Restoring Motukorea’s Forests with Feral Pigeons

Taupata / Coprosma repens regenerating on Motukorea

Motukorea / Browns Island is a visual icon of the Hauraki Gulf, but beneath its green slopes lies a history of heavy modification. Farmed for the better part of the last century, the island’s terrestrial habitats are now dominated by Kikuyu grass—a thick, aggressive mat that chokes out diversity and leaves little room for native flora to gain a foothold.

Recently, we began work at the southern tip of the island with a specific goal in mind: creating roosting and nesting habitat for endangered shorebirds. To do this, we sprayed back the Kikuyu grass, the first attempt with brush cutters was not successful.

As the grass died back, weeds quickly sprung up in the newly cleared earth. But while I was out there clearing these weeds, I looked closer at the ground and found something surprising.

Hidden gems in the weeds

Among the weeds were the unmistakable seedlings of native trees. I found two different types of Coprosma and a few young Karo plants. This sparked a bit of an ecological mystery. Where did they come from?

Aerial image of Motukorea in 1940. Source Geomaps / Auckland Council.

“There is no evidence of the island ever being forest-clad. It was cultivated for kumara and taro in the 1820s when visited by Samuel Marsden and RA.” – Esler, A. E. (1993). Plant Life of some Inner Hauraki Gulf Islands. Horticulture in New Zealand (Journal of The Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture), 4(2).

It is highly unlikely that these seeds survived more than 200 years in the soil bank. The most logical transport method is avian delivery—birds flying in and dropping seeds.

The unusual suspects

Usually, when we talk about forest regeneration in New Zealand, we look to our native pollinators and seed dispersers, like the Kererū or the Tūī.

However, on Motukorea, native fruit-eating birds are scarce. It is rare to spot a Tūī on the island and I can’t recall ever seeing a Kererū. So, who is doing the reseeding?

The island is, however, home to large populations of non-native birds like Feral Rock Pigeon, Starling and House Sparrows.

Feral rock pigeon on Motukorea

A novel restoration method

The theory is simple but fascinating. The clearing of the Kikuyu created a roosting and feeding area. As weeds fruited on the flats, the Pigeons and Starlings flocked in to feed. While they were there, they deposited seeds they had consumed elsewhere—perhaps from the few stands of mature native trees remaining on the island’s cliffs or even from the mainland.

It is a strange irony of conservation. We generally view feral pigeons and starlings as pests, yet in this highly modified landscape, they appear to be acting as the primary ecological engineers, bridging the gap that our absent native birds usually fill.

Thanks to our unexpected volunteers helping us replant the forest—one dropping at a time.

A Reality Check for Recreational Fishers

Kina barren at the Noises. November 2025. Photo by Shaun Lee.

The planned ‘One Ocean’ protest by some recreational fishers against the new protections in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, while framed as a defense of “Kiwis” and “freedom,” is more accurately a display of selective outrage and self-interest. Lets cut through the tangled arguments and address the fundamental values—or lack thereof—driving this opposition.

Debunking the Protestors’ Claims

The core complaints levied by Ben Chissell, Shimano Fishing New Zealand, Okuma New Zealand and Daiwa New Zealand (LegaSea are on the sideline) are simply not supported by the facts:

#1 “People just wanting to catch a feed for their family or enjoy a day on the water are now being pushed further offshore into unfamiliar areas.” A dramatic exaggeration. Only three of the twelve new High Protection Areas (HPAs) even touch the mainland.

#2 “Commercial fishers can access the HPAs.” This is a red herring. While two HPAs permit a small, regulated ring-net catch worth only $26k PA, this is a temporary concession and a fraction of the issue. This will be reviewed in 3 years and the Labour Party has already pledged to remove the ring-net fishing clause.

#3 “Locking the public out will simply push fishing pressure onto neighbouring regions up north and in the Bay of PlentyOnly 9% of fishing happens in the HPAs, any displacement is consistent with existing shifts if fishing effort.

#4 “Unfairly locks the public out.” The opposite is true. Allowing ubiquitous fishing locks the public out of experiencing nature in its most abundant and wildest state. It’s astonishingly selfish to argue that the public’s “right to fish” trumps the public’s right to a healthy, vibrant marine ecosystem. Furthermore, 72% of recreational fishers support protecting 30% of the ocean. The vocal minority does not speak for the majority.

#5. “We just basically need to prioritise looking after Kiwis, looking after our playground, feeding Kiwis, and not exporting our resources.” Yes commercial fishing needs to reduce in the Gulf, this is happening. But recreational fishers now take more snapper than commercial fishers, its the fishing methods that need to change not the focus on exports. The bill they are protesting introduces some Seafloor Protection Areas but the whole of the marine park should be an SPA. The marine spatial plan (Sea Change 2017) bans trawling and allows for areas with conservation values.

