Please Login or Register

You are here: HomeNews & Media Releases › SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALAND FISHERIES

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES FOR NEW ZEALAND FISHERIES

Date Posted: 25 May 2007 | 27 Comments

“Fishing in New Zealand has twin long-term challenges: Development of
the industry to realise its strong commercial potential. And ensuring
our development is sustainable, so that our resource is managed for
today and tomorrow.” Jim Anderton

From: Scoop (Wellington, New Zealand), May 22, 2007

Speech at the New Zealand Seafood Industry Conference 2007

By Jim Anderton

[Jim Anderton is the Fisheries Minister of New Zealand.]


Thank you for the opportunity to join you again for your conference. I
have a simple message for you today: Our fishing industry has an
exciting future; but it has to confront some difficult issues to
maximise the opportunities ahead.

Fishing in New Zealand has twin long-term challenges: Development of
the industry to realise its strong commercial potential. And ensuring
our development is sustainable, so that our resource is managed for
today and tomorrow.

Both the future profitability and the ongoing sustainability of the
industry need to be addressed together; that’s only going to happen
through constructive, forward looking relationships with the
government and across the industry.

I am not going to pretend it is all champagne and roses in getting to
where we want to go. In fact, I think we need to lift our act by being
realistic about the challenges we need to meet and in making serious
efforts to find solutions we can all accept.

I want to be very clear about where the opportunities exist—about
where we need to do better, faster. And I’m warning that I’m
disappointed with progress in some sectors. If you think I’m going to
leave it there, you don’t know me very well. The overall context is
good. The world market for seafood is thriving. As world demand grows,
demand for our exports will grow. Fishing is seven times bigger today
than it was twenty years ago. Our seafood exports are worth over $3
million a day to New Zealand.

I know exporting businesses aren’t helped by the high value of the
dollar, high interest rates and fuel costs. In some ways the New
Zealand economy has been a victim of its own success. Over the last
seven years as we’ve powered through the longest continuous period of
economic growth in decades, some imbalances have arisen. Domestic
demand is racing ahead of our export receipts.

The government is doing what it can to meet those challenges—for
example, running strong fiscal surpluses, saving through the National
Superannuation Fund and now introducing Kiwisaver. These initiatives
will help to divert domestic demand from spending to saving, make more
capital available for business and take pressure off inflation,
interest rates and the dollar.

In the budget last week, we cut business tax for the first time in
twenty years. We introduced the most comprehensive package of research
and development incentives, export market development and
international investment tax reforms in a generation.

These measures will make a substantial difference over the long haul.
But anyone who thinks there are short-term solutions to the issues is
telling tall fishing tales.

And we can’t do much about the low US dollar or high international
fuel prices. Instead, we have to get on with meeting our long-term
challenges. I’m being frank today: We need to do better at pulling
together to achieve both development and sustainability.

Everyone has to give something. I’ll turn to some specifics in a
moment. But first I want to recap some of our successes from co-
operating. I am encouraged by the positive successes we have had where
the industry has worked well and co-operatively, and worked in
partnership with the government. In aquaculture, Benthic Protection
Areas, the Deepwater Memorandum of Understanding and the paua fishery
- these are examples we can build on.

It’s worth recapping these, because they show the way we need to go in
other areas. Aquaculture, for example, has a big part to play in our
future and the sector has produced a compelling strategy. It’s vision
is to create a billion dollar industry by 2025. I think the vision is
realistic.

To give you an idea of the rate of global growth—a United Nations
study said demand for seafood around the world would grow by a third
over the next ten years. There are not enough fish in the sea to meet
the demand, so the rapidly expanding demand will have to be met from
fish farming.

I was in Tokyo last month and I went to see the Tsukiji [sue-key-gee]
fish market. It’s the biggest seafood market in the world—in fact
one of the world’s largest food markets of any kind, selling
everything from sardines to tuna and caviar. Seven hundred thousand
tonnes of seafood a year are handled by the market—worth close to
ten billion New Zealand dollars. Forty-four percent of the market’s
produce—nearly half of it—is from aquaculture. That’s just in
one—very large—market—and there are another eighty-seven
markets in Japan alone.

