This photo from 2005 was in the paper because Peter Bodeker, chief executive of the Seafood Industry Council, had written an industry opinion piece defending the most destructive fishing practise used in New Zealand waters: bottom trawling.

The photo reminds me that often Government and business won’t act unless pushed. Rather than making excuses and weak arguments, Bodeker should maybe be thanking the activists for spurring the industry on to question the sustainability of this practise, something I doubt they would have done otherwise.

The ocean floor is an amazing place that we know very little about, yet Kiwi fishers are using a method which involves dragging nets the size of football fields with metal plates and rollers to hunt deep species such as orange roughy.

Bodeker trots out well-worn arguments: because New Zealand’s fisheries management scheme is better than some, we should ignore any damage bottom trawling is doing, and, given that we’ve only ever trawled 10-15% of NZ’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and now closed 30% of it off to bottom trawling you’d probably “…wonder what green groups have to be outraged about.”

In a massive understatement he says “There’s no denying that bottom trawling has some effect on the environment…” I’ve personally seen a man-sized, 500 year old coral ripped off the ocean floor and thrown back dead by Kiwi fishers. Talking to fishers, they’ve told me that in the 80s for every tonne of orange roughy caught, they’d throw back four tonne of ancient dead coral, coral which provides the breeding ground and protection for countless species.

The ‘effect’ is massive particularly as many deep species are so slow growing. Orange roughy lives for more than a hundred years, and they don’t reach breeding maturity until around 30. If you buy orange roughy in the shops, chances are it is older than your grandmother.

Sure we’ve closed 30% of our EEZ – but what Bodeker didn’t mention was that the majority is too deep, rocky or difficult to trawl anyway. Kind of like dieting by pledging not to eat while asleep.

Closing 30% is a great start, but like cyanide or dynamite fishing we need to close 100% of New Zealand’s waters to this destructive practice. Like ‘bulldozing for apples’ as Dr Liz Slooten puts it, it is damaging our international brand. We need to stop making excuses, and put an end to bottom trawling in our waters.

In September 2009 the New York Times gave these concerns international attention by highlighting that the hoki industry may not be the picture of ocean sustainability it claimed to be. Hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae) is the primary ingredient in Filet-o-Fish and McDonald’s branches worldwide rely on it.

The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council found this hard to stomach and acted by buying google adwords for kewords like New Zealand, hoki, New York Times and Laura Chang (the New York Times editor).

This apparently comes at a cost of $300-500 per day, but with McDonald’s buying millions of dollars of hoki each year, the investment in managing the information available to consumers is obviously worth it. One of the benefits of this PR investment was that it enabled the Seafood Council to link the word hoki in the New York Times article to a Seafood Council web page, which essentially provides their rebuttal to the article.

Each year the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society publishes a consumer guide, which ranks the ecological sustainability of seafood from our commercial fisheries.  Forest and Bird ranks hoki an ‘E: Red – worst choice’ in it’s Best Fish Guide 09-10, which frog posted on earlier.

The guide is becoming increasingly popular and this year gained the support of nationwide burger chain, Burger Wisconsin who followed Forest and Bird’s advice and switched from deepwater dory to the more sustainable tarakihi. The Seafood Council has recognised the influence of the Best Fish Guide in it’s own way. The Council bought the URL www.bestfishguide.com, which now links – you guessed it – to a Seafood Council webpage with a ‘Great Fish Guide’ – a guide on the best ways to prepare and eat seafood!

I’d much rather the Seafood Council invested their PR money in researching ways to manage truly sustainable fisheries.

So what is a Smart Hook?

Fisher-turned-inventor Hans Jussiet explains the shield and dissolvable pin that covers baited-hooks as they are launched in this video from an ABC TVshow. Once the shielded hook sinks below the depth of seabirds and turtles, the pin dissolves and the shield is released. Clever.

The shield falls to the seafloor and its untreated metal rusts within a year. I’d be keen to see a bit more environmental impact analysis of raining metal pieces onto the seafloor, but hopefully it’s OK. Are there any marine scientists reading frog?

Innovation and regulation – like hook and shield

I’m impressed by the dedication to reducing the toll that fishing methods like long-lining take on marine animals like albatross, and clever “prevention” approach (rather than just “mitigation”). Innovation complements regulation. Application of clever ideas like this is good for the environment and the economy – ensuring we have a long-term sustainable fishery and markets for our fish.