The most damning concern is the sheer lack of responsibility being taken by for the environmental toll of recreational fishing:

Look no further than places like The Noises (now an HPA). The reefs there are a stark monument to unchecked recreational fishing. By wiping out the predators of kina (sea urchins), fishers have allowed kina barrens to replace 72% of the productive kelp forests. This isn’t sustainable ‘kai,’ it’s ecological vandalism.

The protest is incredibly short-sighted. Protecting small areas creates nurseries and, critically, allows big old fish to thrive. A single 70cm Snapper produces the same number of eggs as thirty-six 30cm Snapper. Protecting these areas is not “locking the public out”; it’s re-seeding the entire Gulf for future generations.

A Question of Values

The current proposal only increases the Gulf’s protected areas from 0.3% to a paltry 6%. The UN recommends 30%. This protest, demanding unfettered access to the remaining area, boils down to one thing: a profoundly selfish set of values that prioritises a weekend hobby over the long-term health of a national taonga.

If the goal is truly to “look after our playground,” as claimed, then the only responsible action is to support, not protest, the modest steps being taken to let nature heal. Less complaining, more long-term thinking.

Fisheries New Zealand’s refusal leaves unanswered questions about High Protection Areas

Red moki photo by Shaun Lee

Following an amendment to Hauraki Gulf / Tīkipa Moana Marine Protection Bill last month I made an Official Information Act (OIA) request to Fisheries New Zealand (FNZ) asking for data on customary fishing inside the 12 proposed High Protection Areas (HPAs).

The request had two parts:

  • Customary fishing data (2022–present) – including authorisations, catch returns, or summaries.
  • Any reports or analyses (since 2022) assessing the potential biodiversity impacts of customary fishing inside HPAs.

The reason for this request was simple: without knowing how much customary fishing occurs in these areas, it is impossible to assess whether the HPAs will deliver the biodiversity outcomes the public has been told to expect. I asked for and received this data in 2022 but it was in poor shape.

The response from Fisheries New Zealand

FNZ declined my request the day after the house had finished debating the amendment.

  • They stated that under current regulations, authorised representatives are not required to report what they have approved or what has been caught under a customary authorisation.
  • Some representatives voluntarily provide authorisation records, but FNZ treats this information as confidential. The request was declined under section 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA, which allows withholding to protect information supplied in confidence.
  • FNZ confirmed that it has not produced any internal or external reports or analyses quantifying the biodiversity impacts of customary fishing in the HPAs. This part of the request was refused under section 18(e) – on the basis that no such documents exist.

In short: FNZ does not hold comprehensive customary catch data for the Gulf HPAs and has not assessed the biodiversity implications of customary fishing in these areas.

What has changed in the law

Originally, the Marine Protection Bill required biodiversity objectives for HPAs, and customary fishing had to align with them. That safeguard was contained in Clause 66 and Section 19.

But in July 2025, the Government amended the Bill. The amendment removed the link between biodiversity objectives and customary fishing. Customary non-commercial fishing in HPAs will now be regulated solely under the Fisheries Act 1996, with no requirement to align with biodiversity objectives (AP No 260).

This means biodiversity objectives will no longer manage customary fishing at all.

Why this is disappointing

The Environmental Defence Society has stated it is “concerning that customary fishing will not be subject to biodiversity objectives.”

I think the changes create a serious gap in marine protection:

  • Unknown fishing pressure: We do not know how much customary fishing will take place in HPAs because reporting is not mandatory.
  • No biodiversity safeguard: There is no mechanism to ensure customary fishing aligns with biodiversity objectives for HPAs.
  • No impact analysis: FNZ has done no work to estimate the ecological effects of customary fishing within these areas.
  • Public confidence undermined: HPAs are promoted as “high protection,” yet the level of protection is uncertain and potentially weak.

The bottom line

The Gulf desperately needs effective marine protection. But protection must be real, not just symbolic. Right now, FNZ cannot say how many fish will be removed from HPAs, nor what impact that removal will have on biodiversity.

Worse, the recent amendments to the Bill mean biodiversity objectives—the very tool designed to ensure ecological recovery—no longer apply to customary fishing.

That is deeply disappointing. If HPAs are to succeed, they must be based on evidence, transparency, and enforceable biodiversity objectives. Anything less risks creating “protected” areas in name only.

Together with the allowance for commercial fishing in two of the HPAs, the reality falls far short of what the public expects from “high protection.” As MP Lan Pham put it in the House this week:

“My proposed amendment is to actually replace the definition of ‘High Protection Area’ with ‘Compromised Protected Area’.”

It’s hard to disagree.

3D printed kiwi eggs

3D Printed kiwi-nui egg

These 3D-printed kiwi-nui / North Island brown kiwi eggs for the Department of Conservation were fun to make. Once filled with water they came in at about 500 g each, giving them the heft and realism of the real thing.

