DOCSLIB.ORG

White Horse Rock AEE.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
White Horse Rock AEE.Pdf Assessment of Environmental Effects White Horse Rock Resource Consent Application THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON COMPANY LIMITED PREPARED BY BOFFA MISKELL LIMITED | OCTOBER 2011 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Rationale for Proposal ............................................................................................. 4 3.0 The Proposal ............................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Resource Consent .............................................................................................. 5 3.3 Design and Layout ............................................................................................. 7 3.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Cages, Fences and Netting ................................................................................. 8 3.3.3 Mooring Systems ................................................................................................. 8 3.3.4 The Main Barge ................................................................................................... 9 3.3.5 Lighting ................................................................................................................ 9 3.4 Operation .......................................................................................................... 10 3.4.1 Getting Salmon to the Farms ............................................................................ 10 3.4.2 Growing the Salmon .......................................................................................... 10 3.4.3 Harvesting ......................................................................................................... 13 3.4.4 Vessels .............................................................................................................. 13 3.4.5 Land Based Infrastructure ................................................................................. 14 3.5 Discharges to Coastal Water and to Air ........................................................... 14 3.6 Taking and Use of Coastal Water .................................................................... 15 3.7 Environmental Management ............................................................................ 15 4.0 Site Selection ......................................................................................................... 17 5.0 Description of the Existing Environment ............................................................. 18 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 18 5.2 General Marlborough Sounds Environment ..................................................... 18 5.3 Existing Environment of the Proposed White Horse Rock Farm ...................... 19 5.3.1 Landscape Setting ............................................................................................. 19 5.3.2 Marine Environment .......................................................................................... 20 5.3.3 Summary of Existing Environment of the Proposed White Horse Rock Farm ......................................................................................................... 21 6.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects .................................................................. 24 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 24 6.2 Environmental Effects ...................................................................................... 24 6.2.1 Economic Effects ............................................................................................... 24 6.2.2 Iwi Cultural Effects ............................................................................................. 25 6.2.3 Effects on the Water Column ............................................................................ 25 6.2.4 Effects on the Seabed ....................................................................................... 26 6.2.5 Effects on Pelagic Fish ...................................................................................... 30 6.2.6 Effects on Marine Mammals .............................................................................. 30 6.2.7 Effects on Seabirds ........................................................................................... 30 6.2.8 Biosecurity Effects ............................................................................................. 31 6.2.9 Effects from Disease Risk ................................................................................. 31 6.2.10 Effects on Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................... 31 6.2.11 Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects .............................. 31 6.2.12 Noise Effects ..................................................................................................... 32 6.2.13 Effects on Historic Heritage ............................................................................... 34 6.2.14 Effects on Tourism and Recreation ................................................................... 