K4309
-
Content Count
620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by K4309
-
-
1 hour ago, Ex Machina said:
It could probably survive a trip down the drain from east coast road to the nearest beach ? How would you empty 100+ litre saltwater aquarium ?
it could be well established in a corner of some murky harbour were no one dives and it doesn’t get enough wave movement to get washed up
Given the initial infestation in Bland Bay had clearly been there for some time, I think it is highly likely that there is more of it around that just hasn't been found or identified yet. There is nothing to suggest the Bland Bay / Barrier infestation was the first patch of growth in NZ.
The stuff at Bland Bay was only discovered because an ecologist was there on holiday, and decided to put a photo of the stuff on a citizen science page cause he didn't know what it was. How many of us bother to find out what genus and species the green sh*t is on the beach when we go for a walk?
Noting that the sample found at Rawhiti is only 20cm apparently. The photo NRC have is it on a scallop shell.
I'm fascinated by the assertion it can't get here on ocean currents and tides cause it sinks. What if its growing on a log? Or any other floating debris. The weather systems have changed markedly with La Nina for the last 3 years, far more north easterlies and the East Auckland current on steroids', hence all of the marine heatwaves.
-
Note: The 2 exotic species of caulerpa present in New Zealand at Aotea Great Barrier Island and Ahuahu Great Mercury Island do not contain this toxin and do not create any food safety issue with consuming fish.
Aquarium Caulerpa | NZ Government (mpi.govt.nz)
So, brachypus and the other one is not toxic. Only the main fish tank variety is. Is this then not the solution to our kina barrens?
-
Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks MPI / Biosecurity NZ is doing a sh*t job.
Council seeks urgent Ministerial meeting over seaweed threat
15 May 2023, 9:15 AM
A ‘manifestly insufficient’ response by Biosecurity New Zealand to the threat posed to Taitokerau by invasive Caulerpa seaweed has prompted the Northland Regional Council to seek an urgent meeting with Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor.
In a letter to the Minister the council says the threat posed by the seaweed is of utmost urgency for Northland due to its presence at Great Barrier Island (Aotea), the speed at which it spreads and takes over ecosystems, and the lack of an appropriate response to date by Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ).
-
4 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
Your question suggests that it has?
It sinks and it doesn't survive at depth. The world's currents take around 500years to do a full circle of the planet so it's had 23 million years to get to our coast. In that time it hasn't made it across vast distances.
New Zealand isn't special in this regard, it also hasn't made it (naturally) to West or East Coast of the Americas which are a sh*t load longer than NZs coast. As we've read in this thread it also hasn't made it naturally into the Med.
I suspect that the warm surface currents of the tropics only carry it so far before it gets pushed to depths that it cannot survive and turns back into ocean nutrients.
Erm, so how did the NZ native species of Caulerpa get here?
-
1 hour ago, waikiore said:
I wonder what its like in a stir fry ? Bit of Tamari organic soy ......
There are potential positives to Caulerpa:
We have a problem with kina barrens right? If kina eat this stuff they go sterile. So, it may well create suitable habitat for nursery fish, and, tadaa, re-balance the Hauraki Gulf. Providing the caulerpa doesn't smother other food sources, this could work really well. The photos I've seen show the eclonia still growning, with the caulerpa around the base. Could just work.
The other thing is the carbon sequestered growing this stuff. Carbon sequestered in the oceans is enough to reverse climate change. There are many projects underway to grow kelp for carbon sequestration. It is incredibly fast growing. So all we need to do is include Caulerpa in the emissions trading scheme, export all the carbon credits, and we will be as wealthy as Saudi Arabia. Genius. Sure, we may not be able to eat the snapper, but if we can't eat beef or lamb due to pine trees, what's the problem? Carbon credits are at about $50/ tonne at the moment aren't they?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
I am not the one claiming that these strains are only in Singapore therefore the conclusion is that a yacht could never have bought it here.
No one has claimed these strains are only in Singapore, you have made that up. Same as the moderator making sh*t up.
I relayed that the expert said they are native to Singapore. You have decided to add in 'only' native to Singapore.
