It’s been a big year for our fish. Communities around the country have lodged more than 10 applications to close local areas to harvest for some or all species. And there’s been widespread public opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Bill forcing the Minister to put it on hold until after the election. Most recently, we responded to more than 12 proposals from Fisheries NZ that do not prioritise fish abundance.

In June, Fisheries New Zealand proposed commercial catch limit changes for more than 24 fish stocks across the country, including snapper, trevally and elephantfish. With a tight deadline of 21-working days, we had to prioritise the fish stocks that matter most.

First up was tarakihi around the country. The most recent stock assessments for the east and west coast populations show that this iconic species is in serious trouble. Urgent intervention is required.

Fisheries New Zealand proposed significant reductions to both commercial catch limits and our recreational daily bag limit nationwide. Three options proposed included slashing the tarakihi bag limit from 20 down to 10, 5 or even 3. 

That’s a hefty price we are expected to pay considering commercial trawlers have been responsible for the overfishing of tarakihi from our coastal waters. 

In the interests of conservation and a faster rebuild period, LegaSea, the New Zealand Sport Fishing Council, NZ Angling & Casting and NZ Underwater Association submitted a joint statement. We supported a reduced daily bag limit of five per person for tarakihi around the country on the condition that the Minister also reduces commercial catch limits to bycatch-only levels. 

Catch limits for butterfish at the top of the South Island and the west coast were also reviewed. There is no formal stock assessment, but anecdotal evidence suggests butterfish numbers are depleting and need a break. 

To do our part, we supported a species-specific bag limit reduction of seven butterfish per person, alongside a cut to the commercial catch limit.

Whenever we support a reduction to our bag limit, it’s because we are genuinely concerned about the state of the fishery and want to see abundance return. 

A good friend of ours recently asked us why it’s always recreational fishers who take the cuts and never get them back?

It’s a good question, because once our bag limits are reduced, they are never restored to their previous level, even after stocks recover. 

That’s because the decision-making priority is to protect commercial quota from necessary reductions, and as long as the Quota Management System is in place, the protection of private interests will continue.

In some cases, the allowance of fish taken from recreational fishers has instead been added to commercial catch limits, while we get nothing back. 

Time and time again, the public has shown that when required we’re willing to contribute to healthier fisheries. But recreational fishers can’t compete with the fishing power of industrial trawlers scooping up and exporting the fish we are trying to conserve. 

We’re not asking for higher bag limits. We’re asking that restoring and maintaining abundance means fish need to be left in the water to grow and breed, improving the size and availability of fish for everyone to enjoy.