|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 7, 2022 23:36:55 GMT 12
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2022 4:29:48 GMT 12
The latest proposal has been out in the public eye for over 3 yrs,exclusion zones etc.Many of us have choosen to carry on as normal as we have gone around in circles for over 20yrs for what should be done.But we can never reach an agreement as to what may suit me wont suit you etc What we have been doing so far hadnt worked,various lobby groups cant agree. "Seachange " was formed various groups/council/mpi/doc sat around over 4yrs came up with what(I understand may work)went to parliment and now sits on a shelf.Seachange gave specific areas for commercial activities and where set netting may or not occur.Maori where proven to be a traditional harvest area were to be custodians and they made the rules on whether harvesting or not and size limits.And no pakeha were not going to be exclude. The lastest area DOC may seem over board but it is really still a small percentage to be locked off,Goat island has out grown it self,numbers v feed,many stock have moved out and poaching has been occuring. The meeting with Legasea at GH was out of date as 2 days before the minister withdrew crucial parts.. 3rd reading was suppose to be before the house this week but havent heard the results. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2209/S00202/change-to-fisheries-amendment-bill-a-win-for-the-environment.htmWatched Macindoe on TV3 that week and pontificated about nothing except give us money,could sell fridges to eskimos,at the first reading there was a commercial guy who summed up the proposal,yep land all catch and non quota holding species and be charged a deemed value as no quota,when i can release rig sharks?alive now pay to land them when there is a limited market to be turned in to fertilizer. Legasea spokesman went around in circles quoting ill informed facts(lies)wouldnt/couldnt answer a straight question.. From the conception of Legasea 2012 I was donatindg and volunteeering for almost 3yrs then woke up they have no clout werent prepared to take a pollitical stand by organing concerned fishos and like to mass protest against the mpi like the Australians did in tasmania(tassie blocked rds etc with over 600fishos and now are consulted on matters)Here the minister is under no obligation ,only does a token gesture to talk to such groups(see Ive tried). On tv3 fishing bounty programme last Sunday a commercial nialed it."Its a shared fishery and we need to work together" Legasea are anti commercial(claim to be not anti) and will not work with them.Yet NIWA reports we extract 3 times more fish from inshore than commercial and Legasea gets their info from NIWA too.They have no independant group surveying. Yes there is a need for advocacy groups but they need to take the blinkers off and work together. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2022 5:14:40 GMT 12
rescuefish.co.nz/petition/2 yrs on not even 1/2 to target haurakigulfalliance.nz/petition/10k in 4 wks has better traction The claim of 80k supporters and at time of need they can call on?Hmm sister in law wouldnt know one end a fish from the other side up to recieve a free t shirt jumper cap,is she classified as a supporter?? If the claim of of 80k was correct these 2 petitions would of reached target next day,wheres the other 520k fishos?claim is 600k fish Yes the gulf was in a state,very fish caught between 1985 and 2010,then the minister "nathan guy" increased size and dropped bag limit,very hard for next 10 yrs to catch legal size in the gulf,now the rewards are coming through,good bag limits and sizes. I get accused of being a commercial lover by some of their board.But I take interest in commercial sites as to try and get a balance,yes communicate with ex commercial/charter operator for hints and tips and even communicate with gurnard comms skipper to get a balance of thruth. That should sum up my position on fishing matters with certain groups. I do not believe all that is printed but question all.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 8, 2022 10:15:20 GMT 12
I wouldn't say it's a very quiet consultation process, I saw it and posted about it in 'The Noises" thread 23rd Sept. It came across my FB page back in Sept, so if I can hear about it, it can't be too quiet. Interestingly though, I've not seen any of the spearfishing of fishing groups kick up about it, which I thought they would. I've been meaning to get some popcorn and stroll over to the forum on fishing.nz and see what is being said. I think the main point is that Legasea, which have massive reach, only posted about it yesterday, and they are still to form a position on it. But yes, it is a very big deal. nzsailing.freeforums.net/thread/365/noises?page=4 |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 8, 2022 10:47:25 GMT 12
