By Randall Bess*
The New Zealand Initiative is conducting research on the way fisheries are managed. This research will culminate in policy recommendations to help debate how best to improve New Zealanders’ recreational fishing experience.
The first of three reports was released in September, titled What’s the Catch? This report sets out the overall situation regarding how New Zealand’s fisheries are managed.
As a follow up to this report, I recently travelled to North America to research some new and different ways to manage recreational fishing. This research will make up the second in a series of three reports, which will be released in early 2017.
In my travels, I visited the Texas Gulf of Mexico coastline to research the red snapper fishery, which has striking similarities with New Zealand’s red snapper fishery. Both are rebuilding after commercial over fishing and are highly valued by both commercial and recreational fishers.
In the report, What’s the Catch? the New Zealand Initiative argues that a crisis is looming with our red snapper fishery and other inshore fish stocks, so long as we continue doing more of the same with the way these stocks are managed.
As recreational fishing continues to account for increasing proportions of the total catch of these fish stocks, so do the conflicts with those who own commercial quota for those stocks. Of course, the opposite can be said about any increase in commercial catch and the ensuing effect on recreational fishing.
However, during the last three decades, the rights associated with owning commercial quota have evolved to near property rights. These rights are equivalent to tradable shares of the total catch. In other words, the rights associated with quota ownership cannot be rendered ineffective, or at least not without compensation.
In contrast, the rights of recreational fishers are not well defined, and for all intents and purposes remain at the discretion of the Minister for Primary Industries.
So, how do we resolve the conflicts that arise from increasing competition for the same fish stocks, while also rebuilding those stocks that are over fished?
The Ministry for Primary Industries has just released a document titled, The Future of Our Fisheries. The purpose of this document is to consult with the public before some management changes will be proposed and no doubt will feature prominently in the lead up to the general election. The document addresses the longstanding problems associated with illegal commercial discarding and misreporting of catches. Measures put in place that at least minimise discarding can go a long way toward rebuilding several inshore fish stocks.
The document addresses very little in the way of recreational fishing. But, it does propose some ways for decision-making to be more flexible, including the delegation of decision-making powers to someone or group other than the Minister for Primary Industries. This can be seen as passing the baton, or hospital pass, depending on the decision. But, it may well reduce the level of political influence in some decisions.
What the document lacks is a sense of thinking in new ways about the problems we have faced for some time. Doing more of what we have done in the past, but with different decision makers, may simply be a further sign of management complacency.
With respect to managing recreational fishing, the historical practice has been to simply reduce daily bag limits and increase minimum legal sizes, which has the effect of reducing recreational catch. However, continual use of these simple tools, along with shortened fishing seasons, eventually diminishes the fishing experience.
Now over to the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, which is like looking into the future of New Zealand’s snapper fishery.
The Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery has been rebuilding since the total catch levels were cut by 45 percent in 2006. While the red snapper abundance has almost tripled since then, the demand for recreational fishing has increased at a greater rate.
Recreational fishers have consistently exceeded their share of the total catch. In 2014 emergency measures were put in place, including a reduction in the fishing season to just nine days each year in federal waters. The bag limit remained at two fish per day.
The recreational charter boats had a 46-day season this year. Charter boats are popular due to the distance travelled to fishing grounds, often 25 miles (40 km) or more offshore. A few charter boat operators have utilised existing legislation that allows them to extend their season by fishing with commercial red snapper quota.
While applying commercial quota to charter boats is not a new idea, that they are operating just like commercial boats is novel. None of the recreational rules apply, and the fishers on board do not pay for charter services.
The fishers simply place their orders with the fish processor who will receive their catch, and then the fishers participate in filling their orders. When the catch is delivered, the fishers pay the pre-set price for filleted red snapper.
I went on one of these quasi-commercial/charter fishing trips, leaving the Port of Galveston in Texas. Each of us caught around 30 to 40 red snapper, making it a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Because of the stock rebuild, the red snapper were so abundant that we caught one within seconds of a hook descending a few metres. We only had three undersized snapper discards because the 13- inch (330 mm) commercial minimum legal size limit applied, not the 16-inch (406 mm) recreational limit.