34 6.2.15 Structural Safety ................................................................................................ 35 6.2.16 Effects on Navigation ........................................................................................ 35 6.2.17 Discharges to Coastal Water and Air ................................................................ 36 7.0 Mitigation and Monitoring ................................................................................... 37 8.0 Consultation .......................................................................................................... 45 1.0 INTRODUCTION This resource consent application for a salmon farm at White Horse Rock in Waitata Reach, Outer Pelorus Sound, accompanies separate applications for a plan change and concurrent resource consents lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for eight new salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds (the Sounds). It is intended that this additional application for a salmon farm at the White Horse Rock site be heard together with the applications for the plan change and the other eight resource consents. The New Zealand King Salmon Co. Limited (NZ King Salmon) is New Zealand’s largest salmon producer. The company, and its predecessor companies, have been growing King Salmon in New Zealand since the mid-1980s. NZ King Salmon currently produces approximately 8,900 tonnes of salmon per annum. It proposes to significantly increase its production, in order to meet rapidly increasing export and domestic demand, by developing new salmon farms in the Sounds. This will have substantial direct and flow on effects for the economies of Marlborough, Nelson, Tasman, and nationally, thereby supporting the economic and social wellbeing of the community. Although NZ King Salmon is a very small player on the international salmon scene (0.4% of total global salmon production), its represents more than half of the world’s production of King Salmon (sometimes referred to as Chinook Salmon). Currently, approximately 50% of the salmon produced by NZ King Salmon is exported. It has an annual turnover well in excess of $100 million and currently employs 468 staff. NZ King Salmon has developed into a vertically integrated company, maintaining control of its production from hatchery to marketing and sales of processed product. It operates three hatcheries, eight salmon farms, four processing plants, and associated offices, depots and servicing facilities. The existing salmon farms are all located in the Sounds (Ruakaka Bay, Forsyth Bay, Waihinau, Otanerau, Te Pangu, Clay Point, and two small farms recently purchased in Crail Bay). Two further potential salmon farms have been granted consent by the Council, but are currently under appeal. These are located at White Horse Rock, Waitata Reach1, and Melville Cove, Port Gore. The hatcheries, which supply the salmon farms, are located in Takaka, Tentburn in mid-Canterbury, and Waiau in north-Canterbury. The four factories that process the harvested salmon are located at Tahunanui, Nelson. The company currently has sales and marketing staff based in Auckland, Sydney, San Francisco and Tokyo (with a depot and processing facility also located in Sydney). NZ King Salmon has applied to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a private plan change to the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (MSRMP), and associated resource consents for eight more farms in the Sounds at the following locations: Site No. Site Name Location 1 Waitata Waitata Reach, Pelorus Sound 2 Kaitira Waitata Reach, Pelorus Sound 3 Tapipi Waitata Reach, Pelorus Sound 4 Richmond Waitata Reach, Pelorus Sound 5 Papatua Pig Bay, Port Gore 6 Kaitapeha Entrance to Tory Channel from Queen Charlotte Sound 7 Ruaomoko Entrance to Tory Channel from Queen Charlotte Sound 8 Ngamahau Tory Channel 1 An application for a salmon farm at White Horse Rock was granted consent by the Marlborough District Council, but that consent is currently under appeal to the Environment Court.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shark's Fin Soup Also Helps the Poor
    Shark’s fin soup Also helps the Poor ‘’Each year, 73 million sharks are killed primarily for their fins to feed our increasing hunger for sharks fin soup.’’ WWF Singapore ‘Humans kill 100 million sharks a year …and for what? Shark fins for a tasteless bowl of soup.’ Another wildlife organization The basis for these statements originates from unknown sources, are magnified and reproduced ad nauseam. No data is given to support this. By repetition and media advertorials, the world is misled into believing that – • 73 million sharks are killed specifically for their fins • Most of the fins are cruelly taken from live sharks Both statements are untrue. The truth is – 1. 80% of sharks are accidentally caught 2. Most fins are humanely taken from landed, dead sharks Fishing Shark is another fish in the ocean. In the debate over sharks, it is projected as if it is not part of the fishing industry. When the fisherman goes to sea, he will find in his nets all types of fish – shrimps, sharks, ordinary fish, squids. Fishermen in poor developing countries consume all the meat, or sell them in the local market. They are too hungry or poor to throw away the meat. Global shark catch Sharks are caught everywhere, and in different ways - artisanal fishing, commercial fishing by-catch, and targeted shark catch. Most of the sharks caught are by artisanal fishermen. Artisanal fishing is small commercial or subsistence fishing where bony fish, sharks and shrimps are caught in the fishing nets. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that the global shark catch for 2009 is 720,000 tons.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Training Workshop
