Page 1

Re-opening the Kaikōura and seaweed

Te Korowai is engaging with the community on the re-opening of the Kaikōura recreational and commercial shellfish and seaweed fisheries. This document sets out some issues and options to help gather community views on when and how the shellfish and seaweed fisheries should be re-opened. Te Korowai will pass the community’s views on to Fisheries , who will then develop and consult on new management measures for the fisheries. We welcome your feedback by 30 September 2020

Comments can be provided by:

Email: [email protected] On our website: [email protected] Via post: Fisheries Reopening, PO Box 121, Kaikoura If you need assistance preparing your submission, please contact Gina Solomon on 0275161715 Page 2

Our Vision In considering this document, we need to Mä te whakapümau i te mauri me think of your grandchildren, their future te wairua o “Te Tai o Marokura”, ko kids enjoying what we have enjoyed, this mätou ngä kaitiaki o ngä taonga a is what kaitiakitanga guardianship is all Tangaroa kei te arataki i te iwi hapori, about, being good at kaitiaki guardians. ki te whakangaruru i te momona me te waiora o te ähuatanga o te Taiao, mo ngä This is what using of our waters is, to care, whakatipuranga o aianei me ake tonu ake. look after the resources, to be kind to that environment. The question is, do we limit By perpetuating the mauri and wairua (life my take now so the resources replenish force and spirit) of “Te Tai o Marokura”, and heal? This would allow our mokopuna (Kaikoura region) we as kaitiaki (guardians) grandchildren to also gather their kai food. of Tangaroa’s täonga (the ’s treasures) are leading the community to Prior to reading this document, the achieve a flourishing, rich and healthy Community is reminded of the vision of Te environment where opportunities abound Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura: to sustain the needs of present and future generations. Page 3 Why are the fisheries closed?

The November 2016 earthquakes caused significant uplift along parts of the coastline north of the Conway River. The uplift resulted in the immediate death of many adult and juvenile , other shellfish and seaweeds, and also damaged and permanently altered the habitats of shellfish and seaweed along the coast. The Minister of Fisheries closed the area from Conway River to Marfells Beach in order to allow the shellfish and seaweed and their habitats to recover.1 The closure applies to the harvesting of pāua, most other shellfish and all seaweed – see Box 1 for details. Since the earthquakes, Te Korowai has been working with Fisheries New Zealand (FNZ), scientists, other fisheries stakeholders, and the local community to monitor and understand the impacts of the damage. Shellfish and seaweed in some parts of the coastline are now showing good signs of recovery and it is time to develop a plan about when and how the fisheries should be re- opened so that they can once again provide benefits for all those who use and value our resources.

BOX 1: The closed area The area from Conway River to Marfells Beach is currently closed to the harvesting of all seaweed and many types of shellfish, including popular species such as pāua, kina and . Three types of shellfish are exempt from the closure – i.e., scampi, rock lobster and . It is prohibited to take the specified shellfish species and seaweed at any stage of their life history, whether living or dead. However, the closure does not restrict the harvesting of shellfish or seaweed taken under a customary authorisation.

1 The Fisheries (Conway River to Marfells Beach Shellfish and Seaweed Harvest Closure) Notice 2018 can be found here: https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2018-go3659 Page 4 When should the fisheries be re-opened?

