Thread: Inshore fishing under threat?

YEARS BACK when F&G took size limit off trout in a lot of regions people jumped up n down saying folks would kill all the young trout and none would grow big. not this K1W1 I see it as good thing,small trout that is bleeding CAN be legally kept,instead of chucked back to die...
the whole catch n release thing is a have...if its NOT DONE RIGHT....... there are photos out there of kingfish with hory great hand print sores on them from the catch n release not done right....I would hazard a guess smaller sea fish that are crook dont last long before being eaten....
any fish thats bleeding SHOULD be kept and eaten,its part of your bag limit...

Originally Posted by Mohawk .308

What do yo propose?

Well as our snapper fishery is doing well getting better year on year and commercial quota has already been increased and most likely will be again I propose that any increase in quota for commercial must be matched for recreational or it is theft of a public resource.

As I said above. All this needs to be area and species specific.

If snapper are in trouble in your area I would propose no fishing for export from that area, must be sold local market.
Prices will come down and pressure will move elsewhere or different species.
Recreational take will then naturally reduce because of the abundant cheap snapper in the markets.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

You do know commercial quota for snapper was increased in our region last year or maybe the one before?

Yes I do. I submitted against it along with many others as I am sure you did but none of the submissions were listened to and the commercial sector got what it wanted despite the submissions being overwhelmingly against it.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Gurnard is up for reveiw right now and I suggest you submit and I would politely suggest you submit along the lines that if commercial quota is increased then recreational MUST be raised to match.

I had no idea, thanks for the heads up, i will definitely submit and head your advice on the angle to take.

To be honest tho it feels a bit like tackling the mafia around here and i doubt any of us will be listened too.

I guess i advocate for an increased minimum size limit and and reduction in daily limit as i am a passionate recreational fisherman who is concerned for our fishery once plundered and now recovering!

In saying that you have a far better understanding of the overall situation than I.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by kukuwai

Yes I do. I submitted against it along with many others as I am sure you did but none of the submissions were listened to and the commercial sector got what it wanted despite the submissions being overwhelmingly against it.



I had no idea, thanks for the heads up, i will definitely submit and head your advice on the angle to take.

To be honest tho it feels a bit like tackling the mafia around here and i doubt any of us will be listened too.

I guess i advocate for an increased minimum size limit and and reduction in daily limit as i am a passionate recreational fisherman who is concerned for our fishery once plundered and now recovering!

In saying that you have a far better understanding of the overall situation than I.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Ten x 10-15 pounders is a lot of fish.

Ten 30cm fish is not a lot of fish.... especially if you are the only one fishing for a large family or only once or twice a year.

For you or I that are able to and do regularly get out for a fish and catch 10 is heaps....I very rarely keep my limit.....

but It pays to remember most people are not in a position to do what we do.

So for those that might get a trip with a friend or on a charter once or twice a year hell yea take Ten I say.

I could support a size increase to 30 tho now that trawlers cannot release small fish alive anymore due to the rule change.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mohawk .308

So are you saying you still want to catch 25cm fish?

how on earth did you get that question from that which you quoted????

Originally Posted by Mohawk .308

So are you saying you still want to catch 25cm fish?

I never have wanted to catch 25cm fish.
However I agreed with the size in the past because.

It was pretty much all that was possible to be caught from shore here and I think you should be able to catch a feed from shore.

And

Because trawlers had to abide by the size limit too, so I would rather have seen all the 25-30cm snapper they have caught be landed and sold and eaten and most importantly deducted from their quota rather than dumped overboard dead and not counted so they can catch even more.

Nowdays tho with advancements in trawl nets most but not all are using codends that keep the fish alive and swimming mostly untill landed unlike the old days of everything pretty much coming up dead.

So now with the no dumping law that should have been in 30-50-100 years ago the irony is now that for all that time of dead undersized fish being dumped(hence best to have a small limit size) now finally after all that waste the industry over the last few years has finally developed gear that enables most of those undersized fish to actually be released alive and in good condition now they wont be allowed to and they will have to kill them and land them.

Kinda Ironic huh.

So in the past I supported the 25cm for reasons above.
Now locally I would support an increase to 30cm as it is now possible to catch that size from shore reasonabley regularly but mainly because of the law change on "dumping" for commercial

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

if 25cm...or 10cm for that matter fish is bleeding when caught,or mishandled...its dead.....just not yet...so it SHOULD BE counted as part of your catch limit....personal integrity and honesty is the only police on the system BUT you keep it and eat it...its used,you chuck it back in and it floats away to be seagull food its wasted resource.
so for me YES if needed to keep it I would like to be able to do it legally.....but bigger is better.....but not if you killing small ones to get them.
oh and you can fill a toast bread sandwich with a 10cm spotty fillet so snapper will do it better.... beer batter is your friend with small fillets.

