Labour candidate calls for licensing of recreational fishers!!!

June 25th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Marlborough Express reports:

Most controversial was ’s , who proposed a licence for recreational fishers in the Marlborough Sounds as a way of funding a public advocacy group.

Think about how hideous this is. The Labour candidate wants:

  • Recreational to be an activity you need a licence for
  • An effective tax (licence fee) on recreational fishers
  • The tax to go to some sort of lobby group

What other recreational activities do Labour candidates want licensed? Cycling?

Tags: , ,

51 Responses to “Labour candidate calls for licensing of recreational fishers!!!”

  1. dime (9,356 comments) says:

    lol its great hearing the nutjob wish list!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. alloytoo (430 comments) says:

    New taxes to support wackjob ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Albert_Ross (245 comments) says:

    Her stupidity is in promoting this idea as “a way of funding a public advocacy group” rather than as an option to enable the responsible management of fish stocks. Sadly, it’s not true that “there are plenty of fish in the sea”.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mikemikemikemike (301 comments) says:

    Pretty strong language don’t ya think? It is no different to how most other countries operate (with licenses for boats, fishing etc.)

    I think her idea is stupid, but I also think you woke up with your hysterical pants on this morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. CryHavoc (42 comments) says:

    Funny you should say this DPF, as this is exactly how Fish and Game is funded.

    The irony being that many of their license payers are farmers, and F&G actively lobbies against farmers’ interests (whether rightly or wrongly is another issue). F&G is in no way accountable to its funders for its advocacy activities. So yeah, this should definitely be resisted but let’s not be under any illusions that it’s not happening already.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. WineOh (540 comments) says:

    Don’t you already need a fishing license for most fresh-water fishing areas and game-shooting?
    http://www.fishandgame.org.nz/licences

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Judith (7,466 comments) says:

    What other recreational activities do Labour candidates want licensed? Cycling?

    Blogging would be a great idea. Just think how much money we could get in the coffers for that. I wonder what test we could introduce to get a bloggers licence?

    1. Please list five types of insults that do not include obscene language.

    2. Construct five different identities and describe how you would avoid detection methods that capture mulitple use of IP numbers.

    3. Are you aware of what a defamatory statement is? If the answer is ‘yes’ your license will be refused as bloggers making such statements will need to depend on the mens rea defence.

    4. Please list at least five public figures you are obsessed with.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    This has about the same merit as Labour trying to make farmers allow access to their property for left-wing thieves and leeches in the guise of tramping. These envious pieces of shit don’t even deserve a mention, or oxygen.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Fisiani (943 comments) says:

    Labour are just as whacky as the Greens. hopefully they will both be whacked in September

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (7,791 comments) says:

    Think about it – if we increase the cost of recreational fishing we are effectively subsidising commercial fisheries. Labour are pro commercial fishing !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. UglyTruth (3,934 comments) says:

    Don’t you already need a fishing license for most fresh-water fishing areas and game-shooting?

    Only if you are a person. Beware the legalese.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. peterwn (3,142 comments) says:

    Presumably she thinks if she can make a sufficient stir in Kaikoura this time, she might be rewarded with a winnable list ranking in 2017.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,420 comments) says:

    What other recreational activities do Labour candidates want licensed? Cycling?

    I don’t think trying to introduce a salt water fishing license is going to fix anything, but I can appreciate why the Labour person thinks there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

    Cyclists don’t take anything away.

    Whereas people fishing in the sounds include guys like my mate who used to motor out to his favourite spot off Blumine Island, and catch about a dozen undersized blue cod to fry up for his dinner… he’s basically the reason they banned all blue cod catching for a while a few years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ed Snack (1,733 comments) says:

    You don’t need a license to fish in fresh water, you do need one if you are trying to catch trout (or salmon) as these are in most areas managed stock and have specific management requirements. Mind you there’s not a lot else to catch in NZ fresh water except eels, and whitebait which is a little different. So in practice unless you’re eeling you do need a license.