Before the shellfish and seaweed fisheries can be re-opened: BOX 2: Proposed biological 1. Biological criteria must be met – criteria for re-opening the monitoring of the must show pāua fishery that shellfish and seaweed stocks have a. Widespread emergence of post- recovered sufficiently to allow a cautious earthquake recruits is observed level of harvesting; and across the fishery; and 2. Management controls must be in place b. A sustained increase in pāua – appropriate management measures biomass is observed across the must be in place for recreational and fishery. to ensure that the sustainability of pāua and other species The criteria will be met when scientific will continue to be protected once the dive surveys observe a steady trend of fishery is re-opened. increasing adult abundance, supported by widespread presence of post- Biological criteria for the re-opening of the earthquake recruits (i.e., juvenile pāua pāua fishery have been proposed in the PAU3 of around 100mm in length that are 3-4 Fisheries Plan and are described in Box 2.2 years old and have settled and grown In practice, the criteria mean that the since the earthquake). re-opening of the pāua fishery would be considered only once it is apparent that the full pāua lifecycle is intact and functioning over a widespread area of the fishery. Recovery • Harvesting of all shellfish and seaweed is unlikely to be uniform across the fishery. species could be allowed, or only of However, once the criteria in Box 2 have been selected species; achieved over a reasonable portion of available • The area could be re-opened to all fishers pāua habitat, the entire area could be re- (customary, recreational and commercial) opened, on the understanding that sub-areas or just to certain sectors. with poorer recovery will be managed more cautiously. The simplest approach would be to re-open the whole area to the harvesting of all species Similar criteria could be developed for other by all fishing sectors. This would be the shellfish species and for seaweed. The fairest solution and the most practical for recovery of and ecosystems implementation and enforcement – but it is implicit in the criteria for re-opening, will only be possible if the biological criteria although these broader considerations are are met for all species and appropriate difficult to measure directly. For all species, management controls are in place for all the assessment of whether or not the criteria sectors. have been achieved will be based on research and monitoring reviewed by the FNZ Shellfish Working Group. This helps to ensure that the re-opening decision is based on the best HAVE YOUR SAY scientific advice. Te Korowai would like to hear what you Any decision about re-opening will be made think about when the fisheries should be by the Minister of Fisheries. There are various re-opened. Do you agree with the general options for how this decision could be made – approach proposed above? What do you for instance: think about the biological criteria for re-opening the pāua fishery? Are there • The whole area could be re-opened at other options that should be considered? once, or areas that show stronger signs of recovery could be opened first;

2 The PAU3 Fisheries Plan was developed by PauaMAC3 with the support of Te Korowai and Ngai Tahu, and was consulted on by FNZ in June 2020. The draft plan is available here: https://www.fisheries.govt.nz/dmsdocument/39878-fisheries-pau3-plan Page 5 Why do we need new management controls?

Re-opening the Kaikōura coastline to the 1. Constraining the level of catch; harvesting of pāua, other shellfish and 2. Gathering information and monitoring the seaweed is not simply a matter of returning to fisheries carefully; and the way things were before the earthquakes (see Appendix 1 for a summary of current 3. Reviewing and adjusting management amateur fishing controls). settings regularly. Shellfish and seaweed habitats have been Many shellfish species are highly valued by dramatically altered, and this could affect the Kaikōura community, including pāua, the long-term productivity of our seafood kina, cockles and pipi. However, pāua will resources. In some areas, the coastal be under particular pressure when the area environment is still changing, with erosion of is re-opened because of its popularity with uplifted substrate continuing, sand coming customary, recreational and commercial and going, and increased levels of sediment fishers. Management measures for customary washing into the sea after storm events. pāua harvesting are determined by tangata whenua through the issuing of customary The shellfish are now essentially shallow- authorisations. The pāua industry has already water fisheries – they are very accessible from developed measures that commercial fishers the shore and therefore vulnerable to localised will implement to safeguard pāua populations depletion. while they continue to rebuild (the PAU3 Although local populations may look healthy Fisheries Plan is summarised in Appendix – for instance, abundant large pāua may be 2). The priority now is to develop effective obvious in some areas – we won’t have a full management measures for recreational understanding of the new population dynamics fishing for pāua, as well as for other shellfish for many years. and for seaweed. For all these reasons, the community needs to take a cautious approach once the fisheries are re-opened. A precautionary management approach will involve: Page 6 A kete of management tools for pāua

This section of the discussion document provides a ‘kete’ or basket of possible management tools for pāua. From this kete, a mix of tools can be chosen to suit the needs of the Kaikōura community and fisheries stakeholders. Although the kete has been developed for pāua, many of the management tools could also be applied to other species if necessary. At the end of the section we ask for your feedback on management of other species.

