This rebuttal of the draft proposal for a West Coast sanctuary has been compiled in response to blatant inaccuracies found with this document. The text in blue is provided by us whereas the black text is that of the original document, unabridged. One unimportant map was left out because it did not copy and one photo and one map have been added.

Draft Proposal for Public Discussion
Prepared by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, in consultation with the West Coast Working Group, March 2003
The funding for this project has been kindly provided by the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board

Introduction
The West Coast Working Group, in conjunction with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, is proposing an integrated marine management plan for Auckland’s West Coast. The plan will cover the area from South Kaipara Head to Port Waikato, and will extend into the Manukau Harbour as far as Big Muddy Creek (a line from Laingholm to Mako Point is the proposed cut off).

Before preparing formal proposals we would like to ensure that the views of the community and interested parties are canvassed. This special overview and questionnaire is a chance for you to have your say.

Please complete and post the attached questionnaire (back page) by
Wednesday 30th April 2003 to:  The closing date is now 30 June 2003
Auckland’s West Coast Project
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society
PO Box 8138
Symonds Street
AUCKLAND
OR Fax (09) 303 3514

This special overview and questionnaire is also available online at www.forestandbird.org.nz. www.forest-bird.org.nz/Marine/aucklandwestcoast.asp.

The Vision
The outcomes of greater marine protection
The vision for the west coast is a healthy coastal environment. The environment should support all plants, animals, their associated habitats and sustainable recreation activities. The integrated management approach will break down the discontinuity between the land and the sea and will instead view these ecosystems as one, interconnected. By protecting and enhancing the natural values of this coast, human related values will also benefit, creating a ‘win-win’ situation.

Truly a noble vision but vague and flawed. This statement envisions recreational fishing, which is sustainable, but it excludes sustainable commercial fishing because this is not a recreational activity. To claim that land and sea ecosystems are interconnected requires justification. Very few creatures live in both domains. How human related values benefit, and what a win-win situation means, must be qualified too. We are interested to know.
The most notable discontinuity between land and sea is in the knowledge that landlubbers have (of the land), compared with that of seamen and fishermen (of the sea).
The largest problem with the integrated approach is that it is designed to give control over large productive areas in the sea to landlubbers and bureaucrats with  little or no knowledge of it. This proposal for instance, uses reasons for having terrestrial parks for closing off large areas in the sea from fishing. It is a Trojan Horse method with misleading arguments.

Protection above and below the Mean High Water Springs
The need for a “land to sea” approach
The land bordering the Auckland west coast is under a variety of different ownerships. Pockets of this land are protected as Regional Parks, Scientific Reserve and QEII National Trust reserve land. Some of the land is under private ownership such as the forestry lands leased by Carter Holt Harvey. It is important that in any plan for marine management that we also include the surrounding lands, as land management has a significant effect on our marine environment. However, protection to date has in most places ended above the Mean High Water Springs (MHWS).

A noble statement and a fresh approach. However, most of the unwanted influence of this marine environment comes from the large Waikato River catchment with its heavy load of sediment, very rich in nutrients from human sewage, overfertilised dairy farms and erosion. The other damaging influence comes from the city of Auckland with its one million inhabitants. Most of their sewage ends up in this part of the sea, after 'treatment', wiping out hardy species such as cockles in the Manukau Harbour and toheroa outside. Sea currents in this area move mainly northward, transporting the overnourished waters along the entire coast. Waves and winds 'mop' these nutrients (now inside organisms) back onto the coast. Thus the bad waters travel along the entire proposed park.

Scientists are unlikely to find their missing 80% in these waters, since they are degrading while already representing a poor diversity. Our new marine finds come from the (clean) deep sea.

Auckland’s Wild West Coast
A unique marine environment that deserves greater protection
Auckland’s west coast marine environment is a very special part of New Zealand. The great diversity in habitats found on this coast are a result of its long geological history. Habitats such as the high coastal cliffs, rocky coastline, iron sand beaches, dunes, and harbours are the product of these past and continual processes. This variance in habitat is the foundation for the area’s equally diverse intertidal and subtidal plants and animals.

