This OIA request for photos of bycatch by observers on commercial fishing boats was sent August 2022 and answered 24 February 2023 due to technical issues.
Please supply the following information under the Official Information Act (OIA):
1. All photos of the two black petrel caught by snapper longline fisheries between 2019-20 in this map. There are no photos of these captures as the birds were released alive. The priority is to release live birds as quickly as is possible and there may not have been time to take photos. This part of your request is therefore declined pursuant to section 18(e) of the OIA.
2. All photos of the seven flesh-footed shearwater caught by snapper longline fisheries between 2019-20 in this map.
There are images of four individual shearwater captures. All photos are labelled with the number 2, and the four individuals are identified through subheadings of 3, 4, 5, and 7 (e.g. 2.Flesh_footed_shearwater_3a)
3. All photos of the flesh-footed shearwater caught by minor bottom longline fisheries between 2019-20 in this map.
Only one individual shearwater was captured and only one photo was taken of the capture.
4. All photos of the white pointer shark caught by snapper longline fisheries between 2019-20 in this map.
The white pointer shark was carefully untangled by the crew and released alive.
5. All photos of the leatherback turtle caught by bigeye longline fisheries between 2019-20 in this map.
The leatherback turtle was released alive
6. All photos of the green turtle caught by southern bluefin longline fisheries between 2019-20 in this map.
It is important to note that the observer identified this turtle as GNT (Green Turtle), which was then uploaded to our website. After the data was uploaded to the website, this capture went through the expert species ID process. It was subsequently found to be an ORT (Olive Ridley Turtle).
I made this sign to help the Tāmaki Estuary Protection Society enforce the set net ban. I am uploading it here so that the map in particular is easily found on the internet.
Set nets are banned in the Tāmaki Estuary. Set nets indiscriminately catch non- target fish species; birds and mammals. There has been a recent increase in illegal set netting in the Tāmaki Estuary, please help protect our fisheries and other wildlife.
Fridays closure of the last two tipa / scallop beds in Aotearoa / New zealand will mark an historic moment for our fisheries. It signals the collapse of more than a fishery but an entire ecosystem.
The last commercial mussel was dredged out of the Hauraki Gulf in 1966, after 56 years there are no signs of recovery. We don’t yet know what the fate will be for tipa. The fishery at the top of the South Island has been closed since 2017. If the tipa beds do not recover it will be the best evidence of ecocide in Aotearoa / New Zealand this century.
We need to change our ways. Both recreational and commercial dredging must be banned as per the Hauraki Gulf 2017 marine spatial plan that the government has still not acted on. These fishing methods damage the habitat that the animals grow in.
The result is:
Dead and damaged non target species and juvenile tipa
Lost biodiversity and water clearing animals
Lost habitats for fish especially juvenile fish
Long term changes to seafloor chemistry
The same impacts are created by other bottom impact fishing methods like bottom trawling and Danish seining which were also to be banned in the marine spatial plan. Short term fisheries closures are not good enough, we need a total ban on these methods.
I really enjoyed working on these graphics which Auckland Council used for the exhibition stand at Fieldays 2022. They show the diversity benefits of riparian planting, whats best to plant, and the landscape scale benefits of planting. I learnt a lot while working on them, particularly the hidden values of tree roots.
During the October 2022 consultation round on the marine protection proposals for Revitalising the Gulf I asked Govt a few questions. Some of them were quickly answered but a few others were converted into an Official Information Act request. From that I was able to draft this table showing changes in spatial use of the Gulf proposed by the plan, this is important given it’s a Marine Spatial Plan.
A new idea proposed in the plan (based on Sea Change 2017) was that customary fishing could take place withing the High Protection Areas (HPAs). There was no advice provided on how much customary take might happen in the HPAs, this is important as it impacts level of protection provided by the policy. I asked:
“Are you able to supply how much customary fishing (including commercial customary) was undertaken in the proposed HPAs in previous years? This would aid conversations with people concerned about future levels of customary take. I understand catch records may not have precise associated location data, an estimate is fine.”
I received a painfully detailed response. Here is the map and raw data, I spent a few hours with it trying to answer my question. In my opinion the data is unusable. For nearly every population there is a unspecified number given for what was taken. For example:
In 2018 & 219 there were 1,064 kgs of snapper taken as customary catch but there is an additional number of 438 with no unit specified.
