Protection of sea good for everyone - NZ Herald 15 Apr 2003. (Min of Conservation)
Hobby fishers will be better off - minister- Rodney Times, 12 December 2002. (Min of Conservation)
Marine reserve will be a valuable asset - Rodney Times 10 Jan 2003. (Forest & Bird)
Marine reserve options out for public comment - Rodney Times 3 January 2003. (NZ Underwater Assoc)
Reserve will boost business and fishing, Rodney Times, 3 December 2002 (NZUA)
The Tutukaka experience - Rodney Times, Tuesday 3 December 2002 (Dive Tutukaka)

Indeed, some stunning places exist in the sea. What people don't realise, that right under the smoke of big cities, such communities once flourished, where only mud is found today. Nearly one new fish species is discovered each fortnight as NZ scientists are exploring the deep oceans around NZ. Our coastal species, however, are much better known, and only few new discoveries are made of these.

The Minister is mischievous here. Very few marine species are in danger of extinction, because the sea is so large and interconnected. The 300 species he mentions, is the figure toted for the total worldwide, and this includes such species as whales, turtles, manatee and so on. Our Red Data Book does not mention any endangered marine species, except for Hectors Dolphin. However, no marine reserve can contain this species sufficiently to rebuild their numbers. Let the Minister identify which other marine species are endangered in New Zealand, species that belong only here, and that can be saved by marine reserves. There are none. There is no problem.

The Minister has missed the point. Joe Public wants reserves that WORK. Twelve of the sixteen marine reserves created so far, DO NOT WORK because they are getting worse from year to year. They are UNSUSTAINABLE. What's worse, we have not even begun to evaluate them, something which is an essential part of management, like taking stock is for business. What the Minister does not realise either, is that the main threat to our coastal waters now comes from the land in the form of sewage, farm runoff, mud from erosion, farm chemicals, fertilisers and biocides. It threatens ALL species, fished and unfished and it threatens their offspring even more. Our coastal seas are deteriorating so fast that no marine reserve can work here any longer. So why are we so keen to have more failed reserves? Why the haste?

Again the Minister is rather misguided. Reserves take fishing grounds away from fishermen, while returning an incomparably small benefit to them. This has been proved scientifically in many cases worldwide. Here in NZ, no research has provided the data to substantiate the Minister's statement. The benefits for tourism, recreation, science and education are obtained only in places with clear water, of which very few can be found among our existing marine reserves. What kind of economic benefits does he expect from the Matuku reserve at Waiheke Island?

False. Although an increase in migrant species (snapper, blue cod) has been demonstrated, scientists have at the same time failed to notice the wholesale disappearance of others, and dramatic reductions in sessile filterfeeders. Since 1998, nearly all crayfish disappeared due to mud from nearby land and the restructuring of Goat Island Road. Tourists flocked in to feed the fish at Goat Island, but stayed away in droves since this was prohibited.

The 250,000 visitors is a myth and has never been demonstrated. Now that people can no longer feed the fish, visitor numbers have dropped to well below 80,000. No counting has been done to confirm this. Only marine reserves in clear waters with good access, bring economic benefits. More than 12 out of 16 reserves do not achieve this.

False. Fishing near the marine reserve in Leigh, is a waste of time, and is done only by people who do not know that yet. Surely the Minister is not inviting people to draw fish from inside the marine reserve to their bait? The Poor Knights have lost nearly half of their fishing charter boats. Need more proof?

Due to the myths and fallacies spread by travelling protagonists of marine reserves, few of whom do actually dive, the nonsense has spread world-wide. It has made people expect too much from protected areas. Although marine reserves will work in places where fishing is the only threat, they will not work where other threats remain, such as mud from erosion, sewage and so on. But the main point is that everywhere else, the marine environment and the land are different from those in New Zealand. We must not make the mistake by taking their findings and solutions and applying these here. Every new marine reserve must stand or fall by its own merits. Furthermore, countries with large land masses such as America and Australia, have large amounts of mud entering their coastal seas. Many of the protected areas in California are degrading, just as they do here. Even the Great Barrier Reef is under serious stress, with loss of habitats, fouling by mud, disease and ecosystem changes (for worse).

