TOS Regional Recreational Forum 29 May 2008

Ron Adams
Martyn Barlow
John Duncan
Greg Goodall
Ron Prestage
Betty McNab
John Waugh
Johnny Williams
Pete Henderson (Buller Recreational Fishing Club)

MFish staff:

Rob Tinkler
Claire Norris

Charlie Boulton
Mark Roden
Scott Williamson
Geoff Clark
David Scranney

Rob welcomed Pete Henderson from the Buller Recreational Fishers club. Pete intended to report back to his group after the meeting so the Buller Recreational Fishers could decide whether to join the ToS Recreational Forum.

Rob discussed his conversation with Charlie with regard to the difficulty he currently has to attend meetings, and Charlie's question on whether he should resign from the Forum because of this. Rob noted that in his opinion, the group valued Charlie's input and knowledge very much, and that they would prefer he remained a member of the Forum, and attend meetings as he was able to. Forum members fully supported this appraisal.

Rob noted that this would be Claire's last ToS Recreational Forum meeting, since se was leaving MFish to join the Ministry of Justice. Rob thanked Claire for her input and assistance in facilitating the ToS Recreational Forum.

Johnny informed the group that he had e-mailed the President of SoundFish to apologise for being somewhat terse with the SoundFish members that attended the special blue cod meeting. The forum noted that they had understood that SoundFish would only talk for 20 minutes, then leave the meeting. There was also some confusion over who invited SoundFish. Rob noted that SoundFish had asked one of the forum members if they could attend the ToS Recreational Forum's special blue cod meeting to discuss the SoundFish proposals in the IPP. Rob asked ToS members if they were happy for a SoundFish member to attend; t he Forum agreed that SoundFish could attend, provided they only stayed for 15-30 minutes. Unfortunately, Rob was unable to attend the early part of the meeting and was unable to remind SoundFish that they would only be able to stay for the early part of the meeting. Rob apologised to the Forum for this.

Related to this, Johnny noted that Betty did not have the mandate to speak on behalf of the Marlborough Recreational Fishers at the blue cod meeting; in hindsight, Johnny felt he should have suggested that Betty should be able to speak on her own behalf, rather than as a club representative.

Members confirmed notes from previous meeting.

Rob noted that Ralph Townsend had not yet been invited to the Recreational Forum; he would talk to Ralph about coming to the next meeting and talking about recreational fishing research.

Claire noted that she would not be running the recreational regulation review; MFish would update members with progress as news came to hand. Hopefully the review would occur over the next few months.

Ron P noted that the blue cod submission meeting was very useful, and he suggested a similar approach could be used in future if another major issue arises.

Rob gave the forum an update on the Hectors and Maui Threat Management Plan, copies of the maps from the MFish website, and a copy of the Minister of Fisheries' Media Statement. The Minister made his decision earlier that day (May 29).  The major measures relevant to the ToS are:

• South Island east coast—from Cape Jackson in the Marlborough Sounds to Slope Point in the Catlins:
  • ban commercial and recreational set netting in most areas to four nautical miles offshore, except for flounder fishing in designated areas in winter;
  • ban commercial and recreational set netting to around one nautical mile offshore around Kaikoura;
  • restrict the type of trawl gear used within two nautical miles of shore
• South Island west coast—from Cape Farewell in the north to Awarua Point north of Fiordland:
  • ban recreational set netting to two nautical miles offshore;
  • ban commercial set netting to two nautical miles offshore between 1 December and 28 February.

The Forum expressed strong dissatisfaction over the decision, suggesting that the recreational sector had been short changed again. The Forum suggested that banning all recreational set netting on the South Island West Coast, but only banning commercial set netting for three months of the year was unfair.

Action

Rob to e-mail Forum Members a link to the MFish webpage which has some extra detail on the exemptions (done)

Rob relayed a summary of the blue cod final advice paper (FAP) progress provided by Dave Scranney. MFish had received 1,037 submissions on the IPP, of which 285 were from individuals and organisations and 752 form submissions from The Fishing Paper.