Completely wrong. This coast is characterised by a vast monotony of sandy flats bordered by sandy beaches (85%) and a small shallow rocky shore (10%) with only little biodiversity. In these waters, already unsuitable for cockles and toheroa, coastal life is eking out a poor sustenance. The coast is dominated by species-poor beaches (85%) of mostly heavy black iron sand. The mudflats and mangroves occupy less than 5% of the coastline. Very few mangrove trees are found here. The picture on right shows a typical concentrated plankton bloom near Muriwai, which feels and looks like an oil slick and causes similar harm to burrowed clams and other life.

The Process For Protection
Non – statutory stage
The proposed Integrated Marine Management Plan for Auckland’s west coast is currently at this stage. This is when we ask stakeholders and the community what they think of each element of the proposal. The formal application for each of the elements has not been made yet so the feedback we receive will help us move to the next stages. The questionnaire at the end of this document is your chance to have a say on the ideas presented in this overview. Once the non-statutory consultation and public feedback has been completed and considered, a formal application for each element will be made.

Statutory stage
The statutory process may differ slightly for each element of the integrated marine management plan. However, in general the statutory process for all formal applications will involve public notification and an opportunity for public submissions.

Marine reserves: the formal application is notified publicly and made available for the public to read and consider. Public have 2 months from the time of notification to make a submission on the formal application.

Does this mean that marine reserves won't go through a proposal process once the Park has been accepted? No consultation? Why the hurry? This area has not been changing because of fishing. It has been degrading because of poor water quality originating from far away. Throw the Marine Reserves Act out. It is superfluous, clumsy and costly. Do we really want to saddle our children with this burden?

The Marine Mammals Act should be abolished and accommodated in the Fisheries Act. This allows for smoother management of protected areas.

No new legislation is required if the whole park and all its closed areas are administered under the Fisheries Act. This smoothly integrates with taiapure and mataitai reserves, and fisheries regulations for Maui's dolphin, already protected under this legislation.

Process Graph [left out, since it does not provide new or necessary information. See DoC web site for this chart]
 

Why Look West?
Auckland’s West Coast has been chosen for a number of reasons

• The world’s smallest and rarest dolphin is only found off this coast. Maui’s Dolphin has been recognised as a separate subspecies from other Hector’s Dolphin populations in New Zealand. It is believed that this special population off Auckland’s west coast is made up of less than 100 individuals, which means that it is in a critical state. A marine mammal sanctuary would give greater status to Maui’s dolphin and help to further protect it from habitat destruction, pollution and harmful fishing methods. The proposed marine mammal sanctuary may cover an area greater than just the Auckland west coast.

With great difficulty and under political pressure has the northern Hectors dolphin been recognised as a separate subspecies. Many geneticists disagree. A marine mammal sanctuary would do no more for Maui's dolphin than the present fisheries restrictions. Please explain what a greater status means to a dolphin.

Of the rocky shore, a very small part is accessible for harvesting. Most remains de-facto protected. Why shy away from education? There are other ways to protect a spot.

Bring in the clear water for education and research. This coast is remote and accessible at only a few spots. If reserves are needed here for education or research, be more specific and be prepared to defend the proposals on their merits, and provide proof of claims made. Why would you expect others to give their birth rights away for something that will not work or for something that is not used?

Please be specific about how a Marine Park up to MHWS will help the endangered birds?  How are these threatened by fishing? This amounts to misleading information.

Please explain how tourism to this area is negatively affected by fishing and how greater marine protection will enhance it.

Please explain how this works and how fishing affects a holistic approach. The continuum from land to sea has repeatedly been overestimated. Water with mud flows to the sea. Fish fly to the land in birds' stomachs. How does fishing affect this?