3D Printed kiwi-nui egg

At 129.3 × 82.9 mm, they’re massive for such a small bird to produce — one of nature’s great feats. The shells are 5 mm thick plastic, tough enough to survive a drop, and made to be handled for advocacy and education.

A simple but powerful way to show just how extraordinary kiwi really are.

Net free areas of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park

Kororā / Little penguin caught in net. Photo by Shaun Lee.

A friend asked me what areas of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park are closed to all forms of fishing with nets. This is important if you are a dolphin, seabird, or fish that doesn’t want to be caught by these methods, which can take non-target species as well as the intended catch.

In the marine park, net fishing is done by purse seiners, bottom trawlers, Danish seiners, ring net fishers, commercial and recreational set net fishers, and recreational beach seine (drag net) fishers.

In the map below I have included the Marine Reserve Extensions in the proposed Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection Bill but excluded the Seafloor Protection Areas, which don’t restrict all net fishing, and the High Protection Areas (HPAs), which will allow customary fishing with nets. Two of the HPAs will also allow commercial ring-net fishing.

Although many areas with permanent Set Net Closures remain open to other forms of net fishing—like drag nets—it’s pretty rare except in the Tāmaki Estuary. The Cable Protection Area (CPA), however, is a true no-fishing zone: under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act, all fishing and anchoring are prohibited. It’s pretty clear in the map that the CPA is doing nearly all of the real protection from nets.

Pukunui egg decoys

A DOC ranger carefully candles a real Pukunui egg to check for signs of fertility. Photo Guy McDonald.

For the past few years, I’ve been supporting the campaign to raise awareness of the critically endangered Pukunui / Southern New Zealand Dotterel, and to see it recognised as New Zealand’s Bird of the Year. Unfortunately, the species is in a dire state and is on track for extinction within the next decade without urgent action.

Wanting to contribute in a meaningful way, I offered to produce decoy Pukunui eggs that the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers could use to distract predators (primarily feral cats). However, DOC staff explained that decoy eggs would be most valuable during fertility checks, providing a substitute to keep adult birds settled on the nest while real eggs were removed for assessment. With only 12 nests found during the 2023/24 breeding season, it’s essential that each actively managed nest is as productive as possible. Ensuring birds aren’t incubating infertile eggs reduces wasted effort and limits their exposure to predators. Candling is only carried out when a bird has been sitting longer than the expected incubation period, suggesting the egg may not be viable.

Pukunui / Southern New Zealand dotterel nest. Photo Guy McDonald.

Using publicly available data on NZBirdsOnline, I 3D printed a set of six replica eggs, carefully matching the size, shape, and weight of real Pukunui eggs. Each egg was then airbrushed and speckled with acrylic paint to resemble the real thing as closely as possible. I also created custom protective cases for each egg to ensure they could be transported safely to Rakiura and carried in rangers’ backpacks during fieldwork.

Decoy pukunui eggs in protective cases. Photo Shaun Lee.

According to the rangers, the decoy eggs have been effective in keeping the birds settled during fertility checks, giving staff the time they need to carry out this crucial work without disrupting the breeding process.

A DOC ranger carefully candles a real Pukunui egg to check for signs of fertility. Photo Guy McDonald.

I’m proud to have volunteered my time to support the recovery of this remarkable species. You can help too by donating to the New Zealand Nature Fund.

Ring net fishing in proposed protected areas

Trevally driving krill to the surface where they are predated by seabirds that are At Risk of extinction.

After a decade of consultation and compromise on the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill the government is proposing last minute changes to allow commercial ring net fishing in two areas. I have provided ministers analysis showing the proposal would compromise the objectives of the marine protection areas. I also asked Fisheries New Zealand for data on ring net fishing. They replied 49 working days later with a partial response, two days after the bill was debated in the house and I had complained to the Ombudsman.

The data provides factual information to support new arguments against the proposal to allow commercial ring net fishing in the proposed protection areas.

  1. Commercial ring net fishers in the Hauraki Gulf catch an average of $26,588 worth of fish in the proposed protected areas, which is only 6.8% of their total Gulf catch (averaging $366,213 annually). In weight, this equates to 17,616 kg or 12.5% of their total catch. This demonstrates that the proposed protected areas account for a small percentage of their overall income, especially considering these fishers also operate on Auckland’s west coast.
  2. The average annual catch from the proposed protected areas is 17,616 kg worth $26,588, which is small compared to the natural variability in catch outside these areas. For example, the catch outside protected areas fluctuates by 35,103 kg and $141,801 across years, far exceeding the potential loss from protection.
2019-20202020-20212021-20222022-2023Average
Inside protected areas (kgs)28,05123,1259,5759,71317,616
Outside protected areas (kgs)120,961119,841108,851143,954123,402
Inside protected areas ($)$28,383$47,838$16,280$13,852$26,588
Outside protected areas ($)$297,053$376,722$352,221$438,854$366,213
Commercial ring net fishing in proposed protected areas of the Hauraki Gulf