• Vast majority of submitters acknowledge there is a problem with blue cod depletion in the Marlborough sounds and agree further management action is required.
• No overall clear consensus on management approach.
• Generally community opposed to total closures on all fishing but high levels of support for “closed to blue cod” areas.  
• Many submitters propose that seals, shags and fishers from Wellington constitute the biggest impact to the species although no independent supporting information was provided. 
• Various levels of support and opposition to the remainder of the proposals that will need further analysis to identify.

MFish listened to these submissions and the Final Advice recommendations to the Minister are based on the submissions (ie, buy-in) and ability to achieve the overall management objectives set out in the IPP. MFish would like to thank ToS Forum and all their input, especially Martyn and John D for their role in ensuring the widest possible debate occurred.

The main recommendations are for:

• No take blue cod areas for recreational fishing in the enclosed Sounds. The recommendation includes a sunset clause.
• Landing of whole blue cod in the Marlborough Sounds with an exemption for consuming on board a vessel (as per oysters and scallops)

Note MFish clearly heard recreational fishers' concerns that commercial finfishing should be excluded from the ‘no-take' area. However, the Act does not allow the Minister to do this. Section 311 requires use of the dispute resolution first. MFish cannot make illegal recommendations to the Minister. Instead MFish believe the CIFF Plan is the approach.

MFish believe there is merit in further discussing the MLS for BCO. MFish have recommended that further research is carried out as soon as practicable and that the MLS this is looked at through the CIFF Plan and based on research and the objectives for the fishery. There are additional recommendations for research and the Minister to direct the CIFF Plan to act.

Key points to conclude

• The FAP are recommendations only. The Minister can choose any approach he sees fit provided it is legal under the Fisheries Act. An announcement on the Minister's decision will be made in June.
• The recommendations are for the short term only and will buy time to prevent further decline and allow for the community to decide on longer term approach.
• It is imperative that the CIFF Plan and stakeholder groups such as the ToS Recreational Forum and SoundFish all continue to work together with MFish to find longer term solutions.

Betty (on behalf of the Marlborough Recreational Fishers), suggested that the daily bag limit for snapper should be increased beyond the current dbl of three, because there are a lot of snapper (especially in Pelorus Sound), and given that the dbl for blue cod is so low. A suggested dbl for snapper is six. Some people believe the dbl for snapper should be six everywhere (note that the snapper dbl is 10 outside of the Marl borough Sounds).

Betty would like to see a remit from the ToS Recreational Forum to increase the snapper bag limit. Ron P noted there had been no call from Dawnbreaker's Fishing Club to increase the snapper dbl, noting that snapper abundance in Pelorus and Keneperu Sounds was well below that of a few years ago, so he did not support an increase in the dbl. John D supported a dbl of six all over Challenger; Martyn noted that there was no sustainability issue in Tasman Bay to warrant reducing the snapper dbl from 10 to six fish. Johnny supported what Betty was saying, but did not want to pre-empt developments in the fish plan process.

Martyn noted the snapper fishery is currently being discussed in the Challenger Finfish fish plan, and there may be some opportunity for ‘horse-trading' between the sectors. For example, he had no objections to a dbl of three, provided he had easy access to (eg surfcasting), and was certain of catching, a dbl of three.

Action: Martyn and John D will take Betty's idea through to the CIFF fishplan. Note : Charlie and Mark have some suggestions on bag limits too.

John D gave the forum an update on the Challenger Inshore Finfish Fisheries (CIFF) plan and the fish plan advisory group (FPAG). He noted that the group had virtually completed the information brief, and that he felt it was a fascinating and useful document. At the last meeting (May 28), customary members of the CIFF fish plan presented their section of the fish plan, which is to be placed at the front of the document. The customary section explains how Maori are partners with the Crown, not stakeholders in the sense that the recreational, commercial and environmental sectors are.

Most of the meeting was involved in setting objectives for CIFF, in particular looking at objectives for snapper. Steve Brouwer (MFish scientist) suggested that snapper abundance is above B MSY . John noted that the CIFF fish plan is the best opportunity to achieve something from a recreational point of view, that is sitting down with the different groups.

Martyn added that although we may agree with the objectives, not al stakeholders will agree with the management measures and strategies required to meet those objectives. Martyn expected progress on objective setting to become quicker, and that it was interesting listening to other people's perspectives. Martyn noted that whereas the commercial sector may have to give up some things, recreational sector may also have to give up some things in order to achieve overall recreational objectives.