The most suitable marine reserves for research on fished species, are the extensive de-facto marine reserves over cable ways and navigation channels (1500km2, or  ten times the area now in coastal marine reserves). These represent the flat bottoms inhabited by our commercial species, and they have been protected for over fifty years. Yet they have not been studied, let alone been used for fisheries science. Why have they not been studied? Why do we want more? Why now?

The law requires fair process, in which the views of objectors are heard. But the people working with the sea every day, are outraged that their submissions are invalidated as 'self interest', whereas those from little green activists who have not ever sniffed at the sea, are validated. These fishers, by knowing, respecting and loving the sea, are outraged that a politically motivated and ideologically driven authoritarian organisation like DoC manages locked-up parts of our seas, because DoC does not understand the sea and does not have a presence there either. Marine reserves must be managed by the local fishing communities who sacrificed their rights for other people and future generations. They can do so only if they also administer the reserve's maintenance budget. This is not only fair, but also makes best use of existing knowledge and experience.

This is only half true. The Bill seeks to cut out the Minister of Fisheries, while imposing inflexible, draconian rules under which offenders must prove their innocence, thus contravening their human rights. It wants to introduce concessions to restrict freedoms even further. But the Bill's most important failure is its ignorance of the sea, which, like a living organism, must be managed flexibly for resilience and sustainability. Not a word can be found about this in the Bill. The unspoken truth is that the Bill seeks to empower ideologically driven conservationists to take control of fisheries management using unproven networks of marine reserves. Not surprisingly, fishermen are in uproar about this.
If the Minister were truly interested in streamlining procedures and management, while cutting duplications and legal red tape, he would have accommodated marine reserves under the Minister of Fisheries, using the Fisheries Act. This Act has all the provisions required for creating safe no-take marine reserves anywhere in the EEZ. It is a fact that large tracts of ocean have already been preserved under the Fisheries Act, like 19 sea mounts in the Exclusive Economic Zone, and two marine reserves north of Auckland. It also administers mataitai and taiapure reserves (take-some reserves). The Marine Reserves Act must therefore be abolished, and all marine reserves and other protected areas brought under one umbrella, that of Fisheries. There exists no valid reason to do otherwise.

How would this statement defend the new marine reserve off Waiheke Island, fished by many while located over one of the most degraded habitats known? When scientists start to talk about networks of marine reserves, their unwritten agenda is that of fisheries control, because there exists no valid reason for networks, other than providing yet another form of fisheries management. It gives another compelling reason for abolishing the MRA, and accommodating all marine reserves under fisheries management.

The Minister would be advised to re-educate himself about conservation, biodiversity, resource management and marine reserves, by visiting Seafriends' web site www.seafriends.org.nz. Perhaps that would make him less of a laughing stock.  Chris Carter will undoubtedly be remembered for what he said.

Unfortunately, Mr Carter is misguided himself, when speaking about marine reserves. The fishing will not improve, because it has been shown repeatedly by scientific measurement in international publications, that the increased catches outside the marine reserve amount to only 10%, and in an exceptional case 30% of the lost fishery inside the marine reserve. This is also in accordance with ecological principles. So, although fishing on the boundaries is better, it is less than the lost fishery. Fishermen familiar with the Goat Island marine reserve, confirm this. They say that it is a waste of time to fish on its boundaries, unless one aims to draw fish out of the reserve.

Mr Carter refers to the benefits from marine research, education and commerce. However, Tiritiri Matangi is surrounded by a rapidly degrading marine environment, where very little meaningful research can be done. It is not a place where one would take children to for a rocky shore study. Commercial operators like dive schools, dive charters and glass bottom boats, all need clear water, which is rarely found near Tiritiri Matangi.

