The DOC submissions on the Intrim extension of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary and Seismic Survey Regulations to Manage the Risk of Maui’s Dolphin Mortality has been extended from today until midday Friday next week, 27th April. I put my submission in today and said this -
I would like to begin by welcoming the Department of Conservation’s document, offering interim additional measures for protection of Maui’s dolphins, until the Threat Management Plan is undertaken and recommendations as a result of this are implemented. The imminent extinction of Maui’s dolphins is unacceptable to us as a developed natio, particularly as one which relies on our “clean, green” image to survive. Our international reputation, particularly in regard to marketing our fish and promoting tourism would be irreparably damaged should we be seen to be taking anything other than all possible actions to save this subspecies.
So, whilst welcoming these proposals and understanding the criticality of action, I do not believe that these proposals go to the extent necessary to deliver what is required – a change in the trend of declining number of Maui’s – and an assurance of their survival.
Unfortunately, the current sanctuaries do not include management of the key threats. Whilst it is an admirable suggestion to extend the boundaries of the sanctuaries, it is not satisfactory to do that without ensuring that effective protection measures are in place. Reading the MAF document on the same topic alongside the DOC document is frustrating, givent aht although they state a shared objectie, and cross reference the consultation documents and submission process, they do not have an “across Deparment” approach. Without such an approach, based on shared evidence and best practice, we risk having a weakened approach to protection. Moreover, this approach also fuels the temptation of the discussion being framed in a “conservation vs fishing” environment, when this is clearly not the best frame for the overall wellbeing and survival of the dolphins.
Having different boundaries, different rules and different management regimes is problematic and could lead to claims of consuion within the fishing industry. It is my view that, givent he critical nature of the Maui’s dolphins numbers, that a more rigorous regime, clear, evidencebased, monitored and enforced by bth agencies, would be more likely to succeed.
I attach with this submission, a copy of my submission on the MAF proposals, so that you can be clear about the point that I am making in regard to the variations.
Within DOC’s boundaries, there should be no gillnets or trawling. That must be one of the “specific activities” that the Minister restricts. I agree that there should be restrictions on seismic activities. But the sanctuary areas, the prohibition on gillnets and trawling, and the restriction on seismic activity must all, of necessity, be a precautionary approach. The proposal of out to 12 nautical miles is supported but I believe that both MAF and DOC regimes should more logically consider the use of depth contours and, as I said earlier, be consistent.
The social media and standard media commenting on this issue has been of the order of the international commentary around the kakapo and the Chatham Island Robin. We can be very proud of the conservation efforts made in regard to these two birds. It is now vital that we take equally focussed measures in regard to saaving the Maui’s dolphins.
Dedicated staff with expertise in marine mammals must be given resources and the mandage to be leaders in this regard. Without such commitment and leadership from the Department of Conservation these proposals, however strengthened, run the risk of failing, and that is not a risk that New Zealand shold be prepared to take.
