Fisheries amendment act, rescuefish and legasea

[Psyche 709]

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. 

 

[harrytom 671]

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.

[Psyche 709]

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;

 

[harrytom 671]

Vigilantes what next?? Need to watch the video 20 something thinks he has the experience? And no,there are no qualified Fho onboard.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/10/auckland-iwi-worried-about-overfishing-as-they-take-on-major-project-to-protect-hauraki-gulf.html

 

[Kevin McCready 83]

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.

[harrytom 671]

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.

[Kevin McCready 83]

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.

[Kevin McCready 83]

Speaking of tikanga, partnership and respect, who else enjoyed John Campbell's very moving and poetic piece the other night?

[harrytom 671]

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.

 

[harrytom 671]

Forgot to mention.Maori wardens have NO juristriction over you and I and many other  NZers,unlike what this lot want to do.

[Island Time 1,278]

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/

[harrytom 671]

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

[harrytom 671]

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.

 

[Psyche 709]

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.

[harrytom 671]

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.

[Kevin McCready 83]

Paul, I've just learned a new phrase which young people use: FAFO. You might find that the wonderful young people in the pilot program have the full approval and cooperation of MPI.

[Psyche 709]

6 hours ago, harrytom said:

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 

Ok so you acknowledge the legal basis for the decision but are questioning why it ignores the environmental reasons. I cant answer that but I can speculate, by luck or circumstances I think its irrelevant since most of the fishers in the gulf do not appear to be iwi. So their recreational impact is relatively insignificant in comparison to non-iwi. The danger here is the conversation getting dragged into the political arguments etc but I think if it was proven than iwi were having detrimental effect to fishing stocks then I would expect a review. As it stands commercial fisherman and people who routinely exceed their limits in the weekend spanish armada of tinnies and launches that invade the gulf. NZ's biggest city plus massive boat ownership, a fishing culture and a highly polished fishing paraphernalia industry has put enormous pressure on a very limited area.

Over the weekend the thought occurred, why not just ban fishing over spawning season at least for the commercial guys

[harrytom 671]

My interpretation is.If allowed to fish(iwi) in marine protected zones then thats means they can go and hammer goat island if the wanted to.Customary rights??

[harrytom 671]

On 25/10/2022 at 8:08 PM, Kevin McCready said:

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.

Here you go Kevin .The fishary act 1996

218Production of warrant to be sufficient authority to act
The production by a fishery officer, honorary fishery officer, or examiner of a warrant issued to him or her under section 198, or the production by a high seas fishery inspector of evidence of his or her identity and of the fact that he or she is a high seas fishery inspector, is, until the contrary is proved, sufficient authority for the officer, examiner, or inspector to do any thing that he or she is authorised by this Act to do.
Section 218: substituted, on 1 October 2001, by section 21 of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Act (No 2) 1999 (1999 No 103).

219Persons to assist fishery officer or high seas fishery inspector
(1)
Any fishery officer or high seas fishery inspector exercising any of the powers conferred on him or her by this Act may do so with the aid of such assistants as he or she considers necessary for the purpose.
(2)
All persons called upon to assist any fishery officer or high seas fishery inspector in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him or her by this Act are hereby authorised to render such assistance.
Compare: 1983 No 14 s 81

Section 219 heading: amended, on 1 October 2001, by section 22 of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Act (No 2) 1999 (1999 No 103).

Section 219(1): amended, on 1 October 2001, by section 22 of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Act (No 2) 1999 (1999 No 103).

Section 219(2): amended, on 1 October 2001, by section 22 of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Act (No 2) 1999 (1999 No 103).

(219) would not be sufficient for IWI to operate as inspectors unless warrented inspector is onboard said vessel??

[harrytom 671]

Legasea celebrates ministers decision.

legasea.co.nz/2022/11/01/minister-ensures-more-fish-in-the-water/?fbclid=IwAR0RxJA7EDOYxIsN59A2Wm4-ONr5v1936nluLyZ7uUGV0TOLLw37NBbQjNs

 

We’re celebrating Minister David Parker’s choice to drop controversial changes to fisheries legislation that would threaten sustainability of crucial fish species.

The Oceans and Fisheries Minister has announced he will pull out pre-set decision rules from the Fisheries Amendment Bill currently sitting in Parliament.

He cited one of the reasons why he pulled the pre-set decision rules from the Bill was due to the fact it would heighten distrust in decision-making and our fisheries management system.

To add to the good news, the Minister intends to proceed with the other changes in the Bill that enable monitoring cameras aboard commercial fishing vessels from November 2022.

Earlier in the year more than 6,000 people used LegaSea’s online submission form to support the Minister in pulling out pre-set decision rules. We want to thank everyone who made a submission to ensure our fish populations are thriving for the future.

The Minister caught wind of public concern around pre-set decision rules and after careful consideration he issued a Supplementary Order Paper to delete the proposed rules from the Bill. It gives great comfort to know this Minister is alive to the concerns of the public and makes decisions that put the marine environment and public first.

Pre-set decision rules are typically used to maximise commercial catch when abundance increases. Often this applies to a single species and fails to take into account associated species and the wider ecosystems. Pre-set decision rules are both a cost cutting measure and a means for officials to push the Minister out of the way, to continue a partnership with commercial interests.

Implementing pre-set decision rules would have been a huge loss for more fish in the future.

We’re so glad the Minister did the right thing.LegaSea and the New Zealand Sport Fishing Council are committed to ensuring the public understands what pre-set decision rules are and what happens if they are used in our fisheries.