and DOC are totally inadequate to justify
the establishment of a 1-mile marine reserve at the Volkner Rocks
over other potential sites at White Island.
Consultation and representation can only be described as abysmal
and no “meaningful consultation” has been carried out.
There have been opportunities where both members of the steering
committee or DOC have had the chance to promote their cause to the
general public and this has not happened.
The continuation of the fishery targeting kingfish by drifting
baits in relatively deep water in no way effects the special features
that the proposal uses as justification for marine reserve status.
The closure of this fishery by creating a 1 mile radius reserve
cannot be justified.
The location of the Volkner Rocks and their physical construction,
and because of the strong currents, wind, and waves from almost
all four corners of the compass, and the fact that they do not offer
any protection from the weather does not make this the ideal site
for diving. Dive boats anchoring in the reserve, particularly in
bad weather will do considerable damage to the special invertebrate
life that they are trying to protect.
The alteration of documentation namely the “Froude Report”
creates a misleading representation of the facts when there is no
statement to advise that it is an amended copy of the report that
is accompanying the application.
We are concerned that changes to the proposed marine reserve boundaries
were made without sufficient consultation with all stakeholder groups.
Not all the important facts known to the steering committee being
passed on to relevant stakeholders and submitters to allow them
to make appropriate comment in their submissions.
Our Council believes that by not advising the public prior to submissions
closing that Ngati awa or Te Ehutu iwi had Treaty claims in for
the waters around the privately owned White Island and when the
claims were settled that they would probably turn the waters into
some type of reserve. Now this is pretty damning information. Especially
when the steering committee is privy to this information and the
public were not advised of the situation prior to submissions being
called for the Volkner Rocks.
We are aware that originally White Island was to be part of the
Whakaari Reserve and that there was to be 0.5 mile closure around
both White Island and the Volkner Rocks.
Because we do not have all the steering committee meeting minutes,
it would appear to us that after Ngati awa and Te Ehutu iwi advised
the committee of their intentions on settlement of their treaty
claims. At about that time, the steering committee dropped the White
Island part of the reserve and increased the Volkner Rocks reserve
out to 1mile, and Maoris' intentions have been kept from the public
to ensure that it didn’t affect the results of the submissions.
We consider these actions to be non-disclosure, and will be taking
the matter further if the existing proposal becomes a reality.
Abnomalies in the application
Our Council finds that it is strange that the Volkner Rocks appear
to be on the move. According to the application, the Volkners are
located 55km NN.E. of Whakatane. All of the charts that we have
referred to show the Volkners to be NNW of Whakatane and closer
than the 55km referred to in the application.
1971 Act
Section 5. Procedure for declaring a marine reserve
Sub Sect 6. (d)
It is our belief that the establishment of a marine reserve with
a radius of 1 mile around the Volkner Rocks is an unnecessary large
area and will unduly interfere or adversely affect any existing
usage for recreational purposes so is contrary to this section of
the Act.
Section 5. Procedure for declaring a marine reserve
Sub Sect (9)
Under this section of the Act, the Minister can declare an area
a marine reserve either
“Unconditionally or subject to any conditions” and one
of those conditions is “permitting fishing within the reserve
by persons not holding a permit issued under (part III of the Fisheries
Act 1983) until such time as a management committee for the reserve
is appointed and is working and has been consulted as to whether
a notice under Sect 3 of this ACT should be given or not. He shall
if the Ministers of Transport and Fisheries concur recommend to
the Governor General the making of an Order in Council accordingly."
This section allows the steering committee to recommend any catch
within the reserve
by recreational fishing. We assume this to be the section on which
Tuhua reserve was designed.
Once the management committee is established and working they have
the ability to create bylaws for the reserve and again they have
the powers to allow selective fishing within the reserve under the
Act.
The White Island / Volkner Rocks has given Whakatane the title
of Kingfish Capital of the world, due to the size and abundance
of kingfish that are known to exist in the area. Whilst it has been
suggested by the chairman of the steering committee that there are
other areas where kingfish can be caught, we believe it is tongue
in cheek stuff. Of course there are other areas where kingfish can
be caught, but they do not consistently have the sizes of the fish
caught at the proposed reserve area..
