The story about sea lions
This should have been big news yesterday, but has hardly received any coverage. Thanks to commenters who have pointed it out in other threads - I’ve been away from the lily pad with a nasty croak again.
As you will no doubt be aware, Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton announced in April that the fishing industry’s allowable sea lion kill would be raised, to the disgust of the Green Party and many other groups.
Yesterday, Forest and Bird, who have been looking into the decision further, released information obtained from an Official Information Act request showing that Mr Anderton had been warned by Conservation Minister Chris Carter that increasing the allowable kill would be of grave concern and imprudent from a conservation perspective and that there was no new information to justify raising the limit for scientific reasons. Metiria put out this release.
It did prompt small items from National Radio and the Herald, as well as a blustering response from Anderton, but wasn’t covered nearly as well as it should have been. Here is a Minister receiving such strongly worded advice from another Minister’s office as
“To do this in the face of declining pup production is of grave concern and not at all prudent from a conservation perspective.”
and going ahead anyway. Shocking.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Good on ya Frog!
Let’s put this in perspective team, there are about as many NZ sea lions as hector’s dolphins in the world. not as cutesy maybe, but worthy all the same….
June 8th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
okaaay so only one person who watches Frogblog is concerned about the sea lion situation.
a bloody disgrace from a “green” point of view i would have thought.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Not at all.
It’s a no brainer, if the populations and/or environments are threatened, it’s a woefull decision, and indictive of wider problems not being meet, because of out usual failings, when better solutions are possible.
Does that reply make the problem have anymore significant concern about it…..nope.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
naturevision:
You are obviously upset (and for good reason), but I’m not sure how you believe your angry, negative assumptions about Greens’ attitudes and behaviour will help the situation.
Today I chose to write an email to to Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton and to my local MP rather than spend that time “speaking to the converted” on frogblog.
If everyone who was concerned did that little thing Jim Anderton would get a very clear message!
I learnt this “tactic” from my (late) father who regularly wrote short letters to his local MP and to relevant Cabinet Ministers on issues of concern. (When he died, eight MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, present and past, attended his memorial service.)
AotearoaNZ is a small country and individual citizens can make a difference!
eredwen
June 9th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Last month a group of 4 Greens from Canterbury, including myself, went and spoke with Jim Anderton for about an hour to try and understand how he arrived at the decision to increase the kill quota for the sea lions as we were completely stunned by the decision.
We came away with the understanding that he had made the decision on purely ecconomic and legal factors.
Andertons line was that the advice that he had recieved was that a kill of up to 550 sealions was ’sustainable’ hence any figure less than that was acceptable. He said that he was legally bound to act by the advice he recieved. He wanted credit for keeping the kill quota down to 150 sea lions.
He could make no commitment to keeping the sealion kill quota down next year because that would depend on the numbers of squid.
(”some years there will be heaps (of squid) and some years none..we never know what will happen”)
I specifically asked him what advice he had recieved from the minister of conservation and he completely evaded this question.
I can see now why he didn’t want to answer this as it would have blown his argument apart that he was only acting on the advice he had recieved.
What is clear now is that he chose to be selective about which bits of advice he would act on.
Mojo
June 9th, 2006 at 10:27 am
nature
I too have written a stern letter to Jim Anderton and my local (Labour) MP. - I should get a reply sometime in 2008
Green issues are very wide !
June 9th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
I think that squid should be better protected as well. I would be interested if anyone knows of data kept on the squid population.
aladin
June 9th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Great to hear from Mojo … very interesting!
and thanks for the laugh fastbike. We need a few of those!
I do believe that “every little counts”.
The problem is that it often isn’t obvious that (when?) it does.
eredwen
June 10th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I’ll have to take my cheap quip back !
I got a reply from Anderton yesterday - lengthly but I’ll post it as I imagine it’s a standardised reply. He does not address specific isues I raised.
###############################
Dear xyz
Thank you for your message concerning sea lions and the Auckland Islands squid trawl fishery. Your assertion that my decision relating to sea lion numbers and the relationship this bears to squid fishing is without scientific backing is incorrect.
By way of general background, the impact of fishing on the sea lion population is managed through the setting of an annual limit on the number of sea lions that can be taken before the fishery is closed. This fishing related mortality limit (or FRML as it is usually called) is set under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1996 at a level that the Minister of Fisheries considers necessary to ‘avoid, remedy, or mitigate’ the effect of fishing-related mortality on the sea lion population.
Section 8 of the Fisheries Act also requires me to balance utilisation of fisheries resources and their sustainability with the need to protect other marine animals such as sea lions. The New Zealand sea lion, as you will be aware, is currently listed as a threatened species on the basis of the small number of breeding colonies under section 2 (3) of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Under this classification, this species is considered not immediately threatened with extinction, but is potentially vulnerable to population decline.
