Jump to content

Fisheries amendment act, rescuefish and legasea


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Guest said:

Penalties have to increase until they become a deterrent.

Repeat offenders=jailtime.

sounds good, but the psychology of it says detection works more effectively than punishment.  People commit any infraction because they think (self-justify) they won't get caught - this goes for parking and speeding offences to murder

Legally, increased penalties are more expensive to administer than lower penalties.  This leaves less money for detection.  On that basis, I'd prefer to see more money spent on education and detection.

In any case, the penalties are already pretty significant - forfeiture of boats and any vehicle used to tow the boat or transport the catch, and then financial and possible custodial penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One was already on bail for fishery crimes.jail the bastards.no more wet bus tickets The problem with crimes is the world is full of soft cocks and want to help them.No punishment Aya Andrew Little

Link to post
Share on other sites

The desire for extremely harsh punishment is fueled by revenge, anger and resentment, not justice or science. What makes the difference is social pressure and education, along with rules that treat all fishermen equitably. One dumped trawl is is far more harmful than an individual exceeding limits. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Psyche said:

The desire for extremely harsh punishment is fueled by revenge, anger and resentment, not justice or science. What makes the difference is social pressure and education, along with rules that treat all fishermen equitably. One dumped trawl is is far more harmful than an individual exceeding limits. 

 

And do you know why it gets dumped?? QMS is the problem.contract/ non quota holder fishing for holder says I want 3t snapper.then rings contractor.nah price dropped don't want it.what us contractor to do ??land and pay deemed value or dump?deemed value is higher the fish value .no fisherman goes to sea to waste stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the bad old days when there were lots of fish and very few people, they could do what they liked, now the whole "economic model" needs review.

Check out this;

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon Harry. Have another look. They're not vigilantes; it's a joint project with MPI etc. As for the young man he impressed me. I don't know if you've ever done a standup media interview - it's not easy but he did well. He appears to be a qualified skipper which is not an easy ticket to get and he's had 5 years experience with the Harbourmaster and knows about de-escalation techniques. Tell me what more you'd want to see. It's also a pilot project so let's hope it goes well. All power to their arm I say.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When they are MPI approved officers then I will have some respect at the moment they sound like Maori wardens with no powers good luck wanting to inspect my catch.no I'd or badge they will be treated as pirates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly Harry, Maori Wardens actually do a great job. Why? They have a proper attitude to "policing". Ie keep everyone safe including any possible "offenders". De-escalate, respect, tikanga. And you know what? It seems to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin. This is the same Iwi out of Pakiri that want Little barrier to Gt Barrier to Kawau island back to Pakari for exclusive maori only. Then visit the DOC site of marine reserves proposals and Maori,not just customary rights,will be allowed to fish such reserves. This is only that start.

If you watched Sunday night "ocean bounty" a commercial skipper has said exactly what I have been saying.Too many snapper and we have forgotten other species which are fast becoming endangered.Yes the gulf has not been managed properly but we have been going around in circles for over 20yrs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Island Time said:

Here is Legasea's link to a submission you can make. Only unitl Friday Night 8pm... https://legasea.co.nz/action/campaigns/hauraki-gulf-marine-park-marine-protection-proposals-submission-form/

 

And legasea have not included the most controversial part. Means IWI can still fish in high protection zones.

https://www.doc.govt.nz/contentassets/6d2ec8fd81fb4c7bb3ba4ac9bb6d07ca/revitalising-the-gulf-information-document.pdf

The customary practices of mana whenua, including customary non-commercial fishing, will be provided for within HPAs. Customary practices will be managed to achieve the biodiversity objectives agreed with mana whenua for each site. Protected Customary Rights (PCR) and Customary Marine Title (CMT) recognised under the Takutai Moana Act will be unaffected

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a recreational fisher.And this would effect me.But please explain the difference between a National park and a Marine park.

A National park cannot remove Fauna/rocks etc but The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park we can extract seafood.Why??

Both are about protection.

 

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

 

And legasea have not included the most controversial part. Means IWI can still fish in high protection zones.

https://www.doc.govt.nz/contentassets/6d2ec8fd81fb4c7bb3ba4ac9bb6d07ca/revitalising-the-gulf-information-document.pdf

The customary practices of mana whenua, including customary non-commercial fishing, will be provided for within HPAs. Customary practices will be managed to achieve the biodiversity objectives agreed with mana whenua for each site. Protected Customary Rights (PCR) and Customary Marine Title (CMT) recognised under the Takutai Moana Act will be unaffected

Its not controversial if you accept that there was a treaty between that crown and iwi that guaranteed certain rights; 

 

Māori customary fishing rights were secured and guaranteed by Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 between Queen Victoria representing the English Crown and Māori tribes.