What say you, dear readers?

takes into account the state of fish stocks, the amount of seabird, marine mammal and non-target fish bycatch, the damage done to marine habitats and other ecological effects caused by the fishing to decide on its rating.

It’s a tool that empowers the consumer to make an informed choice about their seafood. Just as we might give it a sniff to judge freshness or compare prices, the Best Fish Guide is a sniff-test of each fish species’ sustainability. Forest and Bird say:

Making the best seafood choice is not easy. All fishing has an impact. We urge you to use this guide to help make more informed choices when buying seafood… Our combined buying power can help take pressure off the most over-exploited species and alleviate the harm caused by the most damaging fisheries. Our choices can also influence government policies, change fishing practices and help ensure that fisheries are managed sustainably.

The wallet-card guide can be obtained from Forest and Bird, and the ratings are all online here. The full assessment and methodology are also downloadable:

• The Best Fish Guide: Ecological Assessment (PDF, 2028 kb)
• The Best Fish Guide : Assessment Methodology (PDF, 705 kb)

Metiria wrote in a recent think-piece about the state of our oceans and fisheries that:

Our ocean is not “out of sight, out of mind”; it is the backyard, the pantry and a source of pride for all New Zealanders. It is not too late to reverse the decline, and it makes economic sense to do so now. We can commit to strong action on climate change, a good Oceans Policy, and making the Fisheries Act sustainable.

Consumer tools like the Best Fish Guide help us as individuals vote with our wallets for a sustainable and healthy ocean.

To end, here’s something a Kiwi band could copy: the Oxford band Stornoway make a political point in their ‘Good Fish Guide’ song:

The Talley boys’ colourful political views are quite well known, and they are hardly the poster-boys for sustainable wild fishing. For example, this insightful analogy for bottom-trawling – a practice that has caused UK supermarket Waitrose to destock our hoki today:

Fishermen… will be able to put it through the barn doors and pick the three or four biggest cows that he wants. And he will come out of the barn doors. If he likes the look of the farmer’s wife he might take her too. But every now and then, he might knock at the barn door. He might grab the pig and the goat in the corner – but it is far more selective than that analogy.

Ironically, the fish in the Talley’s ad is a yellow fin tuna. Tuna are not farmed in NZ , but they are a wild fishery in trouble and are included on the “red lists” of Greenpeace and Forest and Bird. F&B says:

The main concerns with this fishery are: uncertainty about the state of the stocks, the bycatch of sharks, seabirds and fur seals, and the lack of a stock assessment, catch limits or a management plan. The fishery assessment plenary report states: “On a regional level there are concerns relating to the current status of this stock and the level of fishing effort…. Current catches from the stock are not sustainable under average recruitment conditions.” (Sullivan et al, 2005, p786).

Yet, the Talley’s ad says:

Both captive and wild fisheries will come to realise that their long-term survival hinges completely on truly sustainable management of fish stocks, and much reduced impact on our marine animals. Consumers are demanding nothing less, as evidenced in Waitrose’s decision in the news yesterday.

Consumers even see through attempts to paint sustainability over the exploitative rot, such as our hoki fishery being Marine Stewardship Council certified, despite its use of bottom trawling techniques, despite the fact that 48% of last year’s catch in the largest fishing ground (Chatham Rise) were juveniles, and despite the fact that the fishery kills over 300 fur seals annually, as well as sea lions and dolphins.

I’m all for sustainable fishing, and using certification to market that, but we’re stretching credibility with the constant claims that our wild fisheries are all “responsibly managed for sustainable fishing”.

Metiria’s Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is part of the solution to reducing fishing’s impact on marine mammals and seabirds. It gives the Government a chance to take a key step forward in ensuring the economic sustainability of our fisheries – wild and captive – when it is debated next week. Email your MP requesting their support for it.

H182/09 – A Hector’s dolphin capture was reported from a commercial fishing vessel on the east coast of the South island, Friday 8 May 2009. The animal was sent to Massey for necropsy, more details to follow.

This week the High Court is hearing a judicial review of the previous Fisheries Minister’s set of measures to improve protection for Hector’s and Maui Dolphins. As I said at the time they were announced, they went far enough to arrest population decline in some areas, but fell short of guaranteeing the dolphins’ long-term survival. Commercial fishing leaders promptly challenged them, as they have done with many other sustainability measures.

Underlying the problem though are inherent weaknesses in the Fisheries Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and a lack of willingness from Governments to apply the powers that are there. I have a Members Bill ready to go that would strengthen both laws, and we’ll continue to lobby to improve the willingness aspect.