    Quarterly Newsletter of the Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources Secretariate Vol. 5 Issue 2, December 2009 Media Training Workshop Brett Bancroft Communications Data Information Librarian and Franz Kesick Nova Scotia Aquaculture Marketing Development Officer attended a Media Training Workshop held at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College in Bible Hill, Nova Scotia. The workshop was sponsored by the Nova Scotia Environmental Network (NSEN), with funding from Mountain Equipment COOP. Left – Tamara Lorincz, Right – Elizabeth Goldenshtein The goal of the workshop was to familiarize the participants with the various functions and types of media. It also gave the participants basic skills to assist in advancing education, publicity and advocacy goals of our organizations. The workshop also provided opportunities to learn the various techniques in media communications and the proper way of writing press releases, communiqués and advisories as well as preparing media kits. The workshop also covered aspects of the new media, such as social web sites and instant communications via the world wide web around the world. The presenters were Elizabeth Goldenshtein, an experienced media professional, Stephanis Nadalin who has years of experience as a communications expert, Tamara Lorincz, Executive Director of the NSEN and Sam Juru, Coordinator of Caucus and Programs for the NSEN. 2 Netawek Ikjikum – Voice of the Ocean Vol. 5 Issue 3, December 2009 The Lobster Sustainability Measures By MAARS PEI AMDO Naomi Crane In July 2009, Minister Gail Shea announced $65 million toward the wounded Lobster Industry as a reaction to falling prices in Atlantic Canada’s most lucrative fishery. This $65 million announcement has a two part implementation plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Info Sheet
    Methyl Mercury The danger from the sea Report by SHARKPROJECT International • Aug. 31, 2008 Updated by Shark Safe Network Sept. 12, 2009 ! SHARK MEAT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF METHYL MERCURY: A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN In the marine ecosystem sharks are on top of the food chain. Sharks eat other contaminated fish and accumulate all of the toxins that they’ve absorbed or ingested during their lifetimes. Since mercury is a persistent toxin, the levels keep building at every increasing concentrations on the way up the food chain. For this reason sharks can have levels of mercury in their bodies that are 10,000 times higher than their surrounding environment. Many predatory species seem to manage high doses of toxic substances quite well. This is not the case, however, with humans on whom heavy metal contamination takes a large toll. Sharks at the top end of the marine food chain are the final depots of all the poisons of the seas. And Methyl Mercury is one of the biologically most active and most dangerous poisons to humans. Numerous scientific publications have implicated methyl mercury as a highly dangerous poison. Warnings from health organizations to children and pregnant women to refrain from eating shark and other large predatory fish, however, have simply not been sufficient, since this “toxic food-information” is rarely provided at the point of purchase. Which Fish Have the Highest Levels of Methyl Mercury? Predatory fish with the highest levels of Methyl Mercury include Shark, King Mackerel, Tilefish and Swordfish. Be aware that shark is sold under various other names, such as Flake, Rock Salmon, Cream Horn, Smoked Fish Strips, Dried cod/stockfish, Pearl Fillets, Lemonfish, Verdesca (Blue Shark), Smeriglio (Porbeagle Shark), Palombo (Smoothound), Spinarolo (Spiny Dogfish), and as an ingredient of Fish & Chips or imitation crab meat.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SHARK and RAY MEAT NETWORK a DEEP DIVE INTO a GLOBAL AFFAIR 2021 Editor Evan Jeffries (Swim2birds)
