Tackle Tactics Surfcasting Message Board
[ Message Archive | Tackle Tactics Surfcasting Message Board ]

    Re: MAF Archived Message

    Posted by Happy Fisher on 28/9/2008, 1:49 pm, in reply to "Re: MAF"

    Not my intention to have a dig at your expense......., (I am a bit on the passionate side about my fishing.)..My most humble apologies.

    .I do in fact agree that the quality of fishing has dramatically decreased over the years.....It’s a shocking state of affairs, and attitudes need to start changing....I agree that we need to start throwing (a bigger) book at poachers.

    I am also however constantly hearing of recreational fishers, who quite openly talk about catching over there bag limit (at the same time seemingly bragging about) or even of people trading their catch for services rendered...e.g. "I gave him some Paua for fixing the car", in the same breath they complain about the state of the fishing "these days"...this kind attitude drives me nuts, I am sure you would agree.

    On a positive note I see that MAF is currently looking at amending Section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (see the link http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0088/latest/DLM395507.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regulation_Fisheries+Act+1996#DLM395507)......see the Bill at (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0240-2/latest/DLM1524900.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regulation_Fisheries+Act+1996&sr=1)

    This change will allow MAF to change the total allowable catch for any particular fish stock without need for exhaustive "scientific" proof of the fact that the stock is at an unsustainable level....often times when MAF decides to reduce a total allowable catch level they get taken to court on the grounds that that there is no "measurable" proof that the particular stock is in decline......(When anyone any person who fishes in the area would offer the same opinion), however when it comes to a challenge in court, opinions simply don't hold weight.

    As a side note, there are 629 stocks () in the quota management system and the cost of doing a "scientific" measure of the sustainability of a particular stock can literally run into hundreds of thousands of dollars)...often the cost of measuring the stock levels in a way required (so that cannot be challenged in court) in order to drop the catch rate for that stock to what would be considered sustainable FAR outweighs the actual value of that stock to the economy.....Case in point......the cost of doing a full scientific assessment of certain Orange Roughy stocks would cost more than that specific fishery is worth.

    The amendment of section 13 to allow MAF to change catch levels for stocks more easily (without having those decisions constantly being overruled in courts because of lack of scientific proof), will do a lot to help NZ to be more rapidly proactive and mobile to tackle sustainability issues head on and nip them in the bud as and when they occur, allowing stocks to recover more quickly.........Hopefully this might free up some of that money we give them to rather spend on nailing more poachers.

    FYI....If you would like, you can also make a submission in support of the bill. (big commercial players the likes of S*nf*rds and T*ll*s will no doubt have their big shot lawyers in there in an attempt to derail, what in essence seams to be a totally pragmatic approach to cost effectively deal with sustainability issues)....More fish for everyone.

    ....Happy Fishing...Tight Lines



    Message Thread: