The Report “Managing numbers of Deer, Chamois, Tahr and wild Pigs” was set up as a consequence of United Future’s governance and supply agreement with the Labour Government. Without United’ Future’s interest and persistence, the Report would not have happened.
The Panel’s Terms of Reference were — to establish the concerns of interest groups, and the extent to which agreement can be reached on the options to manage the numbers of deer, chamois, tahr and pigs consistent with:
| • |
Their recreational, food and trophy value, |
| • |
The conservation of indigenous biodiversity, |
| • |
Biosecurity requirements, |
| • |
Health and profitability of exotic plantation forests, |
| • |
Ancillary considerations re tourism and farming, |
| • |
It also considered legislative and policy changes associated with each option, their costs, and how they should be funded. |
The five Panel members were: Margaret Austin (former MP and Minister, Botanical Society member, and NZ UNESCO Chair); myself (NZDA); Sue Maturin (Forest and Bird); Graham Nugent (Landcare Research deer ecologist); Garry Ottmann (Game and Forest). The Panel consulted widely including a web-based questionnaire and submissions, and held two workshops with scientists and stakeholders.
The Panel concluded more could be done to encourage, co-ordinate and facilitate hunting to improve conservation outcomes. Many hunters and all hunting organisations advocate a change in the way hunting interests are handled and wild animals managed. But the Report gave this little weight.
The Panel found present legislation gives statutory agencies adequate powers to protect indigenous biodiversity and implement animal control. It also found there is no agreement on legislative change to enable management for meat and trophy value. NZDA and all other hunter organisations and many hunters sought legislative change. But most stakeholders and agencies with statutory responsibilities for wild animal control did not. Surprise, surprise.
The Panel developed three options.
Option 1 was enhancing the status quo with greater hunter input to management, and managerial innovation by statutory agencies, particularly the Department of Conservation.
Option 2 proposed setting up a Ministerial Wild Animal Control Advisory Committee (WACAC) to address a range of control issues including optimal conservation/hunting trade-off with some recognition of the animals as a resource, and a Big Game Hunting Council to enhance management of recreational, guided and commercial hunting. These groups would provide greater accommodation of hunter interests while maintaining primacy of biodiversity protection and biosecurity goals. Options 1 and 2 can both be achieved without legislative change.
Option 3 was recognition and management of the animals as a resource. This involves recognition of these animals as a resource, in a similar way to trout, salmon and game birds. And establishing a statutory Big Game Hunter Management Authority to represent and govern all hunters on public lands where threats to native biodiversity can be managed and which would be set aside with recreation as the primary purpose.
Because of the major conflict of purpose between deer management, and what DOC sees as its purpose, solely native biodiversity, there must be a manager separate from DOC for these animals. A Hunter Management Authority could be funded without an annual levy. This Option would require legislation.
The Panel recommended better representation and accommodation of interests regarding deer, chamois, tahr and wild pigs within the existing policy and planning framework.
A majority of the Panel (4–1) supports the establishment of a Wild Animal Control Advisory Committee to improve wild animal advice and policy. A majority (4–1) also recommends the establishment of a Big Game Hunting Council to co-ordinate and foster management of recreational, guided and commercial hunting.
The Panel narrowly avoided (3 votes to 2) recommending Option 3, the Big Game Hunter Management Authority. But it agreed (4–1) that exploring legislative changes be included in the tasks of the proposed Steering Committee setting up the Big Game Hunting Council (Option 2).
The Report is now with the Minister for a decision. Given the strong public support for recognising these animals as resources, the status quo should not be an option.
Though the Panel recognised the major conflict and adverse outcomes for recreational hunting and native biodiversity that often resulted from present DOC management, the majority of the Panel did not want immediate change. The Panel’s recommendations are an enhanced legislative status quo, though they should be a significant improvement on DOC’s ignoring many of its legislative responsibilities to hunters, as at present.
The essential requirement is change in the status of these animals away from “wild animals” (or pests in DOC parlance), to also being recognized as the resource. This requires legislative change, and has still to be achieved.
Deer, chamois, tahr and wild pigs are a low threat now that helicopters can largely control animal numbers. Recognition as a resource in appropriate situations is a sensible answer.
Option 3 for recognition and management came close to prevailing, failing by only one vote. A majority of the Panel supported legislative change in the medium term. A very large majority of public submissions, 3,148 to 689, or 82%, favoured recognition as a resource.
As this is election year it is up to political parties to assess the political wind for change. The results of this consultation show the case for change is strong. But recreational hunters must get out on the hustings asking National, and the other parties for their support for our traditions of recreational hunting. DOC clearly stands against change. Labour has traditionally backed their position.
Acknowledgement — New Zealand Hunting and Wildlife (Vol. 161).
Hugh Barr
NZDA National Advocate
Ph: 04 934 2244
Email: hugh@infosmart.co.nz |