The death reported today was a vessel with an observer. Six deaths were reported in 1997-8 from the observed 89 days out of 351. No deaths were reported from the 262 days without observers: to state the obvious, this was either a statistical anomaly or illustrates the unreliability of voluntary reporting and the importance of observers. In response, the then Minister of Conservation, Dr Nick Smith, said:

What makes me particularly angry is that fishermen have for years failed to report fatalities and denied there was a problem… I remain cynical that fishermen claim there were no deaths during the 262 days when observers were not present.

Earlier this year the previous Minister of Fisheries, Jim Anderton, explained past increases in the observer programme, saying:

I made the decision that more observers were needed on fishing vessels because research showed a very interesting detail: 100% of the reports of by-catches of dolphins and seabirds came from the 4% of vessels that had observers aboard. Reflect on that for a moment: only 4% of boats have observers. They are the only boats that ever report any by-catch of these iconic species.

Yet, the new Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, answered a question from me with this:

703 (2009). Metiria Turei to the Minister of Fisheries (02 Mar 2009): What, if any, evidence has he seen as to the comparative accuracy of quota and bycatch reporting between observed and non-observed boats?
Hon Phil Heatley (Minister of Fisheries) replied: I have not seen any evidence as to the comparative accuracy of quota and bycatch reporting between observed and non-observed boats.

Unfortunately, this year’s Budget trimmed back the observer programme by $1million this year and out-years. As p76 of Vote Fisheries records, this results in “Total number of Observer coverage days delivered” being reduced. This accompanies funding cuts for ‘Fisheries Compliance’ (promoting voluntary compliance with the law and enforcement of illegal activity) and ‘Fisheries Operations’ (advice to set sustainable catch levels and create standards like the Hectors/Maui Management Plan) of about $2million (6-7%) each (pp73-76).

The Greens advocate a sustainable fishing industry that protects jobs and income for New Zealanders into the future. Given the dire record of  voluntary reporting, this requires increased observer coverage, but also changes to the way we fish. We can feed ourselves and have a healthy export industry without sacrificing our dolphins.

To steal from a drinking campaign: “It’s not the fishing; it’s how we’re fishing.”

 A staggering 80 percent of all the life on Earth is hidden beneath the waves. The ocean is the planet’s heart. Its pulsating currents and tides drive the natural forces which maintain life on our planet. It controls our weather, cleans our atmosphere, and is the original source of life-giving freshwater too.

 The ocean is full of extraordinary diversity. Scientists don’t really know how many marine species there are: estimates range from 500,000 to 100 million. Some are beautiful, some weird, some delicious and some scary; but they are all incredibly important.

 And they nourish us, providing us with food. Fish species that we eat provide 3 billion people with at least 15 per cent of their average per capita animal protein intake. In many places, fish is the most important source of animal protein.

 But our ocean faces many threats, some growing by the tide.

 Scientists tell us our oceans are acidifying. The ocean is absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere because of our growing emissions. The resulting increase in acidity makes it harder for corals and shellfish to create skeletons and shells. This will be devastating: the UN reports that 80% of the world’s coral reefs may die within decades. New Zealand’s Royal Society has warned that our marine life will also be severely affected within decades, impacting on our food supply and jobs.

 Overfishing is still taking its toll. Technology has made it easier to find and catch fish: nets can be city-block sized and lines tens of kilometres long, and modern fishing boats are the size of freighters not yachts – in fact, they are mobile fish factories. Unfortunately, our rules to ensure we fish sustainably have not kept pace. This situation is made worse by illegal fishing and under-reporting.

Orange roughy, a deep sea fish living to over 100, have been reduced to just 11% of their original numbers in most areas, and are in long-term decline. Hoki, one of our largest fisheries, are also struggling and are heading the same way as Orange roughy. Despite this, Hoki are certified as sustainable under the international Marine Stewardship Council. Pretending Hoki are sustainable will not serve the fish or the fishing industry well – continued decline will have massive economic and ecological impacts on New Zealand. Some supermarkets refuse to stock our Orange roughy.

 You know an industry is hiding something when they produce fancy TV ads to promote their image – as the seafood industry has recently. They are wasting money on greenwash propaganda – money that would be much better spent on research and sustainable practices to ensure their industry remains viable long-term. The industry is gambling with our economy, our jobs, and our food.