Size limits Daily bag Fishing seasons limits or times ???

Accumulation Catch Vehicle or vessel limit monitoring limit

Catch Gear Closed areas restrictions reporting

Daily bag limits and accumulation still allowing people to get a feed for the family. limits The accumulation limit restricts how much pāua a person may possess at any time. The daily bag limit restricts how many fish Currently it is set at 10 pāua– i.e., two daily bag can be taken by an individual fisher in a day. limits. If the daily bag limit is reduced, it would The bag limit for pāua is currently 5 blackfoot also be sensible to reduce the accumulation (‘ordinary’) pāua and 5 yellowfoot pāua per limit so that it remains equivalent to two daily person. bag limits. Daily bag limits are only effective at constraining the total recreational catch if they are set at relatively low levels. The available science suggests that the current limit of HAVE YOUR SAY 5 pāua is too many to effectively constrain What do you think would be an recreational catch to a safe level for the appropriate daily bag limit and Kaikōura fishery. During early community accumulation limit for pāua? engagement, Te Korowai heard that a bag limit in the range of 2 – 4 pāua may be appropriate to protect the fishery when it re-opens, while Page 7

Vehicle or vessel limits BOX 3: vehicle limit A vehicle or vessel limit can help prevent large amounts of pāua being taken by groups In Victoria, Australia, fisheries officers of people. There are currently no vehicle or noticed that large groups of people vessel limits for pāua, but these tools are used had been regularly travelling in single in other abalone fisheries (see Boxes 3 and 4). vehicles to harvest abalone and shellfish and, although daily bag limits were not A vehicle and/or vessel limit may be exceeded, excessive pressure was being appropriate if there are concerns about large placed on the fishery. In response, groups of people taking pāua – for example, possession limits of 10 abalone and groups who have travelled to Kaikōura by 10 litres of other shellfish (2 litres if minivan or groups on recreational charter shucked) per vehicle were put in place vessels. Vehicle or vessel limits can in part of the state. The vehicle limit help ensure that shellfish resources are supplements the daily bag limit of 5 appropriately shared among users. These abalone per person. types of measures typically have limited impact on local fishers but would discourage large groups from acting in a way which puts the resource at risk. BOX 4: Abalone vessel limit In the island state of Jersey, the daily bag limit for abalone (known as ormer) HAVE YOUR SAY: Vehicle or is 20 ormers per person. Although ormers are largely taken from the shore, vessel limits if you are on a boat, a total bag limit Do you think a vehicle or vessel limit of 100 ormers per boat applies. This could be useful for the Kaikōura pāua means that 4 people on a boat can take fishery? If so, how should the limit be set up to 80 ormers between them, but 5 or (e.g., four daily bag limits?) more people on a boat can take no more than 100 ormers in total. Page 8