When I say I don't think this has been done on the QT, I'm meaning I heard about the proposal back in Sept. But what I don't know is all the specifics. I'm interested in the specifics about Tribal management. on the face of it, I'm opposed to it, but if they have sufficient controls, checks and balances to prevent Tribal exploitation of the rules, then I'd actually support it. I'm confused by the article HT posted about removing parts of the legislation, as what they removed wasn't clear. Most of the article just had hyperbole from Legasea. One of my concerns is that the new protection areas appears to predominantly target rocky coast. This is bad for spear-fisho's, as its about the only type of environment we hunt it. The flip side is this type of environment, where there is good seaweed cover, is where ALL of the juvenile fish nursery. I.e. it is a key environment to protect. I'd like to talk about this risk of anchor bans in sea protection areas (SPA's) though. Seagrass is a very important and fragile habitat. Once at Tiri (Hobbs Bay) I pulled up a big mat of seagrass. I was rather pissed off. Personally I think it was GO30's fault, cause his anchors stick to the bottom like Adhern clings to control. ;-) So anchoring can really bugger up seagrass. There was a massive who-hah in the UK about seagrass meadows in Studland Bay, on the South Coast just past Weymouth. Same issue. So the first point is that these SPA's might actually give the tools to protect specific elements of the environment from specific damage, which would be a more nuanced and I think more effective approach than the current mechanisms (which, as far as I can tell, is just marine reserves or nothing). For me, there is a couple of really obvious aspects to banning anchoring. Mainly, you need to provide an alternative. I'm fairly sure in Studland Bay, they've provided public mooring buoys, so boats can visit and not damage the sea floor. This is an obvious solution in my view. I understand they use those fancy buoys that don't have a chain dragging on the floor. If there are particular seagrass meadows (not blanket areas) then it would be appropriate to have a mechanism to protect them. There would need to be adequate consultation before anything is implemented though, and I would hope mitigating measures put in place like public buoys. On the same topic, the anchoring ban over at the barrier for that invasive weed. The Notice to Mariners says "anchoring is banned", in that there is no provision for safety of a vessel, or anchoring in an emergency. I was surprised by this, given the Harbour Masters role is safety of navigation. In this context, it is MPI's role to administer the ban. Given that it is going to be feckin ages before that weed is gone (if ever), and you are allowed to transit the areas, it would be most logical to provide public mooring buoys in the affected areas as well. A couple in Tryphena (popular and key harbour for logistics, and safe haven close to Collville Channel, and one or two in Whangaparapara. But what would I know? You can ban everything and hope people listen to the ban, and beat them with big sticks, or address the root cause of the issue of people anchoring (getting weed on their anchor and spreading it around) by providing public mooring buoys. Someone please give me a slap if I'm being too logical... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2022 11:53:18 GMT 12
If the Gulf is really in a bad way.Where is the Green party/Greenpeace the only ones kicking up a fuss is fishing advocacy groups which may come across as protecting the elite.
When one question them about stuff,mama fish,good fishing,legasea etcGet a typical answer its been peer reviewed and when one asks who are the peers you get blocked. Have a coped a ban from Legasea for asking question which needed answering.Yes when they first kicked off and Scott Macindoe was the main man.It seemed logical.now a bunch of misfits are fronting it with no real experience in matters just busy quoting something they have read. By signing up to MPI emails you recieve same info as them.
As far as the Barrier(tryphena area) well documented and they tried mats with lots of salt content and yes worked but guess to costly to proceed,where did the weed come from??overseas vessels ignoring the rules and dropping ballast water or has it been in Auckland port with the recent dumping out by cuvier allowed it to spread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2022 13:12:12 GMT 12
DOC/seachange had 2 legasea representatives on the board at the time.Maybe short term memory loss for them and forgottten what they agreed too.A few os were concerned of being locked from the foreshore etc and a meeting was set up to explain what and how events would unfold. Now everyone wants to act as if suprise.Its been on table for 2 or 3yrs,comms limited to certain corrider doors,expansion of or new reserves. Anchoring was mentioned how we are damaging the sea bed. I would say apart from "Fish" and I the rest have been asleep at the wheel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2022 5:31:23 GMT 12
When you look at page 9 and page 10 not a lot changes,sea floor protection,may mean no anchoring but fishing allowed,high protection areas no activities.
interesting is area 10a expansion.Already no fishing area but seen lots fishing the area,refer chart approaches to auckland,kawau bay,currently no fishing Moana pt to Takangroa island across to Algies bay/mullet pt across to the bee hive and then chanllenger islander,but see lots fishing the area,the proposed expansion would extend out to motutara/moturekareka and take in motuketekete. Have no issue there,10b rest of kawau bay/island seafloor protection,still allows fishing. The noisies why not,area of rocks/foul seabird colonies/penguins.