 Our Fisheries Act is not sustainable because it does not require sustainability, does not apply precaution in the face of uncertainty, relies on unreliable voluntary reporting, and lets the industry challenge every sustainable move in court. Even essential measures to protect our remaining Hectors and Maui dolphins from extinction have been met with court action.

 But it is not just the fish we eat under threat. It is also the species and ecosystems that get destroyed in the process of commercial fishing. Techniques like bottom trawling and dredging destroy the seabed in some of the ocean’s most sensitive places. Greenpeace reports that commercial fishing leads to the ‘accidental’ killing of more than 20 million tonnes of marine life like albatrosses, sharks, fur seals and turtles, each year; and nets kill up to 300,000 of the world’s whales, dolphins and porpoises. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Our Fisheries Act fails here too, with the Minister increasing the past season’s sea lion slaughter to 113 animals (many of which will be pregnant mums or mums with hungry pups waiting for them) even when the population of sea lions is known to be in decline.

 New Zealand’s ocean area is in better state than many other places, but we must do more if we are to avoid a continued decline in ocean health in our part of the world, and the cost of that to our economy and jobs. Despite our ocean area being more than 15 times larger than our land area, New Zealand’s ocean laws are our weakest environmental protection rules. Activity line mining of seamounts in our outer ocean isn’t protected by any law at all. We have no marine reserves there, and the Bill that would allow this has been blocked by successive Governments.

Sustainability is not a luxury – it is essential to ensure we have a healthy ocean, fish for food, and jobs in the long term. Overfishing now destroys the economy of the future. Killing marine mammals and seabirds unnecessarily puts our ‘clean green brand’ at risk. Nature Magazine assessed New Zealand against the United Nations Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries – we scored just 56%. It’s not good enough.

Our ocean is not “out of sight, out of mind”; it is the backyard, the pantry and a source of pride for all New Zealanders. It is not too late to reverse the decline, and it makes economic sense to do so now. Let’s mark World Oceans Day by committing to strong action on climate change, a good Oceans Policy, and making the Fisheries Act sustainable.

The Greens would love all of NZ’s fisheries to be MSC-certified, if only the “careful fisheries management” was a true reflection of reality. The only MSC certified NZ fishery at present is Hoki, and that certification is hotly contested – Forest and Bird’s “best fish guide” ranks it RED because “it has one of the greatest ecological impacts of any New Zealand fishery”:

The main concerns with this fishery are: the bycatch of hundreds of NZ fur seals, albatrosses and petrels each year, plus bycatch of the globally threatened basking sharks and impacts on benthic communities. The management of two stocks as one quota management area, the declining state of the Western stock fishery and failure to limit catches of this depleted stock to levels that will allow recovery are also serious concerns. Additional problems are the catches of small fish on the Chatham Rise and on West Coast, lack of a management plan, the need for the annual quota to be reduced to 100,000 tonnes in 2004 and further reduction to 90,000 tonnes in 2007.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace published a report this week called “While Stocks Last” linking the sustainability of our fisheries with supermarket procurement policies, or the lack of them. Overseas, consumer pressure has led to supermarkets destocking unsustainable fish like NZ’s orange roughy. Greenpeace called on NZ supermarkets to follow, but alas, they rejected the idea, putting their faith completely in NZ’s quota management system. Echoing what the Greens have regularly said, the report explained that “the QMS maintains fish at “tipping point” so any errors in catch limits could see fish stocks drop too low to sustain themselves.” Is that really sustainable?

To illustrate the inevitable endpoint of current practice the Greenpeace report author said that, “Unchecked the fishing industry will leave little in the seas but harvests of ‘bait and worse,’ – the bottom levels of the marine food web like sea cucumbers, jellyfish and, eventually, plankton – for future generations to eat”. So, Greenpeace has launched a jellyfish restaurant in Auckland!

Dear Editor

Well, the dolphin observer program has come to an end and, might I hazard to say, with some very positive results.

Our worst fears of being landed with some hairy armpit, tattooed Green who was coming on board to rip us to bits never bore fruit. Instead, we got a very pleasant young marine biologist who had just completed her degree at uni. She came on board and approached her job with a high degree of professionalism and was very open about the job that she was there to do.

She was up all hours of the day and night observing almost every shot, noted mitigation devices in operation and the interaction with the dolphins, integrated well with the crew and when not doing her work she was always quick to jump up and make a brew, roll a smoke for the boys, or throw a meal together – she did a better job than my lads, that’s for real.