To be clear, the New Zealand Initiative is not advocating for this type of arrangement as the solution to managing the snapper fishery in New Zealand. In fact, it may be less appealing here, if the recreational season can continue to last year round, daily bag limits remain relatively generous and most fishers can catch snapper close to shore in private boats.
For now, the Initiative is presenting this example, and others, as lessons in unconventional thinking, which is what we need more of, and in ways that present solutions that benefit all fishing sectors.
--------------------------------
* Randall Bess is a research fellow at The New Zealand Initiative.
13 Comments
Go look at marinetraffic.com and see the fleet of factory ships hoovering up the biomass. There's the problem.The "Big Fishing" industry will go for it ferociously until they get the last fish. Neither brain nor ethic can be found in those companies.
Recreational fishing still needs control. Together with extensive no fish zones -like most of it. Commercial fishing should be limited to the cottage industry we had - two man boats.
The big problem is unrelenting population rise. The rest of the world is screwed, but maybe we can still protect New Zealand.
One of the best ways to reduce commercial impacts on inshore fisheries is to change fishing methods. For example; longline snapper are worth a lot more per kilo and have a far lower bycatch and juvenile mortality so a win for the environment, recreational fishers and (smaller scale) commercial operators as well . Netting is very indiscriminate so really bad effects on all sizes and species encountered as well as the sea floor environment. Free diving instead of scallop dredging and scuba for the recreational take is another option.
Why does the rest of the World come down here, thousands of kilometres to hoover up our fish stocks.
Perhaps it is because they over fished, locally.?...I should imagine.
At least our recreational fishermen and ladies do not use hoover methods to catch a quota, but some do not know that minnows become big fish...too...one day...I pray to Neptune....we change the limits...keep to your own damned over fished waters.
Plus any sane man knows netting it all now, will just be food for thought in the future....not our stomachs if we do not change our fishy ways...too.
We are not innocent...we must change our ways too... extend our no fishing zones.....by miles....Look what happens at Goat Island...and think twice, before the idiots ruin everything.
Seems like the NZ Initiative are missing the point again. Turn recreational fishing into a highly-commercialised operation in which punters pay for the experience of catching fish to make somebody else a profit. Yeah, that'll catch on. And really, what's the problem with reduced bag limits, adjusting size limits, and enforcing no-fish zones? Doesn't interfere with the casual nice-day-out-on-a-boat experience, even if you take fewer fish home. The bag limits on some fish are ridiculously high as it is.
In NZ at least, tweak the recreational rules and those also apply to charter boat trips.
What's needed is more enforcement on illegal commercial fishing, in international waters and in the EEZ. And some more fishery officers to check the recreational catches. Regulations may as well not exist if there's no enforcement.
"Why does the rest of the World come down here, thousands of kilometres to hoover up our fish stocks."
This single comment you made tells me you don't really understand whats going on out there.
The reason the foreign boats that fish inside NZ's 200 mile EEZ have come down here, thousands of kilometres from home is that they were asked to by NZ companies.
The foreign boats that fish here are under contract to NZ companies catching those companies quota.
And you might ask why do we have to contract and bring them down to catch our fish? The reason is because under international agreement, if a country does not have the ability (boats) to catch a fish stock that exists between their 12 - 200* mile zone, then other countries must be allowed access that fish stock.
So what would you prefer? NZ companies contracting foreign vessels to come and catch our Jack Mackeral or Southern Blue Whiting fish stocks on their behalf, or, foreign vessels here catching it for themselves.?
*This law does not apply to fish stocks that exist or are present inside a country's 12 mile territorial sea.
I know we have cheap labour to hoover up our local stocks..quotas.
I know our local fisheries are part of the problem, they want to make as much money as possible..
Doing something about the problem is what I advocate.
If enough people would agree with me, we may do away with the problem thinking.
Debating and stirring up issues, is the only way to get change.
The problem people are what causes the problems, no common sense.
Good change is what I advocate.
The whole world needs it, for our own good.
Anything can be changed, even local fisheries methods and madness.
And even Wolfes in Sheep's Clothing...know that if we do not make things "sustainable' we can bite oursleves in the ass.
