Current Issues

Fishy images are needed for next Seasons Taupo District Fishing Licences.

Win your 2012 /13 Season Licence.

Send you photos to:

fishlicences@xtra.co.nz

for consideration.

Photos must be of the Taupo Fishery and taken in the last year

 

Correspondence:

I am pleased to attach the notice from ECAN on Stock Exclusion from
waterways in the Canterbury Region. These rules apply from June 2012.

WE hope that your local council has similar rules and practices as our
precious water resources need all the help and management they can to
safeguard and improve water quality.

Well done to ECAN.

Selwyn Hodder
Secretary
New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers(inc)
C/- P O Box 38-777
Howick, Manukau 2145
Email secretary “sghodder@xtra.co.nz”
http:/www.nzffa.net
( All the Federation info and news is here !)

Factsheet
Stock exclusion from waterways
This Factsheet explains rule WQL21 in the operative Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan
There are new rules excluding stock from natural waterways in Canterbury which are designed to safeguard and improve water quality.
The rules from June 2011
Livestock access to natural waterways is allowed only if there are no significant adverse effects, which include:
Fencing to provide a buffer between stock and a waterway helps to protect water quality. Plants in the riparian zone – whether grasses or natives – create a filter to help absorb nutrient runoff.
• • • •
Heavy pugging in rivers, lakes, or wetlands Visible discolouration of water An increase in bacteria levels Any obvious evidence of faecal matter in waterways.
Additional rules from June 2012
All intensively farmed livestock will be completely prohibited from entering natural waterways. This applies to:
•    Farmed pigs
•    Dairy cattle
•    Any stock grazed on irrigated land (including sheep, deer, horses, goats, lama, alpacas)
•    Any stock break-feeding or strip-grazed on winter crops (such as kale) in or adjacent to a natural waterbody (including wetlands).
In addition any cattle, farmed deer or pigs will be prohibited from entering waterways defined in the relevant schedule or planning map, which are:
•    Within 1km of a river bathing site
•    Within 1km upstream from a community drinking water supply
•    At a salmon or inanga (whitebait) spawning site
•    In a permanently flowing reach of specified low land rivers.
Everything is connected
Fencing, even if only temporary, is the simplest way to restrict stock access to natural waterways.
Riparian planting absorbs nutrient runoff helping to protect water quality
Recommendations for stock management
We recommend everyone who manages stock should take the time to understand these rules and put measures in place to ensure stock are kept out of natural waterways.
In places where stock are causing significant adverse effects urgent action is needed to reduce or avoid these effects.
Methods to reduce stock access to natural waterways include: • Newpermanentfences • Theuseoftemporaryfences • Newbridgesorculvertsforstocktocrosswaterways.
• Avoidplantingwinterfeedcropsinpaddockswith natural waterways.
Additional recommendations from June 2012
Dairy and pig farmers should be planning to exclude stock from natural waterways by June 2012.
New management tools may be required, including: • Restrictedstockaccessdrinkingpointsinnaturalwaterways • Areticulatedstockwatersystem
Regulatory consequences
Failure to comply with the new rules for stock access to natural waterways is likely to result in enforcement action, such as an abatement or infringement notice, or could even result in prosecution.
Everything is connected
Promoting quality of life through balanced resource management
www.ecan.govt.nz
Bridges and culverts keep stock out of natural waterways.
Where to get information or advice
If you would like to talk to someone about the new rules or get some on-farm advice call Customer Services on 0800 324-636.
More information on the new rules is available on our website:
www.ecan.govt.nz/nrrp
Financial support for fencing may be available for extended riparian areas with high biodiversity value and in conjunction with a native planting programme. Call Customer Services and ask to speak to a Biodiversity Officer or visit: www.ecan.govt.nz/biodiversity for more information.
What is a natural waterway?
River or stream: a continually or intermittently flowing body of fresh water. This includes a stream and modified watercourse. It does not include any artificial watercourse (such as an irrigation canal, a water supply race, a hydroelectric canal, or a farm drain).
Lake: a body of fresh water which is entirely or nearly surrounded by land.
Wetland: includes permanently or intermittently wet areas, shallow water, and land-water boundaries that support a natural ecosystem of plants and animals adapted to wet conditions.
For more information: please visit our website for more detail on these rules: http://ecan.govt.nz/nrrp
Environment Canterbury offices
Christchurch
PO Box 345 Christchurch 8013
P: 03 353 9007 P: 0800 324 636 F: 03 365 3194
Timaru
75 Church Street PO Box 550 Timaru 7940
P: 03 687 7800 F: 03 687 7808

 

 

x Reel Life 21 December:

Rivers Report Hits The Mark

Fish & Game agrees with the findings of a report released today which says the protection of New Zealand’s finite stock of rivers has been neglected, leaving them exposed to ongoing development and intensive agriculture.

“The New Zealand Conservation Authority’s (NZCA) findings support what Fish & Game has been warning for years – there has been an abject failure by successive governments to protect New Zealand’s rivers from pollution, water extraction and development,” says Fish & Game NZ chief executive Bryce Johnson.

“Already 90% of our lowland rivers are classed as polluted and water quality is still declining as our rivers come under increasing pressure from development and intensive agriculture. The Conservation Authority points out that river protection is ‘slipping through the cracks’ and Government commitment to protect them is urgently required – Fish & Game couldn’t agree more.

“We’re particularly pleased the Conservation Authority has identified the urgent need for greater emphasis on protection measures for all rivers, not just ‘comprehensive protection’ suggested for those iconic waterways which remain in a natural state.”

The Conservation Authority also notes the Department of Conservation (DOC) and regional councils “are failing” to safeguard rivers for the long-term, and Mr Johnson says the report presents a compelling case for strengthening the protection of New Zealand’s rivers from environmentally unsustainable development such as intensive agriculture, over-allocation for irrigation and hydro-power generation.

“Fish & Game strongly endorses the Conservation Authority’s conclusion that ‘a greater commitment’ is required by Government, with ‘more attention and resources’ directed to the protection of our rivers.
“We need a national level government agency explicitly responsible for river protection. Logically, this would be DOC which has a clear mandate for natural resource conservation but is currently discouraged from actively advocating for rivers and other water bodies such as lakes and wetlands.”

Fish & Game was integral in establishing Water Conservation Orders (WCO) – National Park status for rivers of national significance – on 13 of the 16 rivers currently afforded such protection.

At a time when Trustpower is seeking to undermine the Rakaia WCO through the new ECan Act, Mr Johnson says it is encouraging the Conservation Authority recommends strengthening WCOs which is the only mechanism for protecting rivers written into this country’s law.