    THE SHARK AND RAY MEAT NETWORK A DEEP DIVE INTO A GLOBAL AFFAIR 2021 Editor Evan Jeffries (Swim2birds) Communications Stefania Campogianni (WWF MMI), Magdalena Nieduzak (WWF-Int) Layout Bianco Tangerine Authors Simone Niedermüller (WWF MMI), Gill Ainsworth (University of Santiago de Compostela), Silvia de Juan (Institute of Marine Sciences ICM (CSIC)), Raul Garcia (WWF Spain), Andrés Ospina-Alvarez (Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies IMEDEA (UIB- CSIC)), Pablo Pita (University of Santiago de Compostela), Sebastián Villasante (University of Santiago de Compostela) Acknowledgements Serena Adam (WWF-Malaysia), Amierah Amer (WWF-Malaysia), Monica Barone, Andy Cornish (WWF-Int), Marco Costantini (WWF MMI), Chitra Devi (WWF-Malaysia), Giuseppe di Carlo (WWF MMI), Caio Faro (WWF Brazil), Chester Gan (WWF-Singapore), Ioannis Giovos (iSea), Pablo Guerrero (WWF-Ecuador), Théa Jacob (WWF-France), Shaleyla Kelez (WWF-Peru), Patrik Krstinić (WWF-Adria), Giulia Prato (WWF-Italy), Rita Sayoun (WWF-France), Umair Shahid (WWF-Pakistan), Vilisoni Tarabe (WWF-Pacific), Jose Luis Varas (WWF-Spain), Eduardo Videira (WWF-Mozambique), Ranny R. Yuneni (WWF-Indonesia), Heike Zidowitz (WWF-Germany). Special acknowledgments to contribution of Glenn Sant (TRAFFIC). Special acknowledgements go to WWF-Spain for funding the scientific part of this report. For contact details and further information, please visit our website at wwfmmi.org Cover photo: © Monica Barone / WWF Safesharks Back cover photo: © Matthieu Lapinski / Ailerons WWF 2021 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 SHARKS AND RAYS IN CRISIS 6 THE OVERALL TRADE VALUE 7 GLOBAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 8 SHARK MEAT TRADE 10 RAY MEAT TRADE 18 THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE SHARK AND RAY TRADE 26 A GLOBAL SELECTION OF DISHES WITH SHARK AND RAY MEAT 28 RECOMMENDATIONS 30 © Nuno Queirós (APECE) / WWF 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHARKS AND RAYS ARE IN CRISIS GLOBALLY Up to 100 million are killed each year, and some populations have declined by more than 95% as a result of overfishing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Guidance on Fish Consumption in Pregnancy: Is It Fit for Purpose? Public Health Nutrition
    Taylor, C. , Emmett, P., Emond, A., & Golding, J. (2018). A review of guidance on fish consumption in pregnancy: Is it fit for purpose? Public Health Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018000599 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.1017/S1368980018000599 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Cambridge University Press at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/review-of-guidance-on- fish-consumption-in-pregnancy-is-it-fit-for-purpose/BC3BB20A2D848F5CF5AED90C86413F85 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Public Health Nutrition: page 1 of 11 doi:10.1017/S1368980018000599 Review Article A review of guidance on fish consumption in pregnancy: is it fit for purpose? Caroline M Taylor*, Pauline M Emmett, Alan M Emond and Jean Golding Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK Submitted 17 November 2017: Final revision received 14 February 2018: Accepted 14 February 2018 Abstract Objective: Public health messages to reduce Hg exposure for pregnant women have focused exclusively on advice on fish consumption to limit Hg exposure, with little account being taken of the positive contribution of fish to nutritional quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Fish Guide 2018
    Reducing your 1 LOW eat Try to only eat fish listed as If what you are looking for isn't listed Definitely give Fish to avoid a miss, Best choice - those rated 1 or 2 below, it's likely to be rated 3 or 4 . these are rated 5 and include Good Fish impact on our 2 are the most sustainable! threatened or endangered species 2018 seas by choosing 3 think You can find over 600 ratings for 150 and fish from damaging fisheries or Guide species on goodfishguide.org farming systems. sustainable fish 4 or the Good Fish Guide app is easy 5 HIGH for Apple iOS (iPhone) avoid FREE and Android Best choice Only from these areas - fished or farmed like this Fish to avoid Anchovy Bay of Biscay Eel, European , Conger You can play a key role Basa or Pangasius (farmed) ASC certified; Vietnam - GAA BAP 3* Grouper in securing the future of our seas Bream, Gilthead (farmed) Onshore production; Organic certified Halibut, Atlantic - North East Atlantic and marine wildlife by making Clam, Manila (farmed) UK wild more environmentally responsible Cod, Atlantic North East Arctic or Iceland - MSC certified Marlin, Blue - Atlantic choices when buying seafood. Coley or Saithe North East Arctic, Iceland, Faroe Islands, North Sea, Skagerrak, West of Scotland and Rockall Mullet, Grey or Thicklip Crab, Brown Western Channel, Celtic Sea, Cornwall, Pembrokeshire - Pot caught Prawn, King or Tiger non-certified Dab North Sea - Seine netted farmed Make the right choice 90% of world fish stocks and reduce your impact. Haddock Rockall, Irish Sea; Iceland, North East Arctic - MSC certified Ray, Sandy, Shagreen, Starry Salmon, Atlantic - wild are either fully or over- Every purchase matters! Hake, European Cornwall - MSC certified Halibut, Atlantic (farmed) Scotland - Onshore production Seabass - North Sea, Irish Sea, English & exploited from fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifting Seas Part 5: the Challenge Facing Consumers
