MEETING OF THE COMBINED EAST and WEST COAST RECREATIONAL FORUMS
13 FEBRUARY 2007 at MFish Auckland – 15:15 to 20:45
DRAFT SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
In attendance:
- Richard Fanselow, John Taunton-Clark, Ian Ferguson, Eve Oatley, Murray Bruges (all MFish); George Johnson (East Coast) (Fishing Trust); Anthony Olsen (BoP) (Fish Forum); Bernie Ward (West Coast); Geoff Manks (East Coast); Richard Baker (East Coast); Peter Hempleman (East Coast); Stewart Hogg (West Coast); Keith Snow (West Coast); Sheryl Hart (West Coast); Don Glass (East Coast); Alan Moore (West Coast); Trish Rea; Kim Walshe
Apologies were received from:
- Peter Stevenson, Peter Ellery, Rick Pollock, John Friend, John Forrest (has resigned from Forum), Stuart Cameron, Alan Jones.
Summary of discussion of agenda items
The following agenda item was included:
A petition by “Kiwis against seabed mining” had been arranged for 14 February, and the Forum members were requested to offer submissions in support of petition because seabed mining had clear implications for fishing.
1. Confirm summary of previous meeting
Members noted that the style of reporting who said what was not preferred. Forums preferred the recording of conclusions, decisions, actions, as well as the context of discussions to provide the rationale for the conclusions. There was a request that the chairperson provide a verbal summary at the end of discussions.
The use of a dedicated note taker was proposed.
Decisions:
- Produce draft meeting summaries within 10 days of meeting.
- Forum members to review draft summaries within 5 working days before posting final version on website.
2. Shared Fisheries
The status of respective submissions was discussed. The ‘People’s submission’ was not be able to be tabled at the meeting, but will be ready by deadline. It was suggested that the Forums should take a position on submissions / issues. The main submissions were outlined:
Recreational Council submission:
- something needs to happen to improve the situation and to provide better recreational catch information, particularly to measure trends once “baselines” were established.
- Split of the TAC is paramount – must be reliable and needs to be agreed by all.
- Don’t believe charter boat catches provide a useful measure of overall recreational catch, but can measure trends.
- Don’t know why the issue is in the MFish document as tools are available currently to require catch reporting by charter boats.
- Shared stocks must be managed above BMSY
- Need to look at reasons why depleted stocks have got into that state.
- Don’t agree with the 6 stocks proposed in the MFish document.
- Don’t agree with any fixed allocation proportion.
- Recreational allowance should be able to grow as use increases.
- SNA1 and other stocks provide examples of incorrect setting of baseline allocations.
- Assessing recreational value is tricky; need to include values other than $ value; explore the West Australian fisheries valuation model. Recreational Council won’t accept setting value dimensions until after the policy has been developed.
- Local area management is the thing that will make the policy work – need areas to be excluded from commercial activity or inshore areas set aside for exclusive non-commercial access.
- Redress to commercial fishers is for government to pay if Government’s fault, but not if for sustainability reasons.
- Supports assistance being provided for representation of recreational interests, but doesn’t want any form of cost recovery; need to work out $$ needed for representation before determining source/mechanism for funding etc
- Issues of extractive AND non-extractive uses must be considered together with the fish that might be ‘locked away’ within marine reserves, MPAs
- Submission will be with Forum members by end of week.
- Support many parts of proposal, but need clarification of detail.
“People’s submission” summary:
- Jointly between option4, NZBGFC, Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua, and some others.
- Refer to preliminary view document released before Christmas.
- Consider that shared fish is an environmental issue and many fisheries have been over-fished with the need to get fisheries back to healthy state.
- Need more fish in the water to argue over.
- Submission ignores the MFish Shared Fish proposals as do not want to take away existing rights under s 21 of the Act – consider that there are plenty tools in Act, but not properly used - MFish should get on with job of using tools appropriately.
- Problem is not recreational fishers.
- Recreational right is not for sale!