Martyn noted that although the information brief is huge, the amateur sector characterisation is very small. More information on the recreational sector is needed to enhance the brief, for example the recreational members of the group get asked how many recreational fishers there are and so on.

The group discussed whether they could do their own survey, perhaps with the help of the Fishing paper and offering prizes. John W noted that compliance officers collect a lot of information from recreational fishers that could potentially be used. John D talked about the survey the Pelorus Boat Club had done amongst its own members – this could also be a useful approach; he favoured boat registration which would yield lots of information and assist in compliance activities. Pete described how the membership form for the Buller Recreational Fishers collected information on how they fished etc – Martyn noted that TASFISH do this too. Rob noted that Dave Scranney had investigated boat ramp data, which could also be useful

Actions:

1. Pete to send a copy of the Buller Recreational Fishing Club membership form, and any information about method, target species to Rob.
2. Rob to talk to Dave Scranney about boat ramp data and report back.
3. John W to talk to Geoff / compliance about what compliance data we can use to characterise the recreational sector
4. Martyn, John D and Rob will discuss survey design.

Ron P discussed the meeting TASFISH and SoundFish had with the Minister of Fisheries in Picton recently. Ron and Daryl Crimp represented TASFISH. For an article and photo of the meeting, see page 17 of the June edition of the Fishing Paper.

Martyn asked for the Forum's opinion on amateur-only fishing areas; if the Forum supported the idea, he would take it forward to the CIFF FPAG. John W noted that in addition to spatial separation, method restrictions could also be considered.

Claire explained that the tools available under the Fisheries Act have limited ability to do this, and a more efficient vehicle for change would be the CIFF fish plan. Section 311 of the Fisheries Act was enacted specifically to provide for arbitration where commercial fishing is substantially affecting recreational fishing. The reason this section was enacted was that parliament did not want MFish to be involved in area closures because area closures impinge on the property rights conferred under the QMS. Accordingly a clause for dispute resolution (s311) was inserted. Note that the dispute resolution process is not MFish driven, nor is it arbitrated by MFish. However, fish plans circumvent s 311 to some extent – the different parties enter negotiations before s311 is even considered.

Section 186A and 186B allow temporary closures or method restrictions, but this can only occur if this is likely to assist in replenishing the stock in the area concerned. Quota   management areas (QMAS) may be subdivided under s25A, however this needs agreement from 75% of quota owners and the Minister, and has nev er been done before. Taiapure established under s174 (Part 9) can regulate for anything, but the same processes that MFish uses (ie s12 consultation, IPP, FAP, Cabinet Paper etc) must be followed. Similarly,   mätaitai can effectively make an area non-commercial, but to regulate this, the Minister must approve the regulations.

On balance, the best and quickest way to achieve an amateur-only area would be through the CIFF fish plan.

Action : Forum members to ask their clubs for suggestions on amateur-only areas, and to report back to the next ToS Recreational Forum Meeting.
Addenda : Since the CIFF FPAG will meet two or three times before the next ToS Recreational Forum meeting, please e-mail thoughts and suggestions to Martyn, John D and Greg

Claire discussed the recent orange roughy decision that means that the TACC for flat fish in the Marlborough Sounds cannot be adjusted in the near future. Section 13 of the Fisheries Act requires the Minister to set the TAC so that the stock is maintained at or above B MSY . In the Orange roughy case, the judge said the Minister must make an informed statement about where the B MSY is when setting the TAC. For most stocks, including FLA7, we have no explicit estimate of where BMSY is. Only around 10 stocks of the 620 stocks managed under the QMS have good information on B MSY.

In the orange roughy case, in essence the Minister didn't know where the stock was in relation to BMSY so he used a precautionary approach and cut the TAC. In effect the judge said that the Minister can't do this, without a good estimate of where the stock is in relation to BMSY, and precautionary applies to both sustainability and utilisation, ie decreasing and increasing TACs. A working group is currently looking at urgent amendments to the Fisheries Act to enable the Minister to set TAC s.

Invite Ralph Townsend (MFish Chief Economist) to a meeting this year to talk about the value of recreational fishing.

Fish Plans Update

Meeting Closed