A recent Department of Conservation report by Dr Louise Chilvers found at the current levels of by-catch the Auckland Island NZ sea lion population would be “functionally extinct by 2035.” That’s gone forever – in our life time! Another recent Otago University report identified squid fishing as the most likely cause of sea lion population decline on the Auckland Islands. Yet, in a major departure from past policy, the Government in their consultation document is proposing to remove entirely the sea lion by-catch limit for the squid fishery in this area!

These are amazing animals that deserve our protection not bad regulations that push them closer to extinction.

The Jung Woo 2, which tragically lost 3 lives, along with the Sparta and Number 1 In Sung which sunk with 22 lives lost – have come to grief in the dangerous cold waters of the Ross Sea hunting toothfish.

Just last week the Russian fishing vessel the Sparta reached New Zealand after it was stuck for 12 days after ice gashed a 30cm hole in the hull. I’m glad it has arrived safe but I would hate to see it return to the Ross Sea. I’ve been advised by the Parliamentary Library that the Sparta’s shipping agent, ISS Mackay expects that once repaired the ship will return to the Ross Sea.

It and the other ships fishing in the Ross Sea should not return, ever.

This pristine environment must not be put at risk by old, single-hulled unsuitable fishing boats like these that race to catch as much as they can despite the weather in the ‘Olympic’ style fishery. The toothfish, a mysterious top predator that we know so little about, yet who we increase our quotas for must be protected. The Ross Sea, described as the Last Ocean, by 500 international marine scientists campaigning for its future must become a marine protected area.

Boats like the Sparta have no place in these waters.

They are a significant risk to a unique environment and New Zealand has no capacity to deal with an oil spill in the Ross Sea. Rescue’s like these are costly for the taxpayer yet the income is miniscule comparable to our national fisheries. U.S. biologist David Ainley, writing in the journal Pacific Ecologist, says New Zealand is the largest fishing nation taking toothfish and threatening permanent change to the Ross Sea.

So, what’s the National Government’s thinking on the issue?

The Government is encouraging the fishery despite the risks to our green credentials given international supermarkets such as Safeways are boycotting this New Zealand-caught fish. The Government is set to further undermine New Zealand’s valuable clean, green brand by allegedly vetoing any moves to protect this pristine environment. Leaked documents show ‘New Zealand, backed by the US, does not want the whole 650,000 km2 Ross Sea declared a marine protected area (MPA), despite a 25-nation convention saying it is “of high global importance”.

With international negotiations determining the fate of the Ross Sea and other Antarctic waters occurring now, New Zealand can and must protect this pristine environment, unique amazing creatures and our valuable clean, green brand.

Sourced from www.linz.govt.nz. Crown Copyright Reserved

The Ross Sea is described as the world’s last ocean.

The Ross Sea, Antarctica, is stunning. A jigsaw puzzle of floating ice extends to the horizon in all directions, punctuated by floating mountains of blue ice that saw at the sky like jagged teeth. It is a desert of ice, subjected to 6 months of solid night, 200 kph winds, and temperatures of -40°C. It is also filled with life.

The Last Ocean Charitable Trust is campaigning to protect it from the fate of other oceans:

Overwhelming evidence suggests that over-fishing has profoundly damaged most, if not all the rest of the world’s marine ecosystems. Estimates are that we’ve eaten 90% of the world’s top predatory fish, finned 95% of the world’s sharks, and harpooned 90% of the great whales. The oceans are in serious trouble. The Ross Sea is recognized as the most pristine open-ocean ecosystem left on earth. In essence, the Ross Sea is the last ocean.

Wellington hosted the Trust’s presentation last night, and Christchurch will this Sunday at 7:30pm. If you’ve missed out, here’s a taster:

The Greens support making the Ross Sea a Protected Area, which would mean protecting the Ross Sea’s Antarctic toothfish from fishing. Do you agree?

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 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.

The Environmental Defence Society’s chair, Gary Taylor, writes today about how the high-profile decline of marine animals and the threat this poses for our economy. He says that the bill is a great opportunity to fine-tune the law to ensure we protect them, and utilise the resources of the sea sustainably (he cites the Waitrose example I blogged last week). He argues that this is crucial if we are to continue to enjoy what the Conservation Minister Tim Groser has described as our “point of difference…[a] brand value based around world class environmental standards.” Gary Taylor writes:

New Zealand is a marine mammal and seabird “hotspot”. At least 38 species of dolphin and whale are found here, just under half the world’s total. We also have more than 80 species of seabirds, more than anywhere else in the world. Many of the birds are endemic to New Zealand.

