Whitebaiters near Blenheim, New Zealand are facing potential liability for structures used for fishing that they did not build, after the Marlborough District Council ordered their removal. The directive stems from the Marlborough Environment Plan, which stipulates that whitebait stands must be temporary.
Council Orders Removal of Decades-Old Structures
The issue came to light in October when retiree John Ward discovered a notice affixed to a whitebait stand he’d been using on Roses Overflow, a waterway running between the Ōpaoa and Wairau Rivers. The notice, addressed to “the user of this structure,” demanded removal by December 15, citing the Marlborough Environment Plan. Failure to comply, it warned, “may result in enforcement action or the removal of this structure.”
Ward, who has been whitebaiting since childhood, explained he discovered the stand four years ago while boating. He described finding it as “something from heaven,” noting its sturdy construction with a bench, shed, and boarded path. The stand is one of 27 along Roses Overflow identified by the council as non-compliant.
The core of the dispute lies in responsibility for removal. Ward argues he shouldn’t be held accountable for dismantling a structure he didn’t construct. Other whitebaiters echo this sentiment, with one individual stating, “Everyone out there has said that they’re not pulling the stands down. Because they never made the stands.” Some users reportedly discover stands by chance or through word of mouth.
The council clarified that while permanent structures are prohibited, enforcement is typically complaint-driven. The current action followed a report that the stands were impeding the movement of whitebait along the canal. The council’s ecology and rivers teams have stated that year-round structures negatively impact the riparian margins, crucial for the spawning of native īnanga whitebait, by interfering with spawning processes, affecting water flow, and increasing erosion.
Potential Challenges to Removal
Removing the stands, many of which are built into the riverbank, presents logistical challenges. Ward pointed out the difficulty of access – requiring a 2km trek or boat trip – and the effort required for dismantling and removal, warning that debris could be washed downstream during floods. The council has indicated that removal will be limited to structures affecting flood capacity and river access, and funded through existing flood management budgets.
The council has stated that further investigations will be conducted if additional complaints are received. It remains to be seen whether the council will pursue active removal of the stands or rely on voluntary compliance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the council’s action?
The Marlborough District Council initiated the removal order after receiving a complaint that the whitebait stands were preventing whitebait from moving along Roses Overflow.
How long have these stands reportedly been in place?
John Ward estimates the stand he uses has been on the canal for approximately 40 years, and another whitebaiter stated a stand they use has been there for around 20 years.
What are the council’s concerns regarding the stands?
The council’s ecology and rivers teams have expressed concerns that the stands negatively affect the riparian margins, impacting water quality, aquatic life, and potentially creating debris and flooding hazards.
As the December 15 deadline approaches, how will the Marlborough District Council balance environmental concerns with the established practices of local whitebaiters?