The sea lion mortality limit is set between theoretical maximums and minimums to ensure sustainability of the population over time. At present the range available to me runs up to 550 sea lions. I have now set the current limit at 150. This is because present indications are that the current harvest limit for squid would be substantially under caught unless the FRML was increased in relation to sea lions.
I have been given scientific evidence based advice that increasing the FRML on a one-off basis to 150 sea lions is unlikely to have a significant effect on the sea lion population. On balance, then, and on the basis of the best scientific and professional advice available to me, I consider the increased risk to sustainability of the sea lion population as a result of this increase in the FRML to be acceptable.
Some of those who have been in touch with me have also raised the question of jig fishing. Fishing vessels are currently permitted to use the method of jigging in all New Zealand squid fishery management areas, including the Auckland Islands (SQU 6T). However, operators have not fished for squid using jig methods in the SQU 6T fishery since the early 1980s when there were some trials conducted. The number of jig vessels active in New Zealand waters has also declined substantially, from over 100 boats in the 1980s, to about 17 squid jigging vessels active this season. Less than 10% of the allowable squid jig catch has been achieved in recent years.
With specific regard to SQU 6T, available information shows that severe ocean conditions around the Auckland Islands can be both difficult and hazardous for the smaller squid jigging vessels commonly used in New Zealand waters. For this reason I am unwilling to require extended no-trawl zones around the Auckland Islands in order to encourage jigging alternatives until such methods have been further tested with larger vessels and proven feasible in this fishery.
The Ministry of Fisheries is encouraging the squid industry to trial the method of jigging in the Auckland Islands fishery in light of technology used in some overseas squid fisheries. In addition, trawl fishers employ various management practices, including the use of sea lion exclusion devices (SLEDs) to avoid the unintentional deaths of these marine mammals in the SQU 6T fishery. The efficacy of SLEDs is under review at this time.
We would all like to see a reduction in the unintentional drowning of sea lions in fishing nets. The government and the fishing industry both employ measures to mitigate such bycatch. The government prohibits fishing within 12 nautical miles of sea lion breeding areas on the Auckland Islands, and closes this squid trawl fishery if fishing-related sea lion mortalities exceed the FRML.
Extending the trawling exclusion zone to 100 kilometres around the Auckland Islands, as some people have suggested, would most probably reduce sea lion mortalities but this would be at the expense of the trawl fishery. Much of the squid catch in the SQU 6T fishery occurs just outside the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone. Extending the no-trawl zone would therefore be difficult to reconcile with my obligations under section 8 of the Fisheries Act, which requires me, as noted above, to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.
If you would like more detail on the operational plan and rationale behind this matter you can consult the Ministry of Fisheries website at http://www.fish.govt.nz/sustainability/impacts.html
I appreciate your concerns on the matter of sea lion by catch in the squid fishery. It is never easy to make a decision in this area balancing the various statutory factors I am obliged to take into account; the concerns you have raised are one of those factors and you may be assured that I gave them due weight in reaching my final conclusions.
Yours sincerely
Jim Anderton
Minister of Fisheries
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party
June 10th, 2006 at 11:41 am
It comes down to this:
“I have been given scientific evidence based advice that increasing the FRML on a one-off basis to 150 sea lions is unlikely to have a significant effect on the sea lion population”
If above is wrong, they will have to over-compensate for a few years, i would think, if pop growth rate is positively proportional to pop. numbers and also, if that is the case, then allowing for example, a one year buffer zone, would make sense for conservation purposes and financial. If the Sealion population is going to be “guaranteed” survival over time, the guiding principle should be “will not” instead of “unlikely”, since it stands to reason that “unlikely” is likely to happen sometime when that is the precident being set.
Was good of Jim Anderton to have a reply sent out also.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Is it just me, or does putting an MP from Christchurch in charge of
Fisheries, given that Ngai Tahu and Sealord between them own most of the
South Island fisheries quotas, seem a little like putting a poacher in charge of gamekeping?
Anderton seems to be taking far too much notice of the industries’ “needs” here, and can’t find the DoC report to save his soundbite! Meanwhile, Korea & Japan are benefitting disproportionately from this ‘policy statement’.
grumpily, katie.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Katie:
As a Christchurch person, I doubt the Christchurch link is “suspect” as far as Kai Tahu and Sealord having undue influence on Jim Anderton.
Also, demonstrably, conservation values are not lacking in the way that Kai Tahu think(s) and operate(s).
eredwen
Note for Northerners: In the South, “ng” is pronounced “k” … hence “Kai Tahu” and “Aoraki” (Ngai Tahu and Aorangi in the North)