• Geologically the west coat is unique. Maori Bay has well preserved pillow lava formations millions of years old and regionally significant. As a result of past geological processes, the West Coast coastline and foreshore includes a variety of habitats, Such as exposed rocky platforms, high sea cliffs, offshore reefs, boulder beaches, mangrove areas, dune fields, dune lakes and straight iron-sand beaches. Many of these areas are regionally, nationally and internationally significant.

Explain how these are threatened and how fishing affects these. The reality is that the coast here consists of a monotounous muddy sand flat bordered by a shallow marine rocky shore, poor in diversity. It is pounded by waves, while the sandy bottom is in continuous upheaval.

It is quite annoying that so many arguments above have nothing to do with the marine environment. All the above reasons can be satisfied simply by . . . doing nothing.

Discover the Values of Auckland’s West Coast

Recreation: Surf lifesaving, surfing, fishing, swimming, beach walking, picnicking are just some of the popular recreation activities on the Auckland’s West coast. There are a number of Surf Life Saving Clubs along the beaches from Muriwai Beach in the north to Karioitahi Beach in the South.

Intertidal and subtidal marine life: The biota of the west coast is rich and diverse. Intertidal organisms such as green-lipped mussels, paua, anemones and whelks can be found. Crayfish, gurnard, trevally, snapper, whales and dolphins are all present offshore.

Fishing: Commercial and recreational fishing are popular on the West coast. Rough seas often make this dangerous and many places inaccessible. Species such as snapper, trevally and gurnard are caught regularly.

Right. The inaccessibility of this coast gives it de-facto protection. Snapper, trevally and gurnard are migratory species, not particularly bound to a particular place. They venture in and out of the degraded coastal zone where they are occasionally caught. The recorded recreational catches are but a very small part of the fish stocks over the continental shelf. It can be said that recreational fishing on the west coast does not materially affect the fish stocks there. The fin fish taken for food by the public are all managed under the QMS, which will continue with or without a marine park or marine reserve network. These “protection” measures will not affect the state of those fin fish stocks.

Great habitat diversity: The Waitakere Ranges has a rocky coastline, exposed on its west to the Tasman Sea. The coastline consists of a variety of exposed offshore reefs, rock platforms and sheltered crevices. This great diversity in habitat within such a small area has resulted in an equally diverse biota. Habitat on this coast also includes two sandy beach intertidal areas on either side of the Waitakere Ranges (South Kaipara Peninsula and the Awhitu Peninsula.

Wrong, see above.

Historic shipwrecks: The Auckland west coast has a long history of shipwrecks due to its often heavy seas. In particular the heads of the Manukau and Kaipara Harbours are notorious for such disasters. In 1863 the Orpheus was wrecked on its way in to the Manukau Harbour. 189 lives were lost making it New Zealand’s worst maritime disaster.

Maui’s dolphin: Maui’s dolphin (formerly known as the North Island Hector’s dolphin) is critically endangered with less than 100 individuals remaining. The greatest number of sightings for the dolphin is along the Awhitu Peninsula and at the Manukau Harbour Heads.

Birdlife: The South Kaipara Head is an extremely important breeding, roosting and feeding ground for a variety of birds. Threatened species endemic to New Zealand, such as the NZ dotterel and the NZ fairy tern use the dune area to nest and the foreshore to feed. This area is also important internationally as a ‘stopover’ for migratory birds coming from as a far afield as Alaska and Siberia. Birdlife is also significant on the sandspit at the mouth of the Waikato River where NZ dotterels are also reportedly breeding.

Outstanding productive habitat: Big Muddy Creek inside the Manukau Harbour has an outstanding representative growth of mangrove forest. The intertidal mudflats associated with the mangroves are rich in intertidal organisms.

Mangroves are indeed doing well in all the mud from soil degradation.

Native pingao is not rare but it is threatened by harmful dune plantings by dune huggers. It needs open rolling dunes to thrive. The attentive reader will by now have noticed that an organisation like Forest and Bird can find no valid arguments for their proposal. They are not aware of the very poor quality of the coastal water here, or they deliberately wish to keep readers in the dark about this. Like generals without armies, they draw lines on maps and move their pieces. Can we really be serious about their proposal?