If we just stick to the kgs and compare data from 2018 & 2019 to contextualise it with fishing data from the last State of the Environment Report there was about one tonne of tāmure / snapper taken as customary catch. Total commercial take of tāmure in the Gulf was about 1,600 tonnes and recreational take was 2,000 tonnes. So customary catch might only be 0.03% of the total catch and insignificant from a population management perspective. However there is another number of 438 given with unit unspecified. If the number is tonnes then customary catch is 12% of the current catch, spatial changes in this effort would be significant from a population management perspective. The 2022 data is also dominated by unspecified numbers.
I have not been able to use the data to answer my question, the reporting system for recreational and customary take needs an over haul. Its frustrating as there is a great app that has been developed for reporting customary take (IKANET) which must be unused.
Note this was written from the perspective on an average sized white male in his 40’s, you may need different tactics. The number one rule here is to never put yourself in danger.
Scenario 1. The dog is off-lead and there are threatened breeding birds in the area.
Chase after the dog. This shows the owners that something is really wrong, especially if you don’t look like the kind of person who likes to run. In my experience the dog usually returns to the owner, you can then have an (out of breath) conversation about why it’s important not to have dogs in the area.
Scenario 2. The dog is on a lead, there are no threatened breeding birds in the area.
Introduce yourself to the dog owners like you are an old friend. Be warm and in their face. This shows you are not somebody to be ignored but also not threatening. I like to shake their hand and tell them what I do here, my name, I also ask for theirs. Kindy explain to them that they must have missed the no dogs sign and send them back the way they came. It’s a good idea to walk with them as this shows how serious you are. Asking them about their dog(s) helps you come across as relatable, it’s also useful to find out if they are a local.
Scenario 3. Dealing with repeat offenders.
I have actually never had this problem but I received this advice from Auckland Council after having an argument with a local who was determined he was allowed to walk his dog somewhere where he was not.
1. Record the offenders details.
Ideally you already have their name from Scenario 2, if not ask for it again in a friendly way and apologies for forgetting.
Get a description of the dog (its breed, colour, sex, size etc and a description of the collar).
If the dog is not with its owner and it is safe to do so you might be able to get its tag details, for this you want the tag number and expiry date.
You might be able to get a photo of the owner or dog.
You might also be able to follow them to their car or house to record a license plate or address – but never put yourself in danger.
2. Report the details to Auckland Council (09) 301 0101 with the time, date and location. You will also need to report your contact details.
If Council officers are able to locate the owner an infringement may be issued. Keep a record of the incident for yourself. If there are regular incidents you can ask Council to do monitoring. In this case someone from the animal management team will visit the reserve. My understanding is that they can issue infringement notices on the spot.
The tarāpunga that nest under the Panmure Bridge are heavily impacted by humans, the national population is in decline. While deploying a nesting structure for tara / white-fronted tern yesterday we also added a small extension to the Panmure tarāpunga nesting structure. We upcycled old wood which fitted the rustic nature of the old bridge. The six nesting areas were c35cm x 25cm. The gulls were already a few weeks into nesting with some three eggs nests. As the colony is currently space limited I think the structure will help, but we may have been a bit late deploying. The gulls also nest on boats in the estuary so if some get disturbed they may move to the main colony. It was promising to see two gulls having a tussle over the new nesting area while we exited the estuary.
Photo taken 5:30pm 18 September. Gulls regularly seen on the platform, but not sitting.Photo taken 2 November. Success!Photo taken on pole camera shows six nests.
I checked many old boats moored in the Estuary and did not find any with nests which is great. One pair of gulls nested on a post, another on a jetty where it’s likely to be disturbed. There is a clear case for extending the nesting platform in 2023.
This photo of a parent attending a chick in the current upstream from the colony indicates there may be some benefits to creating a ramp of sorts for the juveniles.New addition added. Noted 8 infertile eggs on site, one dead chick, two chicks remaining, no dead birds with fishing line attached but any bodies may have been blown into the estuary by the cyclone. Some fishing line removed from site. One fledgling was in the water and calling, it would be good to have a ramp or additional floating area(s), this may reduce chick mortality and would definitely reduce colony stress.
