PLAN TO REDUCE MARINE PESTS IN FIORDLAND CLOSER TO REALITY

[Chewing Gum 17]

Another example of total disregard of the cost to individuals of a dubious strategy likely to fail to achieve its objective.

 

In a similar vein while waiting to board car ferry in Picton there was a guy going around checking vehicles for Didymo. In my observation he checked only one or two vehicles out of a shipload and the check was a brief questioning of the driver asking where he had been and that was it !

 

 

http://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/news/201701/plan-to-reduce-marine-pests-in-fiordland-closer-to-reality

 

Could be expensive having a dirty bottom in Fiordland !

 

The Vessel Quarantine Facility (Fabdock)

83. ES and MPI purchased a Vessel Quarantine Facility (VQF) in 2015 to provide an on-water capability for vessels that might need to be treated for biofouling. This is an inflatable dock that vessels of less than 20 m can enter to isolate them from the surrounding seawater so they can be inspected and possibly treated. Furthermore, the VQF is portable and can be transported by helicopter - an absolute necessity in Fiordland. Vessels that are found in contravention of the clean vessel, gear or residual seawater standards and are therefore a risk can be effectively separated from surrounding water and inspected so a decision about how to treat the vessel can be made. Any use of the VQF for this purpose would be done on a full cost recovery basis. In exceptional circumstances the VQF may also provide a backup for vessels less than 20m when the facilities at Bluff (i.e. Syncrolift) is not available.

[Fish 0]

How are they going to fit those cruise ships into a 20 m inflatable pen?

[Elenya 33]

Can't see anything problematically about the requirements. Clean hull with no more than slime and barnacles. What's the problem? simple application process and free, what's the problem?

 

The issue appears to be preventing species entering the fiords, what's the problem with that?

 

I doubt any of you would undertake a voyage in those parts with a fouled underwater, slow you down too much. I can't see any 'ridiculous' or onerous requirements mentioned there. Always willing to listen to others who can point out where the cost comes in. Seems a simple and easy way to try to prevent invasive species entering Fiordland and only target those who breach the rule with any costs.

 

 

Cruise ships are only allowed to enter certain areas, and those are minimal. They also, with extremely minimal exception, enter and depart the same day. The available time for any species transfer is minimal, and contained to deep water. They also require a consent to enter, or sign the deed of agreement, both of which wil have requirements for hull cleanliness. Other vessels, recreational for example stay days and weeks, can go everywhere and stay in shallow waters. far greater possible transfer period.

 

Having spent several months in Fiordland on the yacht we saw very few vessels other than the odd trailer vessel (2 in three months) and the local fishing boats (3 in 3 months) and the local tourist boats.

 

So would appear that everyone gets a similar treatment and they are making it a free and simple process, but have a method to deal with those that don't play by the rules. As with any rule there will have been consultation with any group or person interested.

 

As a parting question how many of you would embark on a voyage to Fiorland without a clean bottom to your vessel?

 

 

[Black Panther 1,591]

done on a full cost recovery basis

 

 

Doesn't sound free to me

[Chewing Gum 17]

And if they adhere to a similar crazy requirement to up north with a clean within a month or antifoul within 6 months there are definite increased costs to boaties.

Meanwhile cruise ships coming here in ever increasing numbers and the most likely source of these pests.

 

The 6 month / 1 month thing really annoys me and will definitely increase costs as each time you water blast antifoul is removed meaning it does not last as long and reantifouling is not a cheap exercise. As well it is likely a self defeating requirement with less effective antifouling resulting in more fouling.

 

Nobody wants to see more pests introduced but the likes of fanworm is already widespread and they are on a hiding to nothing. If they were serious about these pests they need to clean every vessel coming to NZ from overseas - never going to happen !

 

We are the soft target. Things have certainly changed for the worse, never in the past have we had to worry about petty officials wanting to harass us and inspect our boats. As Elenya says no one with any commonsense runs a vessel with a dirty bum but this regime is just plain ridiculous.

[Freedom GBE 27]

A free floating dock would be great. I would use it rather than go for swim under the boat. I would even pay $20 to use it.

[Elenya 33]

BP, The article clearly shows the application process is free. "The pass is free, and will be easy and straightforward to obtain."

 

I would expect those that breach the rule to pay the full costs of their breach, no issues with me there.

 

 

An interesting, for me anyway, position was one I found myself in some years back. On two stakeholder groups for consultation of rules. One rule wanted to minimize and control the use toxic paints (antifouling). The other wanted to increase controls on fouling of vessel hulls. This was over 10 years ago and not connected with current requirements however demonstrates the differing directions departments wish to go given their differing mandates and areas of control.

 

For those who follow such things overseas you will know the UK has just gone through a process to control antifouling paints and who can apply them.

 

On a note, we antifoul our yacht each year and when away cruising (which we do for several years at a time) we clean the hull quite regularly when we have a swim or come back from a dive. Not too sure I will be as keen to do this in 20 years as I get older but works now. And yes in 20 years finding cost effective cleaning options may well be difficult for me.

[Chewing Gum 17]

Could driftwood and whales etc carry unwanted pests into Fiordland? If so at what point does conservation just become an expensive exercise in attempting to stop evolution?

A law to antifoul whales - that sounds like a good idea

[Sail Rock 28]

How are they going to fit those cruise ships into a 20 m inflatable pen?

[Sail Rock 28]

Interesting that in this and other topics concerning invasive species (Mediterranean fan worm) people seem to be fingering cruise ships. Surely these pests could have arrived by any type of vessel from overseas, e.g. container ships, fishing trawlers, warships, yacht transport ships, cruising yachts, etc.?

[Steve Pope 243]

As usual it is for consumption of the masses who don't sail, but think all that do are "rich pricks" It is all "don't mind the quality feel the width" Small boats and their owners (generally individualists) are easy targets, there is no cohesive body that "actually" looks after the interests of the cruising fraternity in the public arena. The Bureaucrats have the money (ours) and the area concerned being in Fiordland, they are free to do as they wish. Who is ever going to check whether they do as they say?

Water moves, there are things called currents (lots) that apparently the said bureaucrats don't seem to know about that travel for 10's of thousand miles.The only natural barrier is water temperature and marine organisms adapt over time, and therefore arrive on our shores. They are immigrants and keen to travel just the same as the rest of us.  To try to stop the spread of Med fan worm was lost long before it ever started. Look on shore, wild ginger, oldmans beard, mancunian rye grass, american foul brood, varoa mite,  and many many others that have arrived often in supposedly "clean" seed imports, overseen of course by the same bureaucrats.