Dolphins, seabirds, sea lions and fur seals are often caught as a byproduct of fishing, despite strenuous efforts by fishers to avoid such collateral damage. That places the fishing industry at risk. …

We do have protection-oriented legislation in New Zealand, but the Marine Mammals Protection Act is now more than 30 years old and has not been effectively invoked even to save Maui’s dolphin, the world’s rarest marine mammal.

Not one species has a population management plan – a key conservation measure – not even our rarest. There is something wrong about that and it’s time for a hard look at how we can improve the law to ensure our marine mammals and seabirds cease their slide towards extinction. …

[The Marine Animals Bill] is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it means what it says about world-class environmental standards. It should support referral of the bill to a select committee where all these issues can be considered and we can create a more sustainable, ethical and environmentally responsible legal framework for fishing – which, after all, is in the best long-term interests our fishing industry.

You have until Wednesday to give your local MP a call and urge them to support the Bill to select committee.

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.

There are still no declarations from National or the other parties, including United Future, although perhaps we can expect to see them in the next couple of days.

This is appallingly murky and suggests that Labour was treating voters with disdain. Many voters punished Labour for, among other things, its negative campaign. So as it turns out its attempt to circumvent the donation rules didn’t affect the outcome of the election significantly, but it was still undemocratic and disrespectful.

Hopefully with the election now behind us and the large donations from the gambling and unsustainable fishing industries already in the pocket other parties can now turn their bipartisan attention to developing a cleaner and more open set of rules for fund-raising and donations.

For more than a decade, marine scientists and communicators have been trying to convey just how profoundly the biological bounty of the seas has been stripped away in the last half century. Some have done so through field research showing extraordinary declines in fish populations and the way boats have had to venture ever farther from port to fill holds. Some, like Carl Safina and Richard Ellis, have written compelling books on the vanished and vanishing.

(The links are all worth following.)

Our oceans carry less than a tenth the number of fish they once held, yet few of us have any sense that something is wrong.

Good examines the massive collapse of fish stocks and the fishing industry in New England and Cape Cod, noting that industrial fishing has plundered 9 tenths of large predatory fish (like tuna, swordfish, cod, halibut) in the last fifty years. And worse, we may have only 40 years left before our worldwide supplies completely collapse.

The demise of commercial fishing is beyond the limits of even our darkest environmental imaginations. And yet the evidence of the ocean’s diminishment is everywhere. Leaving aside the legitimate concerns of conservationists, the possibility of a broad fish collapse is harrowing for other reasons. At a time when we are mired in a global food crisis, nearly 1.5 billion people depend upon the sea as a source of food or income. The destabilizing effect of such a collapse would be tremendous, bringing communities and countries into conflict over a resource we once considered boundless. It is fair to say that the endgame has begun.

And:

We have imperiled what is perhaps the last wilderness on earth, for the simplest reason: We believed it was so vast it couldn’t be harmed. The signs of our folly are now too numerous to ignore. Massive, swirling gyres of plastic have formed in the North Pacific, as have toxic dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, and dozens more places. Coastal pollution and construction is destroying critical wetland habitats worldwide. And the ocean itself is warming, a development that will have consequences we can hardly imagine. Amid these challenges, overfishing represents the most immediate threat and possibly the easiest problem to remedy.

That’s a gloomy scenario. Yet, the solution is a relatively simple, quick and effective one: we need to safeguard large segments of our oceans to allow them to recover:  Good suggests up to 20% of all the world’s oceans.

In places where fishing has been halted, recovery can be measured over a relatively short period of time. The ocean’s floor begins to return to a natural state, fish populations start to rebound, and fishermen experience a surge in catch as fish migrate beyond protected waters.

* Good’s article cites New Zealand as a sustainable fishing success story.  Sadly Greenpeace’s Red Fish guide suggests this is not the case.

The revised [Emissions Trading Scheme] contains an enormous new subsidy for the fishing industry. This was, surprise, surprise negotiated by NZ First… Fish subsidies are the direct cause of over fishing. We are opposed to any subsidisation of this industry. The original ETS has no subsidy going to the Fishing Industry. Now they get 50% free allocation. This is an outrage. The Greens should be opposing this policy strenuously.