Size limits HAVE YOUR SAY: Size limits The minimum size limit is a vital tool to ensure that pāua have a chance to breed before they Do you think the minimum harvest size can be harvested. The current minimum legal for pāua should be increased? What are size (MLS) is 125mm for blackfoot pāua and the advantages and disadvantages of the 80mm for yellowfoot pāua. The MLS applies MLS options discussed above? to commercial and recreational harvesting, but commercial fishers have adopted a higher minimum harvest size of at least 135-140mm Fishing seasons and times (see Appendix 2). Fishing seasons are a way of limiting effort in The current MLS is adequate to protect a fishery. A closed season can also allow the breeding pāua, but a higher MLS would fishery to recover when it is not being fished. provide additional spawning opportunities There are currently no fishing seasons or time and safeguard future productivity. Because limits for pāua fisheries, but these tools are there is considerable uncertainty about what a used in some other jurisdictions (see Box 5). sustainable level of harvest might be, setting a higher MLS is a useful precaution. If fishing opportunities are restricted to just a few days every month or year, it may cause When setting an MLS there are a few things a ‘gold rush’, resulting in overcrowding and to consider. Pāua have variable growth rates preventing some fishers from being able to – for instance at Mangamaunu pāua grow participate. Provided a precautionary MLS more slowly than on other parts of the coast. and smaller bag limits are set, it should not An MLS that is too large would therefore be necessary to heavily restrict access to the concentrate fishing effort in fast-growing Kaikōura pāua fishery in this way. However, a areas, rather than allowing effort to be spread reasonably long fishing season – for example, across all healthy areas. three months over summer – could enable One option could be to set different MLS in everyone to gather pāua when they are able, parts of the fishery to reflect the different and then provide a ‘pause’ so that the impact growth rates. However, this would be more of the harvesting can be monitored. complex and costly for compliance and Another option is to restrict pāua harvesting to enforcement purposes. daylight hours. This could be useful if some Similarly, establishing a ‘slot fishery’ with fishers seek to avoid the rules by diving at a minimum and maximum size limit would night but it would also prevent legitimate night create additional compliance risks for fishers diving activity. and would not provide significant additional sustainability safeguards. Variable MLS or maximum size limits are therefore not BOX 5: Abalone fishing season favoured options. In Australia there is a permanent In order to provide a strong safeguard while closed season on the take of abalone the fishery continues to recover, the MLS from Central Victorian waters, except for should ideally be set for these open days each year: every at around 135mm, at least initially. An MLS Saturday and Sunday and every public of 135mm is equivalent to the lower end of holiday between 16 November and 30 the minimum harvest size range adopted by April, and 25 December through to the commercial fishers. second Sunday in January. A slightly smaller MLS for recreational fishing – e.g., 132mm – would provide non- commercial fishers with exclusive access to pāua in the 132-135mm size range. However, HAVE YOUR SAY: Seasons/times it would be less precautionary and may What are your thoughts on a three therefore need to be supported by additional month season for pāua fishing when the measures such as a smaller daily bag limit. fishery re-opens? Would you prefer an alternative season or no closed season? Page 9

Fishing gear restrictions Closed areas

Gear restrictions are typically used to either Closed areas are used to protect areas limit the total amount of fishing effort, or to that are experiencing localised depletion. protect fish from harmful fishing practices. Currently some areas around Kaikōura are The current prohibition on the use of closed temporarily under section 186B of the underwater breathing apparatus helps to limit Fisheries Act. fishing effort and means that pāua in deeper Although a temporary closure can give water are less vulnerable to harvesting. shellfish a chance to recover, it can also Pāua are very sensitive to poor fishing have negative effects on the sustainability practices – but using an appropriate harvesting of shellfish populations outside the closed tool is only part of the story. It is also area. This is because whenever an area is important that fishers use their harvesting closed to fishing, the catch that was previously tool correctly, accurately measure pāua taken in that area is displaced to other areas, underwater, return undersized pāua exactly increasing the pressure on the remaining open as they were found, and only take a few legal- areas of the fishery. When thinking about the sized pāua from an area. Good harvesting use of closed areas, it is also important to practice is more likely to be achieved through consider the causes of any observed localised education than additional gear regulations. depletion – for example, if depletion is caused by sedimentation or environmental conditions, It is sometimes suggested that wetsuits, prohibiting fishing in the area won’t allow masks and snorkels could be prohibited or that shellfish to recover unless the source of pāua could be harvested as a ‘wading’ fishery environmental harm is also addressed. only. These types of controls can help limit overall effort in the fishery but the result would The whole Kaikōura shellfish and seaweed be a concentration of fishing pressure in the fishery is now closed, so additional closures nearshore area. Because harvesting would be are unnecessary. There may be areas that limited to a narrow coastal strip, pāua in this need to ‘remain’ closed to recover from the area would be more at risk of depletion and impacts of the earthquake or to recognise and additional effort restrictions (e.g., smaller bag provide for customary fishing rights or other limits) may then be required. It is generally values. preferable to spread fishing effort over a larger area than to concentrate it on particular parts of the pāua population.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Gear restrictions and closed areas Although new gear restrictions for pāua are not favoured at this stage, Te Korowai is interested to hear your thoughts on gear restrictions and areas that you may think should remain closed. Page 10

