Saturday, August 10, 2013

RECREATIONAL FISHERS

MAF has issued a consultation document covering proposals to further restrict the amount of snapper allowed for recreational fishers in response to a reported decline in fish stock.   

Nowhere do I see in the range of options any mention of the special dispensation granted to Maori under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998.    I think that is a mistake.

Recently I was involved in discussions with a MAF lawyer whose brief it is to manage prosecutions of persons caught breaking the laws regarding the taking of fish.    I wasn't aware, until he told me, that there are no restrictions as to the size of fish that Maori can take as the holder of a customary permit.   He said the taking of undersized snapper  was rampant, particularly in the isolated areas of Northland and the East Coast where Fisheries Officers are few and far between.

He characterised customary permits as a rort on recreational fishers and opined that the failure of the Tangata Kaitiaki/Tiaki (those that issue permits) to specify size limits, as a condition of the permit, was a significant contributing factor in the fall in snapper fish stock.

Sage advice which I guess would be opposed by any and all Maori MPs holding constituency seats as an attack on the integrity of Maoridom.

He who has ears, let him hear.

10 comments:

Noel said...

Wasn't MAF the Ministry of Ag and Forestry now within MPI.

Anonymous said...

The MPI document says the customary take is around 50 tonnes whilst the recreational catch is suggested to average in excess of the 2600 tonnes of the previous allowance, hence the call for a reduction.

Noel said...

Now I remember where I have seen this practice of presenting discussion papers to the public early.
Labour did it with the rescue helicopters an all those MP's made Tut Tut noises supporting those up in arms. Of course it transpired that they were never going cut the services. It was about ACC costs where the "magic hour" had been extended by the twin engine helos.
Then there was the ACC levies where it was obvious the bikers would be the vocal ones and had their proposed levies cut whilst the surfer dude with his ute had inflated levies because tradesmen also used those vehicles.
Now the obvious vocal group is the recreational fishermen and all the pollies are again making Tut Tut noises.

Anonymous said...

"The removal of 30 tonnes of undersized fish by lazy greedy black bastards is far more damaging than the removal of 26 tonnes of mature fish by responsible citizens."

The combined allowance at present for SNA1 is 2600 tonnes spread between customary and recreational fishers.

MPI estimates are 50 tonnes for customary and in excess of 2600 tonnes for recreational fishers.

Not 30 tonnes and 26 tonnes.

Judge Holden said...

Adolt the racist can't to numbers. He's pretty much useless at everything, but he's particularly poor at basic arithmetic.

This post is just one more example of people who think they're conservatives being totally opposed to conserving anything.

The Veteran said...

Wannabee Judge ... stop lying. My post did not advocate doing nothing.

I simply reported the views of a Crown Prosecutor working at the coalface of fisheries enforcement that an anomaly in the Regulations relating to the issue of customary permits meant that undersized fish can and are being taken 'legally' and this has a disproportionate effect on the maintenance of snapper numbers.

It's not rocket science. Kill off your up and coming breeding stock and you have a problem.

What I am suggesting is a review of the Regulations relating to customary permits in tandem with with any move to reduce the current allowance for recreational fishers.

Thought that even a self-appointed make-believe Judge might be capable of figuring that out.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon @ 8:03

The removal of 50 tonnes of undersized fish by lazy greedy black bastards is far more damaging than the removal of 2600 tonnes of mature fish by responsible citizens.

Sorry about the typo. Now fixed.

Anonymous said...

Now fixed.

No not really.
We don't know how many cases the Crown Prosecutor failed to gain a prosecution for as a result of the anomaly and how many fish were included in those failed prosecutions.

Nah yah racist prick you haven't proved your case.

Just like the CP.

The Veteran said...

Anon 3.40 .... errrrrrrr they wouldn't be prosecuted because of the anomaly = no offense committed.

Noel said...

This anomaly interests me.

Is it in relation to the optional section of the form where fish size is identified and "MAY be used" in the words of the Act????