The sand is alive

Feather duster tubeworm-Bream Bay-Photo by Shaun Lee

They often tell us that the seafloor is a wasteland. To the naked eye, or through the lens of those looking to profit from it, the vast stretches of sand off our coasts are described as “biological deserts.” But yesterday, diving in the waters of Bream Bay, I saw something else.

I was invited to join a group of marine scientists for a recreational survey in an area currently proposed for a sand mine. What we found wasn’t a desert—it was a nursery, a sanctuary, and a testament to the resilience of nature when we simply give it the space to breathe.

Signs of recovery

Our first dive took us to a spot where previous “dropcam” footage had hinted at life. As we descended, the reality exceeded our expectations. There were so tipa / scallops, everything from tiny juveniles to full-grown adults. Since this area was closed to scallop dredging on October 27, 2022, the ecosystem has begun to knit itself back together. In a world where we often hear only of environmental decline, seeing this rapid recovery was electric. As we surfaced, the lead marine biologist couldn’t hide his excitement: “Best dive ever!”

Tipa / scallop Bream Bay. Photo by Shaun Lee.
Tipa / scallops in a proposed sand mine in Bream Bay. Photo by Shaun Lee.

The moving seafloor

On our second dive, we followed a fish finder signal to a new spot. As I photographed the sand using my macro lens, I realised the sand was alive. The density of tubeworms was so high that the entire seafloor seemed to wriggle with life. These small creatures stabilise the sediment, filter feed, are attachment structures for juvenile scallops and food for fish.

A young sponge (lophon minor) growing in a tubeworm field in a proposed sand mine in Bream Bay. Photo by Shaun Lee.

Grab samples

Emptying the grab sample. Photo by Shaun Lee.

In between dives we used a grab sampler to look at the infauna, it was cool to see the little shellfish living in the sand but the highlight for me were the larger wiggling polychaete worms which I don’t often see.

An even better dive

At the end of the planned transect we discovered a low, flat outcrop of soft, peaty rock. It looked unassuming at first, but it was home to something I never expected to see in my lifetime.

Tucked into this small shelter was a huge pod of over 40 large packhorse rock lobsters. To find one or two of these creatures is rare, as they have been heavily overfished for decades. To see a pod of forty—mostly large males congregating together—was breathtaking. Sharing that space with them were juvenile and adult blue cod, goatfish, juvenile snapper and tiny larval fish.

Packhorse rock lobster in a proposed sand mine in Bream Bay. Photo by Shaun Lee.

This area is not only protected from seasonal scallop dredging since 27th of October 2022, but has been protected from bottom trawling for more than 40 years.

Memory in the water

Packhorse lobsters are known to navigate using the Earth’s magnetic field. Watching them as they traced their feelers over my face and shoulders I couldn’t help but wonder: how did they find this tiny, specific patch of safety in a vast ocean? Is it possible that the memory of these safe havens is passed down through generations?

If we allow sand mining to tear up this seafloor, we aren’t just removing “sand.” We are destroying navigational landmarks, generational homes, and a vital link in the marine food chain.

Blue cod in a proposed sand mine in Bream Bay. Photo by Shaun Lee.

Nothing there

There is a profound disconnect between what the scientists showed me and what industry describes. When pushing for extraction permits, proponents often downplay the biological value of the site. For instance, Callum McCallum, Managing Director of McCallum Bros Ltd, has previously justified mining by stating:

“It’s a very high-energy, mobile environment. To the naked eye, there is nothing there.”

After four surveys in this area, I can say with certainty: there is something there. Every time I go down, I find something more precious, more rare, and more worth saving.

We don’t need to “extract” value from Bream Bay. The seeds are already there, living and breathing beneath the waves. We just need to be quiet enough to let it recover.

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.

Submissions on kelp forest restoration

Kina barren at Sail Rock. Photo by Shaun Lee.

Fisheries New Zealand are still stuck in a single-species mindset, managing kōura / spiny lobster as if they exist in isolation. The real measure of success should be the recovery of kelp forest coverage – the foundation of our shallow reef ecosystems. To their credit, FNZ are finally discussing area closures, but the framing remains too narrow.