The basic problem here, is that when confronted with facts that don't confirm with what ever narrative you've all been indoctrinated in, you getting your undies tied in a knot. MPI have put out the narrative that boaties are the problem. When presented with actual facts, instead of an indoctrination, you really don't like it. There is a viable alternative vector to boaties, but MPI wont mention is publicly. Why is that?
-
13 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
Aquarium Caulerpa (Caulerpa taxifolia) has not been detected anywhere in New Zealand.
The Caulerpa at the Barrier is Caulerpa brachypus and Caulerpa parvifolia.
To suggest that someone knowingly and purposefully imported two types of Caulerpa that are not widely used in aquariums and then chose Great Barrier as a place to accidentally (or purposefully) release it, seems a like a stretch.
It seems more likely that it reached Barrier on a boats anchor from a yet to be determined location somewhere else in NZ. Or it came on ships.
Are you a bit thick?
Brachypus is used in aquariums. A quick google search will show 4 aquarium companies that sell it online. Ex Machina has already shown you a link of where to get it, which you laughed at.
It is used to absorb phosphorous and nitrogen, to keep the water healthy. To reduce the P and N it grows rapidly and is then removed from the aquarium, as a waste product. The question is how it is disposed of. Same as long-necked turtles.
Again, all I am doing is repeating the opinion of the AC expert. This is a guy that has worked for 30 years in marine biology in the US, Hawai (and I take it many other places in between). If you think you know more than him, sure, knock yourself out.
-
1 hour ago, Ex Machina said:
You laugh Carpediem, but this is exactly what the AC expert was talking about. Exceptionally easy to import. Put it in a bag of water, tie the top off, pop it in a box and post it. Keep in an aquarium then flush down the drain.
Have you ever heard of long-necked turtles?
I'll come back to Singapore again. Cruising yachts don't travel between Singapore and NZ.
Oil tankers do. Oil tankers go into Marsden Point. Which way does the East Auckland Current flow? From just off Fungarie directly over Great Barrier...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CarpeDiem said:
Aquarium Caulerpa (Caulerpa taxifolia) has not been detected anywhere in New Zealand.
The Caulerpa at the Barrier is Caulerpa brachypus and Caulerpa parvifolia.
To suggest that someone knowingly and purposefully imported two types of Caulerpa that are not widely used in aquariums and then chose Great Barrier as a place to accidentally (or purposefully) release it, seems a like a stretch.
It seems more likely that it reached Barrier on a boats anchor from a yet to be determined location somewhere else in NZ. Or it came on ships.
I'm just repeating what the expert said. For your information.
The main point being that there are alternative sources to cruising boat anchors.
Given that Caulerpa brachypus is native to Singapore, and cruising boats don't go between NZ and Singapore, it is highly likely some other vector was used.
To rule out the aquarium industry is a nonsense. It is a viable possible vector, and is the known cause of the biggest outbreak of caulerpa globally.
Now riddle me this, how is it that caulerpa apparently can't survive in open water (hence the experts discount tides and currents), but can survive on an anchor or chain for long periods of time?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:
Seeing as you went there.
You've set out a series of unsubstantiated diatribes attacking the integrity and competence of a range of govt and local officials. You claim private enterprise would do it better. None of those claims have any evidence, they are just rambling assertions.
This is a pretty common approach in the lunatic fringe conspiracy market.
Which doesn't mean I think you are a lunatic, or fringe, or a conspiracist. It's likely that MPI's approach has not been optimal and plenty of recreational boaties are feeling set upon with facilities disappearing and compliance increasing. This being my way of saying your core concerns are valid imo, but your attribution is not, again imo.
Hope that helps.
Good grief, is that how you react when you see an opinion you disagree with?
Attacking the person, linking their view with fringe lunatics, but not actually stating what you disagree with and why? Kate Hannah much?
Seeing as you went there, first. Please forgive me, but aren't you supposed to exchange views on a forum, or, as a moderator, is it your own little fiefdom to run down any opinion you disagree with?
Now, lets go over your actual points:
1) I never said private enterprise would do it better. You made that up. I said that if a bureaucrat was in industry, they would focus on fixing the problem, rather than assigning blame.
2) MPI have blamed boaties for spreading caulerpa to Rawhiti. Fact. Or did you not read the story linked in the original post?