Threats to the Natural Values of Auckland’s West Coast
Commercial and recreational fishing methods using set nets and commercial trawling: This is of particular threat to Maui’s dolphin. The dolphin has lungs similar to humans and so when caught in a set net may drown if unable to break free. Given the critical state of this dolphin’s population (less than 100), fishing related threats need to be reduced to zero to ensure its survival. Six dolphins died in 2001-2002 due to set nets.

This threat has been adequately dealt with using fisheries regulation. A marine park won't do better. If set nets are bad, ban them. It is as simple as that. If a population cannot survive a few unnatural deaths, there must be something else wrong - pollution comes to mind.

Marine populations have for thousands of years done well with human exploitation. Furthermore, the West Coast is naturally protected by high waves. It is not readily accessible over large parts of its rocky shore. Its beaches are extensive. Recreational fish catches here are a negligible part of the total. Extinction in the ocean has not been observed for any water-breathing marine species yet, worldwide. In NZ there exists no indication either.

The main threat is pollution arriving from farmland far away in the Waikato and further. Carried by currents, pollution arrives from as far away as New Plymouth. Pollution also arrives in large volumes from Auckland's sewage plants. Very little pollution arrives from the sandy dunes along this stretch of ocean. So what does F&B suggest we do about this, the real problem? What about a truly integrated approach and begin saving the land? Why does F&B believe that this is not the main reason for stress in Maui's dolphin? Compared to the observable stresses from pollution, dioxins are far-fetched and unproven.

Would education not be a better tool? But where is the proof? What specific monitoring and management tools are envisaged?

Yes, this is a real issue. However, we would emphasise that the management to date of the intertidal zone can only be described as pathetic. The regulatory framework and the enforcement of same are simply not working. Something needs to be done and done decisevily. There has to be a better way – marine reserves are certainly not the answer but some simple tools when well publiscised well, can work.

By all means, close off areas of the shoreline to harvesting. Obviously we need to be able to close areas for whatever time is required for the recovery of species. However, it is fair to say that the exploited areas are a small part of the whole, which is protected by poor access. There is no evidence that by stripping the intertidal area, the effect ripples down to the subtidal areas, let alone to the entire food chain. There exists no ecological evidence either.

When are the local territorial authorities going to start enforcing their bylaws? Marine reserves won't help.

We would like to know how a marine park or a marine reserve is going to prevent infestation from marine pests. The main reason is not that fewer ships visit this area but that the 60 pests on the other side choose not to live here due to degraded conditions. What have these 60 pests done to the marine environment? What is their significant threat to native wildlife?

The situation in the sea is entirely different from that on islands where introduced pests are profoundly damaging. How are protected areas going to help? What kind of biosecurity practices will be effective? Have any worked so far?

If there is a problem, put up a sign. Make Papakanui Spit a bird sanctuary. Fishermen will give it their blessing. But first prove the irreversible damage caused by vehicles. A Marine Park to MHWS will have no impact on this area.

1 Waionui Inlet and Papakanui Spit: The Inlet is an important feeding area for a variety of birdlife. It is also important as a breeding area for adult fish and a safe haven for juvenile fish. The inlet is extremely productive and adds to the total productivity of the Kaipara Harbour, which is a popular fishing spot. Papakanui Spit (stewardship area) forms the western boundary of Waionui Inlet and is a vitally important breeding and roosting site.

Make it a bird sanctuary. Why has this not been done already if it is so important? You have fishermen's blessing and support.

The wildlife shows that fishing by them and people can go together, but don't be surprised when a burgeoning seal population depopulates the area. Are they breeding there and if not, why not? Make the Telecom cable area a marine reserve, but don't expect it to work. Show it on the map. You have fishermen's support. Where the sea becomes clearer, outside the management area, there is indeed an abundance of fish. Unfortunately, the recreational fisher cannot get there. The bivalves are a more sorry story, since toheroa, once abundant here, went in decline and had to be protected from harvesting, using fisheries regulation in the late 1970s. It is not expected to be available for widespread harvesting in the foreseeable future with stocks teetering at 2% of what once was. Polluted water is their enemy. What difference would a marine reserve make?