Down my way Rotoroa island full reserve still plenty of area left,
At this stage no mention of Iwi control which a few of us were concerned had a meeting with legasea,which from memory gave those with coastal maraes the say whether gathering would be allowed and control on sizes etc. At the same time set netters were to banned from estuaries for flounder/mullet but no mention here.. Have a look at the overal map from doc and its not too bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Oct 9, 2022 7:17:01 GMT 12
I think it’s good . Getting people to actually acknowledge the gulf is almost poked and they may have had a part in it is a giant leap forward for the male species . It’s really not much different to a protected native forest area . You can drive through parts of it , camp in some areas , walk through it etc but the flora/fauna are off limits .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2022 7:59:08 GMT 12
I think it’s good . Getting people to actually acknowledge the gulf is almost poked and they may have had a part in it is a giant leap forward for the male species . It’s really not much different to a protected native forest area . You can drive through parts of it , camp in some areas , walk through it etc but the flora/fauna are off limits . It has always amazed me.Hauraki gulf marine park. Marine park or national park whats the difference?? As you said national/Doc parks cannot remove fauna etc But a marine park happy to allow extraction of fish/shellfish/seaweed dump what you like in it.Silt/road run off. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 9, 2022 19:59:57 GMT 12
When you look at page 9 and page 10 not a lot changes,sea floor protection,may mean no anchoring but fishing allowed,high protection areas no activities. interesting is area 10a expansion.Already no fishing area but seen lots fishing the area,refer chart approaches to auckland,kawau bay,currently no fishing Moana pt to Takangroa island across to Algies bay/mullet pt across to the bee hive and then chanllenger islander,but see lots fishing the area,the proposed expansion would extend out to motutara/moturekareka and take in motuketekete. Have no issue there,10b rest of kawau bay/island seafloor protection,still allows fishing. The noisies why not,area of rocks/foul seabird colonies/penguins. Down my way Rotoroa island full reserve still plenty of area left, the unanswered question is what does this sea bed protection area mean in terms of general anchoring. Kawau Bay is my (and many others) "backyard". 10B takes in the whole of Kawau Bay, the nearby islands and Tawharanui, is this classification going to attempt to stop us anchoring in the bays? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 2:30:45 GMT 12
When you look at page 9 and page 10 not a lot changes,sea floor protection,may mean no anchoring but fishing allowed,high protection areas no activities. interesting is area 10a expansion.Already no fishing area but seen lots fishing the area,refer chart approaches to auckland,kawau bay,currently no fishing Moana pt to Takangroa island across to Algies bay/mullet pt across to the bee hive and then chanllenger islander,but see lots fishing the area,the proposed expansion would extend out to motutara/moturekareka and take in motuketekete. Have no issue there,10b rest of kawau bay/island seafloor protection,still allows fishing. The noisies why not,area of rocks/foul seabird colonies/penguins. Down my way Rotoroa island full reserve still plenty of area left, the unanswered question is what does this sea bed protection area mean in terms of general anchoring. Kawau Bay is my (and many others) "backyard". 10B takes in the whole of Kawau Bay, the nearby islands and Tawharanui, is this classification going to attempt to stop us anchoring in the bays? page 2 number5 5 Seafloor Protection Areas SPAs are designed to maintain, restore and protect ecologically important benthic (seafloor) habitats while allowing for compatible uses. SPAs will be complemented by management actions in the draft Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan (as described in Revitalising the Gulf) to protect marine benthic habitats from the adverse effects of bottom-contact fishing. page 3 table 2 Table 2: What activities can be undertaken in SPAs? Supports Prohibits Activities that can take place in SPAs may include: • commercial and recreational fishing (without harmful bottom-contact fishing methods); • the customary practices of mana whenua; • recreational activities such as snorkelling, kayaking, swimming and scuba diving; • passage through the area and normal ship operations. PCR and CMT recognised under the Takutai Moana Act will be unaffected. Activities which harm the seafloor will be prohibited in SPAs, including: • dumping; • dredging; • bottom trawling; • Danish seining; • potting; • set netting; • bottom longlining; • sand extraction; • mining |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 2:32:37 GMT 12
I would say anchoring by recreational allowed,no trawling/seining is what is being aimed,seaflor protection?
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 10, 2022 7:37:19 GMT 12
I would say anchoring by recreational allowed,no trawling/seining is what is being aimed,seaflor protection? that is what a reasonable person would assume by exception but the issue here is we are dealing with the bureaucracy and remember the old saying is "the devil is in the detail". In recent times we have seen far too much overreach by the government exploiting loopholes/gaps in legislation. If what you say is correct that should be clearly stated, right now it does not say you cannot anchor but also it does not say you can. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 8:01:10 GMT 12
When this first raised its ugly head.the proposal was virtually no anchoring any bay any where in the gulf.remember back in mid 70s they looked at all popular anchorages.te kouma.bon accord.fitzroy etc.they wanted marine farms in those sheltered harbours. I would suspect logic will prevail.but who knows 10 yrs time have another go.
|
|