    Hunting, do you need a license to hunt with a bow or with just, say, dogs and a knife ? The answer as far as I can see is yes for public land (DOC land in essence) but not for hunting over private land; that includes bow hunting but I’m not sure about “no distance weapon” hunting. You do need a license to hunt birds though, issued by F&G NZ (cost $91).

    Is there any point to having licenses for recreational fishing in the sea other than as a contyrol and fund-raising exercise ? Would any such rules be readily enforceable; there are size and catch limits now for many species, are these followed in general ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. WineOh (540 comments) says:

    As an aside, I don’t believe that NZ fisheries stocks are under threat by the majority of law abiding fishers who obey the minimum catch sizes and species limits. It’s the @ssholes who rip out as many paua, crays, and fish as they can & flog them off to the local fish & chip shop in the name of “customary fishing rights”. The folk who pay for a license (those in column A) are not the ones who are the cause of our problems (column B).

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (3,537 comments) says:

    Equally wacky is the PC crap name.

    If one cannot accept that “man” is a generic term applicable to all humans, and that “fisherma(e)n” is a non gender description of all men and women (and those undecided) engaged in a specific activity relating to the catching of fish (say, would those men and women seeking crayfish be “crayers”? :-) ), then take a hike (F O).

    But “Fishers”? Are they animal or vegetable?

    They are certainly a new species (or new something) on Gaia, are they not? :-)

    J H C on a bike

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thedavincimode (6,522 comments) says:

    Well done Janette. We need to address the fishing and advocacy crises.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rich Prick (1,535 comments) says:

    First, Labour came for our shower-heads …

    When will they learn that we have no appetite for more of their meddling in our lives?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Tarquin North (117 comments) says:

    I reckon all bikes should be licensed. The lycra clad leeches keep whining about wanting more cycle ways so why shouldn’t they pay for it? And don’t get me started on the ones that ride three abreast in front of my car! As for licensing salt water fishers, on your bike you socialist oxygen thief! Remember, prolls and animals (fish) are free!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. thePeoplesFlag (170 comments) says:

    About 40-60% of all the fish caught in New Zealand’s coastal waters is taken by recreational fishers, although that range indicates no one really has the faintest idea of the size of the recreational effort. Why should this huge recreational fishing effort not be subject to some measurement and regulation?

    Commercial fishers have to complete mountains of paperwork under the QMS and comply with a plethora of regulations governing everything from the size and positioning of registration numbers to safety, yet any Joe wide boy in the public can buy (and frequently drown him or herself) any old dunger and go fishing. At the other end of the recreational fishing scale, recreational fishing is now usually conducted with the same sort of ruthless efficiency and intensity as commercial fishing – bigger and faster boats, high end fish finders, GPS systems, advanced fishing techniques. This isn’t the 1960s and 70s when your dad waited until the sea was like a mill-pond to set out in a 16 foot, 9 knot put-putter equipped with a few rods and a vague idea where his favourite rock is.

    Recreational fishers love to blame-shift to commercial fishing operations, and part of that blame shifting involves heavy lobbying and deliberate attempts to frustrate accurate measurement of the recreational catch.

    New Zealand is a growing country and times change. Either we ban things like fish finders and GPS from recreational vessels or we regulate and license the recreational fishing sector. Even without permits to catch fish at the very least boat operators should have to hold a basic certificate in marine safety and the rules of the road and have their vessels comply with some compulsory safety minimum standards – oh, and be subject to drink-driving restrictions just like car owners!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tedbear (127 comments) says:

    “Cyclists don’t take anything away.”
    What’s that got to do with anything?

    Cyclists use the road and / or footpaths.
    Some completely ignore road rules like signalling turns, obeying traffic lights and signs.
    Some also cause accidents so tell me again why cyclists are exempt from requiring licenses.

    After they all get their licenses, they can also get their road machines up to wof standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. NK (1,061 comments) says:

    Cyclists use the road and / or footpaths.
    Some completely ignore road rules like signalling turns, obeying traffic lights and signs.
    Some also cause accidents so tell me again why cyclists are exempt from requiring licenses.