We are aware that we have many domestic anglers fishing this area
because basically they have tried other locations and not had the
success that they have had at the Volkner Rocks. Foreign anglers
from Australia, Singapore, other Asian Countries, Germany, and USA
all come to this area with one species in mind and that is the yellowtail
kingfish. We would suggest that Tourism New Zealand would have more
accurate figures than we can offer
These anglers cannot believe that they are forced to return fish
to the water because they do not make minimum size under the general
code of practice operated by most charter boats and they have never
caught a fish so large before.
International anglers wanting to catch large striped marlin go
to the Bay of Islands because they know that they have a chance
of catching a record sized fish there. People travel to Cairns Australia
to catch the largest of large Black Marlin, and they travel to Whakatane
to catch oversized kingfish. Anglers know that they can travel to
other areas and catch a striped marlin, or a black marlin, or kingfish
but after travelling half way around the world they want value for
dollars spent so they operate out of recognised ports, and Whakatane
is the recognised port worldwide for kingfish. In all three locations
mentioned the vast majority of fish caught are tagged and released.
Anglers are not interested in fishing for the reef species out
at the Volkners as very few of them would be classified as edible
when compared to snapper etc. If they are looking for that type
of sustenance fishing they will stop off at the inshore islands
either before or after they travel to the White and Volkners.
The fish caught at Volkner Rocks are more often than not tagged
and released unless they are getting close to a record sized fish.
For the past twenty years recreational anglers have been tagging
and releasing kingfish at the Volkner Rocks and White Island in
the Ministry of Fisheries cooperative tagging programme. The focus
of their current kingfish tagging is the growth rate of fish 1 metre
and larger, measured on release and recapture. Many of the larger
fish tagged are caught at the Volkner Rocks. The numbers of kingfish
captured here are evidence of the success of the programme.
There have been more than 200 kingfish recaptured at the Volkner
Rocks. One fish was caught three times over a period of three years.
Sciences to justify a marine reserve application
The chairman of the steering committee, and we assume other members
of the steering committee, believe that adequate scientific data
is available to warrant the establishment of a marine reserve. Our
Council disagrees and provides the following data to justify our
concerns and disagreement with the chairman's statement.
In 1992 the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute carried out some
survey work out at White Island and the Volkner Rocks. The title
of the report that was a result of the survey was " A survey
of the marine habitats and communities of White Island." In
the report the author quoted, "since the time available for
field work was extremely limited each dive was organised to maximise
data obtained." Our Council believes a statement like that
means that it was a hurried job and insufficient was spent to obtain
the necessary data. There were no numbers of dives recorded, or
time actually spent in the water, which would indicate that it was
not well organised research.
We are aware that 10 different sites were chosen. Eight sites were
dived around White Island, and two sites at the Volkner Rocks. At
the eight of the sites around White Island transects were carried
out and the number of and types of species countered and compared
with those of other sites compared. However, at the two sites at
the Volkner Rocks the reports says, "Although quantitative
transects were not conducted at the Volkner Rocks, the fish species
and abundance's appeared similar to those observed on the Southern
side of the Club Rocks. A statement like this in a document as important
as this cannot be considered scientific evidence, it can only be
considered as anecdotal comment and carries no credibility.
The report suggests, "Recreational fishing in the area may
place sufficient pressure on the resources to prevent their enhancement."
The author of the report could also have said that recreational
fishing "may not" place pressure on stock enhancement.
Again there is no science in a statement like this and cannot be
justified. The report continues, "Catch data from amateur fishers,
big game fishing clubs, and commercial landings have not been analysed
for this report." Without knowing what the catches are now,
or were in the past because no other survey had been carried out,
the author would not have any knowledge as to whether any fish stock
was under pressure or not. He would not know what impact recreational
fishing has on the stocks, so this comment can be considered nothing
more than anecdotal information either, and carries no credibility.
We are also aware that no research has been carried out in the
past at the Volkners and the scientists have used minimal data that
was obtained during research of the Tuhua Reserve application some
50 nautical miles to the west of the Volkners for comparison. We
find this to be totally inadequate and unscientific for a report
of this nature.
The second report referred to in the application was a report completed
for N.Z. Navy in 1997 by a company called Kingett Mitchell and Associates.
The title of the report was "Assessments of the effects of
ordnance on the marine resources of Volkner Rocks.
The basics of the report taken from the report itself "is an
assessment of the effects of defence force ordnance on the biological
resources at Volkner Rocks after 30 years of bombing by the Navy
and the Air Force.