“Fish & Game fought to safeguard those rivers into the future for all New Zealanders – it’s fundamentally wrong that the status of a WCO could be eroded for development when a full judicial enquiry has been made and won for its protection.

“We also agree that the RMA should be amended to enable a WCO to include provisions applying to land use that may impact on the effect of a WCO.

“The Conservation Authority has put together a solid list of recommendations that would go some way towards addressing the public’s growing concerns about water quality decline. There will be many New Zealanders now waiting to see the Government’s response to this report.”

 

 

Audit Raises Concerns Over ‘Clean Streams’ Credibility

Media release from Fish & Game NZ – 13th December 2011

Audit Raises Concerns Over ‘Clean Streams’ Credibility

The credibility of Fonterra’s annual reporting on the Clean Streams Accord has been cast into serious doubt after an independent audit of one of the Accord’s key measures exposed a major discrepancy.

Fish & Game NZ says the audit reveals a significant difference between what Fonterra reports as ‘progress’ around stock exclusion from waterways and what is actually being done on farm.

This was exposed by an independent audit, commissioned by MAF, which appears in the latest ‘Dairying and Clean Streams Accord Snapshot of Progress’ report released today.

“While Fonterra’s survey of farmers suggests 84% of properties have stock excluded from waterways, the reality is only half that number of farms nationally have complete stock exclusion – that’s clearly what MAF’s independent audit reveals,” says Fish & Game chief executive Bryce Johnson.

“Given the extent to which the Accord achievements have been talked up in the past, this latest revelation raises questions about the accuracy of all the other performance targets reported to the New Zealand public, politicians and the government’s Land and Water Forum.

“It’s a woeful indictment on the legitimacy of the Accord, on dairying’s environmental ‘performance’ over the past decade and particularly the industry’s claim that self-policing is the way towards achieving improved water quality,” says Mr Johnson.

“MAF, or some independent body, should have been auditing the Accord years ago. Why has it taken eight years for MAF, which is party to the Accord, to check the accuracy of Fonterra’s reporting?”

Data in the Accord Snapshot is taken from Fonterra’s annual survey in which dairy farmers are asked questions to appraise their own environmental performance. On the other hand, the stock exclusion audit involved an independent technician visually assessing a randomly selected sample of farms.

“Fish & Game has constantly highlighted the problem of the dairy industry self-reporting and we’ve repeatedly questioned the ‘success’ of the Accord when the science clearly tells us water quality in most regions is still declining,” says Mr Johnson.

“The audit findings justify our concerns and the urgent need to require the industry to lift its environmental performance, rather than literally pay lip service to it.

“This also confirms the need for review of the Accord – Fish & Game has previously requested that we participate in this process. The review needs to incentivise the positive actions by the good farmers and impose behaviour-changing financial sanctions on those not meeting the requirements after nearly 10 years.

“A new agreement needs to address water quality by ensuring runoff from farming does not enter waterways. It also needs to address run-off properties and smaller streams where water quality is poor.”

Motives behind Fonterra’s fencing ‘initiative’ emerge

Fish & Game NZ chief executive Bryce Johnson says the release of the independent audit sheds light on the real reasons behind Fonterra’s sudden announcement last week that they will require suppliers to exclude stock from waterways.

“Clearly that move – which still wouldn’t take effect until 18 months out – was an attempt to blunt the fall-out from this exposé.

“However, what’s particularly frustrating about Fonterra’s knee-jerk response to enforce mandatory stock exclusion is that they have effectively only cemented in the old and inadequate provisions of the current Accord, the limitations of which they are well aware.

“Once again, they’ve completely neglected any reference to the all-important riparian buffer zones needed to soak up dairy runoff pollution. Fencing the stream edge excludes stock but does little to improve overall water quality.

“On top of that they still adhere to the totally inadequate measure of an Accord waterway as being ‘wider than a stride and deeper than a Redband’ – this ignores feeder streams which provide important breeding and nursery habitat for fisheries and wildlife and, if left unprotected, still contribute to the dairy pollution entering the main water body.

“Fonterra, which is part of the Land and Water Forum (LAWF), knows such provisions are completely inadequate in addressing water quality. This is explicitly recognised in LAWF recommendation 12 which identifies the need for riparian buffer zone fencing. So why has Fonterra formalised a major barrier to its implementation?

“Are they going to tell their suppliers tomorrow to shift the fences they made them put in today in order to allow for riparian buffer zones they acknowledged through LAWF?”

 

Press Release: NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers     
17 November 2011
Anglers Warn Politicians On Trout Farming

A national trout fishing body has warned National that any thought of trout farming could result in strong and vocal opposition and election action from the 100,000 or more trout anglers in New Zealand.

Ken Sims, acting president of the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers (NZFFA), a national federation of freshwater fishing clubs, said an incoming National government was likely to promote freshwater fish farming which includes trout farming. Opposition to trout farming went back to the 1972 election when the majority of trout anglers took their anger to the ballot boxes resulting in several electorate defeats for National and defeat as government.

“The Federation was formed back in 1974, partially to fight the introduction of trout farming. We have been at it ever since”, said Ken Sims, “including opposing a recent concerted but misguided campaign by Federated Farmers.”

Ken Sims said the early settlers established a heritage of a free, egalitarian freshwater fishery available to everyone. They were determined to avoid the old feudal class system of private ownership and exclusive access of fish and fisheries available to only a wealthy minority. Consequently it is illegal to sell trout fishing rights and the trout fishery is in essence, owned by the public.

Apart from being a healthy outdoor recreation, trout fishing is a multi million-dollar tourist attraction for international and domestic tourism, a point the Prime Minister as Minister of Tourism should heed said Ken Sims.

“There are so many reasons why commercial trout aquaculture is a bad idea, it really is a no-brainer,” he added. “Diseases in trout farms, incentives for black markets and poaching, use of public water, organic effluent, and farm escapees ruining the genetic makeup of evolved wild fisheries are just some. In addition trout farming economically has little value as markets are saturated. Overseas advice is that trout farming is capital intensive, high risk and poor economics.”

Ken Sims said it was common knowledge the president of the National Party is a major shareholder in a corporate fishery company who would be willing to risk trout farming.

“The latest, current, uncontrolled Biosecurity incursion of a new organism infecting trout, salmon and native fish within NZ should give this Government a ‘heads-up’, but if plans to include trout farming are true, then greed and short-sightedness seems paramount.”

Trout fishing was under threat from current land use and waste management practices that are unsustainable and are causing permanent damage to the public fishery. “Trout farming would be the death knell for a public resource and a major tourist attraction,” he said.

