Jump to content

Silly Rules Part 3: BoI Dolphin Sanctuary


Recommended Posts

This is something that is going to come up more in the Gulf too. Ships have been made to slow down to protect the Brydes whale. Some of the bigger race yachts might pose a comparable risk.

Dolphins? The regulation is a response to a perceived problem of people harassing them. But the question is whether our non-intentional involvement is enough to detrimentally disrupt them.  It's their choice to engage with a sailing yacht, but if we're providing an excess of opportunity and that is killing them, then we need to change.  It's like providing unlimited candy to children.

Question is whether that is happening.

I love being out on the water, exploring our coastline. But it's not a human right. Maybe the coastline would be better off without me disturbing it.

It would certainly be better off without 50' launches blasting by at 30 knots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the bright side they don't have the resources to ebforce anything. On this trip i didn't have the name on the side ofcthe boat, didn't have a lifejacket in the dinghy and didn't stop when the dolphins came visiting. Orobably a few others as well that i haven't heard of.

 

BTW there were no other boats visible   for pretty much 350 miles so , overstimulated? Nah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DoT said:

I love being out on the water, exploring our coastline. But it's not a human right.

It IS a Human Right. The UDHR says we all have the right to move freely within and explore our own countries (and the oceans are included).

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Article 13

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Which would we have freedom to travel unencumbered out the the 200 mile eez

X.

So in theroy one could travel up to Raul island with no departure inspection,no cat 1 etc still in NZ waters??

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BOIGuy said:

So the proposed legislation would be in breach of our human rights? 

Potentially yes, if it tries to prevent us moving freely and reasonably to go about our business including our right to enjoy free leisure time (yes that is another basic Human Right).

The grey area would be, if in exercising those HRs, we cause harm to others or society (which could include the environment). And if we are breaking rules / laws that are designed to protect them.

But Human Rights trump local laws in International Courts. In other words if a country introduces crazy new local laws that restrict UNHDRs - like forbidding people from reasonably moving / sailing freely around the local oceans - then it can be ruled an ‘unlawful’ law.

It would take a lawyer (not me) to confirm that the onus is one the law-makers to prove the new rule is both legal and required (in this case to demonstrate clear cause & effect between boating activities and avoidable harm to dolphins). But if they can’t show that clear link then the rule is an unreasonable restriction on Human Rights.

So if they want to introduce a trial to find out if they can find a link between boats & dolphins (or not) then that trial might have to be voluntary and not actual law, until link can be proven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively YNZ could pick up the phone to whoever the correct person is and say " hi there,  this rule is totally unworkable and will be universally ignored. Can we sit down and talk about it?"

But I'm not holding my breath.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Black Panther said:

Alternatively YNZ could pick up the phone to whoever the correct person is and say " hi there,  this rule is totally unworkable and will be universally ignored. Can we sit down and talk about it?"

But I'm not holding my breath.

You do know who the Minister for conservation is??? I wouldnt be holding my breath for a serious discussion.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm what a bunch of you here colloquially call a raving lefty, I fully support the protection of our marine environment, and I looked at this with my "open" mind thinking, "sh*t we will have to change our EVERYTHING. But...

I read the proposal, and then I dug further and read the research reports that had lead to the proposal. No offence intended to the report's authors and researchers, but it was a wholly inadequate and bollox piece of "science" with massive and glaring holes in its design and execution. Predominantly, a huge lack of controls in the hypothesis testing, where assumptions were used rather than doing the actual research.

Any half arsed science student should be able to identify the holes, identify the assumptions, and send the researchers back to redesign their experiments, and in the mean time cast the damn thing onto the "embarrassment" pile where it belonged.

Here's two holes I identified.

1. Research treated all boats as if their intent was to engage with marine mammals with no attempt to deconvolute vessel transiting from vessel engaging behavior.