4 Te Waharoa Coast: This area is characterised by habitats, including rocky shores, offshore reefs and gravel and sand beaches. The great variety in habitats has created an equally diverse intertidal life - the most diverse along the entire Waitakere coastline.

5 Anawhata Coast: Habitats within this area include sandy beach, rocky shores and boulder beaches. Seaweed and sponges are particularly diverse, along with a variety of other intertidal life. The area has not yet been spoilt by subdivision and hence has an aesthetically pleasing landscape.

6 Piha Coast: This is the most popular beach on the Auckland west coast and is very accessible. Consequently, much of the intertidal life has been stripped. Locals have a voluntary ban in place on the taking of shellfish. This would be given legal strength if it were to be made into a marine reserve. There are also a number of camps and surf clubs within this area, making it an excellent base for educational groups.

If legal strength is needed, the Fisheries Act would be the better agent. Let locals get their act together and manage the stocks. If a voluntary ban works, why make it more complicated? If it doesn't work, why would regulation help?

Are these species in any way affected by fishing? The fact that such species are found only here is because hard rock is rare along the West Coast. Most rock is too soft to secure sessile organisms long enough to grow old. Where hard rock is found, long-lived species can be expected, complete with the life depending on it like colourful seaslugs. This area is just too smal to be of any ecological importance. It shows how species-poor the rest of the area is.

This area is favourably affected by rapid tidal currents which cleanse the substrate and organisms infested with mud. Its only threat is from the rich sewage effluent and dense plankton blooms. This in turn is beneficial for a variety of opportunistic organisms like seasquirts, often indicators of degradation. The area is not under any form of threat, and if it were needed for education, this would have been done a long time ago. The fact that it is not being used as such, probably means that it is not an excellent base for studies.

Man and Beast have been doing well together in this area. Leave it alone. What benefit could a reserve possibly have for migrating species such as mentioned above. For fish the Waikato River is only as long as it takes to reach the first dam. If the birds need protecting, then create bird sanctuaries, but provide proof first. New Zealanders have the right to see such proof before surrendering their birth rights.

The Integrated Management Plan
The integrated marine management plan for Auckland’s West coast is made up of 5 main elements (A - E on following pages), including a marine park, marine mammal sanctuary, marine reserve network, Maori fishery management tools and shoreline and hinterland conservation areas.

A. Marine Park: The integrated concept for the west coast is to establish a marine park with a number of different zones within it. The establishment of a marine park will require special legislation. This may be a timely process and hence other elements making up the park such as a marine reserve network and a marine mammal sanctuary may be progressed separately. Legislation already exists to develop these latter elements. Examples of Marine Parks in New Zealand include the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Park. International examples include the Greater Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia and Solitary Islands Marine Park, Australia.

All this can be done under the Fisheries Act. No extra legislation is needed. Every option a marine park wishes to have is already provided for within the Fisheries Act. The accompanying Discussion Document reveals the plan to have all commercial fishing banned from Marine Parks by a change to the Fishing Act. This change will at the same time ban all commercial fishing in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. Beware of the Trojan Horse!

The word believe is indeed well chosen, since nothing in this proposal is based on good knowledge. The marine park would do absolutely nothing to marine biodiversity, which is about sustainable populations of all species, and these are not threatened by current fishing practices. Local management is indeed needed where areas become protected, but with the maintenance budget that goes with it. This is not possible under the MRA. The proposed management board consists of bureacrats rather than the locals.

• Coastal walks
• Picnics
• Recreational line fishing and drag netting (primarily for mullet and flounder at Muriwai and Karioitahi beaches) within the general amateur fishing regulations or specific, local restrictions as may apply
• Surfing
• Swimming
• Rock pool observation and nature study activities
• Bird watching
• Boating and sailing
• Underwater diving (with local restrictions)

A marine park is not needed for all this.