So this is a sector with an exciting future, and the government is
engaging with it. When Aquaculture New Zealand is launched next month,
on the 7th of June, the government will release its response to the
sector strategy.

In the meantime, we’ve been very active. When I was Minister of
Economic Development and the aquaculture industry needed a strategy to
chart a future course for the sector, the Government provided $112,000
to develop one.

Last year when a new industry body was required to implement the
strategy the Government provided a further $70,000 to get this off the
ground.

Last year the Government allocated $2.9m for assisting the aquaculture
industry and Regional Councils to progress aquaculture management
areas through the planning process.

We set up a ministers’ group and ministry chief executives’ group to
oversee the work of government departments on aquaculture. We will
also set up a regular forum where central and local government and
industry leaders can discuss aquaculture growth at senior levels.

So the government is playing its part. And when we look at some of the
details, there is more to think about. National standards will be one
of the pillars of the aquaculture sector’s development. Why? Because
it suits our industry to be able to demonstrate we have world class
standards of industry and environmental management.

Consumers are demanding it; and if consumers want it—and we can
show we are achieving high standards while other countries can’t—
then that will help our industry as a whole. There is no point in
joining a race to the bottom. There is nothing in that for New Zealand
long term.

We can achieve a premium and avoid being punished by international
markets if we have standards in place that show strong commitment to
the sound environmental management of our fishery. This is not just
theoretical. This is a shark that is already circling our boat.

When I was in Europe last year the hot issue was carbon costs and
‘food miles’—targeting the carbon used in transporting food long
distances. Clearly, as the world’s most remote food producer, we have
to respond to these issues and get ahead of the game.

Concerns over food miles and the like are also an opportunity for us.
Last month, Ireland’s Minister for Fisheries expressed strong support
for initiatives to ensure that fish products sold in Europe carry eco-
friendly labelling. This is an opportunity for New Zealand, because we
can show that our products are eco-friendly. We can claim to be as
ecologically careful as any nation on earth.

National standards will be part of the package of our response. The
aquaculture industry made national standards one of the pillars of its
strategy for development, and I see this as a sign of a far-sighted,
encouraging and realistic approach. It’s a good example of where the
industry and government can work together.

I want this lesson to be studied in other areas. The Ministry has
recently completed consultation on three standards and is about to
begin consultation on the next batch.

I know there have been industry concerns. I want to make it clear that
whether or not we have standards will not be up for debate. Standards
are an integral part of objectives based fisheries management. That is
the way we are going to manage fisheries in the future, so standards
are here to stay.

There is room for debate around development and setting of standards.
But it’s a waste of everyone’s time to debate whether standards should
exist at all. Standards benefit the industry. Standards make
Government bottom lines transparent. Standards give you more certainty
about what you have to achieve.

The devil is in the detail and we need to pay careful attention to
ensuring the standards that are put in place achieve what we want at
least possible cost. This is where your input is important. I urge you
and the rest of industry to make the most of your opportunity to
contribute to their development.

I believe the government is being a very constructive partner in
engaging with the industry. We demonstrated that in the recent,
pioneering Benthic Protection Areas initiative. It will see a diverse
range of New Zealand’s underwater habitats protected from bottom-
trawling and dredging. Through this one initiative, we will protect
thirty percent of our seabed. It took many decades to achieve
something similar on land. This is a substantial leap forward for
marine protection and I congratulate the industry for its responsible
attitude.

And while I have some tough messages today for the industry—I also
believe this settlement shows the need for others with a view about
fisheries to show some goodwill too. I was not impressed with
criticism by some NGOs of the Benthic initiative. When the industry
takes proactive steps, it deserves recognition and support. I am
disappointed that some groups—including some of my parliamentary
colleagues—behaved fanatically, rather than welcoming this pleasing
development.

When I say I want everyone with a stake in fishing to work co-
operatively, I mean *everyone*, not just the industry. Those who don’t
are not being responsible and not helping anyone—not even
themselves.