The point here is indeed that nearly all commercially fished species roam freely. They are not constrained by reserve boundaries, and travel in and out freely. It makes a marine reserve of very limited value to them, offering little or no protection. Mr Carter should try fishing on the reserve's boundaries himself.

Arm-chair protagonists of marine reserves are travelling all over the world, spreading myths that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Backed by politically motivated scientists, who are prepared to trade scientific neutrality for the cause they believe in, they invite speakers wherever propaganda is needed. Mr Carter has been misguided by them.

This is indeed a valid objective of marine reserves. However, scientists have never used the 3000km2 of de-facto marine reserves in cable ways and ammunition dumps, for comparative studies, even though such areas have been protected for over 50 years, and are more representative habitats (flat sea bottoms) for our fished species. They also do not realise that fishing is but one threat to our seas, a threat which does not change the environment much, except in some special places. On the other hand, the new threats from sedimentation, farm runoff, sewage and industrial poisons do change the environment considerably, and these threats remain also inside marine reserves.

Protection or conservation or saving our seas, consists of taking all threats away, not just fishing. The 'protected' land areas in New Zealand do not do this, because invasive species like pig, goat, deer, cat, rat, stoat, possum, wasp, salmon, trout and many others, still remain. They do change the natural environment to the detriment of native species. Only some islands have been made safe. By contrast, the sea does not suffer from the threat of deforestation and introduced species. One cannot compare the two.

On which facts does Mr Carter base these absolute needs? Do marine reserves protect against mud, poisonous plankton blooms, oil spills and industrial poisons? Does he realise that the 10% commitment is total nonsense? Does he realise that there exists absolutely no urgency? The situation is almost static, as far as fishing goes, but is degrading rapidly as far as mud from erosion and nuisance plankton blooms are concerned.

Has nobody told the Minister that sewage outflow contains the nutrients which cause the plankton to bloom violently, and to become poisonous and kill marine species? These nutrients remain, whether the sewage is treated or not. The basins around the Whangaparaoa Peninsula act like traps for these nutrients, posing health risks first to fish, and later to humans living there. In the spring of 2002, a large number of fish was killed here by poisonous plankton blooms. How can he be so confident?

An asset is a useful or valuable quality. The environment around Tiritiri Matangi fails this definition on both counts. Rather than being an asset, it represents a rapidly degrading environment where fish is killed by poisonous plankton blooms, the water is murky and overnourished by sewage outlets nearby.

Who defines a shortage? The fish? Obviously, this shortage lives only in the minds of some people. The area around the proposed reserve has very large de-facto marine reserves (more than 10%) in the form of no-fishing cable ways and navigation channels. Why do these not count?
Marine reserves do not produce fish in greater numbers, although over time, more fish can be found inside them. This increased stock does not produce enough spill-out to compensate for the lost fishery. The reserve will not increase tourism, since nobody in his right mind, will pay to watch a degraded and rapidly degrading environment. Furthermore, the water is not clear enough to enjoy the experience, to run dive courses, dive charters and glassbottom boats. Unfortunately, the Auckland region is surrounded by arcs of islands that trap mud and nutrients, thus forming an ever worsening environment. Having marine reserves there no longer makes sense.

The numbers of tourists visiting Leigh marine reserve has become a myth. In the beginning, DoC counted vehicles passing a traffic counter, but they ceased to continue monitoring this after their political aim was achieved. Since then, the numbers grew from 120,000 to 250,000 simply in the minds of protagonists. Since 1999 visitor numbers have decreased precipitously, as businesses in Leigh can attest. At present probably no more than 80,000 visitors arrive, and this includes buses with school children, and people just coming for a sun tan and beach fun.

She quotes correctly the results from studies in tropical seas. However, such findings cannot be applied to the New Zealand situation, since only very few species are targeted for exploitation. Scientists here claim 2500% and an average of over 1000% for rebounding snapper, which is based on a flawed fish counting technique with baited cameras. In NZ no increase in species can be expected. No data is available.The Goat Island marine reserve has lost both quality and quantity of life.Most coastal fish decreased by 50%. In 1998 over 85% of all crayfish disappeared. In 1993 the whole kelp forest vanished. This speaks for itself. In 2014 the intertidal rocky shore was no longer worthwhile for school education.