3) There is no evidence that boaties have spread caulerpa.
4) Further, if the rules are effective, boaties CAN'T spread caulerpa, cause the can't anchor in affect areas.
5) The Auckland Council marine biosecurity expert, whom I spoke to personally for about 1/2hr on Friday, believes caulerpa was most likely introduced by the aquarium industry. So what basis or evidence do you have to say it wasn't?
6) The devastating outbreak in the Med has been directly linked to the aquarium industry.
7) The caulerpa at Barrier originates from Singapore. How many cruising yachts sail from Singapore direct to the Gulf? How many ships sail direct from Singapore, particularly oil tankers?
The post of mine that appears to have got your undies knotted posited that the Senior Bureaucrats at MPI are more interested in diverting blame of the spread than actually fixing the problem. I maintain that position. It is evidenced by the fact that MPI have had 2 odd years to prepare for a spread and new incursion, but they have no plan ready to go, no suction dredge, pvc covers and salt or bleach. If this was an oil spill you'd expect an immediate physical response. MPI have badly handled the PSA outbreak (got sewed and lost), and M. Bovis. It is fair to take the position, that looking down the barrel of another ecological disaster from an invasive pest, the bosses at MPI are personally more worried about avoiding criticism than actually fixing the problem.
Even NRC are saying MPI aren't doing anything, ref quote below.
Now, you have accused me of unsubstantiated diatribes, yet you made up the very first thing you said I said. Instead of going full Kate Hannah on me, why don't you set out why you think MPI are doing a great job (assuming that is your position, I can't tell amongst the personal attacks), and we can have a constructive and adult discussion about it?
The invasive seaweed caulerpa has been found at Rāwhiti in the Bay of Islands, just days after Northland authorities slammed the Government for being too slow to deal with what it calls the world’s worst marine seaweed pest.
The find is the first time the “foot and mouth” of marine seaweed pests has been found in the country outside of its Great Barrier Island stronghold.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:
Hiya K
I haven't seen any pilloring, care to point it out?
I haven't seen any evidence the caulerpa in the NZ wild is an aquarium type (information I've read says there are two aquarium varieties, and a different variety in the wild in NZ).
Anchoring is banned because it disturbs and distributes the weed. Afaik, no international shipping has anchored at the Barrier, only recreational boats. So yeah, boaties are a vector that has to be considered and controlled (possibly the only one that can be controlled) while control is still the approach. No control is absolute, so it is possible (even likely) that the weed travelled on a recreational boat. Could have been a commercial fisher as well.
I note MPI have given up on eradication.
If the weed becomes widespread I expect this approach will change.
We are already seeing snapper with problems. This may or may not be associated, nature is complex and confusing sometimes.
So what has any of that got to do with conspiracies and burning effigies at Parliament?
-
4 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
Antifoul plays no role in preventing the spread, the rest of the information you seek is contained within the links I provided.
The official website disagrees with your point. Do you understand why people are confused now?
They say:
What you can do
Keeping your boat and equipment clean is the best thing that you can do to avoid spreading marine pests, including exotic Caulerpa.
Exotic Caulerpa — Clean Below? Good to go. (marinepests.nz)
Edit: To find the controlled area notice you have to click a link to the MPI website, look through a long list of bullet points, find a link about halfway down, click on that link, which takes you to a page with a couple of other links, and on that page click on a link that opens a pdf. That is 10 pages long, and you have to scroll down to the last 3 pages to find maps of where you can't anchor.
If you didn't know there was an anchoring ban, or you don't know what a controlled area notice means, you would be forgiven for having a quick browse of the "Clean Below" website and think all you needed to do was clean your hull and check you anchor for weed.
-
11 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
this runs at the level of paranoia seen in various other conspiracy theories. You'll be burning effagies on the steps of Parliament next.
Where did that come from Aardvark? almost sounds like a personal attack. Completely irrelevant to the topic or thread. Disappointing coming from a moderator.
The basic point is, there is no evidence boaties are spreading anything. But MPI are publicly pilloring boaties. Further, after lengthy personal, face to face conversations with two officials, one being a specialist on caulerpa, they believe it is most likely the aquarium trade. Further again, if anchoring is banned in these areas, how could a boatie spread it?