    After they all get their licenses, they can also get their road machines up to wof standards.

    Slight changes are needed to this:

    Cars use the roads.
    Some completely ignore road rules like signalling turns, obeying traffic lights and signs.
    Some also cause accidents and kill cyclists so tell me again why they treat cyclists with such contempt?.

    When drivers get their licenses, they can also get their road machines up to wof standards.

    There we go. Fixed it for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rich Prick (1,535 comments) says:

    “About 40-60% of all the fish caught in New Zealand’s coastal waters is taken by recreational fishers”

    Really? No evidence though, and certainly no evidence of harm in need of remedy.

    “Why should this huge recreational fishing effort not be subject to some measurement and regulation?”

    Ah, now we get to it, meddling for the sake of it. Labour has stated the reason for this licence regime is to fund an advocacy group, not to address any specific harm or encourage any positive outcome, and I don’t regard funding said advocacy group as a positive outcome. Typical socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. All_on_Red (1,335 comments) says:

    Oh I hope this makes the news. One group you don’t mess with is the recreational fishers. I can see Labour sticking at 23% with this one.

    Also there are limits now on how much you can take. And it’s enforced. Ever seen Coastwatch? They check snapper etc now

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (7,466 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,249 comments) says:
    June 25th, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Trouble is it’s not labour saying it or even suggesting they would adopt it, its only one of their team sounding off, and getting it in the news would only be refuted by claims that it is not a policy. I think they are probably doing a bit of ‘fishing’ themselves to sound out the reaction. If it proved to be popular, they’d go with it – if not, they’d refute the fact they were even considering it.

    Having one person make such statements is an old and much practised way of testing the waters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Simon (678 comments) says:

    “it’s not labour saying it or even suggesting they would adopt it, its only one of their team sounding off”

    Labour supporters at this point are delusional. Exhibit A Judith

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Tarquin North (117 comments) says:

    R.P, I was at a fishing competition the other week where a spokesman from Legacy, the recreational fishers advocacy group made a speech. According to him between two and three percent of all fish caught are caught by recreational fishers. This is lower than I would have thought but apparently true. Hardly sounds like the kind of thing you would need a licence for.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Tauhei Notts (1,601 comments) says:

    An old mate said about 20 years ago;
    “There are only two things you should need a licence for in New Zealand;
    1. Owning farm land.
    2. Having children.
    Our two most valuable resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rich Prick (1,535 comments) says:

    “it’s not labour saying it or even suggesting they would adopt it, its only one of their team sounding off”

    A bit like David Cunliffe these days. Seriously though Judith, there is an election coming up, and Janette Walker is standing for Labour, and she did make the statement. I think the dots are reasonably easy to join, even with a crayon.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ross12 (1,143 comments) says:

    Forgetting the politics for a moment. I’m with Albert_Ross and to some extent thePeopleFlag on this. If the licence fees went towards funding fisheries officers or local area data gathering it would be better.
    But the system would have to be “refined’ –don’t licence people fishing off the rocks or the wharf , limit it to boats. ( this is done in parts of Aussie eg. WA )
    I’m not sure TPflag is right with his/her 40-60% figure but he/she is right that the figure is quite high and maybe that high around Auckland. The other of the industry that need monitoring ( if it is not already) is the recreational charter vessels –they catch huge volumes.
    So I would not dismiss the idea too quickly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Albert_Ross (245 comments) says:

    spokesman from Legacy, the recreational fishers advocacy group … between two and three percent of all fish caught are caught by recreational fishers

    How does he know? How can he possibly know? Are all recreational catches reported to him?

    Isn’t that precisely the point though – that we have to know more before we can decide whether we have or haven’t got a problem that needs to be addressed?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. UglyTruth (3,934 comments) says:

    If one cannot accept that “man” is a generic term applicable to all humans

    One cannot. The term “human” originates from homo humanus, which was the term that Cicero used to distinguish Romans from “barbarians”.