Marine reserves usually do not form breeding areas, because the commercial species swim large distances to such places found only in warmer coastal waters. The Leigh marine reserve for example is not a breeding area for snapper. Fish indeed can spill over, and they do more so if marine reserves are poorly designed, with boundaries not recognised by fish as natural boundaries. There has been no scientific research done on networks of marine reserves. The benefits of these live only in the minds of protagonists and in computer models. Central to the idea is the 'thistledown effect', which is scientifically unproven and ecologically unsound.

There exists no sound scientific or ecological reason for setting a certain percentage of our coast aside. It certainly makes no sense to have marine reserves where the environment degrades further from year to year as these are unsustainable. Yet, of the 16 marine reserves we have, 12 do exactly that. Do we really want more of these failed places in the badlands of our seas? Even the goal of having 10% of our coast in marine reserves, leads to over 150 reserves, each twenty times larger than the Leigh marine reserve. If this is sheer madness, what would 20% be?
Although we have a large Exclusive Economic Zone, much of it covers deep water with very low productivity. To have marine reserves over 3000m deep water, makes no sense.

There exists no reason for a deadline, like 2010. The situation with fishing is reasonably well under control, and is not getting worse rapidly. We have a quota management system in place which is supposed to be the best in the world (?). However, because of a sudden and drastic increase in runoff from the land, an equally rapid increase in earth-moving equipment, and an increase in population and welfare, the coastal seas are degrading at an alarming rate. We should not create marine reserves for political reasons, but only for the right reasons in the right places, at the right time. The ball game is to save the sea. Marine reserves are but one of the many tools to do so, and unfortunately unable to mitigate the new threats of mud and poisonous plankton blooms.

Ms Thomas [NZUA spokesperson Karli Thomas] says a marine reserve in this area is a natural extension to the conservation of Tiritiri Matangi Island, and Shakespear Park on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. "A marine reserve in this area would be particularly useful for education and research," she asserts.

Tiritiri Matangi Island is a nature conservation reserve from which all predators have been removed. Its natural forest cover has been burnt and logged for farming, but recently a large number of volunteers have been planting trees and shrubs according to a well thought out plan. Nonetheless, Tiritiri remains a human-made park, far from being natural. Shakespear Park on the Peninsula is just a scenic farm park with a beach. To have a marine reserve here would make sense if the water were clear too, but it is very murky. The intertidal rocky shore could be used for education, since buses can come nearby, but it needs protection. Unfortunately the most instructive part is too far away. Because of their continuing degradation, this area is neither suitable for research, education or glass bottom boats. The only kind of research thinkable would be that related to the effects of marine reserves. For this, the island is too much a special place (due to it being an island and a peninsula, exposure and currents), and results cannot be used to derive conclusions from for other places. Also the Tiritiri Channel is a traffic highway for spawning fish travelling from and towards warmer water.

The habitat types found here are those of a rocky shore with moderate exposure and shelter. Strong tidal currents in the channel and around Tiri, make the place different from any other around. The channel is also a passage for snapper to and from its spawning grounds, hence its suitability for fishing. All habitats, but particularly those in sheltered areas, suffer from severe degradation and loss of biodiversity, due to sewage outflows and mud.

Marine scientists who study land species, are not qualified to study marine species and vice versa. The connection between land and sea here, is tenuous or absent. Tiritiri Island is still covered in a highly modified vegetation, far from being natural. Scientific studies here bear little relevance to the natural situation.

Although some the 10-30% of the land area is protected, this is mountainous and unproductive land, while still bristling with introduced predators, pest plants and invasive species. Our national parks have very little or no conservation value. By contrast, the sea is accessible and productive everywhere, and has not been logged or burnt. There are very few introduced invasive species. The Government's policy of having 10% of NZ's marine area protected by 2010 is seriously flawed, both in concept and timing. There is no justification for haste. It should be revoked. The Auckland Regional Council is just an extension of Government, instructed to implement Government policies. It should revoke its policies too.

