To do our part, we supported 
a species-specific bag limit 
reduction of seven butterfish 
per person, alongside a cut to 
the commercial catch limit.
Whenever we support a reduction 
to our bag limit, it’s because we 
are genuinely concerned about 
the state of the fishery and want 
to see abundance return.
A good friend of ours recently 
asked us why it’s always 
recreational fishers who take the 
cuts and never get them back?
It’s a good question, because once 
our bag limits are reduced, they are 
never restored to their previous 
level, even after stocks recover.
That’s because the decision-
making priority is to protect 
commercial quota from necessary 
reductions, and as long as the 
Quota Management System 
is in place, the protection of 
private interests will continue.
In some cases, the allowance 
of fish taken from recreational 
fishers has instead been added 
to commercial catch limits, 
while we get nothing back.
Time and time again, the public 
has shown that when required 
we’re willing to contribute to 
healthier fisheries. But recreational 
fishers can’t compete with the 
fishing power of industrial trawlers 
scooping up and exporting the 
fish we are trying to conserve.
We’re not asking for higher bag 
limits. We’re asking that restoring 
and maintaining abundance 
means fish need to be left in 
the water to grow and breed, 
improving the size and availability 
of fish for everyone to enjoy.
PROPORTIONALITY - THE END 
TO FISHING AS WE KNOW IT
One of the biggest threats to 
recreational fishers is proportional 
allocation of the Total Allowable 
Catch. Commercial quota owners 
have spent more than 20 years 
pursuing this dream, and it was 
One of the biggest threats to 
recreational fishers is proportional 
allocation of the Total Allowable 
Catch which LegaSea and the public 
don’t want to ever see implemented.
Photo – Alex Stammers
Feature
40  FISHING IN GODZONE MAGAZINE

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.