My estimates (based on the best available information) show that restored kelp forests in CRA 2 (Hauraki Gulf Marine Park) could be worth 12–29 times more than the entire fishery. In CRA 1 (Northland), the foregone ecosystem services from lost kelp forests are even starker – between 100 and 228 times greater than the value of the fishery itself.

The packhorse lobster fishery in northeastern New Zealand should be closed immediately to allow predator populations to recover, avoiding millions of dollars in ongoing costs for culling long-spined sea urchins.

Forage fish are the fix we’re ignoring

A workup in FMA 1. Photo Shaun Lee.

The government’s plan to revitalise the Gulf includes creating new marine protected areas and phasing out bottom trawling in some zones. These are welcome moves, but they will take time—and they don’t go far enough.

The Gulf’s biggest problems—seafloor damage and sediment—are hard and slow to fix. We’ve dredged and trawled the biogenic habitats into collapse, then smothered what’s left with sediment from land. Even if we stopped all bottom-impact fishing and upstream erosion today, it could take decades for the seafloor to recover.

But rebuilding the forage fish layer—the small, plankton-eating species that transfer energy up the food chain—is faster, cheaper, and more within reach. The evidence is clear that this “wasp waist” of the ecosystem is under strain. Bryde’s whales have shifted away from fish toward krill. Kororā / little penguins are starving. Tākapu / Gannets and Tara / White-fronted terns are abandoning inner Gulf colonies. The State of Our Gulf reports point to these changes as signs of a food web in trouble.

Kokowhāwhā  / anchovies sheltering post ‘work-up’ in the Noises Islands November 2024. Photo Shaun Lee.

Yet despite all this, the latest advice from officials fails to move us meaningfully toward ecosystem-based management. The Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan includes a commitment to review the management of key forage species to “ensure that removals do not adversely affect the marine food chain.” But the current proposals do not deliver on that intent. Instead of aiming to rebuild abundance or account for the role of forage fish in the food web, the advice retains high catch limits for fish populations we know very little about. No stock assessments have been completed for kokowhāwhā / anchovy, kupae / sprat, takeke / garfish, aua / yellow-eyed mullet, or hautere / jack mackerel. We don’t know how many fish are out there, and we’re not using predator health or ecosystem indicators to guide decisions.

Instead, Fisheries New Zealand has proposed number-shuffling. The most recent proposals claim to reduce pressure by cutting catch limits, but the proposed limits are still higher than what’s actually being caught. That means there’s no real constraint on fishing effort. The door stays open for increases, even as the ecosystem shows stress.

Adding to the contradiction, tawatawa / blue mackerel—currently the single largest fishery by weight in the Hauraki Gulf—is proposed for an increase in catch. This species forms dense schools and plays a central role in mixed-species feeding events with dolphins and seabirds. At a time when ecosystem stress is evident, boosting the take of such an important forage species moves us in the wrong direction.

Juvenile tawatawa / blue mackerel in a marine reserve. Photo Shaun Lee.

Climate change is only making this worse. These species are vulnerable to rising sea temperatures and declining plankton. We can’t control the oceans response to climate change, but we can control fishing. Leaving more fish in the water builds resilience for the species that depend on them.

Fisheries New Zealand is not proposing ecosystem-based management. It’s pretending to act without changing outcomes. If we were serious about managing the Gulf as a living system, we’d listen to the dolphins, whales and seabirds.

The forage base is the fastest thing we can fix. But only if we’re willing to try.

My submission to Fisheries New Zealand on six forage fish populations in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Kōkiri / leatherjacket: thriving or teetering on extinction in the gulf?

Kōkiri in the Alderman Islands 2025. Photo Shaun Lee.

Commercial landings of kōkiri / leatherjacket in the Gulf have crashed by more than 80 percent in the past decade, yet Fisheries NZ says the population must be growing because new trawl gear lets more fish escape!

If you are not seeing more kōkiri then the catch decline is more likely indicating a population crash, and our friendly sea-squirt chompers are getting rarer while the catch limit stays sky-high. I’ve lodged a submission asking for a five-year closure of the LEA 1 fishery so these fish, and the reefs and mussel lines they keep clean, can recover.

Unless you’ve witnessed a sudden kōkiri boom yourself, please add your voice.