If this does turn into a situation where snapper are inedible due to toxin accumulation (just like ciguetera), don't you think it would be a bit rough being blamed for that, when you had nothing to do with it, and there was no evidence any of your demographic was the problem in the first place?
-
1
-
-
There are a couple of elements about how this is spread that bug me. That MPI are just out and out blaming boaties.
Lets break that down. For a boat to move it from Barrier to BoI - there are anchoring bans on Barrier. To move it to BoI, a boat must have anchored at Barrier.
Sooo, are they not effective? Are they not monitoring and controlling the anchoring ban effectively?
Or, has it already spread to 'open' bays at the Barrier? So that would mean that MPI's monitoring is not effective? Given that all outbreaks have been discovered by the public, how effective is MPI's monitoring? The original outbreak at Bland Bay had been there for ages, and was only discovered by a biologist who was there on holiday, i.e. completely by accident.
And shipping. How do they clean their anchors and anchor chains? How many cruise ships have anchored in the BoI this season? Who actually checks that their ballast water filters are functional? They have enough problems with hull fouling and sea chests on these cruise ships. How can you clean an anchor on a ship? It hangs off the side, completely inaccessible. And the chain is captive. They don't even find dead whales on the bulb until they get into port.
That is before we consider tides, currents and the weather.
Oh, and the experts actually think it was introduced by the Aquarium Industry. Nothing to do with boaties.
Linking back to blaming boaties. The first rule of bureaucrats isn't to get a job done. If it was, they'd be in the private sector. The first rule is to deflect. The second rule is to evade. The third rule is to confuse. So to blame boaties is a genius move from MPI. It covers their arse completely. The public will blame boaties instead of blaming MPI like they did with PSA and M. Bovis. Gold.
All we need is a central lobby group to defend our interests. Like a Federation of Yacht Clubs or something?
Perhaps AYBA would take over YNZ's mandate (and funding).
-
1 hour ago, Psyche said:
Threat to horticulture, massive response, marine environment not so much
Which agency handles threat to horticulture? Its still MPI isn't it?
To be fair, I think they are hopeless there as well. They got sued by the Kiwifruit industry for the response to PSA (Industry won I believe). And who can spell M. Bovis? That response warrants its own thread.
-
10 hours ago, Black Panther said:
He said it would likely have come to the Bay of Islands in a boat anchor well. Great Barrier Island is only 100km from the Bay of Islands by sea and caulerpa is spread more so by boat anchors than hulls.
somebody tell this guy about the last 6 months of southeasterly gales.
The truth of the matter was that the expert I talked to yesterday did not know how caulerpa got to the Barrier, nor how it spreads. He was a very knowledgeable guy with substantial international experience, and not just some desk jockey (ex US govt diver, ships captain and marine researcher for 30 years).
When they say it came by yachts, they are just widely guessing. That, and within the remit of their empire, yachts are the only thing they have power over. Shipping is controlled by other empires. They say it can't have come by shipping, cause all the ballast water has filters on it. Accept for the Shiling, which def wont have working filters. If you are a ships officer and you are trying to stablise your ship with ballast water, and a filter blocks, do you stop stablising your ship, go and get a replacement filter and do it properly, or do you just remove the filter and carry on meeting your owner's schedule?
Noting that this guy believes it was introduced by aquarium people. You only need one short cutting, put it in a plastic bag and tie the top off. Post.
But if they blamed the aquarium industry it would make them look bad for not controlling biosecurity properly. Like at the border. Boaties are all rich white pricks, so why not blame them? Far easier. Job done.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Zozza said:
Banning sailing and boating in BOI, which is basically what you are doing if you ban anchoring in that area, would be a bit of a big financial hit to BOI in summertime would it not?
In this siloed structure of MPI, NRC, AC etc, I can't see the consequences of their decisions being a factor at all. It is "someone else's problem".
But I doubt banning anchoring and the associated cruising would have that much of an economic impact. We bring our own accommodation and food. Unless you own the Burnsco, fuel berth or the fishing shop I doubt you'd be impacted. There would be a longer term impact on the travel lift and allied marine industry.