Fishermen are most interested to know what the final outcome is going to be. Here the word may is used. What does that mean in practice? Not mentioned here, the accompanying Discussion Document wants to modify the Fisheries Act to ban all commercial fishing inside a Marine Park. Since the Continental Shelf boundary runs from 8nm out in the north to 14nm in the south, the proposal implies a total commercial fishery exclusion over the width of the continental shelf. Option 2b takes 400x22= 8800km2 or 880,000ha out of  fishing, without any suggestion of compensation or how much this will cost New Zealanders. This is 5% of NZ's territorial sea! Compare this with 5km2 for Goat Island and 7480km2 for the Kermadec Islands. How can the people who work with the sea on a day to day basis have any confidence in rules made by people who do not? Think about it. Think about its social effects. All sacrifice for no benefits in return.

The Marine Mammals Protection Act is one of this country's big mistakes, since all it does is already provided for in the Fiseries Act. It is an unnecessary and costly duplication that should be done away with. Maui's dolphin is now protected under the Fisheries Act, not under the MMPA.

Under political and ideological pressure to give it higher conservation status, the Maui's dolphin has been recognised as a separate subspecies. The scientific argument is based on only very few Maui's dolphins in the samples used. The same data suggests that the East and West Coasts of the South Island also consist of two different subspecies. A population of 100 is indeed in a critical state, but the reasons for this have never been adequately presented. In the end, we must accept that extinction is a natural selection process, however sad. But the point is that all the protection it can be given, has already been provided for. A sanctuary is not needed and would not achieve more. What would greater status mean to a dolphin? As far as the fur seals go, we must expect them to multiply in time, also threatening Maui's dolphin by competing for their food. Who would like to protect that?
 

Marine mammal scientist Steve Dawson retorts (19 Nov 2004) for the complete letter see say/opinion.htm You need to read and understand the genetic work. In its mt-DNA, the NI population is more different to either of the South Island east and west coast populations than the latter two are from each other. Further, the NI ones are noticeably bigger (about 10% in adults). These changes are not trivial. You say that the analysis is based on just a few samples. Well, that's not surprising, there are just a few of these dolphins left. To my knowledge there was no political drive behind the analysis. To say that there was is an unfair slur on the folks doing the work.

Floor Anthoni replies (19 Nov 2004) You try to be pedantic about knowing when a subspecies is a subspecies and when it is not. In biology, this is still a contentious area, but I have explained your point in the Hector's Dolphin article, and warned readers here of the amount of contention and arbitrariness and the small sample size, which you agree with. You say that the differences are not trivial - a matter of opininon. In any case they are irrelevant to the survival of the species.

• Coastal walks
• Picnics
• Recreational line fishing and drag netting (primarily for mullet and flounder at Muriwai and Karioitahi beaches) within the general amateur fishing regulations or specific local restrictions as may apply.
• Surfing
• Swimming
• Rock pool observation and nature study activities
• Bird watching
• Boating and sailing
• Underwater diving (with restrictions)

Big Deal!

• Commercial fishing
• The discharge of wastes
• Inappropriate use of vessels

C. Marine Reserve Network
Marine reserves may be set up under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 and are administered by the Department of Conservation. Marine reserves protect areas of the sea, seabed and foreshore in a natural state for the purpose of scientific study. Marine habitats, plants and animals are all protected within marine reserves. These areas are usually completely ‘no-take’. Examples of marine reserves in New Zealand include Cape Rodney–Okakari Point Marine Reserve (also known as Goat Island), Long Bay–Okura Marine Reserve and Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve.

Why a Marine Reserve Network? The intertidal organisms of many of the more accessible places on the Auckland west coast have been, and continue to be over-harvested. Subtidally, fish are taken by recreational and commercial fishing. Scientists believe that 80% of New Zealand’s bio-diversity remains undiscovered in our oceans. For these reasons it is important that we create ‘safe havens’ or ‘refuges’ for our marine life. Studies from around the world of 100 no-take marine reserves have shown an average increase of 91% in the number of fish, 31% increase in the size of fish and 23% increase in the number of species within reserves. Spillover of fish may occur into the surrounding waters of marine reserves. Having a network of ‘no-take areas on the Auckland west coast will ensure that a representative collection of marine bio-diversity is protected on this coast and will add to the protection of New Zealand’s bio-diversity as a whole. They also allow for scientific research to be undertaken in the marine environment. Currently there are no marine reserves on the Auckland west coast.