- Submission consists of 9 or 10 papers – one on ‘allocation’ versus ‘allow for’; others on area management; nature of different rights; have ignored valuation model because there is no reference to value in Act; s12 consultation – input and participation obligation etc – huge for local area management (Kaitiakitanga); effects on Maori interests etc and inclusive of customary/recreational/commercial.
- Papers are 6-12 pp each.
- Want feedback from MFish on whether or not the submission direction is possible.
- Submission will be available to Forums once released to public.
- Plan to continue consultation with public after deadline.
It was the unanimous view of both Forums that :
- there was a timetable problem for achieving consensus on issues and submissions, and requested that MFish provide an extension of ONE MONTH at least for providing submissions.
- Lack of detail in Shared Fish document will be troublesome for people to reach acceptance.
- Outcome of KAH case would be helpful; option4 based its argument on allocation – outcome important to sense of submissions on Shared Fish proposals.
- the right to add support or further comment after the deadline of 28 February is reserved.
- the risk that no extension could lead to problems with issues not included in submissions – must have ability to feed in issues after deadline.
Actions:
- formal request to MFish Policy for extension of 28 Feb deadline by at least one month
- notify of intention to provide further comment in support or contradiction of submissions after deadline
3. Members’ updates/issues
Alan Jones from Mokau had reported not noticing any signs of spawning – consequences for recruitment were possible. General comments were that spawning was very late. TAR had stayed in close in the BoP.
It was noted that Blind Bay/Okupu at Great Barrier appeared to have been “dredged” and cleaned out of scallops; seabed marks looked like those from a commercial dredge.
It was noted that the seal colony at Whale Island had been increasing and that they were feeding on paua.
4. Standards
Forum members noted that they had been so busy with Shared Fish proposals/submissions that have not had time to deal with Standards.
Forum members requested 2 further months for recreational and iwi forums to consider the standards proposals and provide submissions.
It was noted that the topics of Standards/Shared fish issues have not come up at the BoP iwi Forum, and that the Shared fish document had not seen by marae near Aotea Harbour on the west coast.
The coverage of publicity on the shared fisheries proposals was questioned.
The forums asked if deemed fish are included in the total mortality used in the assessment for SNA8? It was suggested that deemed catch should be removed from subsequent year’s TACC.
Forum members voiced concerns regarding FLA1 TACC being set high to accommodate years of high abundance, and asked why that type of approach was not applied to recreational allowances?
Problems with harbour fisheries were noted, where commercial fishers are lawfully taking their allowance, but depleting local stocks and impacting non-commercial access.
The case of some BNS stock was discussed where catch had exceeded the TACC so MFish increases it! It was asked why not apply similar thinking to non-commercial sector, and take into account fallibility of recreational harvest estimates.
Actions:
- formal request to MFish for extension of deadline for subs on standards by 2 months
5. Review of Forum’s effectiveness
Members agreed that the Forums should seek constructive exchange of information, and avoid abusive emails or copying in all members in such. Proposal was to deal with facts/issues and avoid personalising matters. It was noted that members are not necessarily mandated by their respective clubs/associations to represent them on the Forums.
It was agreed that it was an appropriate time to review and clarify the aims and functions of the Forums. It was noted that the Forums should be FOR recreational fishers, should facilitate the building of trust between the sector and MFish, so that Forums can support MFish effectively in its communication with the wider public. It was also noted that the correspondence of the Forums was not seen by some MFish offices.
It was agreed that direct leadership will be important and that meetings should be formally chaired. The combination of Forums was discussed and it was agreed that separate Forums should proceed to deal with the issues unique to each.
Members agreed that the Forums should have drafted submissions on Shared Fish and should have been funded to do it. A goal for the year was agreed as to put in a good submission on the consultation standard.
Actions:
- provide initial Forum terms of reference and first meeting notes to Forum members for discussion at next meeting.
- Check on options for national coordination of Forums.
- Determine formal chairperson for each Forum.
- Obtain a glossary of MFish terms for Forums.
NEXT MEETING:
If deadline for subs on Shared Fish extended, meet on Tuesday 13 March.
If not, next meeting Tuesday 8 May 2007.