NZFFA had enquired of National’s plans on trout farming but had received no reply.
“We even personally requested the Prime Minister for policies on this, without receiving the courtesy of a response.”

The NZFFA was apolitical and impartial but policies of trout farming allied with a signalled increase in unsustainable land practices plus pollution from town and country had left the organisation and its clubs with no option but utilise MMP and give their party vote to a recreational-friendly ‘minor party’ this election.

Minor parties such as United Future are promoting strong, unambiguous policies aiming to protect the heritage of public rivers and trout fishing.

Ken Sims said the words of the late JF Kennedy, who said “Each generation must deal anew with the raiders, with the scramble to use public resources for private profit and with the tendency to prefer short-run profits to long-run necessities. The battle to preserve the common estate is far from won.” were becoming more and more applicable to New Zealand.

 

ANGLERS BEWARE…

During the build up to NZ’s election when we are all being bombarded by political messages, TRM’s daily report on 15 & 16 November expressed the need to be more aware and to encourage anglers to take positive action to protect their fisheries.  The danger is apathy.  If you do nothing then you are in danger of losing out to selfish commercial interests or what politicians claim as “progress”.

i.e.  NZ Herald 18 November – page 35 – from The Insider Column:

“Trout has long been among the “forbidden fruit”of New Zealand’s great outdoors.  Recreational fishers have managed to resist the commercialisation of trout, arguing that farmed trout would pass diseases to wild trout.  They have even managed to continue to make it illegal to buy and sell wild trout.  But some officials in the fisheries sector have been pushing ministers to legalise one of the last taboos.  They are hoping that the current crop of politicians will have forgotten how much heat was generated by what seems a meaningless issue – to non-anglers anyway – last time it was debated more than 20 years ago.”

 

Advocates newsletter:  November 11, 2011

By Eric Wilson

Genesis Community consultation meeting

35 year consents for the Tongariro Power Scheme (TPS) now in place.

The Genesis consultation meeting was held Tuesday 8th November. I, Mark Cosgrove and Virginia Church attended on behalf of the committee. We learnt that the Tongariro Power Scheme (TPS) consents have been granted for 35 years. Relationship agreements were reached with Ngati Rangi and Whanganui iwi in December 2010, that the appeal to the Supreme Court by iwi appellants was withdrawn and that the consent term was reinstated at a hearing of the Environment Court  on 2nd June 2011. The relationship agreements include connective flows, research and monitoring and mitigation funding.

The complexity of operating the scheme and its impact on Lake Taupo water levels was discussed with explanations of compliance and regret for 3 instances of non compliance.

Sedimentation

Of interest to us is the fact that Genesis now has an in house team of hydrologists.

The issue of sediment flushing arose through questions. The response is that there is still a huge amount of ash and sand in the catchment from the 1995 and 96 Ruapehu eruptions. In the dry desert landscape of Mt Ruapehu this material lies  loose and easily able to be washed into the Tongariro River when weather events occur that will move this material. Such a weather event in January this year, Cyclone Norma, moved an enormous quantity of material in to the river. We were told that flushing occured in September 2010, May 2011 and again in October 2011. After each event the lower river filled with sediment. We will go to Rangipo Dam on December 2nd to have the system explained to us.

Periphyton and Invertebrate monitoring

Cam Speedy spoke about monitoring of Periphyton amd invertebrates. The key issue seemed to me that a river full of Mayfly, Stonefly and Caddisfly (EPT) was a river with a good food supply for trout and Whio (Blue Ducks). Anglers will notice the fly hatches and the swallows darting over the surface of the river swooping on the flies. That is good.

Periphyton is a brown slippery plant growth that covers the stones and rocks when the river changes to  a more languid flow. The insect life changes according to the food supply. Periphyton does not support the big bugs, EPT . It does support smaller insects of much lesser food value to trout and Whio.

We see the Tongariro river as an important nursery for trout. The nursery is more effective when there are plenty of these aquatic larval insects.

Interestingly the Whio population on the river is growing. The Whio is a torrent duck which likes the faster water where periphyton is not able to establish itself indicating that the faster water still grows the right plants and insects. It has been a good year for Whio (Blue Duck) and Genesis as sponsor of the National Whio Recovery Programme feels its sponsorship is in a good cause as do we.

I applaud Genesis Energy for holding this consulation meeting to opely discuss their environmental activity around the TPS.

Genesis Energy advise:

Recreation release dates for 2012

Recreational release dates were advised as:

January 8th  30 cu mecs from Rangipo Dam

February 4th 30 cumecs from Poutu Intake

February 5th 30 cu mecs from Rangipo Dam

September 15th 30 cumecs from Poutu Intake

September 16th 30 cu mecs from Rangipo Dam.

Releases from Rangipo Dam are more for kayakers and while there is an increased flow level in the area of Turangi it is not as significant as the release from the Poutu Intake.

 

 

Trout bacteria tests show strain not typical

Updated at 1:52 pm on 2 November 2011

A strain of a bacterial fish disease found in an Otago trout hatchery is not the typical strain of the disease.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries says hatchery trout were found to be infected with the Aeromonas bacteria in October.

The same bacteria had already killed hundreds of lamprey eels.

Otago Fish and Game chief executive Niall Watson is encouraged by the latest tests, saying the typical version of the bacteria is more of a concern for fish-rearing facilities.

Mr Watson says more testing is needed before it is known whether the disease is the more common atypical variant.

He says he is worried about what impact the disease could have on native fish species.

 

Issue developments

MAF received a report from Environment Southland of sick or dead lamprey (Kanakana)  in the Mataura River.

This had been first noticed around 13 September 2011.  On 30 Sept preliminary lab testing of the fish identified the presence of a bacterium, Aeromonas salmonicida.  The Aeromonas bacterium occurs in ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ strains.  The ‘typical’ strain causes a range of conditions, including skin lesions, in salmon and trout. The ‘atypical’ strain affects a wider range of fish worldwide (including Australia) with similar symptoms.  Neither strain has been previously found in New Zealand, although community information suggests the disease may have been noticed in lamprey populations in earlier years.

A. salmonicida is an unwanted organism and a notifiable organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and a new organism under the HSNO Act 1996.

Subsequent to the positive identification of the bacterium in the lamprey, infection with A. samonicida has been confirmed in two juvenile rainbow trout from a hatchery on the Taieri River.  MAF is examining two further trout from the hatchery, but our investigations at this stage suggest there is a very low prevalence of the disease at the facility.

We now have a situation where lamprey (from the Mataura, Mokoreta and Waikawa Rivers) and trout from the Taieri River have been confirmed with the bacterium.