2. No attempt to assess if fish stocks and food availability had anything to do with dolphin number decline

3. No longitudinal data correlating historic vessel density 

4. Assumption that observer vessel impact was negligible (with out testing to see if it is).

 

oh wait that's four....

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, harrytom said:

Article 13

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Which would we have freedom to travel unencumbered out the the 200 mile eez

X.

So in theroy one could travel up to Raul island with no departure inspection,no cat 1 etc still in NZ waters??

Yes.

Anywhere inside the EEZ is considered NZ. The law says that a boat shall not depart for a location outside NZ without approval.  So long as you don't cross a black line you're fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fogg said:

Potentially yes, if it tries to prevent us moving freely and reasonably to go about our business including our right to enjoy free leisure time (yes that is another basic Human Right).

The grey area would be, if in exercising those HRs, we cause harm to others or society (which could include the environment). And if we are breaking rules / laws that are designed to protect them.

But Human Rights trump local laws in International Courts. In other words if a country introduces crazy new local laws that restrict UNHDRs - like forbidding people from reasonably moving / sailing freely around the local oceans - then it can be ruled an ‘unlawful’ law.

It would take a lawyer (not me) to confirm that the onus is one the law-makers to prove the new rule is both legal and required (in this case to demonstrate clear cause & effect between boating activities and avoidable harm to dolphins). But if they can’t show that clear link then the rule is an unreasonable restriction on Human Rights.

So if they want to introduce a trial to find out if they can find a link between boats & dolphins (or not) then that trial might have to be voluntary and not actual law, until link can be proven.

This conversation/topic has come up here before during covid discussions, primarily when people discovered they were prohibited from departing NZ, dispite, 'freedom to leave', being a (so called) human right. 

The UDHR is not legally binding. It is not international law. It is a recommendation. In NZ, the UDHR is made law in the Bill of Rights Act. 

Your rights, listed in the bill of rights act, are limited by any law that can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Given all of our laws go through three parliamentary readings and numerous amounts of scrutiny before being given Royal assent, they are the very definition of free and democratic.

Unless parliament goes rogue one day and the GG does not step in, any law enacted in NZ will legally trump the bill of rights act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Black Panther said:

Alternatively YNZ could pick up the phone to whoever the correct person is and say " hi there,  this rule is totally unworkable and will be universally ignored. Can we sit down and talk about it?"

But I'm not holding my breath.

Yachting NZ did oppose this. Along with 100s of others. 

Either the supporters won, or the opposers were ignored....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

This conversation/topic has come up here before during covid discussions, primarily when people discovered they were prohibited from departing NZ, dispite, 'freedom to leave', being a (so called) human right. 

The UDHR is not legally binding. It is not international law. It is a recommendation. In NZ, the UDHR is made law in the Bill of Rights Act. 

Your rights, listed in the bill of rights act, are limited by any law that can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Given all of our laws go through three parliamentary readings and numerous amounts of scrutiny before being given Royal assent, they are the very definition of free and democratic.

Unless parliament goes rogue one day and the GG does not step in, any law enacted in NZ will legally trump the bill of rights act.

Well yes and no.

In theory there is no such thing as 'international law' because there is no way any state can force another state to obey any laws they don't want to.

So the UNHDR relies on willingness of everyone in the UN (about 190+ countries) to adhere to these rules / standards which forms the basis of international law'.

Yes most countries codify 'mirror' versions of these laws in their own domestic laws / constitution.

So yes in theory any country can ignore / break these but do you really see a NZ prime minister standing on the floor of the General Assembly and announcing that NZ is going against the combined global will of the UN on human rights?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fogg said:

Well yes and no.

In theory there is no such thing as 'international law' because there is no way any state can force another state to obey any laws they don't want to.

So the UNHDR relies on willingness of everyone in the UN (about 190+ countries) to adhere to these rules / standards which forms the basis of international law'.

Yes most countries codify 'mirror' versions of these laws in their own domestic laws / constitution.