    Civil law, being founded on Roman law, relates to humans rather than to mankind.

    person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. All_on_Red (1,335 comments) says:

    Judith
    Oh I realise that. But it’s Election year and when they stick their head up its a good chance to stick it to them. I am biased of course :-)
    I could also spin it by saying it shows a lack of discipline amongst Labour by going off message and that Cunliffe can’t control them!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ShawnLH (3,189 comments) says:

    In a long list of stupid policy proposals from Labour this is just about the dumbest. Tax for legitimate purposes is one thing. Taxes to fund biased lobby groups is is an obscene idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (3,934 comments) says:

    I reckon all bikes should be licensed. The lycra clad leeches keep whining about wanting more cycle ways so why shouldn’t they pay for it?

    Not all bikes are ridden by “lycra clad leeches”. The right of ordinary use of public roads comes from the natural right of liberty. Licence only applies to use that is in some way wrongful, i.e. unfair or unjust.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (7,466 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (1,251 comments) says:
    June 25th, 2014 at 10:22 am

    You expect a man that can’t control himself to have control over others?

    There is no one in control – that is their problem. They are floundering and have to no one they respect sufficiently to give them guidance – they should have stuck with Shearer, snapper is a far superior fish. Frankly, even Goff would have commanded more respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. B A W (98 comments) says:

    Your party is at 30%. Your leader is a dead duck. Party unity is at a low.

    And you try and lose party votes?

    By advocating a license?
    And then to fund your pet projects?

    The picture of David Shearer and his fish in Parliament spring to mind.

    The art of politics involves trying not to address these issues and then addressing them when you get into power -quietly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tom hunter (4,367 comments) says:

    I’ll place the following link to both this and the Greenpeace thread because I think everybody concerned about environmental activism should be aware of this particular piece of history: the famous River on Fire, from the USA in 1969.

    It turns out to be myth, starting with the fact that the famous photograph of the river fire in Time magazine was actually a photo taken in 1952. I’ve been seeing that image since I was a little kid and I never knew that. Love the internet.

    But the key passages in the article are these:

    The 1969 fire was not the first time an industrial river in the United States had caught on fire, but the last. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, river fires were common. There were at least 13 on the Cuyahoga alone, but rivers in Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and elsewhere had fires as well.

    Fires were costly and dangerous, so action was taken long before the federal government got involved.

    Progress was slow, but for those pollutants of greatest concern at the time, progress was being made well before the 1972 CWA was enacted, let alone before it was implemented and enforced.

    Typical. In the midst of the screaming days of flower power and the first Earth Day none of this history of cleanup was mentioned, let alone any acknowledgement or respect for what the locals can do with common sense when they’re given the chance by central government.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. OTGO (508 comments) says:

    We already have bag limits (which have been recently reduced). What difference would a license make? It would be a tax grab and a creation of a layer of bureaucracy that the left are so fond of.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. twofish (74 comments) says:

    The proposed snapper regulation last year was the one issue National nearly totally fucked up on until they realized the vehemence with which it was meet.

    And the only person in Labour who saw it too was David Shearer, but overeager to see him make a total dick of himself, his entire Labour Party colleagues sat behind him in the House and let him do it – hold up two snapper in the House, the “high” point of his Leadership. :-)

    But, having not analyzed this issue in the slightest, rather than just fuck around with fish sizes, and change Labour leadership, they now want to tax [licence] the whole of recreational fishing – with I assume exemptions for Maori customary rights – so only those within one day’s walk to the coast.

    What could be Shearer stupidity?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. tedbear (127 comments) says:

    No NK, my earlier post needs no changes.
    This thread is about licenses.