Laboratory work continues to identify the particular strain of bacterium at play in this situation.  We are awaiting final confirmation of the positive PCR test results received to date through bacterial culture. This could take some weeks yet. Further analysis is required to determine if the bacterium is typical or atypical.

In the meantime we are keen to continue receiving reports of sick or dead fish to our freephone 0800 80 99 66.

In particular we need further specimens of diseased lamprey to help with full identification.  As well I encourage reports of any illness in other fish species.

Reporting of new finds

Reports of any affected fish can be made through the 24/7 pest and disease hotline – 0800 80 99 66.  The call centre will put you in contact with an investigator who will give you instructions on the best way to collect and preserve samples for analysis.

I wish you all an enjoyable Labour Weekend.  I will be back in touch when there are further developments to report.

Please advise if you wish us to add contacts to the distribution of this report.

Glen Neal
MAF Response Manager

Since this report, it was stated yesterday, 2nd November, that the strain is a non virulent strain.

 

 

re TROUT FARMING…

Hi Ross, just to keep you informed I received this reply from D.O.C. today. Sounds good.

20 October 2011

Dear Mike,

Further to my email to you yesterday,  current legislation prohibits the buying and selling of New Zealand wild trout (section 26ZQ(1)(a) of the Conservation Act) and although section 301(a) of the Fisheries Act 1996 authorises the making of regulations for the purpose of constructing fish farms (specifying that it is for other than trout), section 26ZI(4) of the Conservation Act 1987 is more direct, and states that no person shall establish, manage or operate a fish farm for trout. This means that a change in the law would be necessary before an application to farm trout could be considered. The Department understands that the Government has no plans, currently, to amend the legislation.

The ban on trout farming actually pre-dates the prohibition set out in the Conservation Act 1987, and there continues to be very strong support from Fish and Game Councils, sports fishing organisations and individuals for maintaining the non-commercial status of trout. If any proposal to change the law and provide for trout farming were to be considered, it would require a thorough assessment of the potential impacts on the economic benefits of the wild trout fishery to local economies throughout New Zealand.

Our country’s recreational wild trout fishery has significant cultural and recreational importance for New Zealanders, contributes to our positive tourism image and is considered iconic and unique, and the existing management regime is considered very important for maintaining these values.

Yours sincerely

Martin Gembitsky
Senior Statutory Bodies Officer (Fish & Game) Policy Group Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai National Office PO Box 10 420, Wellington 6143
18-32 Manners St, Wellington, New Zealand

So it sounds like no Trout Farming for now.
All the best.
Mike

 

CALL FOR ACTION ON NZ’s ‘DETERIORATING FRESHWATER’
TVNZ – 28/09/2011

New Zealand freshwater quality is deteriorating and action is needed to halt the trend, the Auditor-General’s Office says in a report that has upset the farming lobby.
“We have reason to be concerned about freshwater quality in some parts of the country, particularly in lowland areas that are mainly used for farming,” says the report published yesterday.
The report was based on an independent investigation into water quality in areas covered by Waikato Regional Council, Taranaki Regional Council, Horizons Regional Council
and Environment Southland, all important dairy farming areas, covering about a third of New Zealand.
Regional and unitary authorities had to standardise methods of reporting water quality so they knew whether it was getting better or worse, why that was, and whether policies to maintain and enhance water quality were working, the report said. Although water quality was good by international standards, it was deteriorating.
Federated Farmers has questioned the value of the report. President Bruce Wills said it did not give enough credit to the enormous amount of work being put in by farmers and others to improve water quality.
“I am concerned the [Auditor-General's Office] didn’t look at central government policies, didn’t look at Canterbury, didn’t look at point-source issues, but above all, didn’t look at regional council monitoring of urban water quality or storm water.
“There’s no argument from farmers that farm run-off impacts the environment and being aware of that, there’s a lot being done about it.
“What frustrates me is this report doesn’t give the complete picture on the effects of point-source pollution or storm water.”
Environment Minister Nick Smith agreed that was of concern, and needed addressing.
“That’s why we have put in place a national policy statement for freshwater management, established the 62-strong Land and Water Forum, doubled fines for farmers who don’t comply with consents, introduced regulations for metering water takes and provided a fivefold increase in funding to clean up our lakes and rivers, Smith said.
The Government would move on the report’s recommendations and urged regional councils to pick up on its recommendations for improvements.
DairyNZ chief executive Tim Mackle welcomed any move to standardise water quality reporting. He said it must start with a clear definition of the values that water quality was being managed for.
“We often see technical reports covering a range of physical and chemical indicators, including those presented in the auditor-general’s report. Some indicators may be going up, others down and some are unchanged.”
That meant building an overall water quality picture often came down to individual interpretation, he said.
The Green Party said the report highlighted the need for strong national direction to clean up fresh water, which the Government had failed to provide.
“Looking after our natural environment, including our rivers and lakes, is the best thing we can do to build a stronger economy that in turn looks after all our people,” said co- leader Russell Norman.
Horizons Regional Council welcomed the report, which described the council’s compliance monitoring as “robust” and “fair”.
It found Horizons to be maintaining and enhancing water quality in the Rangitikei and Whanganui catchments, though issues remained in Manawatu.

 

Waikato tribe assumes joint fishery management

x NZ Herald 19 September (by Yvonne Tahana Maori Affairs reporter

Introduction of customary fisheries regulations for many Waikato River users will be the first real signs of what the Waikato-Tainui Crown co-management Treaty deal means in practice.
From Thursday, the tribe’s Raupatu River Trust and appointed kaitiaki will be able to issue customary fishing authorisations, applying from Karipiro tot he river’s mouth including tributaries, lakes and wetlands.
These permit tribal members to:
*    Provide food for a hui,
*    Undertake educational and environmental research,
*    Restore species.
The regulations are a product of Treaty settlement laws passed last year.
Under them, the Trust can also recommend bylaws to the Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture to restrict fishing on the lower river to ensure the long term sustainability of fish stocks or for cultural reasons.
Commercial and recreational rights for other New Zealanders will be regulated by existing regulations.

Department of Conservation review has local impacts

(7 September 2011 press release)

The Department of Conservation is to set up new regional service centres in its Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch offices as it moves to re-organise its systems for supporting conservation staff in the field.