So yes in theory any country can ignore / break these but do you really see a NZ prime minister standing on the floor of the General Assembly and announcing that NZ is going against the combined global will of the UN on human rights?

 

I assume you mean mean the UHRD?

If you do, it's not a law.  You've said that international law trumps local law and in the next response said that there is no such thing as international law. Which is also wrong, there absolutely are International law's, they do exist and member countries have signed up to them. 

But the UHRD is NOT a law, it is not even a treaty. 

Your claim that the UHRD somehow guzzumps local law and that the BOI MMS rules infringe on your right to freedom to travel is fundamentally flawed.

Your right to Freedom to Travel is in the NZ Bill of Rights Act. However, any rights in the Bill of Rights can be limited by other laws. 

In summary, the BOIMMS rules do not legally infringe on your freedom of movement within NZ. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

In summary, the BOIMMS rules do not legally infringe on your freedom of movement within NZ. 

So they do infringe, but not legally?

 

13 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Given all of our laws go through three parliamentary readings and numerous amounts of scrutiny before being given Royal assent, they are the very definition of free and democratic.

That's not how this rule will be implemented, there is no Act of Parliament created, just a rule gazetted by the Minister.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Yachting NZ did oppose this. Along with 100s of others. 

Either the supporters won, or the opposers were ignored....

 

DOC received 645 submissions, 60%+ supported the proposal. 

All of the submissions are here: https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2021-consultations/te-pewhairangi-bay-of-islands-marine-mammal-sanctuary-proposal/

Yachting NZ opposed. This was their submission...  Sorry for bad formatting... 

 

----

Yachting New Zealand oppose the proposed Marine Mammal Sanctuary Proposal, as it is 
written, and strongly urge the Department of Conservation to adopt a more collaborative 
approach to find a better solution. We are disappointed we were not consulted by DOC over 
this process, given our position within the yachting and boating sectors and the number of 
people and organisations we represent.
Yachting New Zealand is the national sports organisation for the sport of sailing at all levels in 
this country. We represent more than 200 member clubs, classes and affiliated organisations, 
including approximately 25,000 club members, making us the largest organisation in New 
Zealand to represent competitive and recreational keelboat sailors, large power boat users 
and dinghy sailors. There are four affiliated yacht clubs in the Bay of Islands, another eight in 
Northland and 38 in the Auckland region and all are active users of the Bay of Islands area. A 
number of significant national and international sailing events are held in the Bay of Islands
annually, including the Bay of Islands Sailing Week, Coastal Classic and Millennium Cup, and 
the area also plays host to various national and regional championships.
Yachting New Zealand consulted widely with our members, as well as prominent organisations 
in the wider marine industry, before putting this submission together. On top of that, we have 
extensive experience in environmental and safety matters. 
We partner with Maritime New Zealand to administer section 21 of the Transport Act around 
safety equipment and standards for boats departing New Zealand, of which most do so 
through Opua. We are also connected through a wide-ranging network which includes, but is 
not exclusive of, the Safer Boating Forum which also includes harbour masters, industry 
leaders, brokers and other maritime operators, national organisations and bodies who 
communicate safety messaging to members and the wider public. 
We oppose the proposed Marine Mammal Sanctuary Proposal, as it currently stands, for the 
following reasons:
• The proposal will significantly impact local, national and international sailing events in 
the Bay of Islands. Requiring vessels, including boats racing, to stop if they are within 
400m of marine mammals is unreasonable and unworkable and will lead to many

abandoned races and events. This will make events that are important to the region 
difficult to deliver.
• We also oppose a vessel coming to a complete halt on the grounds of navigational 
safety. It has the potential to be unsafe for a range of sailing and powered vessels 
constrained by draft and restricted in their ability to manoeuvre. 
Thank you for the opportunity to present Yachting New Zealand’s submission on the proposed
Bay of Islands Marine Mammal Sanctuary and we welcome the opportunity to be involved in 
further consultation on this very important issue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...