The researchers visited the site twice in November 1996 and once
in April 1997 and a quote from the report says, "no significant
sub-tidal work was able to be completed on the first two occasions
due to poor weather conditions." Therefore the researchers
in this case spent three days counting the number and types of war-heads
and practice bombs encountered, and the areas that the heads and
shells covered, and as to their physical state having been submerged
for various lengths of time. They did acknowledge that they saw
the same species of fish encountered by the previous researchers.
The research reported in this document has nothing to do with the
placing of a site under a marine reserve status and should not be
even referred to by the steering committee.
The third report referred to by the steering committee was carried
out in 2001 for DOC Bay of Plenty Conservancy, by Victoria Froude.
She used to work for DOC but is now a private consultant. The title
of the report was "Compilation of ecological information on
the Volkner Rocks / Te Paepae marine area."
The basics of this report are only a summary of "existing
information" and a "desk-top exercise only" as quoted
by Ms Froude. She had nothing new to offer, only what was in the
previous two reports. However, Ms Froude did say "There has
however been no survey designed to collect information about a marine
reserve based solely around the Volkner Rocks. This means that it
is not possible to fully answer some important questions."
Our Council agrees fully with this comment.
Summary of Scientific Data.
There is really only one report that can even be considered as
somewhat scientific, and our council has a number of difficulties
relating to comments in the report. The report would certainly require
more substance to support a marine reserve application as there
are too many anecdotal comments being referred to as evidence.
We are aware from the steering committee minutes that they had
the opportunity to alter (and they did) the Froude Report before
it was submitted with the application. Now we appreciate that the
report was written for DOC and they have every right to do what
ever they want with the report, but it should show as an amended
report not as an original. We know that the steering committee changed
Ms Froude’s report, and although there aren’t any recorded
indications, we can only assume that DOC also made changes. We therefore
discount any reference to the Froude Report and we question whether
the author was advised that her paper had been altered before it
was attached to the application..
The authors of this proposal clearly make the assumption that all
fishing is bad. However, apart from some anecdotal comments in one
of the reports, there is no scientific data to show that fishing
for kingfish caused any damage on any of the “special features”
or species that the proposers want to protect. It is proposals such
as this that will continually have the recreational sector fighting
to get some logic in marine reserve applications.
There is no scientific basis for the Government to close off 10%
of our coastline or the green element wanting to close off 20% of
our coastline to become marine reserves. To lock up areas without
knowing what is there and whether anything there is under threat,
and even if reserves are the best management tools to use is reckless
when it involves peoples culture and birthright.
Consultation
We consider the consultation process for this application to be
a farce. Meaningful consultation (Wellington Airport v's Wellington
City Council) has been non-existent.
The steering committee apart from the statutory requirements and
visiting three marae for hui's, attending a Whakatane District Council
committee meeting, and the Trident High school pupils with an advocate
for marine reserves. We are aware that the chairman has spoken to
a couple of organisations and very recently started a campaign on
the local radio.
The Department of Conservation refused to attend a Public meeting
at the Whakatane Sportfishing Club, and did not visit any other
fishing clubs in the area. In fact, there were no public meetings
organised by the steering committee. We find this to be inexcusable,
and we consider that this decision was made to avoid having to listen
to argument and comments towards possible changes to the proposal
that would reduce the size of the Marine Reserve.
The only consultation carried out was the bare minimum as per required
under the Act and this is unacceptable when so many people rely
on these islands for enjoyment and recreational purposes.
Steering Committee meetings
Whilst the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council was invited
to the launch at Ohope Charter Club and attended, our council was
never invited onto the steering committee. We thought it would have
been obvious to have a representative that had mandate from the
majority of recreational fishers throughout the country to represent
them and not just a person representing a local fishing club. Even
when the commercial fishing representative on the steering committee
suggested at a steering committee meeting that the Rec. Fishing
Council become involved we were never invited to attend. We do note
however that RF & BPS were invited to have representation.
Most fishing clubs throughout the country do not have personal
who are experienced enough to attend meetings of this nature and
is obvious by some of the decisions that have been made at the steering
committee meetings. We note from the minutes (that we have received)
that the Whakatane Sportfishing Club had five different representatives
attend meetings throughout the process. This is obviously not satisfactory
and cannot be considered as meaningful consultation. Members of
the steering committee and especially DOC should have recognised
the problem, and done more to rectify the situation at the time.
We note from the documentation received, that the Department of
Conservation worked very hard to get Maori on their side, even though
DOC has suggested in the media that they are not biased either way.