The Deepwater Memorandum of Understanding is another example of a
positive partnership. The agreement between the Ministry of Fisheries
and deepwater quota owners provides a forum for frank discussions and
it is already proving successful. For example, I am very satisfied
with the way the squid fishery operated this year, including the
efforts to reduce incidental sea lion mortality. What we are seeing is
the benefit of working with co-operation and goodwill. The paua
fishery is another example where good co-operation between the
ministry and the industry produces mutual benefits.

I am disgusted with poaching and the black market paua trade. Every
year about three hundred tonnes of paua are taken illegally. In places
like Hong Kong a kilogram of paua can fetch up to $100. So the
incentive to export illegally harvested shellfish is high. But it is
stealing and it harms legitimate fishing, threatens the future of the
resource and decreases the value of one of our most valuable
fisheries.

Recreational fishers and the industry have joined in the “Poaching is
Theft” campaign. The 0800 4 POACHER freephone gets around two hundred
phone calls a month from the public and it helped us prosecute over
seventy poachers since July last year. At the Auckland and
Christchurch airports and the international post office, two paua-
sniffing dogs have been screening baggage and mail.

There is a lot of work going on beyond enforcement, as well. With
support from Paua Management Action Committees and the Paua Industry
Council, we have been able to improve fishing data and reseed depleted
stocks. There has been education for divers on how to harvest or
return paua so that its chance of survival is maximised.

One of the best advances has been the ability of the industry to
create and apply their own management decisions. It has enabled us all
to better monitor the effects of change. This has only been achieved
by moving from an industry made up of individual harvesters to a
unified collective of responsible fishers that look after the resource
with identified management frameworks.

So there are some positive examples of partnership and goodwill that
have produced good results. It is crucial for the industry to
recognise the gains as we deal with other, tough issues.

Cost recovery is a complex and contentious example. A Joint Crown-
Industry Working Group was set up early this year, to review the cost
recovery rules and how they are applied to fisheries and conservation
services. It’s going slower than planned, but I understand it is still
maintaining a constructive approach. I am keeping an open mind until I
receive its report. But I urge everyone involved to find solutions
which everyone can accept.

I believe the government, for its part, is showing goodwill. You asked
that the Government not use the Cost Recovery Review to increase costs
on the industry and we listened and agreed to cap current costs for
current services.

The draft statement of intent for the coming year included around $6m
of cost-recovered services from the industry. When I met with the
SEAFIC policy council earlier this year your representatives argued
that such cost increases would be crippling. They asked me not to
introduce them at a time when the industry is suffering significant
cost pressure from the exchange rate and fuel costs.

I took those messages on board and I directed the Ministry to defer
these initiatives at this time, other than the update of the inshore
trawl form which I understand the industry supports. So you can be
reassured that I will respond co-operatively to reasoned
representation.

I would like to be able to report similar constructive co-operation
around discussions on shared fisheries. But what I have actually found
is defensiveness. The commercial sector—and others—need to wake
up.

Let me make this clear: The current management of shared fisheries is
unsatisfactory. It has to get better. And in the process of making it
better, I have invited you to be in the boat. But the alternative is
that you won’t be aboard. The ship will still sail.

The current shared fishing management system is not acceptable. There
is a lack of guidance. There is uncertainty about allocation
decisions. There is uncertainty about provision for recreational and
Maori customary take.

Shared fisheries proposals are not designed to take anyone’s rights
away, but to clear up uncertainty. I am yet to hear anyone tell me why
it’s a good idea to leave important issues in a state of uncertainty.
Uncertainty threatens investments by the commercial sector.
Uncertainty discourages conservation efforts. And uncertainty gets in
the way of constructive cooperation amongst stakeholders.

The submission process showed that there is considerable support for
change across the areas identified in the public discussion document.
So if you accept that, then you accept there is a need for a better
system. And therefore we should be able to resolve it; but it needs
everyone to come out of their corners. I know some industry figures
took exception to my observation that some of the reaction to Shared
Fisheries had been “hysterical”. For their benefit, let me again
repeat my view that the outrageous analysis of Shared Fisheries
proposals I’ve seen have indeed been “hysterical”. I went to
considerable lengths to ensure that compensation was the benchmark for
any reallocation. On many occasions I have reiterated that any
reallocation should be on a willing buyer willing seller basis.