As a result a number of science and technical jobs have been cut from the Department of Conservation’s Whanganui, Taranaki and Turangi offices, and some new support roles will be consolidated in a new conservancy office in Taupo.  The changes do not affect ranger positions in the Department’s area offices, or the location of the area offices.
Tongariro Whanganui Taranaki conservator Damian Coutts says the decision to move the conservancy office to Taupo was “very tough to make, and a traumatic one for many of the affected staff, but was necessary in order to position the department’s staff closer to its key partners and stakeholders in the region.”
Of the 19-20 jobs likely to be lost from the local communities of New Plymouth, Whanganui and Turangi, Mr Coutts says 9 positions would remain in the new conservancy office, and these positions will be based in Taupo from July of next year. He says “It is important to understand that many of the positions disestablished as a result of the review announced yesterday have been relocated rather than disestablished altogether. This means staff will have the option to relocate to a service centre, or regain employment with the department in one of our area offices. However it still does represent a significant impact on our staff, and on the local economies of the affected towns, and that has not made the final decision any easier to make.”
Relocations are due to the establishment as part of the wider departmental review of three service centres in Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch, where service jobs will be created. “By moving the support staff from a regional base into professional groupings, the department would be able to provide more cost-effective systems and would gain a stronger national focus to its work” says Mr Coutts.

These service jobs include roles in legal, planning, science, technical and communication positions, but not rangers. “The department is committed to maintaining services on the ground, and this review has been focussed on finding more cost effective ways to organise DOC’s systems for supporting the work of staff out in the field”, Mr Coutts says.

“We want to maintain our conservation field work and we are keeping all our ranger positions – but we are making changes to the roles in our regional and national offices which support their work. In the past we’ve grouped our support systems by region, with additional back-up from our National Office in Wellington. This has led to some duplication and a regional rather than national focus for our work.”

Mr Coutts say “all staff with service positions would need to reapply for their jobs within the region or those available in other regions or the service centres. We can’t say exactly how many people will lose their jobs because we are still working through the options, such as redeployment, with our staff. We expect to finalise the situation over the next six months.

We have been assured:
that the management of the fishery will continue from Turangi.
that the operational staff will remain in Turangi

Trout Farming at Taupo?

1st September 2011

935 KairangaBunnythorpe Road  R D 5

Palmerston North. 4475

Ph 06-3571569

annjimhale@slingshot.co.nz

John Key 
Prime

Minister 
Parliament

Wellington
Trout Farming

 It has come to the NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers’ notice that a request to allow 
trout farming has arisen from a Taupo group with Maori ancestry.
The source was a very 
reliable one so we have little doubt about its veracity. 
The Federation would find it ironic that such a suggestion might arise from a region 
where much of its economy and its tourism generation is based on the world famous wild 
trout fishery.
As you are Minister of Tourism we trust the significance of this will be immediately 
apparent. 
 The potential threats to the public’s trout fisheries from the impact of trout farming 
has been well documented. Poaching is a problem now particularly in the Taupo and Rotorua 
districts and commercializing trout by way of trout farming would escalate poaching 
further and result in black market practices.
The precedent is there with crayfish and 
Paua where the illegal catch is estimated to be around 25% of the annual harvest. 
 Disease is another factor where farms cram populations in order to maximize profits from 
a venture that has marginal and dubious economic value. Indeed trout farming has no 
economic export value and if any, would be a small fraction of the multi million-
dollar revenue generated by domestic and international tourist anglers.
We look forward to your immediate reply as to: – (a) Confirming such a request as come from the Taupo region. (b) That the National led government will not allow trout farming.
Yours Sincerely.

Jim Hale
 President 
NZFFA
cc Kate Wilkinson
 Fish and Game NZ

TROUT FARMING?

The apathy about this trout farming threat is sad.  Anglers lack of interest could inevitably result in trout farming becoming established – by stealth.

So here is some history for your consideration:

10 January  2010:        Federated Farmers wants the prohibition on commercial farming of trout to be lifted.
The organisation also wants a review of both the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish), to determine which is best placed to support aquaculture.  President Don Nicolson says Fed Farmers believes there is considerable scope for land based and freshwater aquaculture, including the farming of whitebait, fresh water mussels, eels as well as freshwater crayfish.  Even paua can be farmed in land-based operations as is done in Australia, he says.  “The one ‘no go’ area seems to be trout, which is odd, given trout is a member of the salmonidae family and there’s no qualms about farming salmon,” says Nicolson.  “Fly fishing tourism in Scotland seems completely unaffected by Loch Etive sea run trout sold in British supermarkets. That you can easily buy a salmon at a New World in Timaru, doesn’t stop people buying licenses in the hope of catching a wild one out of the Rangitata.”  Nicolson says the annual European Union harvest of farmed trout is 203,000 tonnes – just under half of NZ’s lamb exports and he questions why New Zealand isn’t farming trout as in the case of salmon.

13 November 2009:      National business Review article suggests the ban costs NZ millions in lost revenue.  Fish & Game New Zealand reaffirms its total opposition to any exclusive capture or commercialisation of the wild sports fish and game resource, and opposes any proposals to change the total ban in New Zealand on the farming of trout, and the importation of trout flesh into New Zealand.  “New Zealand’s freshwater anglers vehemently oppose any commercial trout farming in New Zealand,” said Bryce Johnson, Chief Executive New Zealand Fish & Game Council.  “The risk of disease spreading to wild fisheries through imported stock, and the almost certain establishment of a black market and poaching of wild fisheries are real concerns.”  Fish & Game acknowledges the potential commercial value of farmed trout, but the overriding issue is the downstream cost to New Zealand world renowned trout fishery.  Commercial trout farming would provide the opportunity for some people to make a lot of money, but the potential damage to our wild fishery is significant.

12 February 2001:        Agriculture and Trade Minister Jim Sutton had suggested New Zealand must remove the ban on selling trout so Canada could import farmed trout into New Zealand. Prior to the last election Taupo Labour MP Mark Burton had put forward a private member’s bill strengthening the ban on selling trout because of the National government intentions to allow trout imports and inevitably trout farming.

In 1976, the first salmon farm was established at Pupu Springs, Tasman. Salmon were raised in fresh water, growing to 25 centimetres over two years. The venture was originally aimed at ocean ranching, where juvenile salmon would be released into the sea with the expectation that some would return as adults. But few did return, so the Pupu Springs facility was converted to a hatchery, supplying stock to sea farms.[14]

In 1983, the first sea-cage salmon farm was established in Big Glory Bay, Stewart Island. It was followed by farms in the Marlborough Sounds and at Akaroa, Banks Peninsula. These areas accounted for over 90 percent of the 8,500 tonnes of salmon produced in 2001.[14]

Today, New Zealand accounts for over half of the world production of king salmon (7,400 tonnes in 2005).[7]

PROPOSED NON-RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

Discussion Document

Prepared by the Department of Conservation and Fish and Game New Zealand

August 2010

Non-resident angling licence – Discussion document.
This paper discusses an option to establish a non-resident (i.e. not a New Zealand resident) sports fishing licence and charge a higher licence fee for non-resident anglers. A higher charge for non-residents is intended to reflect the limited contribution of international anglers to the management, and more intensive use, of New Zealand’s more-expensive-to-manage high-quality fisheries.