They have suggested that they are only the tools to move an application
forward. We disagree. It is clear from the steering committee meeting
minutes that DOC was the driving force behind this application and
only used the members of the steering committee as pawns to achieve
their aims.
One only has to look at the makeup of the steering committee to
realise the bias toward an eco-tourist operation and a green sector.
This reasoning becomes far more obvious when some of the decisions
are taken into account that have been made at the various steering
committee meetings.
The frequency of meetings on such an important issue can only be
considered a joke. Our Council sought all minutes of the steering
committee meetings, and whilst we did receive some minutes of the
meetings listed below, we are aware of other meetings that did take
place and the minutes were not released to us even though they were
not officially declined. Working with only some of the data does
not assist us in making an informed decision.
Date of Meeting. |
No. Attending |
incl. DOC staff present |
20 July 1999 |
11 |
5 |
31 Aug 1999 |
12 |
5 |
4 April 2000 |
4 |
1 |
2 May 2000 |
8 |
2 |
6 June 2000 |
6 |
1 |
4 July 2000 |
5 |
2 |
1 Aug 2000 |
6 |
2 |
3 Oct 2000 |
11 |
3 |
7 Nov 2000 |
11 |
4 |
5 Dec 2000 |
6 |
2 |
28 Aug 2001 |
8 |
3 |
15 Feb 2002 |
3 |
1 |
The steering committee minutes can only be described as pathetic
or an obvious attempt to hide hidden agendas. We fail to understand
why the minutes are so sparse when we have been advised that the
meetings were being taped. We include as an appendix one committee
members comments relating to 30 inconsistencies to the minutes of
just one meeting relating to what was written and what was actually
said and not said at the meeting. Two other steering committee persons
pulled out of the committee due to the inefficiencies and the way
the meetings were being run.
Various individuals at these meetings raised issues and the answers
to any political or controversial type question are not shown, and
motions put forward by individuals and the results of these motions
are not shown in most cases. There is very little evidence showing
what was comment and what were decisions.
We are aware that Maori had two representatives on the steering
committee. Mr Joe Mason representing Ngati awa, and Mr Manny Mokomoko
representing either Whakatoea or Te Ehutu Iwi. Whilst we can understand
both of these gentlemen who our Council knows and highly respects,
all matters in the steering committee minutes relating to these
two representatives are regarding Customary Maori issues. Neither
representative raised the matter that 95% of all Maori people fishing
is carried out under the Amateur Fishing Regulations, not the Customary
Regulations.
It is of further concern that none of the Maori recreational anglers
whom we interviewed at the Whakatane and the Kutarere boat ramps
were aware that their representatives had supported the Reserve
application, and were not aware of any consultation taking place
regarding the Te Paepae Aotea Reserve.
From the steering committee meeting minutes of Aug 31 we note there
were twelve people present and that the following proposal was decided
upon. “To publish for public comment the Volkner proposal
as shown: ½ nautical mile reserve around Volkner Rocks but
providing for, with the demarcated area shown on the chart, a take
of one kingfish per angler per trip, at minimum size of 90cm"
At a subsequent meeting when there were only four members present,
the proposal was changed to remove area Y that was the major contentious
issue. We have to ask in which other democracy can a meeting of
only four committee members override a decision made by twelve members
at a previous meeting.
One committee member has advised us that the proposal wasn’t
even an agenda item at the meeting that it was changed.
This astounds our Council that twelve Committee members make a
decision and then it is overridden by a questionable quorum of four
at a following meeting.
At a steering committee meeting held on May 2nd 2000, Forest &
Bird representative Meg Collins asked for the size of the reserve
to be doubled in size from ½ mile radius to 1.0 mile radius.
At that meeting there were eight of the steering committee members
present including two members of DOC “It was felt that amount
of change would create more opposition” and wasn’t supported.
At the very next meeting with only five members present, three of
them from DOC (a majority vote) it was proposed to include the 1mile
radius as an option in the new proposal. It is obvious to our Council
from that point on DOC had taken over the steering committee.
What are we trying to protect?
Is it the fish stocks? Or is this just another “it would
be nice to have one there” reserve.
This application started way back some 10-11 years ago with the
recreational sector opposed to bulk harvesting of fish stocks in
the area. It was nothing more or nothing less. Now all of a sudden
the proposal is for the whole area is to be closed to all stakeholders
within a radius of one mile.