Historically, the primary industries in Northland has been growing weed and the Department of Social Welfare. Kerikeri / Opua is a bit different compared to wider Northland, but accommodation providers and the hospo industry wont be affected by an anchoring ban. It sure wouldn't help BoI Race week though.
Dare I say it, this is probably all part of a secret plan to ban boating from the BoI anyway. What with DoC's nonsense rules around playing 'statue' when Dolphins swim buy, specifically wanting to reduce the evil impact of boaties on dolphins, and Iwi introducing more fishing bans, rahui and what not, to keep the fish for themselves (around Deep Water Cove, all around Cape Brett, Black Rocks?), specifically banning all fishing accept for customary purposes, what other stake holders would actually be secretly happy of boaties got the heave-ho?
(Steps back from topic before the moderators get too excited, no politics or religion was mentioned in this post, just saying)
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Cheap Transport said:
Is BOI to become the next area that we won't be able to anchor? Watch this space I guess...
I spoke to a specialist on this at the Boat Show today. He is AC's Biosecurity guy. Incidentally he was the guy that kicked off the issues with needing to keep The Landing open to provide biosecurity capability. He couldn't say anything on that as he's been gagged. I shook his hand anyway.
I challenged him on how it got here and the allegation that yachts spread it. He believes it is most likely that it got into NZ as an aquarium plant. It is very popular in aquariums as the fish don't eat it. On shipping, he says that is unlikely, as ballast water is now filtered, both on intake and discharge. But then I asked if he'd heard of the Shiling (he had some disparaging comments) and agreed whole heartedly that the Shiling's filters almost definitely wont be working...
Apparently the caulerpa that was successfully eradicated in California was only a few square meters. it was found early. The Barrier case is way too far gone... but also that was MPI's issue, not Auckland Council...
Apparently the issue is the caulerpa has a toxin. So there is no predators for it in NZ, other than one small sea slug. This is why fish don't eat it. If we could get snapper to eat it we'd be onto a massive winner. Apparently kina eat it, but then become sterile. I offered that this was a great solution for kina barrens, and we should be spreading it around as much as possible. While he appreciated my logic he didn't think that was the best idea
In the no-anchoring areas, I asked why they don't install mooring buoys. His first response was that was up to Auckland Transport. (silos much?) But he did say that MPI is currently in charge, but they appear to be tending to move from an emergency response to a containment approach (i.e. live with it). He acknowledged that you can't just ban anchoring long term in these areas, so providing mooring buoys would be a logic step. Then he got himself all tied in knots about how to install mooring buoys without disturbing the caulerpa (a bit academic).
Slightly off topic, but the reason you are not allowed to clean a heavily fouled hull in the water is that the organisms are put under stress and release a sh*t-tonne of eggs before they die.
I challenged both the AC guy and the NRC biosecurity guy on the provision of piles (tidal grids). Their issue is that they can't monitor grids. And they don't like it when people go and clean off whole mussle farms. I countered that we need to be able to clean hulls easily and providing more grids means more clean hulls. If it is known that you can't clean mussle farms, then it will be self policed, the same as undersized fish and too many set nets type issues are self-policed by members of the public. NRC is actively removing grids at the moment. Both guys agreed with my reasonings for providing more tidal grids. But it sounds like the wheels turn too slowly.
I also challenged the NRC guy on the fan worm restrictions, and how long they wil keep them up for. He basically said they are permanent, they want to protect the clean harbours in the North (which is far enough). He did say if you have copper coat and can't meet the 6 and 1 rule, to contact NRC and get a dispensation so you can go cruising up north at Christmas. They would check if your boat has had a diver check recently in their register, or alternative, in my situation, I could take photos of the hull with my underwater camera, to show it is clean. I clean in the water (legally) so proving I've had new AF in 6 months, or a haulout and clean in 1 month is not possible.
So anyway, MPI will be in charge of this Rawhiti response, which will be siloed and disjointed from a local focus. I would expect a committee to be established, an anchoring ban, and f*ck all else to happen.
So yeah, enjoy the BoI while you can, the whole place will be closed soon, what with caulerpa, fan worm, and all the rules about playing 'statue' when dolphins swim buy.