The Government will not, under any circumstances, undermine the Deed
of Settlement or the Quota Management System. We have made this clear
from day one but those with an agenda to create hysteria claimed we
would.

Those who thought they were being clever by trying to torpedo the
Shared Fisheries project got a rude shock when Justice Harrison handed
down his findings on the kahawai case. The judgement has profound
implications for the commercial sector.

If the Shared Fisheries process now fails we will be falling back on
the existing legislation—and if the Court of Appeal upholds the
findings of Justice Harrison then I, and future Ministers, will be
providing for the social, cultural and economic well-being of
recreational fishers without much guidance or certainty. And we will
be making such decisions before we turn to the TACC. The Court have
not provided me with guidance on how we take into account commercial
rights and values and Settlement rights.

So that wasn’t a great strategy was it? Agitators who whipped up
anxiety about Shared Fisheries will have torpedoed the one framework
that would have seen reallocation happen on a compensated willing
buyer willing seller basis. Everyone who told you they were acting in
your interests was doing exactly the opposite. In an effort to get
themselves a Rolls Royce, they got everyone else, including
themselves, a moped.

I am willing to give Shared Fisheries another try. I am a patient
person. I am prepared to recommend to Cabinet a negotiated process
between the major parties. But I can’t guarantee Cabinet will want to
continue with the matter because of the anxieties already stirred up.
There is a saying I use often, “be careful what you wish for because
you just might get it”.

While we are on the subject of clearing up uncertainty, you will know
I want to see an amendment to the Fisheries Act to clarify the law and
provide clearer direction to those making fisheries management
decisions where information is inadequate.

Simply put, this is the precautionary approach. If information is
uncertain, we should lean on the side of protecting the fishery, not
risking its destruction. Fish left in the sea, are fish in the bank.
To keep on taking fish when you don’t have a good idea of how many are
left is, in my view, like robbing the bank.

And let’s just be clear about this—why would anyone interested in
the long term vitality and growth of the fishing industry want to risk
destroying the very resource it is based on? Why would anyone want to
risk the public odium, and the backlash in international markets to
our efforts to achieve a premium for our sustainable management? A
short-term focus, based on narrow self-interest is not just selfish
and myopic. It is indefensible.

My amendment will make clear that where information is uncertain,
decision-makers should be particularly careful and not delay to ensure
the resource is managed sustainably. Decision makers will still be
required to think about how their decisions affect both sustainability
and utilisation. Decisions will still need to be consistent with the
purpose of the Act, which will remain unchanged. That is “providing
for utilization while ensuring sustainability”.

But it will help ensure a more sustainable resource base and that’s
good for the industry and good for New Zealand.

This is not about undermining the Deed of Settlement. This is about
future proofing the settlement and safeguarding the resource for our
mokopuna. These amendments will not lead to wholesale changes in
current TACCs. Over time, in some situations where information is
uncertain and there are signals for concern, there may well be some
constraints in short-term utilisation of some fisheries, but only
where caution is required. Short-term inconveniences will help to
ensure a more sustainable base for the industry in the long-term.

I have to say that I am unimpressed that parts of the industry do not
show more leadership in protecting the sustainability of our precious
marine resource base.

How does it help any fishing business in the long term if stocks are
ruined? What sort of basis for building an industry is that? Some
among your ranks have claimed there is no problem with the Act as it
is currently written. Why then did I see an industry submission last
year that said, and I quote: “There is no presumption in favour of
preserving the resource for future generations that the Minister
should revert to… the Ministry’s approach to the principle that
‘decision makers should be cautious’ is that long-term sustainability
issues should be preferred. But this is to misapply this information
principle… Making a decision that involves a very significant cut to
the current levels of utilization of that resource is not to be
‘cautious’ at all.”