    Shifting Seas Part 5: The challenge facing consumers BY LARRY PYNN, VANCOUVER SUN OCTOBER 20, 2009 University of B.C. fisheries researcher Jennifer Jacquet with a red snapper at Granville Island. Photograph by: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun files Robert Hanner couldn't resist. While reading the menu at his favourite fish-and-chips shop in Cambridge, Ont., the DNA researcher noticed the words "halibut family." Equal parts curious and suspicious, he took a portion of the fish back to his lab at the University of Guelph, where he serves as associate director of the Canadian Barcode of Life Network in the department of integrative biology. The barcode network is an ever-expanding DNA data base — 5,500 fish have been listed internationally so far, with another 25,000 still to go — that allows scientists to reliably identify a particular specimen. In Hanner's case? "Hake," he revealed. "It's not even in the halibut family." Halibut is a bottom-dwelling flatfish and one of the most lucrative fishes on the market. Hake swim mid-water and figure much lower on the consumer food chain, a product for which there is no fresh local market yet remains popular in less-affluent eastern European countries. Mislabelling raises issues of public health, consumer fraud, and environmental sustainability. And the increasing globalization of seafood makes it all the more difficult for consumers to know what they're getting. "When you buy things caught in Chilean waters, processed at sea on a Chinese vessel, sold to a Russian distributing firm that then markets it in Canada, you see where the disconnect comes in," Hanner argues.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission Seattlenwf
    INDEX. A . Page. Pnge . Auguilla megaloatoma ..................... 73 Abbott. C . C ..................... .118.110.200. 24‘48 mowa ............................. 73 Aclilya .................................... 441 rostrate ........................... 125 prolifera in carp disense ............. 439 toxnua ............................ 73 Acinota tuberoaa ........................... 244 vulgaris .......73,74,105,100.120,122, 120 Aciponser rubicundus ...................... 126 Annio IIodgdou, boat, successful codflsh Actinophreys sol ........................... 241 trawling by ..................... 420 Akers, Gcorgo F ........................... 215 Anodon .................................... 412 Alund ...................................... 222 Anodouta .................................. 404 introduction of, into England ........ 218 Anomolocera Patorsonii .................... 239 Albert, Prince Alfred Emeet ............... 301 Anonymons ................................ 110 Aldrovnndi ................................. 81 Anurma striata............................. 403 “Alowife” ................................. a0 Apoltes ................................... 20 Alewives in Saint Croix River .............. 2iO quadracue, development of ......... 24 introduced with shad ............. 70 spinning habits of ...... 24 movements of. In Colorndo River, structure of ............ 24 Toms .......................... 00 “Aqunrinm fungus,” a confusing torm ..... 440 summnry of fisliing rccordn for, at Ardoron, Willinm .......................... 113 Willow
    [Show full text]
  • Dogfish Harvesting and Processing
    HARVESTING AND PROCESSING: An Examination of Key Economic Factors in the Mid-Atlantic Region . RON GRULICH WILLIAM D. DUPAUL Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia fiNAL REPORT Contract No. 85-21-149_57V MARCH 1986 This project was supported in part by the Virginia Sea Grant College Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Dogfish Harvesting and Processing: An Examination of Key Economic Factors in the Mid-Atlantic Region Ron Grulich William D. DuPaul Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia Prepared for: Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation 2200 Somerville Road, Suite 600 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 266-5530 March 1986 Contract No. 85-21-14957V This project was supported in part by the Virginia Sea Grant College Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062; (804) 642-7164. Dogfish Harvesting and Processing: An Examination of Key Economic Factors in the Mid-Atlantic Region Since the enactment of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the U.S. fishing industry has grown both in the size and number of fishing vessels harvesting in the 200 mile Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone. This growth has significantly increased the fishing pressure on traditional species and has forced management authorities to increase both the number and complexity of fishing regulations. In many cases, these regulations have restricted both the length of time fishermen can operate within a particular fishery as well as the amount of fish they can harvest. Commercial fishermen are renowned for their creativity and resourcefulness.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Secrets: Renaming and Mislabeling of Seafood