The NZUA has never polled its members by secret ballot. It does not have a mandate to propose this marine reserve. By the requirements laid down in the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the NZUA does not qualify as an organisation suitable to propose marine reserves.

The sea around Tiritiri has experienced exploitation by line fishers, cray fishers and kina (sea urchin) fishers. It can be expected that populations of these fished species will rebound somewhat. However, this will not result in better fishing outside, since the spill-over from the marine reserve will be no more than 30% of the lost fishery. Furthermore, because of already existing large de-facto marine reserves in cableways, the fishing pressure on the remaining area will become unbearable.

On a daily basis, fishermen experience large exclusion zones caused by wind and waves. They need to be flexible to go where fishing is possible. Hence, many fishing spots are needed, and places of shelter. A marine reserve, however small, would seriously restrict fishermen in their options, pushing them past the limits of safety.

Would Ms Thomas be so kind to indicate where?

Ms Thomas is apparently not a diver, and has certainly never dived in the proposed area. Visibility here is so low during most of the year that a dive cannot be a pleasant experience. Divers and glassbottom boats need clear water and good access. Why don't we have glassbottom boats at the Poor Knights? Why is nobody seen snorkelling the Long Bay marine reserve, less than 10km away from Tiri? Why are glassbottom boats not operating here either?

Dive Tutukaka runs several dive charter boats from Tutukaka Harbour to the Poor Knights and locally sunken wrecks. The Poor Knights have, almost since diving began, enjoyed voluntary reserve status. In 1981 this was enshrined in law, with fishing restrictions and two small no-take zones. Fishermen targeted snapper and pelagic fish with un-weighted lines. It was hoped that this would spare the reef dwelling fishes. However, international divers were outraged, and the entire area became a no-take reserve in 1999. Immediately the snapper stock began to rebound, which shows that the snapper stock here is migratory. Already since 1980 the environment has been degrading, with visibility gradually reducing, and species disappearing. In 1992-1994, mass mortality of most fish species occurred, and this is happening again 2002-??. Groupers have disappeared.Scientific fish counts document massive loss of coastal species.

Not only is a large number of fish a nice diving experience, but more so when these fish are 'friendly', not fleeing away from divers, but rather continuing with their daily business. For photographers it is important to be able to approach fish, without instilling fear. The most important part of conservation for divers is the banning of spearfishers. A single spearfisher can instil deep and long-lasting fear in many fishes and schools of fishes. On the other hand, the continuous presence of large numbers of 'friendly' divers causes fishes to lose all fear. In this manner marine reserves are attracting more divers too.

It is amazing how much advertising, promotion and marketing helps in attracting the public, even though the experience offered to visiting tourists is disappointing. However, the Poor Knights are the ONLY place in New Zealand with good access to an oasis-type of marine reserve with clear and warm water. Other places in New Zealand are just not so fortunate.

Divers will agree, that apart from seeing more snapper, the marine environment at the Knights has not responded to complete protection since 1999. Therefore targeted fishing on migratory stocks may still be an option for marine reserves. However, once snapper become familiar with divers, becoming 'friendly', numerous and large, a single fisherman can cause irreparable damage in a single day's fishing. What must also be remembered, is that small remote islands do not enjoy the resettlement of their larvae, and are therefore very sensitive to exploitation of their resident species. For instance, the crayfish, once numerous here, have not come back even though the Poor Knights are only 20km away from the main land, and crayfish have effectively been protected there since 1981.

Island reserves (oases) attract fish towards their shallows, resulting in almost nil spillover of fishable individuals. Their boundaries follow along depth contours, along natural habitat boundaries. Fishing outside the marine reserve will therefore be very much poorer and will not improve with time. The eggs from an island marine reserve do travel away, but having to travel a long distance, may not make it to a suitable resettlement place. The longer eggs need to travel, the smaller their chance of recruitment.