Added some extensions after taking this video (30 September 2004)
This one has quite tight spacing (c25cm) but I know from the tara next box experiment it will not be a problem.We ran out of wood and this large platform only has one divider, it will be interesting to see how many gulls still want to use it.Both new platforms utilised. Photos October 10 2024 by Matt Rayner.
Tarāpunga / red-billed gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae scopulinus) and tara / white-fronted tern (Sterna striata) nest on artificial structures in the Tāmaki Estuary, Auckland, New Zealand. The Department of Conservation ranks both species as At Risk / Declining (Robertson et al. 2021). Both species have also nested on moored boats in the estuary which creates human-wildlife conflict.
Piles under Waipuna Bridge (middle, photo taken from land). Photo by Shaun Lee.Piles under Waipuna Bridge (western end, photo taken at low tide). Photo by Shaun Lee.
Hypothesis
A nesting platform on the large piles (72cm diameter) that rise c2m above Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) under Waipuna Bridge. The piles are safe form mammalian predators who could not swim then climb to the nests. This area is less impacted by light pollution than Panmure Bridge where there is a tarāpunga colony.
Challenge
Solution
The nests are exposed to avian predators including the adjacent tarāpunga.
Using vertical canes to stop flying attacks on chicks. See Preston Dock Common Terns below.
The nest structures might be used by tarāpunga.
This is not a poor outcome but if the spaces are deep and small they might not be so suitable for tarāpunga. There is a small chance that nearby nesting feral pigeons are also interested in the structure.
Colonies are ephemeral (McLean 2018) with birds moving regularly.
This could be an advantage as species with higher site fidelity would be harder to attract. Suggest the addition of a 3D printed decoy to improve the chances of success I the first season.
The structure will attract human attention.
Clearly label the structure as a ‘trial bird nest for endangered terns’ include a phone number & URL to a blog post about the project. Centre the decoy to keep it less accessible / visible to humans. The height of the piles will help deter vandals. Even at low tide access requires a boat or a swim. Graffiti on the bridge may have been enabled by retired pontoons.
Installation difficulties
The piles are tall and using a ladder on a boat is tricky. A platform that connects the piles is visible 2.5hrs after high tide at the western end. A ladder could be used on the platform but it will be slippery.
Monitoring
There is no pedestrian access to the bridge. A land based site inspection from Finn Place identified the western piles as easy to monitor.
Preston Dock Common Tern nest boxes made by the Fylde Bird Club in Lancashire.
Tara do not use nesting material (NZBirdsOnline), a small amount of sand could cover the floor of the nests. The Preston Tern Nest Boxes use gravel. Drainage holes should be added to keep water out.
Proposed design
Based on the Preston Dock Common Tern nest boxes. Tara are not much larger than Common Tern but we have made the nest boxes smaller to dissuade tarāpunga form nesting here. Boxes dimensions made of ‘Radiata Premium Grade Smooth Decking 140 x 32mm’. The extra depth allows for a max of 40mm of gravel.
How the nest boxes might attach to a platform on top of the piles.
Timing
Tara tend to arrive at a prospective nesting location only a few days before laying, and there is a high degree of synchronisation of laying within a colony (NZBirdsOnline 2022). Eggs are laid between October-December (NZBirdsOnline 2022). Prospecting may begin weeks before egg laying. We plan to deploy the structure by mid September.
Deployment
The structure was deployed on the 14th of September 2022 (with a few modifications). I had a huge amount of help from a friend who is much more handy with an impact driver than me. The decoy is a bit odd looking as its just a scaled up tara iti with a different paint job. Five tara flew past while we were working and roosted on the piles in the center of the channel. We decided not to deploy the canes until we had active nests.
Update 15 Sep 2022. 10:00am-10:45am.
Four tara and three tarāpunga were roosting on the piles in the centre of the estuary. Every ten minutes or so they would be quite loud with both species calling and jostling for space but no confrontations observed. There were three close passes of the decoy and on at least two of these occasions it seemed like the terns were calling at it. No terns landed on the boxes but both species visited the piles near me. One tern was foraging from a pole which gave it a good view of any fish swimming above the platform in the shadow of the bridge, but it did not dive. One tern dived on in the centre area.
Update 18 Sep 2022. 5:15pm-6pm
About three gulls regularly on the piles in the centre of the estuary. Lots of gull movement and calls, more gull activity between the bridges than the 15th. No terns seen.