This paragraph gives a large amount of misleading information. It is unbelievable how gullible the marine reserves lobby is. Let's count them for fun: 1) Whereas the more accessible places are overharvested, the much larger parts of the intertidal rocky shore remain de-facto protected. 2) You cannot take fish above the high tide. 3) Scientists will NOT find new species in this degraded area. Almost all new discoveries come from the clean deep sea. 4) These studies have mostly been done on heavily overharvested tropical coral reefs, which bear little or no relevance to the NZ situation. The benefits claimed are not impressive, and not worth sacrificing so much for. 5) The best spillover that can be expected is no more than 10% of the lost fishery. It can be expected only for resident fish, which are rare on this coast, and are not typically fished. 6) The network idea lives only in people's minds. It has never been substantiated. 7) Networks of marine reserves bring large areas under control of people who have no knowledge or experience of the sea. It is an undesirable situation. 8) Scientific research can and should be done anywhere, and should not depend on or wait for the presence of a marine reserve. 9) The Telecom cable area is a de-facto marine reserve, but scientists have never looked there.

• Boating
• Anchoring There is a fine of $5000 for uprooting a marine plant in the proposed Bill.
• Picnicking
• Swimming
• Snorkelling
• Diving
• Nature studies
• Surfing

What you cannot do in a Marine Reserve: Generally, activities that damage or disturb the habitat and marine species are not allowed within Marine reserves. Commercial fishing is not allowed and usually recreational fishing and seafood gathering is not allowed either.

NB: The Marine Reserves Act is currently being revised by Parliament. What a waste of time - it should be abolished.
 

D. Maori Fishery Management Tools

Taiapure: A taiapure is an estuarine or littoral coastal area, which is traditionally important to iwi or hapu. A taiapure protects these local areas and recognises that local communities have special needs relating to them.

Anyone may apply for a taiapure. The proposal must show that the area is important to the local iwi or hapu for kaimoana (seafood), or spiritual or cultural reasons. The Minister of Fisheries receives taiapure applications and makes his/her decision in consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs. A special tribunal of the Maori land court hears any submissions or objections. If the Ministers declare that the area should become a taiapure, the Minister of Fisheries forms a management committee of people nominated by and representative of the local Maori community. The committee recommends regulations to the Minister of Fisheries to manage the area. The Ministry works with the committee to administer these regulations. Commercial and/or recreational fishing may be allowed in a taiapure however, rahui may be applied to stop all or some fishing to allow restoration of these coastal fisheries or because the area is sacred to iwi or hapu.

Maitaitai: A maitaitai reserve is an area of traditional importance to Maori where the tangata whenua are authorised by the Ministry of Fisheries to manage and control the harvest of seafood for non-commercial purposes. Kaitiaki appointed by the local Maori community can manage this area by passing bylaws.
Bylaws may include species that can be taken, quantity of each species, size limits, methods of catch, area where taken and any other specifications made by the kaitiaki necessary for the sustainable management of fisheries resources.
Controls on non-commercial fishing must apply equally to all people with only one exception. If a reserve is closed for general harvesting, the kaitiaki may approve the taking of seafood to meet the needs of the marae belonging to tangata whenua of the reserve only.

Rahui: Rahui is a ban on all or some fishing to allow restoration of coastal fisheries or because the area is sacred to iwi or hapu. Rahui may be applied to selected species and may only be initiated by tangata whenua. Rahui may be applied within a taiapure or maitaitai reserve.