Originally Posted by Mohawk .308

So your happy with 30cm but what bag limit do you want? More than 7 I take it?

It is 10 here and has been as long as I can remember.....the fishing gets better every year and commercial take got increased recently and most likely will again soon so why on earth should we cut our own throats to give it to commercial?

The only time I would support a reduction in limit is for a area in trouble and if commercial and customary also take a cut in limit (quota)

Voluntarily reducing rec take for no reason other than to benefit comercial take makes no sense to me at all.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

if 25cm...or 10cm for that matter fish is bleeding when caught,or mishandled...its dead.....just not yet...so it SHOULD BE counted as part of your catch limit....personal integrity and honesty is the only police on the system BUT you keep it and eat it...its used,you chuck it back in and it floats away to be seagull food its wasted resource.
so for me YES if needed to keep it I would like to be able to do it legally.....but bigger is better.....but not if you killing small ones to get them.
oh and you can fill a toast bread sandwich with a 10cm spotty fillet so snapper will do it better.... beer batter is your friend with small fillets.

Some fish are pretty hardy....some can survive and heal like 30 percent of there body being bitten out!
Some can be hauled up from over 100m deep and be released fine others are fucked from 10m.
But yes fish handeling education could be better and some species that are a bit fragile and scarce like blue cod here some people probably kill 20 undersized before they get their legal 2 cod.

Originally Posted by Gibo

I dont know. But why do Councils have the power to do this? Dont MPI make these sorts of decisions based off research? Seems unless its appealed through the environmental court with enough backing the appeal gets quashed and the councils proceed as they wish. Also seems even when we think everyone is behind the appeal its still never enough and they spin that its based on consultation with the public. Beats me

In our local case the environment courts decision was appealed, and the high Court upheld the decision. It was a benchmark case interpreting the responsibilities of council in managing bethnic biodiversity as written in the RMA. Council doesn't want it. They can't afford it and there is no resource, structure or funding to manage it. The only legal recourse now is to change the RMA. One of my hopes with the hauraki spacial plan is that they will need to change both the qms and the RMA in order to enact the plan. Hopefully that allows for more flexible fishery management and brings it back to mpi to manage and not council.

The scariest part of it all is now any Interest group around the country can take council to court and achieve the same. All they need is for forest and Bird to say the biodiversity of an area is damaged, which by definition every popular reef system around the country is.

Originally Posted by mikee

I would be interested to know which specific international vessels fish inside our teritorial waters?

The navy periodically sees off ships of foreign origin. It was in the news ages ago

Originally Posted by Gibo

Doesnt sound right to me, killing more wildlife doesnt create a balance, taking less fish will. No doubt the reason they are being a pain is they are forced into these areas as there normal ones are fished out.

I will explain my point, Fur Seals in NZ were reduced in numbers to near extinction. Now there are tens of thousands everywhere along rocky east coast areas. The seal numbers have not been static, they have been increasing exponentially. If the seal numbers were static it would be simple to set fish takes. From 1984 to '92 the rate of increase was 25% per annum. In 2001 the population was estimated at 200,000 so at 25% increase compounding per annum what is the population today ?
If we want a human fish take then all takes have to be balanced with what the stocks can sustain. If we set an allowable fishing take today for a species and next year seals are taking 25% more from that stock compounding, it must put the fish stock under pressure and throw the numbers out. If seals are left unchecked the fishing take will need to be reduced each year to keep the total take sustainable.
I would not be surprised to find that the increase in seal numbers around Banks Pen. has put food resources for Hectors Dolphins under pressure.
Not that I am defending introduced Salmon over indigenous seals, but Salmon numbers here have graphed down in lock step as Seals have increased. This happened in North America leading to the lifting of total protection and seal culls

If seals are problem how is it that many large fish were caught in the ‘early days’ when seals were apparently still prolific?

Maybe because back then humans were less prolific…

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

If seals are problem how is it that many large fish were caught in the ‘early days’ when seals were apparently still prolific?

Maybe because back then humans were less prolific…

Remember seals were hunted from around year 1800 here and very quickly the seals in the areas later populated by settlers were gone, the seal hunters having to concentrate on areas like Fiordland and islands south of NZ. Settler likely hardly saw a seal. Maori populations dropped too, from 200,000 to 20,000 due to disease thus reducing the fish take. Maori culled seals from their fishing grounds historically.
What also needs considered is that there was not the vast quota takes we have now. I just see seals as one part of the puzzle that has been ignored

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/...at-ramp-access