Sorry Sealions, it’s “too radical” to save you from extinction

by Metiria Turei

DOC and Tim Groser’s excuse for dumping the Hookers Sealion population management plan that the plan is “too radical” and imposes costs is ridiculously lazy and stupid.

The Bluegreens are clearly a complete greenwash – how disappointing. There was a moment or two when it looked like they might have been genuine in their commitment, but it’s obvious the Bluegreens have no political influence within their the National caucus. The first obvious test was my Marine Animals Protection Bill, opposed by National. The Waikato Times editorial discussed my bill yesterday saying that:

The fishing industry is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to New Zealand but so is our green image, and the fact we can show off unique flora and fauna. Allowing Ms Turei’s bill through to a select committee stage would have provided a theatre for further debate on the issue. Instead, it was caught and drowned in an apologetic National net.

A second test was the embarrassingly stink showing of Nick Smith over our emissions target.

And now, they have ditched the only population management plan for any marine species, leaving our unique and vulnerable NZ Sealion species at greater risk. A PMP is a statutory plan under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. It has been replaced by a weak set of guidelines that excludes considering of fishing-related mortality.

Groser, supposed Minister of Conservation has said the PMP is too radical. The draft Plan is clearly not. It says:

The majority of fishing-related New Zealand sea lion mortalities occur from interactions
with the squid trawl fishery in the SQU6T management area (waters around Auckland and Campbell Islands).

…If a PMP is approved by the Minister of Conservation (with concurrence from the Minister of Fisheries), the extent of incidental mortalities of New Zealand sea lions from fishing will be managed through establishing a maximum allowable level of fishing-related mortality (MALFiRM) for all New Zealand fisheries waters (out to 200 nautical miles offshore). In contrast to the Operational Plan approach, it is important to note that the PMP MALFiRM for New Zealand fisheries waters will apply to all fisheries, though there is a focus on the trawl fisheries, especially to the squid fishery in SQU6T.

In the Plan DOC recommends a MALFiRM of 76 for the SQU6T squid fishery and 89 for NZ fishing waters. Given that 72 sealions are presumed killed by the industry last season, the recommendation is hardly radical.

The PMP is legally enforceable and gives both the Conservation and Fisheries Ministers a clean legal basis on which they can make MALFiRM decisions, with less fear that the fishing industry will take the decision to court and win.

By now ditching the PMP, it simply means that the decision of the Minister of Fisheries over the MALFiRM for this coming fishing season is guided only by the Fisheries Act, which has an extremely weak approach to protecting fish or marine wildlife species.

The costs argument is ridiculous as we have observers on only about 2% of fishing boats, leading to a massive level of under-reporting of marine animal deaths, particularly Hector and Maui dolphins. Marine mammal tourism is worth well over $100 million pa to NZ, and is a key driver of jobs in areas like Dunedin.

On the key environmental issues facing NZ, National are grossly irresponsible and pathetically weak. That weakness will cost NZers money and jobs, and our environment key indigenous and native species.