Great Barrier Submission

•  The MTA feels that the proposed marine reserve for Great Barrier Island is far too large. We don't believe there is sufficient risk and threat to biodiversity and that there are numerous other tools contained within a variety of Acts that provide protection to individual species, seabed and bio-diversity. It would also cover an important area for non commercial fishers, particularly as this part of the Barrier gives good protection to smaller craft in the prevailing sou-westerly conditions. This area is also particularly valued by game fishers who may sometimes have to travel widely in search of pelagic fish.

•  Even more important than size is the right choice of boundary. It is logical that marine reserve boundaries should follow ecological boundaries that are 'meaningful' to fish. A circle around an island such as the Poor Knights is such an ideal boundary. The boundary's shape in this proposal is convenient to humans but insignificant to fish (straight lines, territorial sea, promontories, etc.).

•  We see no recognition either of the huge tract of sea floor already covered by the Navy listening range bordering the southern boundary of the proposed reserve, and the area covered by the Cable and Pipelines Protection Act just north of Great Barrier. Fishing is already prohibited or restricted in this area. It would be far more logical to extend these areas rather than create a whole new reserve in which recreational fishing is banned. These areas have never been scientifically researched and yet they have been untouched for over 40 years.

•  We are also concerned that the Department of Conservation has admitted that it cannot effectively mark the Reserve boundaries or that it has the resources to effect any form of compliance. It is likely that without regular visits to this isolated area by recreational fishers, particularly responsible charter boat operators, the area will be vulnerable to poachers. If a concession regime is proposed for this new reserve, operating a charter vessel out there will not be economically viable.

•  We believe too that the large marine reserve already in place at the Poor Knights Islands protects similar biodiversity and gives the public an ideal situation closer to the mainland which affords good protection in all weather conditions. The Poor Knights also has an existing charter boat infrastructure that facilitates public access to the Reserve.

•  We also have some concern that a marine reserve at GBI will not assist in enabling the area to replenish itself since it is in part degrading due to land-based run off, possibly from the Whangarei Basin and the subsequent pollution of the marine environment. Measures to increase fish stocks throughout the Hauraki Gulf and around Great Barrier may be more useful, including banning netting at least within the Hauraki Marine Park and Bream Bay.

•  We understand there was a proposal in 1991 which had local support for a small marine reserve. There does not seem to be local support for the larger proposal currently under discussion. We would ask why DoC felt the need to increase the size of the proposed reserve when there is obviously little support from locals. We are told that larger marine reserves are more effective at protecting more species and habitats, however, marine reserves do not protect against land-based pollution and poisonous plankton blooms - the proposed area has been devastated by this.

•  Locals have worked hard to protect their coasts with better means than marine reserves. In 1992 they achieved a 1 mile commercial set net ban right around the Great Barrier and the Mokohinau Islands, with spectacular results. A marine reserve will do nothing to the areas outside and it will not address the causes of the problems. In fact, this proposal may place a strain on the surrounding areas, as fishers, commercial and non-commercial, expand out into the surrounding areas. It is reputed that 15 years ago the Trevally schools were an endless carpet of fish on the surface between Burgess, Fannel, Navarre and Mario Rocks. Apparently there is now not much chance of seeing even one good school. The schools may well be so depleted as to never recover.

•  Marine reserves do very little for marine biodiversity. They have no benefit for the non-fished species, or the fished migratory species as they move in and out of reserves. A reserve will be of benefit only for previously fished resident species but these can be protected in other ways. Marine species moving between protected areas will be caught just like those who live there permanently.

•  A reserve does indeed protect large, old, and experienced animals which may have important genetic and social values not protected under fisheries rules, but there are other ways to achieve this - a closed area /season for trawling and maximum size restrictions for instance. However, we believe that even at the Poor Knights such large, old animals have not appeared.

•  Marine reserves may well seem ideal places for scientific study, education, snorkelling and diving, underwater photography, swimming, exploring rock pools and eco-tourism. However, only when there is clear water and safe and easy access will marine reserves be used by divers, underwater photographers, eco-tourism and for education. It is reputed that the best dive spots in Leigh are outside the marine reserve in an unprotected sea.

•  In fact, this reserve will only be available to some; its position around the back of the Barrier excludes it from most Auckland based charter vessels as we believe that the survey limits for these boats will not extend to the Eastern side of the Barrier. This being the case, only a few boats will be capable of doing the charters and not many larger sized vessels have sufficient business at the Barrier to be based there. Smaller vessels would have to be launched off the beaches on the Eastern side, possibly near Medland's and outside the Marine reserve, to avoid damaging any sealife. Vessels departing from the mainland, even from Leigh or Mangawhai which are probably the closest points, would need to be out overnight.

•  The Marine Reserves Act provides only one tool - permanent and total closure for extraction. It is the wrong tool for an area where sustenance fishing is of major importance. A protected area under the Fisheries Act would allow many degrees of flexibility to produce the right solution for this area.

•  The Department of Conservation has failed to recognise the importance of access to the north east coast of Great Barrier Island to recreational sport fishers from the Auckland area who fish for the migratory species of marlin and tuna. Fishing for these pelagics in no way effects local biodiversity.

•  Given the recent shipping exclusion area gazetted around the Poor Knights from Cape Brett to Bream Head, the extension of the Great Barrier Marine Reserve out to the territorial 12 mile limit has the potential by default to push ships transiting our coast further off shore to stay outside the Marine Reserve. They may also choose to transit inside Great Barrier Island and out through the Colville Channel across the traditional recreational and commercial routes to the island from the mainland. To have large foreign-going ships transiting across these traditional routes will pose a further hazard to small craft and a greater risk of pollution to the sensitive areas on the western side of the Barrier and the Hauraki Gulf.  

•  This is an area subject to rapid changes in weather and sea conditions, unlike any of the Marine Reserves in the Hauraki Gulf, including the area around Goat Island. There is no VHF radio coverage for channels 1 and 88 due to "shadow" from hills over the inshore waters. This means that boaties are unable to communicate directly with Coastguard Northern Region in the event of an incident. In addition, the nearest SAR base is at Tryphena, at least an hour's travelling in good conditions. This base would be beyond reach in rough conditions as the search and rescue vessel would be unable to round the northern or southern extremities of the island. This means that there is inadequate search and rescue coverage on this coast. Diving in particular is an inherently dangerous recreation and any accidents require immediate attention. The remoteness and exposure to weather of the proposed marine reserve site compounds these risks.

•  Many visitors come solely to the island in the winter off-season to fish in the proposed area. The loss of even a small proportion of these people will have a detrimental impact on both local businesses and ferry operators. If establishing a marine reserve means that this is a prohibited activity there could be severe consequences for the island's economy.