I agree with the Hive that this is not an ideal outcome. I wanted to find out more so checked with Jeanette before I wrote anything about what had changed in negotiations, and she said:

The Greens certainly aren’t keen to subsidise the fishing industry. However, it is the only trade-exposed sector that wasn’t to get any free units. That means, there is a process in the Bill whereby business that mainly competes with overseas firms who pay no carbon price get some of their emissions covered by free units. The idea is that if they don’t, they have a strong motivation to move overseas where there is no carbon charge, with no benefit to the climate but loss of jobs in NZ. The reason the fishing industry didn’t initially get any is that their energy source is diesel which as transport fuel, doesn’t generally qualify for free units because for every other industry it is used within NZ and not in competition with overseas firms. However for the fishing industry it is their main source of energy and they are directly exposed to competition from foreign fishers.

Every other trade-exposed industry is eligible for 90% of their 2005 emissions for free with the phase out starting only in 2019. Fishing will get up to 50%, and only for the first three years. Also, Peters didn’t oppose the 10 or so significant improvements we got to the scheme and he asked for very little – this was the main thing. One can speculate as to why, but it isn’t unreasonable in the context of the ETS as a whole. It is much less than the farming sector is getting, and they will still face the carbon price for half of their emissions so have an incentive to reduce carbon wherever they can.

So, while it sticks in our throats somewhat, it is short term and less than other industries are getting.

As it turns out peak oil could well curtail fishing companies sooner than a carbon charge would anyway.  All in all, while we’re not happy with this, it doesn’t seem worth dying in a ditch over either.

“Still in the Manukau, amateur fishers are reporting catches of good sized snapper in the very shallow water, and plenty of stingrays and killer whales as well.”

I’m not sure if that’s what it meant to say…either that or something much worse.

Sharks are slow growing, and produce few young. They are under huge pressure from over fishing, and have virtually no protection. Only 11 shark species are managed under the Quota Management System…

The Minister of Fisheries is currently considering a recommendation to allow finning to continue, even though the vast majority of people submitting on a draft shark management plan earlier in the year called for an end to this inhumane and wasteful practice.

The Island Bay Marine Education Centre says that more than 50,000 sharks are killed in New Zealand each year for their fins, and notes:

• Sharks that are caught and their fins cut off are not always dead when their bodies are thrown back into the sea. Without its fins the shark simply sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it drowns.
• Shark fins, once they are harvested, are then dried to be sold in global markets to individuals and restaurants to be made into shark fin soup!
• Shark fins add little nutritional value or taste to “Shark fin soup�?, with chicken, mushrooms and pork added for flavour!
• High levels of toxic mercury have been found in shark fins. At the top of the food chain, sharks consume many smaller mercury carrying species, having the effect of accumulating mercury every time they eat. Source: USA’s Food and Drug Administration

Fishing council spokesman Keith Ingram was commenting on the WWF Colmar Brunton survey which showed overwhelming public support for a set net and trawl net ban in order to save the few remaining Hectors and Maui dolphins. He went on to say that if the ban was extended, fishers who used methods other than set nets, would be a greater risk of drowning and referred to a very tragic case.

Is the Recreational Fishing Council suggesting that fishing methods other than set-netting are lethal? People fish in a multitude of ways, off rocks, in boats, from the shore, some with their credit cards at the local supermarket. Are they all reckless fools?

It’s time for the fishing council to get real.

Fishing is always a balance between effective preservation and exploitation of the resource. For as long as people go near the sea, there will always be tragedies. It is gross to use these tragedies for any campaign to justify the continued slaughter of critically endangered dolphins.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318241/1728748

Note: According to Water Safety NZ drowning is the third highest cause of unintentional death in New Zealand, surpassed only by road vehicle crashes and accidental falls. And New Zealand has one of the highest rates of drowning in the developed world.

This afternoon 111 school children representing the estimated 111 remaining Maui’s dolphins (which are a subspecies of Hector’s dolphins) presented a 25,000 strong e-petition and 7,000 person paper petition to Local Government and Environment Select Committee Chair Moana Mackey on behalf of the Prime Minister.  

The petition calls for all set net fishing and trawling to be banned in the dolphins’ habitat. Maui are on the verge of extinction and we need to remove all threats to give them a change of survival. But, as Russel noted last week:

The statistics on Hector’s Dolphin mortality clearly shows that nearly two-thirds of deaths, where cause of death is able to be established, are caused by set nets.