Assessment of the proposed Bream Bay sand mine’s impact on scallops

Tipa / Scallop in the proposed Bream Bay sand mine

The New Zealand government has just introduced ‘fast track’ legislation to bypass the usual checks and balances for environmental protection. This means less voice for nature in the application and approval process. To help address that gap, I’ve been looking into the impact a proposed sand mine might have on the tipa / scallop population in Bream Bay. I shared the report with quota owners who have been fishing the area, they agreed with my findings and have sent the report to Ministers.

Update: May 2025. I also found this document: Boyd 2017 Commercial-fishing Whangarei.pdf Which shows the location of commercial fishing in Bream Bay.

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

Close CRA 2

Close CRA 2

I am publishing my draft submission on CRA 2 early. Key points below:

  • The ecological imbalance caused by overfishing kōura (spiny rock lobster) in CRA 2 has led to the proliferation of kina barrens, devastating kelp forests along Northland’s east coast.
  • Kelp forests in the Hauraki Gulf could be worth up to USD 147,100 per hectare annually, far exceeding the $10.17 million export value of CRA 2. Kina barrens, by contrast, provide no ecological or economic value.
  • Fisheries New Zealand’s reliance on biased data, such as Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), underestimates kōura depletion. Independent research shows kōura populations, even in marine reserves, are well below natural levels.
  • The proposal to close commercial and recreational kōura fishing in the inner Gulf for 10 years is the largest fisheries closure ever suggested for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. However, fisheries independent data shows it’s not enough.
  • A new biomass target is precedent-setting and a significant step for Ecosystem-Based Management initiated by Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari. A 3x BR target is essential to control kina populations, halt the spread of kina barrens, and restore productive kelp forests.
  • Independent data must be prioritised, and a precautionary approach adopted, including a full closure of the CRA 2 fishery. Further delays will only worsen environmental and economic losses.

Make your submission here.

Ten reasons why MPs should support Gulf protection bill

Snapper Goat Island

Recreational fishing lobbyists LegaSea are making a last ditch effort to stop the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. Here are ten reasons why Scott Simpson and other MP’s should support the bill as it stands:

  1. Broad Public Support for Protection: There is overwhelming public support for marine protection. The bill will increase protection from 0.3% to 6%. 77% of the public want much more (30%) of the Gulf protected.

  2. eNGO Support for Increased Protection: Environmental groups have consistently asked for more protection than the bill currently provides, indicating that the bill is already a compromise aimed at balancing diverse interests​.

  3. Protection to Address Depletion and Habitat Damage: The bill addresses overfishing, habitat destruction, and declines in marine biodiversity in small areas. Lage scale bottom-impact fishing​ is being delt with through a different process.

  4. Scientific Evidence Supports High Protection Areas (HPAs): While recreational fishers claim there is no evidence to support HPAs, scientific studies worldwide demonstrate that protected areas are fantastic for restoring fish populations and biodiversity​.

  5. Minimal Economic Impact on Recreational Fishing: Recreational fishers will still have access to 87.4% of the Gulf for fishing. The HPAs cover a small portion, reducing the impact on fishing activities while promoting long-term marine ecosystem health​.

  6. Displacement Concerns Are Overstated: The limited fishing restrictions introduced by the bill are offset by gains in fish abundance in nearby areas, as larger, reproductively mature fish spill over into fished zones, ultimately benefiting fish stocks outside HPAs.

  7. Limited and Controlled Commercial Fishing: The bill may include ring-net fishing in two HPAs compromising their objectives. However, 10 high protection areas and the two marine reserve extensions will be unaffected by the amendment.

  8. Ecosystem Benefits for Seabirds and Marine Species: High Protection Areas will help protect seabird foraging grounds and marine ecosystems, which directly impacts terrestrial food webs and biodiversity on islands in the Gulf.

  9. Strong Legislative Foundations: The bill aligns with New Zealand’s marine protection obligations under international agreements, reflecting a responsible approach to safeguarding marine biodiversity while considering local cultural and socio-economic factors​.

  10. A Balanced Approach to Sustainable Use: This bill offers a compromise between no-fishing reserves and managed-use areas, establishing a multi-use marine park with regions for both recreational fishing and high protection. This approach meets both conservation and fishing community interests without entirely prohibiting either​.