Over many years Māori claimed the Crown had breached Treaty fishing rights through a series of actions and the introduction of the Quota Management System (QMS) in 1986, which removed statutory recognition of Māori customary rights to fishing and fisheries.  Requests for relief and subsequent judgements through the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts prompted the Crown to enter into negotiations with Māori to resolve Treaty fishing claims over commercial fisheries.

In 1989, the Crown and Māori negotiators agreed on an interim settlement, which was given effect by the Māori Fisheries Act 1989.  This interim settlement saw the creation of a Māori Fisheries Commission that progressively received 10 percent of all fish species that were in the QMS and approximately $10 million to hold and manage on behalf of all Māori.  The commission’s role was also to promote Māori involvement in the business and activity of fishing. Where the Crown was unable to provide the agreed 10 percent of fish species in the QMS, Māori were provided the equivalent value in further cash.

Commercial fishing claims were finally settled with the signing of a Deed of Settlement (the Sealord Deal) in September 1992.  This Deed was given effect through the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and saw the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, which took over the responsibilities of the Māori Fisheries Commission and enhanced its accountability to Māori.

In the Settlement, the Crown recognised the full extent of Maori customary rights to fishing and fisheries by:

  1. providing funds for Māori to buy a 50 percent stake in Sealord Products Limited (now Sealord Group Limited) which, as one of the largest fishing companies in New Zealand at the time, was a major owner of fisheries quota;
  2. undertaking to provide Māori with 20 percent of commercial fishing quota for all new species brought within the QMS,
  3. undertaking to ensure the appointment of Māori on statutory fisheries bodies, and
  4. agreeing to make regulations to allow self-management of Māori fishing for communal subsistence and cultural purposes.

In return, Māori agreed:

  1. that all Māori commercial fishing rights and interests were settled;
  2. to accept regulations for customary fishing;
  3. to cease litigation, and
  4. to endorse the QMS.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No issue on customary rights.the issue is fishing in areas that will)maybe locked off to others the reason to lock out is to increase or give stock a chance to recover if they are allowed to harvest then object not being achieved 

2 hours ago, Psyche said:

Its not controversial if you accept that there was a treaty between that crown and iwi that guaranteed certain rights; 

 

Māori customary fishing rights were secured and guaranteed by Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 between Queen Victoria representing the English Crown and Māori tribes.

Over many years Māori claimed the Crown had breached Treaty fishing rights through a series of actions and the introduction of the Quota Management System (QMS) in 1986, which removed statutory recognition of Māori customary rights to fishing and fisheries.  Requests for relief and subsequent judgements through the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts prompted the Crown to enter into negotiations with Māori to resolve Treaty fishing claims over commercial fisheries.

In 1989, the Crown and Māori negotiators agreed on an interim settlement, which was given effect by the Māori Fisheries Act 1989.  This interim settlement saw the creation of a Māori Fisheries Commission that progressively received 10 percent of all fish species that were in the QMS and approximately $10 million to hold and manage on behalf of all Māori.  The commission’s role was also to promote Māori involvement in the business and activity of fishing. Where the Crown was unable to provide the agreed 10 percent of fish species in the QMS, Māori were provided the equivalent value in further cash.

Commercial fishing claims were finally settled with the signing of a Deed of Settlement (the Sealord Deal) in September 1992.  This Deed was given effect through the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and saw the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, which took over the responsibilities of the Māori Fisheries Commission and enhanced its accountability to Māori.

In the Settlement, the Crown recognised the full extent of Maori customary rights to fishing and fisheries by:

  1. providing funds for Māori to buy a 50 percent stake in Sealord Products Limited (now Sealord Group Limited) which, as one of the largest fishing companies in New Zealand at the time, was a major owner of fisheries quota;
  2. undertaking to provide Māori with 20 percent of commercial fishing quota for all new species brought within the QMS,
  3. undertaking to ensure the appointment of Māori on statutory fisheries bodies, and
  4. agreeing to make regulations to allow self-management of Māori fishing for communal subsistence and cultural purposes.

In return, Māori agreed:

  1. that all Māori commercial fishing rights and interests were settled;
  2. to accept regulations for customary fishing;
  3. to cease litigation, and
  4. to endorse the QMS.

When they are MPI approved officers then I will have some respect at the moment they sound like Maori wardens with no powers good luck wanting to inspect my catch.no I'd or badge they will be treated as pirates.

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...