This paper has been jointly prepared by the Department of Conservation and the New Zealand Fish and Game Council.

Summary

New Zealand’s high-quality backcountry sports fisheries are increasingly popular with dedicated non-resident anglers who visit New Zealand specifically to fish. These high-quality sports fisheries are a tourism drawcard, but will require enhanced management to avoid deterioration in quality.

There is concern dedicated non-resident (international) anglers are, as a group, disproportionately impacting the sports fish resources in these waterways but not contributing to the long-term management of the resource in the same way as resident anglers.

Differential charges between resident and non-resident anglers are common overseas and are designed to address inconsistencies in the contribution to the management of the resource between the two groups.

Any non-resident licence needs to be carefully designed in order to avoid indirect discrimination or conflict with New Zealand’s international trade and service obligations.

Notwithstanding this, there is a case for charging non-residents an elevated fee that reflects the value placed on the fishery by non-resident anglers and the more costly management required to maintain the high-quality fisheries they favour.

Background

Dedicated international anglers coming to New Zealand to fish typically target high-quality sports-fisheries, notably sensitive backcountry fisheries. In these fisheries international anglers, as a group, are having a disproportionately large impact compared to resident anglers; yet they do not contribute to the long-term management of these fisheries in the same way as resident New Zealand anglers, as they are usually one-off licence purchasers. Fish and Game Councils indicate non-resident anglers typically use these sports fisheries more intensively, generally fish longer days than residents and fish every day for the duration of their typically 14 to 21 day stay, compared to resident anglers who may only average 4 to 6 days in a whole season. Non-resident anglers are therefore having a greater impact on, while contributing less to the management of, these high-quality fisheries than most New Zealand resident anglers.

To resolve this problem, the following objectives are proposed:
• maintain and enhance New Zealand’s high-quality sports fisheries through improved management
• recognise the proportion of angling pressure exerted, the management costs incurred, and the transitory nature of contributions made by visiting international anglers
• establish a fee structure that better reflects the value placed on the New Zealand sports fishery by international anglers

New Zealand context

New Zealand has a reputation for high-quality brown and rainbow trout fisheries and is renowned for unspoiled fishing for trophy-sized fish. Trout fishing is used as ‘iconic’ imagery for tourism (eg. 100% pure, airline magazines and agent brochures) and commercial market promotion (eg. Telecom, Rodd & Gun). A number of South Island waters also provide for salmon fishing.

Anyone wishing to go freshwater sports fishing in New Zealand is required to purchase a licence (unless they are the lawful occupier of any land, or waters within such land where they will be fishing). A licence issued by Fish and Game Councils allows an angler access to all New Zealand freshwater sports fisheries, except Taupo. The Taupo fishery is administered by the Department of Conservation and a separate licence is required to fish the lakes and rivers in the Taupo District.

For all sports fisheries, licence attributes are set through Licences, Fees and Forms Notices issued under the authority of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989. Each notice is signed by the Minister of Conservation and administered by the Department of Conservation. The notice fixes the forms and classes of licence; their scope and effect; the regions in which they may be used; and the fees. The classes of licence and corresponding fees for the Taupo Fishery are set by the Minister of Conservation in concurrence with the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

In July 1999 Fish and Game Councils noted the increasing popularity of New Zealand’s high quality fisheries with dedicated international anglers. The 2007/08 National Angling Survey illustrates a marked preference amongst international anglers for backcountry and headwater river fisheries. These fisheries accounted for 41.0% of international anglers’ total effort, compared to 9.4% for their New Zealand counterparts . Currently, in some of New Zealand’s key backcountry fisheries, over 50% of the angling days are taken up by international anglers .

International anglers accounted for 7.6% (4176 out of a total of 54416) of adult whole season or family licences and 25.8% (5923 out of a total of 22921) of adult 24 hour licences in the 2009/2010 season (from the Fish and Game national licence database, excluding Southland’s retail sales).

Examples from overseas

Overseas, particularly in the USA and Canada, it is routine for non-resident anglers to pay a licence fee significantly higher than resident anglers to fish in the majority of significant freshwater fisheries. Many visiting anglers fishing in New Zealand, particularly US anglers, express surprise at paying the same licence fee as resident anglers. In the USA and Canada licence fees for non-residents cost 1.5 to 6.6 times the fee for residents (but more typically non-resident licences are two to three times the cost of a resident licence).

In many instances where differential fishing licence fees are charged internationally the fisheries management is at least in part subsidised by local taxes (resident licence fees in the USA and Canada are generally less than in NZ). Higher fees for non-residents are justified on the basis of non-residents being able to take advantage of a benefit they have not paid for, but residents have.

Another feature of the US system, absent in New Zealand, are additional federal receipts from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly known as Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds (DJ/WB). These are generated from an excise tax on sport fishing equipment and marine fuels used by recreational boaters. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service distributes these funds to all states based on the number of sport fishing licences sold and the size (land mass) of the state. Alaska receives the maximum share of DJ/WB funds which must be used to manage and improve sport fisheries and provide access to boating sites.

New Zealand sports fisheries management

In New Zealand freshwater sports fisheries management is paid for through fishing licence fees, without additional public funding. Currently fishing licence fees cover administration and management of the resource only. A system that can be argued is fair for New Zealanders who have a share in this ownership, but undervalues the resource to visitors.

Many resident anglers contribute substantial voluntary and long-term efforts to the management and protection of the sports fish resource. Resident anglers who have bought licences over a number of years feel they have made a substantial and consistent contribution to the management of the fishery. They also contribute, as tax and rate payers, to environmental research, freshwater ecosystem management, monitoring and public access. Some resident anglers have also served as members of Fish and Game Councils (and the former Acclimatisation Societies). Fish and Game Councils seek to protect the quality of the sports fishing experience through their involvement in resource allocation and habitat protection processes for fresh water. Only New Zealand residents can be Fish and Game Council members and they provide this service voluntarily, with no fees paid to them.

Non-resident anglers do not contribute to the management of the resource in this manner but are able to enjoy the benefits of this activity carried out and managed by NZ resident licence holders.