There were many options for the steering committee to consider
achieving the initial aims. Options such as Taiapure, Maitaitai,
were never offered to the public to vote on. Comments from MFish
staff, Richard Fanslow, and Todd Sylvester who were invited to meetings
were never taken on board or even discussed further by the steering
committee.
Without naming the 59 species listed in the N.Z. Oceanographic
Institute report, there is but one species that the recreational
sector travels to the Volkners to catch and that it the kingfish.
Because of the size of the baits and jigs used for these fish, they
are not endangering the black angelfish, the crested blenny, or
any of the other reef species that are domiciled in the area.
From the charts shown by both N.Z.O.I. and Kingett Mitchell, once
you get out more than 50 metres from the Volkner Rocks, it is too
deep and the type of bottom doesn’t suit these reef species.
From time to time schools of species such as blue maomao will be
encountered on the surface, but we can assure the Minister that
recreational anglers do not travel 50km off the coast just to catch
blue maomao.
The vast majority of kingfish fishing is done with a drifting boat
again because the depth drops away too quickly for a boat to have
safe anchorage and this would also apply to dive vessels. There
are very few locations where one can anchor a boat, and we are sure
that anchoring dive vessels will do far more damage to the eco-system
than drifting fishing boats.
We are aware that there are very few areas out at the Volkners
suitable for snorkelling and with the size of some of the highly
migratory species that frequent the area, as a parent I certainly
wouldn’t let any of my school children dive the Volkner area.
This cannot be compared with the Leigh Marine Reserve which is a
great place for children to study life in the sea.
From the data that was supplied in the scientific reports, with
very little information available existing beyond the 50 metre mark
out from the rocks, why do we need a reserve of 1.0 mile. It is
a huge area considered by some that is closed, that is of no benefit
to any fish stocks, because even the predatory species will be in
the confines of the bait fish (reef fish). One doesn’t stand
on the opposite side of the road and watch all the meals going past.
One wants to be in and amongst it.
The only species that are more than likely to travel through “no
mans land” will be the seasonal Tunas, Billfish, Sharks, etc.,
and recreational anglers targeting these species are surface fishing
and certainly will have no effect on the reef species in against
the rocks.
Arguments about the beneficial effects of marine reserves are imported
from overseas jurisdictions where fisheries are essentially unmanaged
and fisheries practices are unsustainable. These arguments do not
apply in New Zealand where fisheries are managed by a world-renowned
system second to none under the Quota Management System. The QMS
already sets catch limits well above the level at which each stock
can replenish itself.
Whilst the commercial sector is controlled by quotas, the recreational
sector is controlled by; species bag limits, minimum length sizes,
number of hooks used, length and number of nets, number of crayfish
pots etc. With these types of regulations it is easy to adjust the
recreational take up or down as the need arises. The Ministry of
Fisheries also has the ability to close off areas short or long
term as the need arises. i.e. Toheroas.
The Recreational Council is not opposed to the establishment of
Marine Reserves. It does however believe that they must be set up
for the right reasons, and such reserves can only be successful
if the community as a whole is supportive of them. We obviously
don’t know at this stage the support that the Volkner application
has, but in a small community as divided on an issue, as there is
on this matter that does not make a good base for sound decision
making.
There are ways and means by which the points of both sides can
be satisfied. But imposition of a solution that favours one group
at the expense of another only makes for bad law that divides communities.
Enforcement can become extremely difficult in such circumstances.
The proposal suggests that an indirect effect of the marine reserve
could be improved fishing of some species around its margin due
to fish life building in the reserve and “spilling over”
to adjacent areas. In our view, that is not the decision that the
Minister must make. He is not required to reach a judgement about
“viability of the wider fisheries” – The Minister
is required to make a decision about the interference and effects
on fishing. Nothing more and nothing less.
Whilst the proposers talk of “spill over” they have
not made any comment on the benefit to a growing population of reef
species by removing some of the predators (kingfish) from out of
the environment. It is our belief that natural mortality would account
for far more reef fish deaths than anything that the recreational
angler targeting kingfish could achieve.
Kingfish
We are not convinced that the kingfish population at the Volkner
Rocks is under any stress and any suggestion that the stock is suffering
is only anecdotal by one charter boat operator.