    If you have a gripe about road deaths, my advise to you is to first learn to read, then run along and look for a thread about how to reduce the road toll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Tarquin North (117 comments) says:

    Albert, agree with what you say, and no I can’t say Legasea is anymore believable than the commercial sector. But even if the recreational catch is ten percent surely this is a good thing? From my experience most recreational fish go to a good home, my elderly neighbours do alright out of my endeavours. Again, no need for a license. There are plenty of fisheries officers floating around Northland keeping an eye on things.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. thePeoplesFlag (170 comments) says:

    “…I was at a fishing competition the other week where a spokesman from Legacy, the recreational fishers advocacy group made a speech. According to him between two and three percent of all fish caught are caught by recreational fishers…”

    Sounds like the spokesman was playing fast and lose with the facts to me. 2-3% of the total fish caught in our EEZ might be the case. But I specifically referred to our COASTAL waters – as in within the 12 mile limit (in reality, the old 3 mile limit since most of the little 12-16ft tinnies would find going out further a bit to much of an adventure).

    no one is arguing about the measurable(ish) QMS caught within our EEZ, and the amount of Hoki pulled in by a trawler 200km out to sea on the Chatham rise is completely irrelevant to a debate about recreational fishing that is mostly done within a few miles of the main coast of NZ.

    It is good example though of the general bad faith and constructive dishonesty that a lot of the recreational fishing lobby groups put about in their propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Duxton (579 comments) says:

    Excellent. Expect to see more (unknown) Labour candidates come out with more nonsense like this as the election draws nearer, and the full moon cycle returns. If National doesn’t look like the party of reason now, they will by 20 September…..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. thePeoplesFlag (170 comments) says:

    Oh and for the record – I would prefer not to license fishing activity. Fees would inevitably rise and price the common man out of the market, and eventually you would end up with capture of the license system by professional charter outfits who’ll basically do everything they can to restrict access to purchase a license to an unofficial cartel, just like freshwater fishing. And anyway, a license could probably not be applied to Maori under treaty obligations, so you would end up with the iniquitous situation where white guy A pays to go fishing and brown guy B 50m in his boat doesn’t.

    I strongly prefer technology restrictions for recreational fishing (no fish finders, GPS, etc) to reduce the sophistication of the fishing and hook limits, the use of closed seasons and more marine reserves to reduce effort.

    The bottom line is we can’t go on as we have in the past, at least in Auckland snapper area.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Griff (6,702 comments) says:

    The peoples flag
    Restrict navigational instruments?
    Gps and depth sounders are for safety. Few can navigate with a chart and compass nowadays .
    You don’t need a fish finder (stupid tv it tells lies) or a GPS to catch fish . A paper chart a working mk1 eyeball and a brain is far better at finding a feed.
    Enforce recreational limits and ban trawling inside twelve miles if you want to preserve inshore fish stocks.
    The commercial guys kill and waste far more than they actually land with trawling. I have often followed a trawler to get a feed from the fish floating dead on the surface that slips though the nets .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Grant (426 comments) says:

    Any other activities that need regulating and measuring in your opinion flag boy?

    For your information, recreational fishing is already regulated, ie catch limits and fish size minimums, so why should we pay for a license as well?

    Typical socialist, always keen to remove money from someone else”s pocket, and to control the activities of the masses.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OneTrack (2,567 comments) says:

    UT – “The right of ordinary use of public roads comes from the natural right of liberty.”

    Ok, so we don’t need car licences then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. OneTrack (2,567 comments) says:

    otgo – “It would be a tax grab and a creation of a layer of bureaucracy that the left are so fond of.”

    And all the left-wingers are now wondering “So what’s wrong with that? Sounds like win-win”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. OneTrack (2,567 comments) says:

    twofish – “And the only person in Labour who saw it too was David Shearer, …”

    I don’t think Shearer recognised the kick-back on that at all. Shearer and his snapper was basically a two-fingered solute to every fisher (sorry) in New Zealand. Essentially his point was that Key was wrong about the public being more interested in snapper quota and that the whole country was critically concerned about the GCSB listening in on their Facebook pages. Well all the people in his caucus room were, so that meant the whole country was.

    The two snapper were to make a joke of Keys comment. The problem, that Ms Walker now doesn’t seem to have realised, is Key was right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Northland Wahine (647 comments) says:

    So wait… My 7 year old would need a licence to fish? Oh please bugger off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.