“To suggest the line on the water theory has both integrity and credibility would be ludicrous and understandably it’s wide open to ridicule. Fish don’t recognise an imaginary line on the water, “ he said.
In recent regular meetings with a Nelson fisheries ministry officer, it was admitted there is no scientific proof of two separate sub-species of snapper on a ”line” on a map of French Pass.
“To put it politely – instead of B.S – it’s is fanciful,” he said.
The association’s president Aaron Hodson said the association submitted for an increase as commercial fishermen had told the ministry that there were abundant snapper now after some disastrous beach seining of spawning snapper back about 1990 by individuals claiming customary rights.
“Back then it was killing the goose that laid the golden egg,” said Aaron Hodson. “At the time the ministry did nothing, the damage was done and the snapper being slow growing, took three decades to recover. Now they have recovered, it’s only fair the recreational public get their fair share.”
A sore point for the recreational public is that for the fishery zone area SNA7 the ministry granted commercial a substantial increase in quota but refused an increase for recreational fishers in the Marlborough Sounds.
Another reason for the ministry’s refusal was kina barrens where an overpopulation of kina that feed on kelp had caused overgrazing and barren sea bed. While the snapper prey on kina, other predators such as blue cod, crayfish and even spotties do so too.
It is widely acknowledged that snapper stocks have recovered and have greatly increased. The Recreational Anglers Marlborough says an ill-conceived ministry slot rule on blue cod caused the deaths of thousands of breeding female blue cod which it seems likely to have allowed kina to increase.
“It’s not snapper, but very probably Ministry mismanagement with its slot rule over several years that depleted blue cod, that in turn has led to kina barrens” said Tony Orman.
A Marlborough Sounds snapper. The ministry has a theory the Sounds snapper differ from Tasman Bay snapper
either side of a line through French Pass.
It doesn’t surprise me because look how the Ministry of Fisheries has stuffed up the orange roughy fisheries. They are too intent on serving their masters the commercial corporate fisheries companies.
The Fisheries Act requires ministry management to be based on economic, social and cultural – equally. It is heavily weighted by the minbitry – and this minister – in favour of commercial.
Tony Orman is right about kina barrens and blue cod. Snapper are also major predators of kina and MPI are proposing to increase the commercial snapper quota in Tasman Bay and the Marlborough Sounds. This will most probably increase the number and extent of kina barrens already plaguing the Marlborough Sounds, D’urville Island and Abel Tasman NP coasts. Meanwhile, Shane Jones is asleep at the wheel as usual on this and he lets his officials do whatever they want with no ministerial oversight. In other words, despite Shane Jones’ big talk, its business as usual at the Fisheries Ministry, quietly destroying our fisheries resources and ecosystems for the sake of expediency.
I live in the Marlborough sounds. I gave up putting a rod in the water this Xmas thru to Easter. The juvenile snapper were so abundant the bait could not even hit the bottom before being devoured by the piranha like fish.
The last 5 years the snapper fishing has steadily increased due to warming water we believe. Bait fish, kahawai, king, snapper, gurnard etc are in huge numbers.
There is absolutely no reason why minister Jones cannot raise the snapper limits in the sounds. Doing this will actually help the species by keeping numbers manageable. At the present levels other species such as pipi n cockles are being decimated. To resort the sounds to being once again devoid of life I suggest the minister loosens the reins a wee bit
I strongly support Tony’s concerns raised in this post about the Ministry’s approach to snapper management in the Marlborough Sounds. The issues highlighted represent fundamental failures in implementing the legal requirements of New Zealand’s fisheries legislation.
Legal Framework Being Ignored
The Fisheries Act 1996, Section 8 establishes that the purpose of the Act is “to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.” Critically, the Act defines “utilisation” as meaning “conserving, using, enhancing, and developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.”
This is not just about commercial interests – it explicitly includes the social and cultural wellbeing of all New Zealanders, including recreational fishers.
Balanced Allocation Requirement
Section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996 requires the Minister to set a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and must “allow for” both Māori customary non-commercial fishing interests AND recreational interests before setting the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC).
The Act provides no guidance suggesting commercial interests should be prioritized over recreational interests. The Minister has full discretion in how the TAC is allocated between sectors, meaning the current imbalance toward commercial fishing appears to violate the Act’s balanced approach.
Environmental Principles Being Ignored
Section 9 of the Fisheries Act 1996 sets out environmental principles that must be taken into account, including:
That habitat of particular significance for fisheries management should be protected
That biodiversity of aquatic life should be maintained
The Ministry’s failure to address the kina barrens issue – which appears linked to their own blue cod slot rule mismanagement – directly contradicts these environmental principles.
Scientific Basis Requirement
The Act requires decisions to be based on the “best available information” and acknowledges uncertainty through precautionary principles. The Ministry’s admission that there is “no scientific proof of two separate sub-species of snapper” on either side of their imaginary line makes their continued use of this distinction a clear violation of evidence-based management requirements.
Government’s Own Research Confirms the Problem
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s 2021 report “The Future of Commercial Fishing in Aotearoa New Zealand” specifically noted that:
Fisheries New Zealand has “dual objectives of ensuring sustainability, while providing for utilisation”
These objectives must be balanced within environmental and information principles
The regulatory framework requires consideration of wider social and economic contexts
Call for Ministerial Action
Minister Shane Jones has the legal authority and duty under the Fisheries Act to:
1. Reassess the TAC allocation for SNA7 to provide fair access for recreational fishers
2. Abandon the scientifically unsupported “line on a map” theory for snapper sub-species
3. Address the kina barrens crisis through proper ecosystem management
4. Implement the Act’s purpose of balanced utilisation for social, economic AND cultural wellbeing
The abundant snapper stocks, confirmed by multiple observers including ministry officials, provide a clear opportunity to increase recreational limits while maintaining sustainability. The Minister’s continued refusal to act appears to contradict both the letter and spirit of the Fisheries Act 1996.
The recreational fishing community deserves management decisions based on science, law, and equity not the commercial industry’s convenience.
Andi Cockroft
Chair, CORANZ
Ditto for every point raised by Tony and Andi. What did we do to deserve this Minister?