Catch monitoring and reporting BOX 6: Obtaining better Knowing where and how much harvest is occurring is critical for the successful recovery information about recreational and on-going management of the Kaikōura abalone harvest pāua fishery. Without this information, In Western Australia and Tasmania a management measures can’t be adjusted specific type of recreational fishing reliably to meet the needs of the fishery and licence is required to harvest abalone. its users. Currently fisheries managers have Youth, the elderly and indigenous information on customary harvest as well as fishers are generally exempt from fine-scale catch and location information for licence requirements, but the number all commercial pāua harvesting. However, of licences nevertheless provides information on recreational harvesting is managers with an idea of how many sparse and uncertain. Most information people are fishing for abalone. on recreational fishing comes from FNZ’s Information from random surveys of National Panel Surveys which do not cover licence holders can therefore be scaled pāua particularly well. The surveys provide to estimate the overall harvest. In information at a very broad spatial scale Maine, fishers don’t need a licence, that is not useful for pāua management, but must register so the state can and are undertaken only every five to six monitor how many people are fishing years. There is therefore an urgent need recreationally in its waters. to develop more targeted and timely ways to gather information on recreational pāua In California, the recreational abalone catch and location. Similar challenges have fishery is currently closed for three been faced by other countries, and in nearly years, but prior to the closure anyone all cases some form of registration, licensing fishing for abalone required both a or reporting of recreational catch is used to licence and an abalone report card. The obtain information about recreational abalone report card has 18 tags attached to it harvesting. Some examples are described in and each time a fisher takes an abalone Box 6. they make an entry on the report card and attach one tag to the shell of the One approach that could be considered for abalone. Harvest reporting provides Kaikōura is self-reporting by recreational information on catch and ensures that fishers – for example, using a smartphone fishers comply with individual harvest app. While self-reporting encourages limits, and the tags allow enforcement shared responsibility for fisheries, it is also officers to see that an abalone was taken problematic because of reporting biases. legally and to identify who took it. Unless self-reported catch can be verified (for example by correlating self-reported data with independent surveys), there will always be uncertainty about whether the reported are not well covered in the National Panel catches are accurate and representative of the Surveys. The report suggests that a licensing whole fishery. It is also difficult to extrapolate or registration system would also be the best self-reported catch to the whole fishery if you place to introduce the use of a smartphone don’t know how many fishers are using the app. Fishers could use their smartphones to area. Self-reporting in the absence of a fisher enter their pāua catch, providing near real- registration or licensing scheme is therefore time monitoring that would make a significant 3 unlikely to provide reliable information for contribution to improved management. management purposes. A compulsory but free fisher registration A recent report on improving recreational system could also work well without the fishing in New Zealand recommended an use of a self-reporting app. The register of Australian-type licensing or equivalent fishers would provide a reliable estimate of the registration system could be the best solution number of fishers, and randomised surveys for obtaining catch information for high- of registered fishers could then be used to value species like pāua and rock lobster that obtain representative catch data that can be

3 Bess, Randall (2017). Future Catch: Preserving Recreational Fisheries for the Next Generation. The New Zealand Initiative. Available here: https://nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/thefuturecatch/ Page 11 extrapolated to estimate catch from the whole Management measures for other fishery. shellfish and seaweed Another simple step would be to add pāua to the species that must be reported by fishing The Kaikōura area already has management charter vessel operators. measures for kina, other shellfish and seaweed that are more conservative than most For all these options it is important to ensure of the rest of New Zealand (see Appendix 1). that recreational fishers understand the Additional management measures for these need to collect better data for management species could potentially be selected from purposes and therefore support any those described above in the pāua kete. For registration or reporting requirements that example, Te Korowai has heard suggestions may be put in place. that accumulation limits could be introduced for cockles and pipi. Do you think that additional management HAVE YOUR SAY: Catch measures are necessary for kina, cockles, pipi monitoring and reporting and other shellfish or seaweeds? If so, what would you propose? Do you support mandatory registration for recreational pāua fishers? What are your thoughts on self-reporting? Do you have any other ideas on how to obtain HAVE YOUR SAY: Measures for better recreational catch data to inform other shellfish and seaweed future management? Do you think that additional management measures are necessary for kina, cockles, pipi and other shellfish or seaweeds? If so, what would you propose? Page 12