The statutory support for a rahui comes from the Fisheries Amendment Act 1998, and is part of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the principal Act), section 186a. This amended section allows for temporary closures of fishing areas or restrictions on fishing methods (maximum of two years after notification in the Gazette). Section 297 and 298 under Part 16 of the Fisheries Act 1996 allows for regulatory closures, which are open ended. Currently the longterm rahui at Karekare beach on Auckland’s west coast is supported by a regulatory closure.

Every local community should have the right to call for and manage a local area. The racial clauses in all acts should be abolished. We are one people, in one country, having but one future. More importantly, the above arguments once again demonstrate that the Fisheries Act is the more flexible agent for creating, managing and policing protected areas, both in the territorial seas and the Exlusive Economic Zone.

E. Shoreline and Hinterland Conservation Areas

The surrounding shoreline and hinterland areas of the West coast require protection as well as the marine area below MHWS if we are to achieve a holistic ‘land to sea’ approach to environmental management.

Through the integrated management plan for the Auckland west coast private landowners will be invited to consider including part of their land as private conservation areas. Liaison with local and regional authorities to further protect public land will also be undertaken. Conservation areas may be established under the QEII National Trust or other covenant. Local and regional authorities may apply for reserve status for lands also under the Reserves Act 1977. For example the Whatipu sands area has recently been made into a scientific reserve by the Department of Conservation and will be administered by the Auckland Regional Council.
 
 

Boundary Options (1 & 2)
Each boundary option is made up of exactly the same elements as outlined in points A - E of the Integrated Management Plan. The only difference between the two models is the size of the marine park and the size of the marine mammal sanctuary. The West Coast Working Group and Forest and Bird are seeking your comments on the entire concept of the integrated plan with each of the elements and also your preference for the different boundaries of the marine park and marine mammal sanctuary. See maps above.

Option 1
• Marine Park from Papakanui Spit in the North to Port Waikato in the South. Extends into the Manukau Harbour to a line drawn from Laingholm to Mako Point. Extends from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) to 4nm seaward.
• Marine Mammal Sanctuary from Papakanui Spit in the North to Port Waikato in the South. Extends from MHWS to 4nm seaward. Extension into Manukau Harbour the same as the Marine Park boundary.

Option 2a (with 4nm marine mammal sanctuary)
• Marine Park from Papakanui Spit in the North to Port Waikato in the South. Extends into the Manukau Harbour to a line drawn from Laingholm to Mako Point. Extends from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) to 12nm seaward.
• Marine Mammal Sanctuary from Maunganui Bluff in the North to Pariokariwa Point. Extends from MHWS to 4nm seaward. Extension into Manukau Harbour the same as the Marine Park boundary. This entire area covers the current Ministry of Fisheries commercial set net ban area).

Option 2b (with 12nm marine mammal sanctuary)
• Marine Park from Papakanui Spit in the North to Port Waikato in the South. Extends into the Manukau Harbour to a line drawn from Laingholm to Mako Point. Extends from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) to 4nm seaward.
• Marine Mammal Sanctuary from Maunganui Bluff in the North to Pariokariwa Point. Extends from MHWS to 12nm seaward. Extension into Manukau Harbour the same as the Marine Park boundary.

This is one of the most misleading parts of this proposal. Can you read the 'NB maps not to scale' remark in the graph legends above? Well, these maps do indeed not truly represent the plan. Deliberate deception comes to mind. For instance, Maunganui Bluff lies 40 nautical miles off the map to the north while Pariokariwa Point lies 80 nm off the map going south. We have provided a map in the righthand margin which more truly reflects the situation. For comparison, the Goat Island marine reserve (5.2km2) has been shown to scale in brown. Also left out was the large de-facto marine reserve, the no-anchoring, no-fishing cable zone, shown on our map in orange. It extends from the shore to the territorial limit, 12nm out in sea, covering an area of nearly 100 square nautical miles (over 320km2) or twice the total area already in coastal marine reserves.

After having read this rebuttal, would you have any confidence left in what Forest and Bird say, or the Department of Conservation for that matter? Would you have any confidence in them managing these areas?