There is, therefore, a case for charging non-resident anglers a higher licencing fee in order to more accurately reflect the differing costs accrued and benefits obtained by resident and non-resident anglers in New Zealand.

International anglers

Non-resident anglers comprise two main groups:
a visitors that use less-sensitive lake fisheries for single or several-day fishing experience as a minor or incidental part of their New Zealand holiday. This group includes the charter boat party or casual angler who seeks to sample many New Zealand experiences, including fishing. Most of these effectively pay a premium through the purchase of a short-term licence and are not intended to be the focus of differential licence fees.
b dedicated international anglers who come to New Zealand specifically to fish for one to six weeks, attracted by the high-quality experience available in this country, and frequently target pressure-sensitive backcountry fisheries. This numerically smaller but relatively higher impact group is the focus of this paper.

According to Fish & Game New Zealand’s 2007/08 National Angler Survey (NAS), visiting international anglers showed a strong preference for South Island waters and an equally strong preference for river fisheries as opposed to lake fisheries. In absolute terms their most frequently fished region was Southland. However, when expressed as a proportion of the total effort expended within each fishing region by all anglers, the contribution from overseas visitors was most significant in the Nelson/Marlborough and West Coast regions, where visiting international anglers accounted for over 15% of the total fishing effort.

Managing New Zealand’s high quality sports fisheries

Backcountry (including headwater) fisheries are one class of high quality fishery favoured by international anglers. According to the 2007/08 National Angler Survey (NAS) backcountry fisheries attracted 51.35% of non-resident anglers compared to 16.7% of all resident anglers.

Backcountry fisheries are characteristically small bodies of water with limited numbers of often trophy-sized fish in them. Despite many backcountry anglers practicing catch and release fishing, maintenance of quality angling experiences on these fisheries requires active management.

Angler density in the backcountry is closely related to angler satisfaction and increased angler density can adversely impact on angler enjoyment in what is perceived as a high-quality recreational environment if not managed.

Currently there are nine designated backcountry fisheries fisheries (the Greenstone including the Caples, Dingle Burn, Lochy, Nevis, Hunter, Young and Wilkin rivers in Otago, the Ettrick Burn in Southland and the Upper Rangitikei in Wellington). These require a separate backcountry licence as an endorsement to a whole season licence. There is no additional fee attached to these licences. Nelson/Marlborough Fish and Game Council also considered introducing a separate backcountry licence for its key fisheries but monitoring costs made it unaffordable.

Defining waters as backcountry fisheries triggers an intensification of management to maintain angling quality. At the most intensive level, a booking system may need to be established to ensure anglers enjoy a high quality angling experience. This has been successfully done on Otago’s Greenstone River and surveys show that angler satisfaction with the fishery is higher than adjacent, less intensively managed, fisheries.

In addition to backcountry fisheries, New Zealand also has many lower reaches of its rivers and streams, commonly referred to as lowland waterways, which flow into lakes that command similar attention from dedicated anglers. Rivers like the Mataura and Oreti in Southland, the Rangitata in Central South Island, Motueka in Nelson/Marlborough and Tukituki in Hawke’s Bay are examples.

Management costs for many quality fisheries (particularly, but not exclusively, sensitive backcountry fisheries) increase markedly as angling pressure increases. Associated management issues include increased crowding, disturbance of wilderness values by helicopters, angler displacement and the effects of fishing pressure on fish.

The remote location and difficulty accessing many high quality backcountry fisheries incur greater costs than the accessible lowland fisheries. For example, in order for Fish and Game to survey the Travers River, that flows into Lake Rotoiti in the Nelson Lakes, it was necessary to employ specialist staff for a summer season and house them on site. This involved flying in a hut by helicopter and frequent use of vehicles and boats for access (estimated cost approximately $30,000).

As a further example, the operational costs to manage/administer Otago’s Greenstone fishery are:
• signage $1408.00
• printing $2288.66
• temporary staff salaries (compliance monitoring) $2304.00
• helicopter transport $1511.12
• hut fees and provisions $2340.91
• advertising $ 314.00
• Total $10,166.69
This does not include staff time and overhead costs which are estimated at $20,000 p.a.

Southland Fish and Game Council also notes it spends significantly more time dealing with non-resident angler requests for information and emails, than resident anglers, as they plan their visits. There is also a greater demand from non-residents for brochures on angler access and other information material.

Surveys indicate that usage by resident anglers is relatively constant or even declining in some high-quality fisheries, while international angler usage continues to increase . There is anecdotal evidence in some instances where the increase in international angler usage is displacing New Zealand anglers – anglers who are no longer willing to ‘compete’ in the belief that the quality of experience is diminishing due to increasing use from international anglers.

A non-resident fishing licence

The intention of a non-resident fishing licence is to better provide resources to manage New Zealand’s high-value fisheries more intensively (including by improving monitoring of fish stocks, spawning, rearing and recruitment, angler use, harvest and satisfaction), rather than to control the use of rivers.

Potential benefits of establishing a non-resident fishing licence include:
• improved management and monitoring of New Zealand’s high value-freshwater sports fisheries.
• helping overcome the stigma attached to visiting international anglers held by some New Zealand anglers who believe they are ‘free-loading’ on an asset they have had no part in creating or maintaining.
• reducing the burden on resident New Zealand anglers of managing high-value fisheries.
• establishing a fee structure that is more consistent with the importance placed on high-value freshwater fisheries by dedicated international anglers.

The proposal to charge non-resident anglers must be justified on the grounds of non-resident use of the fishery incurring increased costs in order to avoid being discriminatory or possibly cutting across international trade agreements. A differentially priced licence represents an important management tool to foster equality, thereby allaying local fears of local anglers that non-resident anglers are taking advantage of New Zealand’s high-quality sports fisheries that have been introduced, nurtured and safeguarded by generations of local anglers.

Introduction of a non-resident fishing licence will add a minor degree of administrative complexity to the licencing process. One possible approach is to require all anglers purchasing a licence to sign a declaration stating whether they are resident or non-resident according to specified criteria. While such an approach relies on a degree of honesty, it does limit the potential for any inadvertent discrimination.

The Income Tax Act 2007 No 97 YD 1 defines a New Zealand resident as someone who has a permanent abode in New Zealand (regardless of whether they also have a permanent place of abode elsewhere) and/or someone who is in New Zealand for more than 183 days in total in a 12-month period. A person treated as a New Zealand resident after being present in New Zealand for 183 days in a 12-month period stops being a New Zealand resident if they are personally absent from New Zealand for more than 325 days in total in a 12-month period. This non-resident definition could be adopted for the purposes of the non-resident fishing licence.

