Category: Conservation

Posted on

Fishing allowances in the Hauraki Gulf and impacts on protection areas

Longline fishing boat

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park is under increasing pressure. As fish stocks decline and new management measures are introduced, public debate has intensified. Social media often reflects a deep-seated frustration, frequently directed at commercial operations for the scale of their extraction, or at customary fishing due to a perceived lack of fairness.

While customary and recreational catches are not tracked with the same precision as commercial fishing, the allowances set by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries provide a baseline for comparing the impact of each sector. Here I examine those allowances for key inshore species.

Fishing allowances Weight
Fishing allowances Percent

The commercial sector is permitted to take 74% or six times more fish than recreational fishers and 30 times more than customary fishers. Customary fishing averages 6% of the total take of each species and by weight is 16% of the total recreational catch or 2% of the total allowable catch. This is because customary and recreational fishers take relatively few mackerel.

12% of the total ecological impact of fishing falls under “Other Mortality.” This category represents nearly 1,000 tonnes of fish lost to poaching or incidental death (such as injuries from fishing gear). A high percentage in this category suggests the fish population has either a significant poaching issue or that current fishing methods are causing unnecessary waste, both are a significant management challenge.

Customary fishing impact on High Protection Areas (HPAs)

The experimental HPAs will allow for continued customary fishing while excluding commercial and recreational activity. Using Tāmure / Snapper as a case study, we can model three scenarios for customary take.

  • Scenario A: Voluntary Conservation. The Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust has publicly signalled a preference for non-extractive practices within these zones. If customary fishers choose to bypass the HPAs to allow large breeding fish to reseed the surrounding waters, it will result in an optimal biodiversity outcome for the entire Gulf. Mana whenua have reinforced this by partnering with the NEXT Foundation, the Department of Conservation, and the University of Auckland in a $20 million kelp regeneration programme. This support for active restoration helps cement the view that the HPAs are for healing rather than harvest, making Scenario A the most probable outcome in the short term.

  • Scenario B: Even Geographic Distribution. To understand the potential impact, we must first correctly scale these areas. While the HPAs cover 6% of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, they represent only 0.35% of the total SNA 1 management region (241,000 km2). If the total 50-tonne customary allowance for SNA 1 were spread evenly across its entire territory, the impact on the HPAs would be negligible. Because the HPAs make up only 0.35% of the area, the statistically “even” take would be just 173 kg per year across all HPAs—roughly 14 fish (at 1kg each) per protection area.

  • Scenario C: Concentration of Effort. The risk to the HPAs arises if fishing effort becomes concentrated. Protected areas naturally attract higher fish densities, making them more efficient places to harvest fish for cultural requirements, such as a tangi / funeral. If just 50% of the total customary snapper allowance was harvested from within these small zones, it would result in the removal of 25 tonnes (approximately 25,000 fish) annually. That’s 25,000 1 kg ‘pannies’ or about 2,000 fish per HPA. This level of concentration could undermine the ecological goals of the HPAs.

The legislative framework originally included “Biodiversity Objectives” that would have allowed for limits on customary take within these areas to protect ecosystem health. These protections were removed by the coalition Government at the last minute, specifically by Ministers Shane Jones and Tama Potaka.

Consequently, the ecological success of these areas (relative to the surrounding Gulf) depends on the management of the voluntarily reported customary permits. If the take remains distributed or follows a conservation-led approach (Scenarios A or B), the impact is minimal. However, without the original biodiversity safeguards, the risk of concentrated effort (Scenario C) remains a critical factor for the future of the Gulf and threatens to undermine a $20 million restoration programme.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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 Plenty” Only 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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.