The only specialised marine publication in Oceania that focuses on the maritime industry, from super yachts to small craft to large commercial ships, including coastal shipping, tugs, tow boats, barges, ferries, tourist, sport-fishing craft
Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/172326
letters with amazes people all around New Zealand as it is arguably a violation of human rights, not a level playing field and wrong. Nathan Guy has been persuaded by his staff to allow this to go on for 20 years. What's more, to now sell the undersized crayfish is a slap in our faces. Recreational advocacy organisations such as the NZ Sport Fishing Council and the NZ Recreational Fishing Council, supported by clubs and Tourism Eastland have submitted unanimously for years and years against this regime, but we are given no light of day. Countless thousands of voluntary hours have been spent to no avail and shown no respect. Obviously, we are too weak as we are while representing the New Zealand public. The Minister (the eighth since the "concession" for commercial became law as an interim measure to be reviewed annually after 1996), also refused in his latest announcement to allow the public to take the "concession/undersized" crayfish as well. Recreational representatives at the National Rock Lobster Management Group meetings asked for this, but as usual we were declined a fair go. And why not? Commercial originally in 1993 agreed to allow the public equal rights, but the Ministry put their foot down and said NO. Commercial and MPI have also changed the name of the "concession" to the "Gisborne Commercial MLS", obviously because they are embarrassed by the name agreed upon in 1993. This is, in plain language, a cover up. And it goes on. The Minister also opened up the closed season of May to commercial. The reason May was closed being that because the concession season starts June 1, commercial fishers could stockpile their undersized crayfish in holding pots in the meantime during May and collect them a few days later when the season opened. This change now allows commercial undetected to take illegal crays that are undersized, when they should not. Totally illegal. How stupid is that? A bouquet of flowers to Nathan Guy for not making marlin a commercial species, but a brick bat for treating the public so unfairly on the Gisborne never ending inequity. Some people have had enough. Watch this space. Alain Jorion, Gisborne ANTIFOUL BAN Dear Sir In regard to the release of the EPA's reassessment of antifouling paints for use in New Zealand waters. Altex Coatings has been involved throughout the consultation process and have been in agreement with the intention of the reassessment. We share the objectives of safer products for the environment and the people handling them. In general terms, the EPA decision will impact the manufacturer, the reseller, the end user and the disposal of removed antifouling products. Controlled work areas, additional labelling and the requirement to provide safety data sheets [that] are more rigorously controlled than at present. The outcome of the reassessment from a manufacturer point of view is that some products will be banned and others, including many copper based products, are approved with controls. Some products in the approved list will have a phase out period of up to 10 years. Several of our products are in the latter group. These products have performed extremely well for many years and are very popular with our pleasure and commercial marine customers. However, behind the scenes ongoing research has been carried out to develop replacement products that we will phase in over the next five years. The objectives of the research and development include the requirements for the products to meet current and anticipated legislative requirements. The findings 6 Professional Skipper September/October 2013 of the reassessment have helped us confirm which direction legislative requirements are going. We expect to publish an informer document soon to our customers to show them which of our products remain approved and advise about any new controls that may have come into force. In general terms, we think New Zealand is leading the way with this reassessment and we know that many other countries are looking closely at what's happening here. We have some work to do now to meet the January 2014 deadlines to upgrade labels, inform our customers and make safety data sheets available more readily than now. This may involve the attachment of these to each can. I think we will look back on this in a year's time and think that it was a progressive and logical step forward in today's health and safety conscious world. Mike O'Sullivan, Altex Coatings, Tauranga QUOTA MANAGEMENT Dear Sir In response to Stu Morrison's letter 'Billfish blowout', it would seem that if the current moratorium stayed, there would be no disadvantage to the commercial fishing industry, given that the meat is of such "low value", so why the need for any change? It is always a shame and a waste to have to dump any species but the landing of any fish creates a need to find a commercial outlet for it, which in turn generates further potential demand. Not the best of situations, granted, but the alternatives are the greater evil. Sure, marlin is migratory but New Zealand's stance is the example that the rest of the regional players should follow and does make a difference. New Zealand has a world class quota management system balanced against a very strong and well funded industry lobbying "quango". You don't have to look far to see the problems caused by the fishing industry and politicians looking after their own interests at the expense of sustainable management. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas being the prize example; conflicted interests as they self manage an entire species into extinction. I am sure the charter industry would be delighted to be allocated quota on the same basis that it was originally introduced for the commercial sector. Perhaps that's the real reason that the Charter Boat Catch Reporting System was introduced, so that MAF can allocate the quota to the existing operators based on their historical catches? Fat chance, no Porsche for me! I think the point that the "Commercial Fishing Industry" misses when it points the finger at commercial charter boat operators, is that charter boats provide transport for recreational fishers and do not derive financial benefit from the sale of the fish themselves. We get paid the same for a dead day's fishing as we do for a good one. Furthermore, those targeting pelagic game fish, such as marlin and tuna, in general, encourage tag and release and in doing so conserve the resource and provide a wealth of useful data to MAF. In eight years of fishing for bluefin tuna out of Greymouth and Westport, we have tagged and released over 75 percent of the fish we have brought to the boat. Those taken have always been at the insistence of the client. We have also attached 15 PSAT tags, supplied by Stanford University's "Tag-A-Giant" foundation and can confirm all the tuna we released with these tags attached survived. We are only one of several boats involved and I believe that there was no mortality with any of the fish tagged. The suggestion that game fish are tortured for hours by sports fishermen ignores the high survival rates of released fish and the fact that most marlin are landed within 20-30 minutes of hook-up. Somehow, I think there is less torture in giving a "struck" game fish an approximately one-in-three chance of escape before being www.skipper.co.nz