Update 28 Sep 2022. 2:15-2:20pm
Constant red-billed gull activity. Three gulls roosting on centre piles. Two pied shags feeding on the southern side.
Update 10 Oct 2022. 1:00-1:01pm
Low tide, no activity. Just a pied shag foraging under the bridge.
Update 23 Oct 2022. 5:00-5:01pm
High tide, no activity. Just a few gulls roosting on centre piles.
Update 02 Nov 2022. 1pm.
Photo taken from pole mounted GoPro shows gulls are prospecting the nest boxes.
Two pairs of tarāpunga have nested in the boxes. One of them has really filled it up with material!Tara also look to be nesting in an adjacent boat.
Update 23 Dec 2022. 12pm
The first pair of gulls have a chick, the second nesting gulls have not increased their nest height at all. Maybe because the other pair can keep watch.
Update 15 Jan 2023. 5:30pm
I’m hoping the chick is in one of the nest boxes and the second nest is not being sat on because it is hot, and the nest has a chick. Alternatively there is another adult down in the nest box. If the recent storms had destroyed either nest or pushed the chick off the adults would likely have moved on.
Update 18 Feb2023. 5:00pm
The structure is cyclone proof! Weather stations at St Helier’s and Howick recorded wind speeds of 40 knots (74kph). Despite the roosting gulls in the photo I dont think there were any active nests on the structure today.Additional visit 22 Feb shows nesting material in five of the six boxes. To my knowledge only the two with the most nesting material were used for nesting.
Update 22 Nov 2023. 11:00am
The gulls nested here earlier this year with a chick ready to fledge already. It also looks like at least three of the nest boxes were utilised. There was also a juvenile on a nearby boat and on a pylon under the bridge where tara nested last year.
Update 28 Jan 2024. 2:00pm
The gulls are still using the platform for nesting even though there is space at the main colony. I think the design is just too appealing to gulls.
Update 29 Sep 2024. 3:40pm
Gulls continue to dominate these nest boxes and it looks like three pairs are having a go here this year. Time for Plan B.
Plan B
Matt Rayner had the idea to add concrete tree rings to the tops of the poles. On the 30th of September 2024 we deployed four pairs of tree ring semicircles to the tops of the poles and added shell to encourage nesting tara. They were deployed on the group of poles next out from this group to avoid disturbing the gulls. There are three on the northern side and one in the south where we have seen tara try to nest unsuccessfully in the past.
Nest 1. Northern side, most eastern nestNest 2. Northern middle nestNest 3. Still on the north side of the bridge but further south than the other two nests. We added more shell to this nest to see if that makes a difference.Nest 4. Southern pole had a small metal (rusting) rim
Update 12 Oct 2024. 2:23 pm (windy)
All tree rings had single gulls hunkered down in them. Presumably nesting.All these nest boxes are now full for the first time.
Update 18 Nov 2024. 10:30 am
Also had fledgling gull in the water.Two out of four tree rings had gull nests. A gull is also nesting on and adjacent pole with no tree ring for the first time.
Robertson et al. 2021. Hugh A. Robertson, Karen A. Baird, Graeme P. Elliott, Rodney A. Hitchmough, Nikki J. McArthur, Troy Makan, Colin M. Miskelly, Colin. J. O’Donnell, Paul M. Sagar, R. Paul Scofield, Graeme A. Taylor and Pascale Michel. Conservation status of birds in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 36. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 43 p.
Mclean 2018. Successful restoration of an unnatural breeding habitat for white-fronted terns (Sterna striata). Notornis, 2018, Vol. 65: 54-58. The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc.
Yesterday I checked about 10km of beach for kekeno / New Zealand fur seals in Mercury Bay , Coromandel including Wharekaho, Kuaotunu, Otama, Opito, Matapaua. I did not find any alive or dead. The beaches were largely empty but I did ask five locals to keep an eye out and report them as part of a study I am helping DOC with in the area. One person was aware of the study.
I noticed a few bits of fishing line washed up on the high tide line left by dirty fishers at Wharekaho / Simpsons Beach. I picked up all the bits I could find for 1km East of Stormont Lane. I counted 57 bits of rubbish, many were tangled knots of nylon which pose a danger to shorebirds who can get their toes caught in it (see photo above).
Dotterel counts for the above beaches logged on iNaturalist.nz
