The Council of Outdoor Recreation Councils (CORANZ) is urging government to be strongly cautious on catch limits for the deep water fish orange roughy in order to avoid a repeat of the disastrous over-fishing of the species some forty years ago.
CORANZ spokesman Tony Orman was president of the NZ Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC) in the 1980s when the orange roughy fisheries were discovered and publicly warned the government. to avoid any collapse
“Back then NZRFC on the news of the discovery, warned about rushing headlong in to exploit the resource, without knowing basic population dynamics such as life span and spawning,” he said.
NZRFC’s plea was ignored by the ministry and the then minister of fisheries Duncan McIntyre who obviously on ministry advice, responded publicly in the “NZ Herald” that there was nothing wrong with commercially catching spawning fish.
“That is so obviously ignorant, akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg,” said Tony Orman.
Frenzied Gold Rush
History records the corporate commercial fishing companies rushed in with a “gold rush mentality” to exploit the newly discovered resource.
Challenger (ORH7A) in the Tasman Sea, the orange rough fishery currently under debate, was estimated to be down to 3% of its spawning stock biomass when the Minister closed the fishery in 2001. It was kept closed for over 10 years.
Tony Orman said in the 1980-90 period, he recalled three orange roughy fisheries were “plundered” down to figures below 20% of “virgin biomass” (natural, unfished population) with figures like 3%, 15% and 17% coming to mind.
“That a fishery was allowed to be hammered to that extent was tragic, arguably totally incompetent by the ministry and utter short-sighted greed by the commercial corporates.”
With the Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones due to make a decision on catch limits for orange roughy by October 1, there is rising concern that the fisheries may suffer the same fate as occurred in the 1980 and 1990 decades.
Critics are saying management measures, apart from catch limits, must include banning bottom trawling on seamounts which are key feeding and breeding areas for orange roughy.
Warning Given Then
Tony Orman said four decades ago in the 1980s, the NZ Recreational Fishing Council stressed the likelihood of the species being long living and that consequently would take decades to recover from over-fishing. So it proved as now it’s known the orange roughy is exceptionally long living with maximum longevity as high as 149 years.
“That makes orange roughy especially sensitive and vulnerable to over-fishing,” he said.
Between 1983 and 1990, around 50,000 tonnes were harvested each year – but reported catch was likely underestimated (by as much as 50%) due to catch being lost at sea and to discrepancies in estimates.
Reported catch peaked in 1989 at 57,000 tonnes but by 1994, the catch had dropped to less than 20,000 tonnes. By the end of the 1990s, three of New Zealand’s eight orange roughy fisheries had collapsed and were closed. Total allowable commercial catch was reduced substantially for the fisheries that remained open.
“But not enough,” said Tony Orman. “The orange roughy fisheries are still teetering.”
Poor Options
Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has been presented with four options but analysis has shown only one of the four options proposed by Fisheries NZ to the minister might halt the decline and none of the options would see any recovery within the next five years said one critic.
Retaining the status quo (i.e. current catch limits) according to recently released figures could see the stock decline from 16% to 10% over the next five years.
Tony Orman said he noted the deep concern of Environment and Conservation Organisations (ECO).
ECO’s Barry Weeber said none of the options from Fisheries NZ are good enough, none address the severe impacts of bottom trawling on the ocean.
“This is not a good look for New Zealand going into important scientific meetings later this month – the stock is already below its management level and set to decline further under most options the Minister is considering,” said ECO.
Tony Orman it was incredulous after the massive management blunder by the ministry over four decades ago, the ministry was again displaying a careless approach.
“It’s obviously time for the minister to jolt the ministry out of its lethargy and complacency and be brave enough to make a precautionary decision,” he added.
I recall well the slaughter of orange roughy. It was incredible the big companies were allowed to get away with it. I also recall the slaughter of spawning snapper in Tasman Bay, Nelson. And they’re poised to make the same gross error?
Very good article, Tony.
Snafu
No one ever learns.
Is the Ministry of Fisheries accountable? It is astounding they can make such blunders. Also orange roughy is under the quota system, a ‘wheeling and dealing’ system that benefits only the bank balances of the corporate companies.
Ministers are meant to keep departments accountable but the ministers of recent years – the David Carters, Nathan Guys, Stuart Nash, David Parker have let the bureaucrats get away with incompetency and mismanagement of the fishery resource. What will Shane Jones do, bearing in mind his past ties with the likes of Talleys?
Most competent biologists will have read about the over exploitation of natural resources
during their training. Surely New Zealand’s fisheries scientists are aware of the problem.
Citizen Science is certainly aware too. A book which comes to mind is “Cod – A Biography of a Fish that changed the world” by Mark Kurlansky 294 pages, published in 1992. It details the collapse of the codfish fishery in the Northern Hemisphere.
It’s greed by corporate fishing and the backhanders to political interests which is driving over fishing. It’s time for an honest commitment to Conservation, the wise use of resources.
With a minister who is a lobbyist of the fishing industry and getting large sums of donations from the industry it would seem another round of greed and slaughter is about to begin. I know a lot about this fishery and the greed involved (from the fisherman themselves) just too much to type up here..