PS, sorry for the long post, thought it was all relevant while the points were fresh in my head.
-
8
-
-
Are you wanting through hull boat speed, or GPS speed?
As HT says, there are numerous fish finder units that will give you depth and speed, starting from a tad under $300 up. Basic (small) chart plotter functions. The catch with these (and any unit you may want with through hull speed) is that the depth transducer is transom mounted (designed for fizz boats). These transom mounted ones are cheap as chips.
As soon as you want a through hull, the cost goes up immediately. You can get sounder through hulls from about $200, providing you already have a chart plotter to run them.
As a note, if you just want depth and not fish finding capabilities, you can sit a transom mounted transducer on the hull (like inside, in the bilge) and it will work acceptably, as in give depth. They tend to need to sit in a bit of water so there is no air gap between the transducer and the hull. You can get oil filled baths to do it properly. If I was going to do it permanently I'd just set it in a wad of epoxy reason.
I've no idea what a through hull speed unit costs these days. I haven't purchased one for 10 or 15 yrs. I think they generally come as part of a wide system and the total cost is a fair bit (like prohibitive). I'd look for a wind, speed depth pack.
-
Rigger
in MarineTalk
Many of you here will remember Rigger from this forum.
Rigger worked as a tug boat captain at port of Tauranga. He sadly passed away last year from Parkinson's Disease.
A new pilot boat has been named the Troy Evans, in honor of Rigger.
It arrived today in Nelson from Melbourne, on route to Tauranga.
I thought it was a nice acknowledgement of Rigger, naming the new boat after him, and that you would like to know.
-
8
-
17
-
-
1 hour ago, k88 said:
Could be a safety game changer as ipad 14 satellite sos is available in NZ and Aus from today. Apparently service is free for first 2 years, not sure how much an iphone 14 cost (Android user), no brainer if u already got one:
A new iPhone retails for $1,400. There are various plans with One.nz that mean you can get a new phone for less outlay, but still pay through the nose over the term of the contract.
I think the big breakthrough is One.nz having access to Starlink to allow satellite comms on their network when outside of coverage. I'm not aware of any other phones having that capability just yet, but it is Starlink that is enabling it. A couple of the other mobile network companies are indicating they will have the same tech and functionality soon.
Given the cost and durability of a PLB at $450-$500, I don't see how a fancy phone can beat a PLB. But for remote comms, there is def benefits in having satellite enabled phones. I wouldn't want to get salt water on my phone, but I regularly take my PLB windfoiling, and leave it in the leg pocket of my oilskins when on the boat. If you could get a dry bag the touch screen would work through, then you could text from the iPhone when in the sh*t, otherwise I think the phone would die before you would in a number of situations.
Helpful, but not a game changer. I wont be rushing out to get one.
-
3 hours ago, Neil said:
No worries, this is the spare. We've got a Rocna up on the bow which is awesome. Just need to stop this one rusting while it spends its life in an outside locker and thought a re-galv would be an easy option. Maybe not so much.
You can get zinc enamel spray paints that would be an good application here. Far easier and cheaper than doing a re-galv. If it is only sitting in a locker it will work fine. Will stop it rusting. As soon as it drags through some sand and shell the zinc paint will come off, but if it is your spare, you can worry about that then. Will stop it rusting in a locker.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, harrytom said:
The Auckland council is broke,no $$,looking at rate hike of 22%
Yes they are responsible for bio security and seafloor/fauna/even stock out to the 10 mile limit but you stump up with $5 mill starting point and have a go.
I can just see YNZ saying we need to fight this and need $100k levy from every club and $20k from each boat owner. Give a page doesnt work as they have a page going and what was the last figure $9k??
I keep reverting back too 2013 where they outlined the plans for the okahu bay area.It was all for all to see but like so many we sat on our hands and said"this wont affect me so I will do nothing" guess what,no objection so now to put our planes in place.
Ayba/ynz missed the boat.
So now you're saying its nothing to do with Council responding to the weather, and its because the Council is broke? Not the most compelling of arguements when they fall over immediately.
It wont cost Council anything to reinstate the hardstand. They don't have to fund it. Funding all the Matariki / Dewali / Pride celebrations costs the Council dollars, that is why we are broke.