This industry submission was made in relation to Orange Roughy One,
where there had been misreporting and criminal behaviour. Faced with
an Adaptive Management Plan, (which I consider to be a privilege, not
a right) where I could not have confidence in the stock information,
but where the apparent catch was well under the TACC, I made the call
that this AMP should be cancelled and the TACC returned to the level
at which it had been originally set. On seeking an injunction, the
judge sympathised with the industry submission and said in effect
‘carry on fishing’, so how does that work?

Contrary to popular belief the Courts have not provided a clear
statement that section 10 requires decision makers to ensure
sustainability when information is uncertain. Rather they have
suggested that this section requires a balancing.

You can’t balance, or trade off, sustainability with utilisation.
Sustainability is a bottom line, within which utilization must be
accommodated.

This has not been the interpretation your industry has always put
forward. Just last December SEAFIC wrote to me and said: “The cautious
approach that section 10 requires relates to both the utilization of
the resource as well as its sustainability (and is therefore wider
than typical expression of the “precautionary approach” in literature
and law).”

And then this morning I heard the chief executive contradicting this
by saying the current section 10 is entirely consistent with
international law.

The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the Convention on the Conservation and
Management of Fishery Resources in the South Pacific, the Western and
Central Pacific Ocean Fish Stocks Convention and the FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries all state that where information
is lacking caution should exercised in order to protect and conserve
the marine environment, not provide for utilization.

Back in 2002 in the seamount litigation industry lawyers argued that
by closing certain seamounts the Minister acted contrary to section
10. In particular, they argued he acted contrary to his obligations
under section 10 to provide for utilisation. There are other examples
similar to this.

So your lawyers have tangled you up in inconsistencies and confusion -
this is what lawyers do. I want to amend the Act so it is absolutely
crystal clear that sustainability is the priority and no lawyer or
court can cast any doubt on it. Sustainability is too important for us
to be in any doubt about its priority.

What I want is for us to agree that sustainability is the bottom line
and to make this clear in section 10 so the lack of information is not
used as a reason to delay taking measures to protect fisheries.

I said to you last year, don’t waste your money on lawyers. Work with
me and judge me on overall results. I said to you that sometimes
decisions would go in your favour, like increasing the in-season FRML
in the squid fishery last year or delaying introduction of albacore
and skipjack into the QMS. But sometimes I will have to make difficult
calls that you won’t like. We have to take a mature approach to this
and reverting to the Courts, is not in my view a sensible use of yours
or the Ministry’s time and resources.

Lawyers love litigation and they will goad you into taking me to Court
but if I find I can’t protect the sustainability of our fisheries I
will have to try to change the law so that I can. And this is what I
am now doing.

For all that, the government is committed to engaging co-operatively
with the industry. I am personally committed to your industry’s
development—always have been—and I will listen reasonably to any
pragmatic and sensible concerns about its development. I demonstrated
that in responding to concerns over cost recovery, as I mentioned.

I will remain your strongest advocate in public and at the Cabinet
table, and I have defended you time and again and for my efforts I get
mother’s day cards from orphaned sealions. But I expect that from
NGOs.

What I don’t expect from a responsible industry is attempts to ambush
a responsible, long-term, sustainable policy programme built around
the internationally recognised and accepted precautionary principle.

I believe the issues I’ve just outlined show the industry can do more
to show its commitment to partnership and sustainability. I invite you
to work on the relationship with government and its agencies because
that is the best way to maximise your input and secure the best
outcomes as you see them.

As a gesture of the Government’s goodwill, I am announcing today $4.6
million to fund environmental certification of our fisheries exports.
This initiative is designed so you can get higher premiums for your
products in international markets and be rewarded for taking a
sustainable approach to fisheries management.

However, if you persist in opposing aligning the Fisheries Act with
international best-practice then it will be hard to convince your
customers, and the New Zealand public, that your commitment to
sustainability is anything but skin deep.

No one is going to get everything they want. But with goodwill we can
all get what we can accept. Goodwill means recognising the variety of
valid perspectives. It means recognising that everyone has a stake in
the development of the industry and in managing it to mutual
advantage.