Under such an approach there will be no additional enforcement burden as rangers in the field will still simply be required to check that anglers hold an appropriate licence – regardless of whether it is a resident or non-resident licence.

Fish & Game NZ indicates that many international anglers, particularly those from the USA, recognise the case for a differentiated fee as long as the fees are directed to the management of the resource. However, many Australian anglers object to the existing fees required in New Zealand, and a non-resident licence with differential charges might be met with resistance from this group.

Examples of differential fee structures

Public fisheries in the USA require anglers to pay licence fees, with differential pricing for in-state and out-of-state fishing licences. A non-resident angler visiting Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana (normal in a three week itinerary) will pay a short-term licence fee in each State which is significantly greater than that charged to residents of each State; and a resident of Wyoming who is a serious angler will, in each trout season, commonly visit several other states paying a non-resident fee in each case. In every case these fees are set to recognise the investment made by the State and its residents in the fishery, and can be seen to be a fee for use (providing for current and future management costs).

Proposal

Establish a non-resident sports fishing licence fee that is higher than the licence for NZ resident anglers as a means of ensuring a more equitable contribution by non-resident anglers to the development and maintenance of New Zealand’s high quality sports fisheries.

The target of this proposal is the dedicated international angler (i.e. the visitor who comes to New Zealand specifically to fish for sports fish in a world-class wild sports fishery). This proposal is not intended to address the visitor who fishes casually while in New Zealand, who can still do so through the purchase of 24 hour licences.

A non-resident licence with a higher fee will enable improved management of high quality fisheries and better reflect the additional benefit non-resident anglers derive from the voluntary efforts and long-term contributions of resident anglers, as well as offsetting the additional cost incurred from international angler’s more intensive targeting of these fisheries.

Criteria for such a licence could include:
• A non-resident Adult Whole Season licence (of the same duration as the existing Adult Whole Season licence)
• A licence fee of two to three times the current annual resident adult whole season licence fee. The appropriate level for a non-resident licence fee needs careful consideration, but analysis of North American examples suggest this may be appropriate .
• The additional money from a non-resident licence to be collected by Fish and Game councils, as the fisheries manager, for ongoing management of the resource (with the exception of Taupo, if this is to be included, where it would be used by the Department of Conservation for on-going management of the Taupo Fishery).

24 hour licences are more price sensitive, with the more casual non-resident angler likely to purchase this type of licence already effectively paying a premium. 24 hour licences are not proposed to be subject to differential fees.

Under section 48A(1)c of the Conservation Act 1989, special regulations relating to freshwater fisheries, the Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations “prescribing the forms and classes of licences to fish for freshwater fish or sports fish and licences to operate as a sports fishing guide, and providing for the issue of such licences and for the disposal of fees for such licences and of fines recovered under this Act”

Any additional charge for non-residents must be justified on the grounds of an additional cost imposed, or benefit enjoyed, by non-resident anglers versus resident anglers to avoid constituting indirect discrimination under Section 65 of the Human Rights Act 1993.

Similarly, in order to ensure consistency with Section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 it must be considered a reasonable limit in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Implications for New Zealand’s international trade and service agreements require careful consideration as well. Because individuals, and not service providers (i.e. tourism/fishing operators), are required to obtain licences it is unlikely there would be a breach of “national treatment” (i.e. the non-discrimination obligation to provide no less favourable treatment to foreign services and service suppliers than accorded to New Zealand services and service suppliers) which NZ has committed to under the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and free trade agreements. Foreign and local tourism operators would equally be required to obtain licences (albeit for differing fees) for all anglers (local or foreign) in their tour parties.

As an indication, if we take the figures from the 2007/08 NAS, 5,400 Adult Whole Season (AWS) licences were purchased by non-resident anglers. Assuming an non-resident fee of two times the current AWS licence fee ($226, or $113 more than a resident AWS) this is likely to create an additional $610,200 of revenue for the management of New Zealand’s high quality fisheries. In the 2009/10 season 4,176 AWS licences were sold to international anglers, which would have yielded an additional $555,408. This additional revenue would allow Fish and Game councils to improve access, assess and manage angler satisfaction, and better protect habitats as required.

Risks

Risks of persisting with the status quo include:
• A deterioration in the quality of New Zealand’s premiere sports fisheries and reduced quality of angling experience, resulting in lower international angler (tourism) numbers.
• continued and increasing ill feeling amongst the local angling community that international anglers are taking unfair advantage of a resource they have played little part in fostering.

Risks associated with adopting a differentially priced non-resident licence include:
• reduced tourism, although given the size of the proposed increase, and the substantial investment international anglers make to travel to fish in New Zealand, this is likely to be minor (it could be argued be that the perceived increase in the quality of the fishing resource may in fact attract more high-end anglers to New Zealand).
• differential pricing for non-residents may constitute indirect discrimination under Section 65 of the Human Rights Act 1993 unless it is clearly demonstrated to be recovering an additional cost imposed by providing non-resident anglers with the same service as resident anglers.
• any implications for New Zealand’s international trade and service obligations need to be carefully considered.

Have your say

We are interested to hear your views on the necessity and appropriate design for a non-resident licence.
• Do you support establishing a higher licence fee for non-resident anglers? Why/why not?
• In your view, will the proposed licence deliver on the proposed objectives?
• Is it also appropriate to introduce a non-resident licence for the Taupo fishery?
• What is the appropriate level for a non-resident licence fee?

Please respond by 5pm Friday 30 September to:

fishlicence@doc.govt.nz

 

Trout poachers caught in act

Press Release by Eastern Fish & Game  at  2:56 pm, 29 Aug 2011
Fish & Game Officers carrying out checks at a local Rotorua Trout spawning stream on Friday afternoon (26th August) located and apprehended 2 men aged 17 and 40 yrs, and a 17 year old woman, who had allegedly been poaching spawning trout. The trio were found in possession of a net, and a total of 25 freshly killed rainbow trout.

Enquiries into this matter are continuing and the trio will face charges in relation to this incident.

Fish & Game Officer Anthony van Dorp says it is very disappointing to see trout poaching on such a scale, and the taking of spawning trout in numbers such as this, combined with disturbance commonly caused by poachers to spawning grounds can have a serious impact on trout fisheries in the long term.

“It is vital that people keep out of spawning streams, and leave trout alone to spawn undisturbed, as the long term viability and success of trout fisheries depends on this”.

Fish & Game issue a reminder and warning that trout poachers caught will be charged and face penalties of up to 12 months in prison, and fines of up to $10,000.

And a reminder: Our poaching hot-line is 0800 Poaching (0800 762 244)