I would prefer that local boats fished our waters as we would have more control of fishing methods and better information about fish stocks. As someone who has seen the dead oceans and seas around the world, I can only hope, that the staff that set the commercial quotas know what they are doing..
And to me, fish are like water... in respect that they belong, to all New Zealanders
Government oversight from MPI has made a dogs breakfast of a pigs ear.I.E they have been rubbish in regulating the greed of commercial fishing in NZ. Commercial exploitation because they can get away with it and lax oversight mean NZ fishing stocks are about 15% of what they used to be consistently across different fisheries.It is wider than government and fits more in the systemic failure area, a bit like leaky buildings where multiple parties/practices are to blame.
To fix it multiple actions are needed - we need to acknowledge the disastrous government management and how this has enabled ruinous commercial exploitation; much stronger oversight from MPI is required with a restructured department; Commercial practices need to be changed so only sustainable fishing is allowed whereby fishing stocks improve/increase - correspondingly govt. should buy and then remove quota so less fish are being taken; we should have at least 10% NZ waters as no fishing or restricted recreational fishing only - strong protection implemented . Where fishing is banned the fisheries bounce back remarkably and is long term best for all parties e.g. Reef where Rena was grounded had large increase over 3 years until the ban was lifted and in 3 days commercial fisherman came in and ripped off the resource yet again. We are lucky in that our fisheries can improve sustaintially but it needs significantly improved governance and leadership...something in short supply in John Key's administration.
I
I'm always bemused when watching cooking programmes in Europe etc, where the chef wanders down to the local wharf and selects from the days catch. Try wandering down to a NZ wharf and buying some fresh fish! For an island nation access to seafood is pathetic. Should never have sold off quota, it should have remained tax payer owned and leased. Just another example of our asset sell offs. And so it continues.
I've said the same about fishing quota for a long time, it should never have been privately owned, I saw a lot of small individual fishermen suddenly enriched simply by having declared how much they caught the previous year, after that the small fisherman struggled to own quota as it was bought up by the rich and the lazy. I've lived among struggling cray fishermen, the owners of quota creaming it, those who have to lease at usurious rates, struggling to survive.
It has basically meant the demise of the small operator so little access for us for actual fresh fish. It should always have been publicly owned and when one fisherman retired, then it could then perhaps have gone to the next one with the sale of a boat or return to the general pool to be re-allocated.
The system itself, otherwise, that divvies areas up is quite good as quota can be increased or decreased in a targeted manner.
I'm always bemused when watching cooking programmes in Europe etc, where the chef wanders down to the local wharf and selects from the days catch. Try wandering down to a NZ wharf and buying some fresh fish! For an island nation access to seafood is pathetic. Should never have sold off quota, it should have remained tax payer owned and leased. Just another example of our asset sell offs. And so it continues.
To quote the article "Both are rebuilding after commercial over fishing". If the big reason for the fishery being in such a state is commercial over fishing surely that should be the first thing addressed? When a study this year reveals 2.7T of fish dumped and wasted commercially for every 1T kept, and that 90%+ of the fish taken in NZ is by commercial fishers, why spend any time on anything else until that gaping big hole is fixed? Spending money or time looking at how rec fishers should be managed when this travesty continues begs the question WHY? It has been suggested in the media that MPI have been captured by industry. A provocative question I put out there - are there any ties to industry the NZ Initiative should be declaring?
Another study published this year showed the value of rec fishing, $1.7B worth, for 6% of the catch. Um, so, why aren't we focussing on this great part of economic sense instead of 'rec fishers aren't managed and there's going to be trouble in the future'..... hmmmm, if the NZ initiative is about great economic opportunities, how about more study on management outcomes that help the rec fishing industry to flourish and grow? Quote from the NZI website 'There are fantastic opportunities for New Zealand today. With our young and well-educated population, and being geographically positioned in the middle of the fast-growing Pacific region, New Zealand can be one of the rising stars of the 21st century.' Awesome, how about a study on policy that enhances the rec fishing industry and takes it from a $1.7B industry to a $4B industry, utilising only 15% of the total catch....that sounds like a great way to help NZ become a star in the Pacific.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.