Hauraki Gulf/Bay of Plenty  Recreational Fishing Forum - Third Meeting Summary

Attendance:

John Friend, Don Glass, Geoff Monks, Anthony Olsen, Kim Walshe, George Johnson, Peter Ellery, Peter Stevenson, Richard Baker

MFish: Jodi Mantle, Stacey Whitiora, Richard Fanselow, Matt Cowan

Apologies:

Bill Marshall, Rick Pollock, Lou Davis, Peter Hempleman

Agenda items: 

Shared Fisheries

The Shared Fisheries Project team provided a written update on progress which Forum members discussed before the full meeting with MFish present. Decision was to provide comment following release of the discussion document in August 2006. There will still be a 4 month public consultation period following release of this document. Members emphasised that consultation must not extend into the Christmas period.

Members confirmed the previous meeting minutes as accurate at this point.

Compliance Update

Matt Cowan explained requirements for commercial fishers to provide CELR – Catch Effort & Landing Returns. Matt explained that s.111 of the Fisheries Act allows commercial fishers to take a recreational bag limit.

Action :

  MFish to provide a map showing Hauraki Gulf trawl lines (see attachment).

Purse seining is allowed further into the Gulf than trawling and Danish seining. This is because purse seining was not used much to target species like snapper that people were most concerned about at the time the restrictions were first applied. The NABIS website (www.nabis.govt.nz) is another site to obtain information on restrictions and other kinds of fisheries information, and DoC has similar material available.

Matt said that information received from the public had been very useful, e.g. three charges/incidents have been detected through the 0800POACHER line. Forum members are welcome to ring Matt direct. Matt had a general observation that there has been a noticeable reduction in commercial fishing activity recently, probably coinciding with higher fuel costs.

Consultation

 Workshop/discussion about the way MFish carries out consultation at present.

Main points:

• Who else to target? General feeling that MFish’s master list gives pretty good coverage. Questions about the reason for environmental groups being involved when they have no interest in extraction. MFish explained that the Fisheries Act 1996 specifically identifies these groups as among those the Minister is required to consult with.
• Manner of consultation. General agreement that MFish covers most options now with hardcopy, e-mail, website and disk. There was a preference for more physical presentations to be done which could be recorded and distributed in DVD or video format. (Still supplemented by hardcopy version).
• Would like it to be mandatory for MFish to provide press releases, public notices in the paper. Rationale for this it is that it is unreasonable to assume non-commercial and other stakeholders capture public views.
• Forum members agreed that MFish should develop a minimum advertising standard and minimum standard to reach the public.
• Ideal consultation time period?
• Never over Christmas.
• Ideally over the winter months when less fishing is happening.
• Standards need to be developed around consultation timeframes that are based on the breadth of the issue, people’s level of interest and how resource intensive an issue may be.
• How many times a year? For non-commercial fishers who depend on voluntary resources, there are limitations and issues of capacity.
• Other suggestions relating to consultation.
• Preliminary discussion should take place before consultation!
• Content of IPP/FAP’s should be easily readable and understood by laypeople.
• An executive or supplemented summary upfront is needed to support/explain these documents, like those provided last year for SNA 8, GMU 1, FLA1 and rig (SPO 1).

Submissions:

Members felt the process is disempowering. Members believe that the information that they provide is generally dismissed. MFish needs to respond to and deal with perceptions like these. Members also want anecdotal information to carry more “weight” than it appears to do at present.

Possibly a need to run a programme on submissions – Ministry should work with leaders to show what relevant information should be in their submissions. What does the Minister need to consider in his decision? MFish could possibly do an educational pamphlet on how to write a submission?

Action :

MFish to forward the above suggestions about consultation to the MFish standards team who are devising standards for all MFish consultation.

Recreational Regulation Review

The three issues identified in the NZRFC/MFish workshop held to prioritise regulations for review in 2006 in order of priority are:

• Define “take” – in relation to activities such as tag and release and releasing undersize fish;
• Review minimum legal size for gurnard, blue cod and trumpeter;
• Change the scallop season

Subsequent discussion was mostly about divers measuring scallops. There was reference to the Ministers’ request that MFish should prepare new regulations to remove the anomaly between the requirement that scallop divers measure scallops on the seafloor while fishers with dredges could measure on board. Members questioned whether MFish does intend to change the current situation to have consistency with users of either method allowed to measure on board.

There was a suggestion that the fisheries management impact (mortality rate) of returning scallops to the sea should be considered in determining whether a change should be made. Also that the current code of practice should be updated to include scientific information.

Action:

MFish will provide an update on these issues and arrange for a member of the recreation review team to attend the next Forum meeting.

Coromandel Scallops Fish Plan

This is one of the first three “proof of concept” plans. John Friend is representing the Recreational Fishing Council on the group that is preparing the draft plan. The intention is to provide the Minister with a draft plan in June, which would then follow a public consultation process.

Action :

MFish will invite Peter Ellery to the next meeting.

Sustainability Review

Because of Fish plans and other commitments this year’s review is relatively modest in terms of the number of species/issues subject to review. Forum members asked about Bmsy. Members wanted a specific note recording that the new Minister has not instructed MFish officials to manage stocks above Bmsy. This is likely to be an issue considered as part of the Shared Fisheries Project.

Action :

MFish will provide an update on the October 06 sustainability papers.

Iwi Forums

MFish described the current structure of iwi forums in the northern region. Members discussed issues associated with the Hokianga accord. MFish explained that the Hokianga Forum provides difficulties for the Ministry because it comes under the initial customary forum bid. Under the customary bid the forum must provide for input and participation of hapu/iwi in the area that the Ministry has direct Treaty Settlement obligations with. This includes other hapu groups such as Te Roroa and Te Uri o Hau. The Ministry is working with local iwi representatives and the chairman of the Hokianga Accord to see if this can be progressed.

Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve

The Minister of Conservation has approved establishment of the reserve, subject to the Minister of Fisheries concurrence. Forum members proposed that: “The Hauraki/BOP Non-Commercial Fishing Forum does not support the Aotea/Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal as it stands due to insufficient assessment of the impacts of fishing (on the habitat and resources of the area) having been undertaken in the application to justify the total closure of the proposed area to non-commercial fishing.”

While members felt this was close to what they wanted to say, they proposed that Richard Baker coordinate the final motion.

Action :

Richard Baker to co-ordinate the final motion to be sent to the Spatial Allocations team.