What will not work is taking a short-term view. What will not work is
ignoring facts and evidence. What will not work is holding out for
narrow self interest. Any solution to any problem that doesn’t reflect
a reasonable consensus will be unstable and ultimately it will fail.
And what will not work is thinking I am going to be swayed by self-
pity, self-interest or obstruction.

I want to finish on a positive note. I’ve had some tough messages for
you today, but they are tough because I believe you are tough enough
to take them and I want to be tough about making the most of the
opportunities our fishing industry has ahead of it.

Sustainable management of our fisheries is crucial if we are going to
protect our resource. Sustainable management is crucial if we are
going to develop the industry, battle away the growing protectionist
threats we are facing and achieve a premium for our fish exports.

We all have a responsibility to row the boat. And I see awareness is
growing everywhere that we can benefit from careful management.

I welcome the partnerships that have furthered our progress on these
fronts to date. And I look forward to the industry taking steps to
strengthen its relationships with the government even further in the
future.

Posted in: New Zealand News

Comments about this article

i got to chance to listen to the speach and it was very MB2-632 exam nice and informative one and i like that what he said about Both the future profitability and the ongoing sustainability of the
industry need to be E20-322 exam addressed together; that’s only going to happen
through constructive, forward looking relationships with the
government and across the 642-973 exam industry” we need to some work to get good benefits here..

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  14/10/2009  at  08:43 PM


Halliburton is a corrupt giant that acts like an attached adjunct of the Bush Administration. We’ve apparently reached a corporatist form of regime whereby a cluster of big corporate cronies enrich themselves as close partners of a government in the pursuit of a long term political agenda.  They become a politically interested integral part of the regime rather than an outsider who is soley concerned with money. Fascist regimes often operate this way. Krupp and IG Farben seemed to operate within the Third Reich in this manner coming to symbolize the Reich itself and its goals and ideology rather than just functioning as disinterested outside businessmen interested only in short term bottom line. This goes well beyond the old military-industrial complex. It is quite unprecedented and signals a very frightening turn in our political culture. We have now entered the realm of fascist corporatism.


__________________________________________
exam 70-642 ll 70-649 testking ll 70-680 ll 83-640 exam

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/06/2010  at  12:34 AM


Here at South Coast Divers, WE believe that the BEST way for NEW scuba divers (Newbies) to gain experience in scuba diving is for newbies to dive with experienced divers..pass4sure 117-101 We have done this since 1998 and WE encourage new scuba divers to dive with us. To join the email list, click on EMAIL LIST (Above) and this way you can have the latest information and dive schedules,pass4sure 642-661
join today!! The diver list is currently over 900 divers.
Join us, no membership fees here, it’s free!
This is an excellent opportunity for you to gain scuba diving experience by diving with those who have many, many dives,pass4sure 646-656
because we share our vast scuba diving experience with those who want or need it. Meet at the Laguna Hills mall at 7:30 AM for morning dives and 6:30 PM for night dives, leave for Laguna at 7:45 AM & 6:45 PM SHARP, don’t be late. But remember, that this is just,pass4sure 650-251
‘A bunch of scuba divers who love to dive, getting together to dive’

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/10/2010  at  12:37 AM


I actually traveled to New Zealand a couple of years ago and it is a beautiful country.  However, there are a lot of extreme sports that take place in this country, so I would highly recommend international travel medical insurance if you are planning on going.  I also really respect what is going on here with fish number sustainability.  Trying to get fishermen to not take out too many fish so colonies can survive is a great idea.  Keep it up! smile

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  18/10/2011  at  08:58 AM


With the right tool, you can easily burn mp4 to dvd and itunes to dvd.sasd

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:16 PM


Besides, you can also use the dvd burning software to burn wmv to dvdmov to dvdjks

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:17 PM


quicktime to dvd, etc. Also, you can use drm removal toolas

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:17 PM


to remove drm protection from itunes, zune, amazon legally. With dvd softe

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:18 PM


and professional dvd creator, you can burn mp4 to dvd, convert mp4 to dvdr

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:19 PM


Single abrasion or allocation cowboy hot pants are all the aforementioned to impress. mp4 to dvd mac, burn mp4 to dvd mac, convert quicktime mov to dvdz