The general feedback I have had from the other boats is that they had a similar experience with their observers.

I hope that the information that has been gathered will go a long way to dispel the general public’s impression that we are nothing but dolphin-murdering, albatross-munching ocean rapists. I’d like to think that some of the half-truths and lies will be replaced with some real facts, reinforcing the view that we are just normal conservation-minded Kiwis, working in an increasingly hostile environment, who do care about the seabirds and mammals we share the ocean with.

All in all, it was a very painless experience.

Rosco Dillion, Skipper, FV Frontier

 The FV Frontier

No doubt the Ministry of Fisheries is in the gun for cost cutting, restructuring and major legislation review, but the Government isn’t saying much yet. Fairfax papers recently ran a story “Fishing for facts top of new minister’s list” on ‎Feb 17, 2009‎ which begins:

Contrary to statements from his predecessor, Heatley has faith the commercial fishing industry is sticking to the rules…

So we thought we’d better find out a bit more, and have lodged these questions, the first substantive ones to the new Minister:

What evidence does he have to have “faith the commercial fishing industry is sticking to the rules”?

What, if any, evidence has he seen as to the comparative accuracy of quota and bycatch reporting between observed and non-observed boats?

What additional resourcing does he favour, in addition to more money for fisheries enforcement and recreational research?

What plans for amendments to fisheries legislation does he have, if any?

What are the objectives of the current review of the Ministry of Fisheries research methods?

What reviews, other than into the way the Ministry does its research, have been commenced in the Ministry of Fisheries?

Which stakeholders in fisheries management has he met with since he became Minister; who, when, and on what topic?

Is he committed to continuing the regional “Fisheries Plans” process?

What questions would you like to ask?

An inspiring story from South Africa last week pointed to an amazing 85% reduction in albatross deaths from long line tuna fishing, following a groundbreaking accord between the fishing industry and conservation NGOs.

The story tells how a South African Albatross Task Force - a joint effort by the UK Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Birdlife International set up in 2006 - placed specialist instructors on fishing boats to show fishermen how to prevent birds becoming entangled. The techniques include attaching brightly coloured streamers known as tori lines to the back of vessels, which flap in the wind and scare the birds away from the baited lines. Fishermen are also encouraged to set their lines at night, when bird activity is limited, and to find new ways to weigh the lines down more effectively so that bait sinks out of reach more quickly.

In New Zealand, regulations in place since February 2008 require that long line tuna boats employ two out of these three methods, relying largely on voluntary compliance. These followed some horrific slaughter stories. But in South Africa, fishing crews have an added incentive to comply because since last year the conditions for obtaining a fishing permit stipulate that no more than 25 birds may be caught as bycatch during trips.

The biggest difference however, seems to be the willingness of the South African fishing industry to work with marine conservation groups to reduce seabird deaths. One of the Taskforce organisers, Meidad Goren, said: “Fishermen now understand that in order to continue fishing they must avoid killing seabirds, and are very cooperative.”

This contrasts sharply with the situation here, where the Seafood Industry Council has taken a combative, or at best highly selective, approach to NGO and Government attempts to introduce meaningful changes to fishing techniques.

Early signs indicate that the new regulations in New Zealand are having some effect on monitored boats, although it will take some time for meaningful data to become available. However, only 5% of tuna trawlers and long liners are officially monitored for bycatch, which makes the data hard to extrapolate from.

But one thing’s for sure. If the New Zealand industry was able to match South Africa’s laudable 85% reduction in deaths, thousands of threatened birds could be saved. With a greater willingness on the part of industry to cooperate with conservation efforts, such a result could be achieved here.

A drowned Wandering Albatross – caught on a longline.
Graham Robertson/Australian Antarctic Division

In the sub-Antarctic islands we have a large marine reserve with amazing endemic species like Campbell Island teal (the world’s rarest duck) and Hooker’s Sealions. Dozens if not hundreds of the latter are needlessly slaughtered each year by squid fishing boats – estimated at 700 in the past 10 years. And the total adult population is just 5000! Unbelieveably the Government recently increased the quota for sealion bycatch by 40%, but then news of massive infant mortality in the colony resulted in a voluntary reduction – but it’s not enough. Luckily for the sealions, some people care, and this week we will show that on the Parliament lawn. Expect Green MPs in attendance!