The hardstand was always self funding. It is the service that is required for biosecurity. Again, the Council's obligations under the Biosecurity Legislation don't stop , same as the Council's obligations don't stop because it rained yesterday.
This is all about vested interests. Nothing else. I'd better stop there before I get pinged for getting into Politics, even though the subject directly relates to boating.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, harrytom said:
trying not to be negative. But with recent events(weather since January)Think council has more to worry about the a few vessels that use the facility. When I say a few, last few yrs never saw it packed out. Remember when Westhaven had the slipway by the bridge? Use to be given the hurry up to get back as others waiting.
Due too rising costs,not just haulout but antifoul etc have joined the trailer brigade,Havent used for 4 weeks so if I had a moored vessel probaly be unused too,weather and commitments
Nonsense.
Council isn't doing anything about the weather, or the response to the flooding.
At best, Auckland Transport are dealing with the response to the flooding. Fixing roads, bus services etc. Council have nothing to do with any of that. Even the Mayor isn't doing anything (other than sleeping). Sure, the PR department have been tweeting a bit, and the Deputy has been doing pressers, that is all.
But Council still have a legislative requirement to manage biosecurity. That requirement doesn't lapse cause it rained yesterday.
Council maintains (wrongly in my view) that boats spread pests. Therefore Council are under a legal obligation, via the Biosecurity legislation, to provide a means of managing that risk. All AYBA are saying is that, to manage that risk, you need hardstands.
It is great that you found a way around needing to haul out and AF, and still spend time on the water. But you logic is entirely flawed as to Council functions and who actually does what. I'd be dead keen for you to say exactly what part of the flood response Council is spending time on, and what that has to do with the Biosecurity Team or the Local Board.
-
1
-
Caulerpa now in BOI
in MarineTalk
Posted
I'm actually quite interested in these native species of caulerpa, but haven't been able to find any information on them yet. Any google search for anything related gets buried in stories about the exotic species. To compare attributes to the exotic species, particularly range, habitat and growth rates.
I was under the impression that both exotic species were toxic, both from the expert at the boatshow and comments on here. So I was surprised to see that statement on the MPI site that they are not toxic, or at least they do not cause toxicity in edible fish. It is not actually clear from the statement, other they don't have the toxin the main aquarium species has.
IF they are not toxic, then the question is what is the main problem with them? Obviously they out-grow and smoother, esp over sand, but rocks and everything else. But for something to out-grow everything else, it needs to be better adapted to the specific environment than everything else. The same concerns applied to fan worm. In my view, fan worm is not that prolific. I see it occasionally on the beach and while free diving / spear fishing, but it certainly has not smoothered the entire sea floor.
One of the stated concerns from MPI on the caulerpa is that it will destroy the habitat for nursery fish. But nursery fish need weed to hide in. So which is correct?
The AC / boatshow expert did say that kina go sterile if they eat caulerpa (which didn't sound like a bad thing to me), but on reflection, its not entirely clear which species he was talking about. As far as I can tell, all current research is on the main aquarium variety. For natural control, snapper are carnivores, but Parore are herbivores. They are in plague proportions at my fav spear fishing spots, and incidentally are really good eating if you don't pierce the gut cavity (not as easy to prepare and fillet as snapper, but really easy to shoot).
There is a native sea slug (nubibranch) that eats it...
It would be good if the ecosystem adapts to caulerpa, and it turns out to not be a major issue. Certainly NRC are making big noise about it, but that is also very closely related to them demanding more funding, which can also be construed as empire building.
So far it appears fan worm is good at filtering water, and hasn't gotten out of control. Caulerpa is good at absorbing nitrogen and phosphorus (so also improves water quality), and may well be a solution to kina barrens. Who knows?
I'd love to go out to Bland Bay or Whangaparapara for a spear fish and see for myself what is going on, but the CAN notices makes it a bit complicated. If only they would install mooring bouys for public use, and we could all move on.
PS, it is interesting that we have TWO new exotic species here. That says to me that if the vector was a one off thing like a boat anchor, getting two species was just plane bad luck. If it was an ecological vector, like the marine heatwaves, la nina and the East Auckland current, it would be more plausible to get two new species.