Prior to 1995 the bag limits for kingfish was 30. Our Council and
one of our National Members were involved with the Ministry of Fisheries
in reducing the bag limits to 3 and introducing a minimum size limit
of 65cm. In places like White Island and the Volkner Rocks the species
has been on the rebuild ever since. Long time operators at the Volkners
considered last year to be an exceptional season for size, and this
year is shaping up to be a good season for numbers caught but it
is too early for the larger fish to be caught at this stage.
At the time the bag limits were reduced all data available suggested
that kingfish spawned at around 60cm and it was then that the size
limit was voluntarily introduced and accepted by the recreational
sector. The intention was to give all fish the opportunity to breed
at least once before they could be killed.
The only exception to this ruling was kingfish caught by trawler,
these operators were allowed to keep fish smaller than the 65cm.
The Ministry after carrying out research found that there was no
need for an exemption for trawler caught fish and these operators
are bound by the regulations relating to kingfish caught by all
other methods.
More recently, we have become aware from Australian information
that kingfish possibly do not become mature enough for breeding
until they reach 94cm. So it has been ours, and other associations
recommendations that a minimum size for keeping be 1.0 metre and
for the pelagic working group of the ministry of fisheries to consider
bringing this minimum size into regulation. Most clubs and charter
boat operators have already adopted this minimum size on a voluntary
basis.
We are aware that most boats have voluntarily adopted the killing
of only one kingfish per day so we believe that an earlier proposal
by the steering committee of killing only one kingfish per trip
at the Volkner Rocks would be acceptable to all charter boat operators.
It is unfortunate that this proposal wasn’t followed through
because it would have made the marine reserve process for this site
far more acceptable to our sector.
A further option that has not been offered for consideration would
be the tag and release only of kingfish caught at the Volkners.
Whilst we have not discussed this option with the charter boat operators
that work the Volkner or have their approval, it would still allow
the kingfish tagging programme in the area to continue, and is an
alternative to the one fish per trip for consideration. The only
disadvantage with this proposal is that it would not allow the present
aging programme that is being carried out for the Ministry of Fisheries
to continue.
We have been able to do a breakdown of kingfish catch and tagged
fish over the past ten years and the numbers are significant considering
the numbers of anglers that visit the area. Whilst we do not have
a breakdown of actual catches at the Volkner Rocks we do have a
breakdown of tagged fish at the Volkners. We know that the releases
at the Volkners are 35% of the total releases at White Island and
the Volkners. These figures do not take into account small kingfish
that are too small to tag, so they are treated as releases not tag
and releases.
The kept fish over the past ten years were 713 kingfish and these
were from a high 101 fish in 1993/94 to a low of 28 in 1996/97.
Tagged kingfish numbered 4,075 fish over the same period, and we
are aware that only approximately 40% of released fish are tagged.
This would equate out to approximately 6,000 fish were released
without tagging due to their size. In more recent years fish have
had to be a minimum of 1.0 metre before they are tagged. Of the
numbers kept and the numbers released and tagged and released approximately
only 7% of fish captured are killed.
We believe that no other fish stock in New Zealand is offered the
same protection and management, and the bulk of these fish are caught
in Bay of Plenty waters.
Conclusions:
Our Council is prepared to consider a smaller sized, more
practical, more logical reserve at either the Volkner Rocks or White
Island.
We have concerns relating to a coloured brochure that has been
distributed around the Bay of Plenty. Investigations that we have
carried out indicate that not all households received these brochures.
Although we cannot lay the blame for this on the steering committee,
we wish to have the fact known.
We are also aware that people could use the brochure to lodge a
submission, and our concern is that submitters using this form did
not have to supply an address or phone number as did other preprinted
submission forms.
From the Steering Committee minutes it was decided to check 10%
of all submissions for authenticity and due to the brochures not
having an address or phone number adjacent to the signature, not
all of these submissions are able to be checked, and we have difficulty
with this outcome. We have had insufficient time to check with our
executive regarding this failure, but if necessary we will follow
it up at later stage.
Our Council is concerned that DOC are using a DOC contractor Mr
Iain Haggarty to analyse the submissions, and believe that this
work should be tendered out to an independent company, not associated
with DOC. We intend following up on this procedure throughout the
process.
Our Council under the Official Information Act seeks copies of
all submission forms, whether they be brochures, letters, E letters,
or printed submission forms, after the official analysis has been
completed. This information was made available to us by the Government
after the Soundings process and allowed us to carry out our own
analyses of submissions received.
Ross Gildon
President
Attachments: Stu Davidsons comments.
c.c. Minister of Fisheries.
Minister of the Environment
|