    Author's personal copy ARTICLE IN PRESS Marine Policy 32 (2008) 309–318 www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Trade secrets: Renaming and mislabeling of seafood Jennifer L. JacquetÃ, Daniel Pauly The Sea Around Us Project, The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4 Received 9 June 2007; accepted 23 June 2007 Abstract As the global trade and market for seafood has grown, so have the twin problems of renaming and mislabeling. Resource scarcity, the potential for greater profits, and weak legislation have all encouraged incorrect labeling, the results of which include consumer losses, the subversion of eco-marketing, further degradation of fisheries resources, and even adverse effects on human health. This paper examines the extent and consequences of renaming and mislabeling seafood, the state of current legislation, and the importance of future policies, with particular attention to the US, where 80% of the seafood is imported and more than one-third of all fish are mislabeled. Policy recommendations include governments’ support for a global mandate to label species, country of origin, and catching or production method on all seafood with high penalties for infractions. Chain of custody standards, such as those recently implemented by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), should also be considered for adoption worldwide. To garner support for this legislation, consumers must become better acquainted and concerned with their seafood and its origins. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Eco-label; Fisheries; Globalization; Mislabeling; MSC; Renaming; Seafood; Substitution; Traceability 1. Introduction There are several factors to consider when labeling seafood, such as: (a) species’ identity; (b) country of origin; In the 1980s, capture fisheries peaked [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Good Fish Guide 2019
    Reducing your 1 LOW Try to only eat fish listed as If what you are looking for isn't listed Definitely give Fish to avoid a miss, Best choice - those rated 1 or 2 below, it's likely to be rated 3 or 4 . these are rated 5 and include Good Fish impact on our 2 best are the most sustainable! threatened or endangered species 2019 seas by choosing 3 You can find over 600 ratings for 150 and fish from damaging fisheries or Guide think species on goodfishguide.org farming systems. sustainable fish 4 or the Good Fish Guide app is easy 5 HIGH for Apple iOS (iPhone) avoid FREE and Android You can play a key role in securing the future Best choice Only from these areas - fished or farmed like this Fish to avoid of our seas and marine Basa or Pangasius (farmed) ASC certified; Vietnam - GAA BAP 3* Eel, European , Conger wildlife by making Bream, Gilthead (farmed) Onshore production; Organic certified Grouper more environmentally Clam, Manila (farmed) UK Halibut, Atlantic - North East Atlantic wild responsible choices Cod, Atlantic North East Arctic or Iceland - MSC certified Coley or Saithe North East Arctic, Iceland, Faroe Islands, North Sea, Skagerrak, West of Scotland and Rockall Marlin, Blue - Atlantic when buying seafood. Crab, Brown Western Channel, Cornwall - Pot caught Mullet, Thicklip Grey Dab North Sea - Seine netted Prawn, King or Tiger non-certified farmed (except King from Ecuador and Rockall, Irish Sea; Iceland, North East Arctic - MSC certified; North Sea, Skagerrak, West of Scotland Haddock Honduras) 90% of world fish stocks Cornwall - MSC certified Hake, European Ray, Blonde, Sandy, Shagreen, Starry are either fully or over- Scotland - Onshore production Halibut, Atlantic (farmed) Salmon, Atlantic - wild exploited from fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS in South Africa
    MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS in South Africa Effective fisheries regulations are based on sound scientific advice and ecological information to ensure long-term sustainable utilization of our fish resources. As an angler you can help achieve long-term successful management of our marine resources by complying with the fishing regulations. This document simplifies and summarises the regulations that apply to recreational line-fishing in South Africa’s marine and estuarine environments. The information provided here is not complete and may change periodically. For full details of the Marine Living Resources Act (Act No. 18 of 1998) and regulations promulgated thereunder, please contact your local fishery officer or the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. https://www.daff.gov.za/daffweb3/Branches/Fisheries- Management/Marine-Resource-Management/ Recreational-Fishing Special regulations may govern some estuaries, National Parks and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). In such cases, please contact the relevant conservation authority. https://www.saambr.org.za/for-fishermen/ General Regulations • Every recreational angler must pay for the right to fish in marine waters by buying an annual (or temporary) recreational fishing permit. Different types of fishing permits are available including angling, spearfishing, boat skipper, etc. These permits are available from the Post Office. • A recreational fishing permit entitles the holder to catch fish for own use only and not to sell or trade. • The holder of a recreational angling permit is entitled to catch fish of the Class Pisces (i.e. bony fish, sharks, rays, skates and chimaeras) only with a rod, reel and line, to which no more than 10 hooks are attached.
    [Show full text]