Divers Discussion Forum
You can reply to the message below by clicking the reply to this message link. If you have a question or have seen something interesting please please send us a new message. Wade or some of our viewers will reply to your questions.
[ Home | Contents | Search | Post a new message | Reply to this message | Next Message | Previous Message ]
From: ROGER GRACE
_: 5
Date: 31-08-10
Time: 15:27
Hi all,
Reading through the Minister's decision, she seems to have satisfactorily dismissed all the objections except the effect on recreation, which in this case she is narrowing down to fishing. She even has the arguments laid out about the benefits of the proposed marine reserve to the adjacent Taiapure. So all she is hung up on is the recreational fishing argument.
She recognises that any marine reserve will adversely affect fishing (in the immediate area of the reserve of course), but fails to recognise that the Marine Reserve would ultimately improve fishing in the general area. Where she goes wrong I think is her understanding of what "undue" may mean in this context. All other marine reserves (perhaps with exception of some of the Fiordland ones) affect recreational fishing, and if you take her logic to its foreseeable conclusion NONE of the existing Marine Reserves north of Akaroa would have ever been established. Other Ministers of Conservation coped with this OK, so why can't Kate Wilkinson? She is out on a limb with her decision which is simply wrong. Surely in there somewhere are grounds for overturning her decision.
Has anyone yet seen the Report her Department officers gave her? Is she just regurgitating what the Department Report advised or has she made this decision entirely on her own? I think Kirsty suggested it was her own decision, in which case did her "recreational fishing" argument go against her Department's advice???
Roger Grace
Last changed: 23-Jul-2011