Another National Park for New Zealand? In Northland!
Imagine A marine national park that stretches from Whangarei Heads to the Poor Knights to Cape Brett.
What reason could the Northland Chamber of Commerce possibly have for highlighting and encouraging discussion on this proposal? Lets look at the Goat Island Marine Reserve in Auckland. This brings in 16 million dollars of Economic Benefit to the Community along with 350000 visitors. Annually The Poor Knight Reserve as it stands pulls in around $10 million dollars per annum.
A marine national park concept is simple. Its based on Economic Development principles along with an underlying sustainability focus.
A Marine National Park would look something like this. Stop Commercial Fishing within the park and halve the recreational bag limit. Set aside 10% of the area where there are absolutely no fish zones. Preferably bordering the coast lines near some of our smaller settlements. (Marine National Parks differ from Marine Reserves in that customary fishing rights are preserved).
In a short time Fish Stock would flourish along with Ecological gains in the number of species and diversity of marine life. The area would now become a haven for Divers, Associated Industries and Tourism Ventures. The Northland point of difference being the Marine Park borders coastlines where visitors and locals could have easy access to areas without the need for boats.
Aside from Economic Benefits we can see that a Park like this would also provide ecological, social, cultural benefits. Aquamarine Farms could still also operate sustainably ad wouldn’t be counted as commercial fishing.
If an area like Goat Island can generate $16 Million dollars of benefit to the Auckland Economy and attract 350000 visitors imagine what a Marine National Park could do for Northland. It’s got to be worth considering.
Consider this. The potential for all this is on our door step right now. Hardly any capital investment is required. The only obstacles to a concept like this working being agencies, authorities, groups and people failing to see the benefits.
Let us know what you think. Should the Chamber invest time in bringing these groups together to begin the process? Can Northlanders be persuaded to work together for a common cause? ( Economic Development and sustainable future). Express an opinion on the latest ‘HOT’ topics at the Northland Chamber Blog Site at www.northchamber.blogspot.com
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
7 comments:
this is a fantastic idea. we live & rec fish in the heads area & totally support this concept.
Totally support this idea. Northland needs to make greater use of its abundant natural resources in ways that protect the environment and provide more facilities for local people while boosting the economy and attracting more visitors. Be great to see the Northland Chamber of Commerce taking a lead in moving this forward. Have we got the creativity, dynamism and ambition to make this happen?
Great idea - and really good to see Nthld Chamber taking up this sort of issue to grow our economy, instead of focusing on the 'give us tax cuts' low level type of thinking that characterises other bodies that say they 'represent employers'. We need more open and strategic thinking like this from those of us in business.
Smart thinking! A win for all concerned if we make sure that all stakeholders sit around the table and understand what they will win for their constituents plus for the next generations.
This thinking of the Chamber is showing leadership....The marine environment can make significant contributions to the economy, more so if on a sustainable platform.
The person who made the original proposal for a Marine Park from Cape Brett to the Poor Knights and Bream Head is one of the few people who are going to benefit financially from this proposal. the coastline from Cape Brett to Bream Head is approximately 104km long. 72km is closed to general public access by farmers, maori, foreigners and small block owners, this leaves a total of 32km available to the public for fishing and recreational use. Of the available 32km, 22km is sand and the rest is rocky shoreline. Much of the 10km of rocky shoreline available to shore based fishermen is inaccessible to them because of the contour. Is there any need to have no take Marine Reserves when there is such a large amount of coastline that cannot be accessed by the general public? In the original proposal it was proposed to make 10% of the coastline as no take Marine Reserves in places of easy access to the public. They would probably not want sandy beaches. This will leave the shore based fishermen with very few places to fish. Not everybody has a boat and there are many people who prefer to fish of the rocks. In the proposal they suggest reducing the allowable catch to recreational fishermen. It would be more acceptable to most fishermen to increase the size of fish that can be taken rather than reducing the allowable catch instead of 27cm make it 32 or 35cm over the whole area. If you had a smaller catch amount in the proposed area and went outside the park zone and caught 9 legal fish then had to enter the park to get to your home do you throw away some of the legal fish you have caught when you re-enter the park? The person who proposed this reserve operates a dive charter business mainly at the Poor Knights Islands I can only assume that if it is too rough at the Poor Knights they want to be able to take divers to the marine reserves on the mainland. Not everyone wants to go diving. If these reserves eventuate then they should be no take and no dive zones. This would help to control poaching.
Note: All coastline distances are approximate and does noy take into account harbour shorelines
Hell yes..... oh my god why has this not been done 10 years ago... you would have to be very short sited to ever oppose such a brilliant scheme....
I live and work in the area of the Poor Knights Islands and Tutukaka Coast. I believe that our oceans are in dire need of a more stringent management approach. I also know this proposal will never get off the ground. Having grandiose ideas without scientific backing is asking for a bun fight. Getting a small marine reserve established is a huge endevor on it's own, public consultation, government agencies, Iwi, etc.,makes it all the more difficult. Min. Fish is one of the huge blocks in any marine managment proposals. I mean they still promote bottom trawling in territorial waters. The effort to get this through hearing etc. is a waste of resources as far as I can see. Lets learn to walk before we run. It's a wonderful idea in an ideal world. I would like to see the effort and money put to better use such as perserving sensitive areas that are in a more dire condition.
The question that also needs to be asked, who will enforce it. DoC doesn't have the resources, their budget is so small they can't enforce the marine reserves we have now. Fisheries doesn't have the man power either. But I guess it doesn't hurt to rattle the tree and see what falls out or does it?
By the way the possibility of increasing size limit won't work. It's the larger fish we need to protect, they are the most prolific breeders.
Post a Comment