Putting it all together – what tools A: Enhanced status quo management should our kete contain?

The Kaikōura community has a unique opportunity to design a bespoke management regime to ensure that the earthquake- affected fisheries can continue to recover while still allowing for a cautious level of use. Management measures need to be effective, Daily bag limit Vehicle limit but we don’t have to be constrained to existing 2 8 paua management tools or approaches.

Do we want a management regime that is like Accumulation a more conservative version of the status quo? limit 4 paua MLS 132mm Or do we want a regime that is innovative and potentially precedent-setting for other areas of the country where similar challenges of rebuilding valuable fisheries may arise?

The diagram at right gives you an idea of two B: ‘State of the art’ management management approaches for pāua – one which is similar to current management and one which is modeled on progressive international management regimes for recreational abalone fishing. But these are just a couple of ways of using the tools in the kete, there are many 3 month Summer more possible approaches. MLS 135mm fishing season Tradeoffs can be made between management settings – for example, if information is Daily bag limit Self-reporting improved by requiring recreational catch 3 paua and random reporting, management settings can be more fisher surveys readily reviewed and adjusted; or if there is a Accumulation higher MLS and a closed season, the fishery limit 6 paua Fisher Registration would be more likely to sustain a higher daily bag limit. Each approach has different costs and benefits for the community, fisheries stakeholders, and FNZ.

HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the best tools in our kete? Do you favour either of the example approaches above? Or would you prefer a different combination of tools or management settings for pāua? What should the kete for other shellfish species and seaweed contain? Page 13 Reviewing and adjusting management measures Because of the changes created by the For these reasons, Te Korowai is exploring earthquakes, there is much that we don’t the potential for management controls for know about the pāua, shellfish and seaweed the Kaikōura shellfish and seaweed fisheries fisheries. The health of the fisheries and to be adjusted in a more responsive and the level of fishing will need to be carefully timely manner. The scope of each type of monitored, and the effectiveness of the control should be clear and certain, but actual management measures that are put in place management settings should be able to be should be reviewed regularly – preferably reviewed and adjusted regularly by FNZ, with annually. As the fisheries gradually rebuild the involvement of Ngāi Tahu, Te Korowai, and stabilise, it may be possible to relax or fisheries stakeholders and the community. For fine-tune some of the additional management example, a new regulation could set a range controls that have been put in place – for of potential daily bag limits, but the decision instance by increasing initial bag limits or on the actual daily bag limit that applies in adjusting the MLS. New controls may need to a year could be made using a quicker, less be imposed very rapidly, should it be necessary cumbersome process such as a Gazette Notice to do so for sustainability reasons. issued by the MPI Chief Executive.

THANK YOU. Make sure you have your say Thank you for your consideration of the ideas in this consultation document – your feedback is appreciated. You can provide your feedback Email: [email protected] On our website: [email protected] Via post: Fisheries Reopening, PO Box 121, Kaikoura If you need assistance preparing your submission, please contact Gina Solomon on 0275161715 Page 14 Appendix 1

Current management measures for amateur fishing for shellfish and seaweed in the Kaikōura marine area

The Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 set out the following restrictions for the non- commercial harvest of shellfish and seaweed: • Pāua, blackfoot (‘ordinary’) – daily bag limit of 5 blackfoot pāua per person, accumulation limit 10 pāua, minimum legal size 125mm, underwater breathing apparatus prohibited. • Pāua, yellowfoot – daily bag limit of 5 yellowfoot pāua per person, accumulation limit 10 pāua; minimum legal size 80mm, underwater breathing apparatus prohibited. • Kina – daily bag limit of 20 kina per person. • Other shellfish – daily bag limits of 50 cockles, 50 mussels, 150 pipi, 150 , 20 pupu (cat’s eye), or 30 of any other type of shellfish per person per day. • Seaweed – daily limit of 5 litres of wet volume of bladder kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) per person, daily limit of 5 litres wet volume of karengo (Porphyra or Ulva) per person, seaweed can only be taken by hand gathering. The Amateur Fishing Regulations do not apply to fish, aquatic life and seaweed that is taken for the purposes of a hui or tangi in accordance with an authorisation issued by an authorised tangata whenua representative. Special bylaws for all fishers may also be made within in mātaitai reserves.

Appendix 2 Commercial harvesting of pāua under the PAU3 Fisheries Plan

In addition to the standard settings and commercial fishing regulations that apply to pāua harvesting, the PAU3 Fisheries Plan provides for the following management measures for the Kaikōura area, once it is re-opened to commercial pāua harvesting: • Subdivide the PAU3 quota management area at Conway River, to allow the Kaikōura fishery to be managed separately and to prevent effort shift when the fishery is re-opened; • Set a conservative initial Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) at either 50% of previous commercial catch or an alternative level based on best available science; • Increase the minimum harvest size (currently the minimum legal size is 125mm) to 135mm to 140mm, where possible; • Spread commercial fishing effort across 10 sub-areas, with the level of effort scaled to the observed recovery in each area; • Collect comprehensive, fine-scale data to inform future management, including mandatory electronic reporting and geospatial position reporting; • Adjust catch levels using a harvest control rule – i.e., a pre-agreed guideline to determine how much fishing can take place, based on scientific indicators of stock status; • Review all management measures regularly; and • Implement contingency measures to immediately reduce fishing pressure if necessary. Page 15

Re-opening the Kaikōura shellfish and seaweed fisheries

FEEDBACK QUESTIONS

Comments can be provided by 30 September 2020

Email: [email protected] On our website: [email protected] Via post: Fisheries Reopening, PO Box 121, Kaikoura If you need assistance preparing your submission, please contact Gina Solomon on 0275161715

Do you agree with the general approach proposed in the discussion document? Page 16

What do you think about the biological criteria for re-opening the pāua fishery?

Are there other options that should be considered?

What do you think would be an appropriate daily bag limit and accumulation limit for pāua? Page 17

Do you think a vehicle or vessel limit could be useful for the Kaikōura pāua fishery? If so, how should the limit be set (e.g., four daily bag limits?)

Do you think the minimum harvest size for pāua should be increased? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the MLS options discussed above?

What are your thoughts on a three month season for pāua fishing when the fishery re-opens? Would you prefer an alternative season or no closed season? Page 18

Although new gear restrictions for pāua are not favoured at this stage, Te Korowai is interested to hear your thoughts on gear restrictions and areas that you may think should remain closed.

Do you support mandatory registration for recreational pāua fishers?

What are your thoughts on self-reporting? Do you have any other ideas on how to obtain better recreational catch data to inform future management? Page 19

Do you think that additional management measures are necessary for kina, cockles, pipi and other shellfish or seaweeds? If so, what would you propose?

Do you favour either of the example approaches below? Or would you prefer a different combination of tools or management settings for pāua? What should the kete for other shellfish species and seaweed contain? A) Enhanced status quo management B) ‘State of the art’ management

MLS 135mm 3 month Summer fishing season Daily bag limit Vehicle limit 8 paua 2 paua Daily bag limit Self-reporting 3 paua and random fisher surveys Accumulation MLS 132mm Accumulation limit 4 paua limit 6 paua Fisher Registration

Thank you! We welcome your feedback by 30 September 2020. Your input is appreciated