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:20 PM


It is glad to see you in our amazing online shop. Our company specialize in wholesale cheap handbags mkv to dvd, avi to dvd, m4v to dvdq

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:21 PM


vuze to dvd, torrent to dvd. With drm removal software Our company specialize in wholesale cheap handbags r

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:22 PM


you can also remove drm from itunes, remove drm from bbc iplayer, remove drm from amazon unboxr

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:23 PM


best service, and happy shopping.We are professional in doing the remove drm from zune, remove drm from wmv, bbc iplayer crackfgf

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:24 PM


This documentary seems interesting and is on interesting topic. dvd to iphone 5, dvd to ipad 3, dvd to kindle firez

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:25 PM


the latest of which being the cause of recent deaths among the NZ orca population.  itunes to kindle fire, itunes to playbook, itunes to blackberry playbookxc

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:26 PM


Dr. Visser had taken upon herself to research and document behaviours of Orca over the last 18 years with many discoveries on the way.  itunes to nook color, itunes to ps3, amazon unbox videos to dvdadx

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:27 PM


No animal needs to be used or abused in pursuit of that endeavor. itunes to android phone, dvd to iphone 4s, dvd to ipad 3vv

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:28 PM


We are free shipping over 190 countries. dvd creator for mac, dvd creator, avi to dvddfd

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:29 PM


have revealed many discoveries, the latest of which being the cause of recent deaths among the NZ orca population. itunes to dvd, mkv to dvd, mov to dvdfgh

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:30 PM


BBC twos new documentary named “The Woman Who Swims quicktime to dvd, mp4 to dvd, torrent to dvdxc

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:31 PM


It would be good to see more of his work.  vuze to dvd, wmv to dvd, remove itunes drmas

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:32 PM


Single abrasion or allocation remove drm from itunes, remove drm from wmv, remove wmv drmdfaz

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:34 PM


No animal needs to be used dvd creator, dvd video tool remove drm protectionfg

Posted by hath80  on  12/01/2012  at  03:35 PM


Eventually, coach outlet would restrict sales to hand-selected vendors. coach outlet online Store guarantee that all the coach handbags offered are own high quality. Due to the success that Cashin brought coach outletMichael Kors Outlet louis vuitton bags are other different outfits and look great with casual style. Coach Outlet has always been simple, have their own louis vuitton wallet managers and employees. michael kors canada Additional Coach Outlet stores were under construction in Denver and Seattle. should you come across a good Air Jordan you want you have along with a amazing opportunity of safe-guarding it all. I opened oddly alluring email about Nike Air Max designer accessories. Michael Kors Handbags ralph lauren uk are the premier superior quality and precision cutting. Coco was forced to operate her couture business apart from Parfums chanel uk. More recently, burberry has added two regional brands: Black Label, This louis vuitton uk for sale, many other products and that range appearing companies. louis vuitton To protect against the duplication of his look, I be packing my bathing suits and flip flops into a bag like the louis vuitton uk Keepall 50 Nomade. gucci uk stores featured such finely crafted leather accessories pattern. In late 1988, tiffany uk released her second album, Hold an Old Friend’s Hand. Mulberry Outlet christian louboutin have own characteristic designs. Adorable Cheap sac louis vuitton with metallic silver leather trim. At the helm of louis vuitton sac America was Domenico De Sole, beats by dre is in part simply a response to consumer demand. beats handbags and purses at the dr dre beats with new designs. Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas mulberry sale Today Coach Outlet corporate headquarters remain in mid-town Manhattan on 34th Street. If you buy Coach items at the Coach Outlet Online store, Brown Handbag has been the best seller in the Coach Factory Outlet for almost three weeks. Coach Sunglasses In 1979, Lewis Frankfort, coach outlet current CEO. RSDTUDTUJGH

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  18/05/2012  at  07:28 PM


Add your Comment

You must be logged in to add a comment. Please Login or Register

MarineNZ.org Sponsors

Sponsors

News Categories