If you’re in Wellington, come along. Wherever you live, there are plenty of seaweek activities to get involved in. Make a splash!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is it credible for her to maintain the façade of carbon neutrality, and world leadership in sustainability, when during the last 9 years emissions have increased by 14 percent, one of the highest rates in the developed world; when 75 percent of new electricity generation built has actually been thermal, resulting in the largest drop in the proportion of renewables of any Government in New Zealand history; and when the last 4 years has seen a massive loss of forest area and the first years of deforestation since records began in 1951?

Cullen blamed all those emissions on a growing economy. And as economic growth remains a sacred cow, we all politely moved on to the next question. Afterall we wouldn’t want to stop growing beyond the limits of our planet’s ability to cope.

The more interesting parliamentary question came later on and was from Sue Bradford, standing in for Jeanette, to Pete Hodgson, the Minister of Economic Development who was standing in for Jim Anderton, the Minister of Fisheries. (I suspect MPs had been re-enacting the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party earlier and all standing up and rotating seats). Sue initally asked a generic question about trade of fish with China.  I thought she was likely to move on to talk about Maui dolphins which were also a topic of debate today*. But she actually followed up with this:

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister confirm that Talley’s Fisheries ships chilled, gutted fish to China for thawing, processing, and rechilling, only to ship it back to New Zealand for sale; and is that how the fishing industry contributes to the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Hon PETE HODGSON: New Zealand fishing companies have been exporting to China for years, and a proportion of that product is inevitably processed further and onsold to Japan, North America, and Europe. That has been going on for some time in China and in any other continent in the world. Our fishing industries are international.

…

Sue Bradford: If shipping fish from New Zealand to China for processing, then shipping the fish back here to our supermarkets for retail sale is an example of his Government’s global trade agenda in action, then surely it is time to admit that the resulting carbon “fin print” of these fish, the race to the bottom on wages, and the threat to jobs here in New Zealand make the whole situation a disaster, not just for our country but for the planet?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me offer a different tack. I am the member of Parliament for Dunedin North. Cadbury’s and Gregg’s are both in my electorate. Both of those companies are food companies; they both import, then re-export products. That is the nature of trade.

No, it’s the nature of specific type of neo-liberal free trade. Really though, given our claimed high tech business environment, couldn’t we breed or train the fish just to swim over the China and at least save themselves one boat trip?

*Sorry to jump around so many topics. For more on the dolphin dilemma listen to this Checkpoint interview with marine scientist Steve Dawson.

Question 1 – Jeanette Fitzsimons to the Prime Minister
Does she still aspire for New Zealand to be carbon neutral and “the first nation to be truly sustainable�?, as she said in her Statement to the House in February last year?

and

Question 11 – Jeanette Fitzsimons to the Minister of Fisheries
Is he satisfied that the fishing industry is taking all opportunities available under New Zealand’s trade agreement with China?

Feel free to have a guess at what answers the Government will be coming up with this afternoon.  I’ll try to cover its responses when they’re out.

Given the role Talley’s plays in the current state of our fisheries I imagine the advertising agency that designed this particular piece of greenwash would be washing their hands with bleach.

Talley’s is currently selling Monkfish on special:

As a sustainable resource, Monkfish allows our customers to benefit from an ongoing supply of this nutritious and delectable, high quality, seafood product.

Forest and Bird have a slightly different story to tell about the Monkfish. It rates Monkfish as one of the worst fish you can eat in terms of environmental impact. Currently we have no information available to let us know how many monkfish exist or where they are. Many Monkfish are caught by bottom trawling; a practice Talley’s boss, Andrew Talley has claimed is sustainable.

Talley’s doesn’t just catch monkfish. It is also the place to go if you want any of these fish listed as the worst choice of fish to catch in Forest and Bird‘s Fish Guide for 2007-2008: Hoki, Ling, Alfonsino, Hake, Oreo Dory, Flounder, Squid, Southern Blue Whiting, Orange Roughy and Warehou.

So now each year the Minister of Fisheries gets to decide how many sea lions are allowed to be accidentally killed by fishing so that the population can recover. The Department of Conservation’s draft population management plan recommends that next year the number be 76. But the Minister of Fisheries has set it higher at 81 because the current fisheries act requires him to balance the sea lions’ survival against the economic impact on squid fishers. Which is why Metiria is arguing that the current Fisheries Act isn’t working.

“The Minister has demonstrated why the current law is unsustainable – it has today allowed a by-kill limit that is greater than that recommended to allow the survival of the species.�?