Game Animal Council Submission - Section 3

Click here to download the PDF version.

3.0 RECORD OF RESPONSE TO THE DISCUSSION DOCUMENT AND ITS PROPOSAL

This section contains two quite different responses to the content of the discussion document.

Subsection 1 records the collective response of the National Executive to the seven questions posed in section 6 of the ECDD. Subsection 2 provides a brief qualitative and theme based analysis of views held by senior members and past presidents of NZDA, pertaining to the document as a whole, and including the committee’s proposal.

The tabulation of views in each subsection are in no way related and have not been analysed as a whole in any way. The Association expects therefore, that no combinatory qualitative or quantitative analysis of both subsections as a whole should be applied by the establishment committee when considering our corporate view.

3.1 THE VIEW OF THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

The answers provided here are borne out of motions proposed and carried at our Executive meeting of 12 November 2009. All motions were passed either with a majority in support, or with the entire compliment of Executive members present in support of them. Thereby, we consider the answers to stand as the view of the Executive representing the membership electing it.

Answers are reported according to the motions delivered at the meeting.

QUESTION ONE

NZDA agrees with, and supports the use of the name “New Zealand Game Animal Council”. We concede willingly that the use of the term “hunting” in the name would not necessarily reflect the diversity of interests in game animals current in New Zealand society. We accept that what may unite all proposed representatives are the various values we all place on deer and other game, not hunting itself.

We also accept, though less willingly, that such interests as farming, indigenous conservation, and forestry may have legitimate rights of representation on a council designed to administer wild and managed animal resources. Such other interests may perceive themselves as alienated if “hunting” is mentioned in a new council’s name.

QUESTION TWO

NZDA agrees with the recommendation made by the committee that DOC should continue to identify, via public processes, priority areas where deer, tahr, chamois and wild pigs need concerted control for conservation purposes. We believe strongly however, that outside these areas (which should be few), the game animal council should manage these species for the benefit of hunters primarily, and other interests secondarily.

NZDA expects new legislation establishing the council and consequential amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act will ensure only high priority conservation areas containing very sensitive indigenous biodiversity, will be excluded from year round access. We specifically do not want to see DOC handing over areas it deems suitable, and holding onto others which may also be suitable but which are favoured for other uses by elements and opinions internal to the department.

We further suggest:

• That the new council is empowered by its enabling act to conduct public consultation prior to any designation of new areas of high conservation priority and/or prior to removal of areas from this classification;
• That DOC works with the new council to continue and improve public involvement through consultation and otherwise with development of conservation management strategies and conservation management plans;
• That the council’s enabling legislation empowers it to develop hunter registration schemes for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating hunter participation and use of the game animal resource. These powers should ensure that adequate and easily accessible data is collected on hunting and hunters, as well as about quality and distribution of game, throughout the country. Such schemes as we propose will surely work to inform decisions about designation of areas for hunter management and areas where hunting may be restricted or excluded for conservation purposes.

A final note on this question is that NZDA wishes to see hunter participation in control of animals for conservation purposes increased under this proposed council. We will happily assist the establishment committee with further ideas on how this might be achieved, in the event the proposal goes further.

QUESTION THREE

NZDA believes the new council should report to one lead Minister, and this should be the Minister of Conservation. Our proposal in S4.1 would allow relationships to flourish with other Ministers if the council is a Crown agent or autonomous entity, but the Conservation Minister’s mandate appears to us to stand above all others where wild game are concerned.

The Association also strongly recommends that the committee investigates how enabling legislation could be drafted to empower the council to establish instruments and staffing capability, for conflict resolution and mediation of disputes. We believe this matter is not dealt with clearly in the ECDD and note that no mention is made of conflict resolution, arbitration, or lower level mediation capability in the resourcing section (S4.1) of the proposal. We are aware through long experience that conflict resolution and mediation of disputes are endeavours lying at the heart of animal management. We see them as crucial foundation functions of a new council and matters germane to the drafting of any new statute establishing it.

We recommend to the committee that it publishes more detail about how it will advise the Minister on these matters before any bill is drafted, and especially before its first reading by the House of Representatives.

QUESTION FOUR

NZDA fully supports the proposal that the new council should be a single national organisation rather than a regionally based one. Our alternative view, expressed in S4.1 of this submission, is provided to widen the discussion about precisely what kind of national entity, the council should be. We believe the Fish & Game New Zealand (F&G) national council model, though robust, may not be the only option and would be happy to provide further advice and suggestions in support of our alternative.

NZDA also recommends the committee endorses decision making by majority, rather than by consensus in its advice to the Minister. We cannot see how consensus voting would work in a council with such diverse and often opposite interests.

QUESTION FIVE

On the whole, NZDA agrees with the proposals for stakeholder representation on the committee. We would however, support the removal of Federated Farmers, a scientific representative, and the conservation NGO’s seats as proposed in the ECDD.

We note that only regional representatives are proposed to speak for pig hunters and helicopter operators. We would prefer that the committee does its best to encourage interested members of these communities to form national bodies which could speak with a national voice more credibly. We suggest the committee advises the Minister on this point also, rather than deferring to local regional interests operating at present.

QUESTION SIX

NZDA supports the designations proposed for new schedule changes to the Wildlife Act 1953 and thereby, the names proposed for different classes of animals which might appear in new schedules. Our detailed addendum on this question in S4.2 of this submission, provides further suggestions about how the Wildlife Act could be amended to accommodate new schedules and how a new act for the council could allow it to embrace these changes.

QUESTION SEVEN

NZDA supports several of the funding streams proposed in the ECDD. We will support a charge for hunters entering any registration schemes but will not support council imposed charges for hunting permits.

We believe that permit holders who declare themselves to be unaffiliated could be registered as electors for unaffiliated representatives on a new council, if election of some or all councillors is finally adopted.

We would also suggest the committee researches and then provides advice to the Minister on the matter of profit margins obtainable on meat taken in wild animal recovery operations. We suggest profits already being made from such operations may justify a levy to support the functions of the council.

3.2 THE VIEWS OF SENIOR MEMBERS

This submission process has attracted enormous interest from members around the country, and especially of senior members and former office holders of NZDA. To capture this interest, the National President issued an invitation early in November to any elders and former presidents of the Association with long experience of game animal politics and management to send their views to the Executive. The President felt strongly that such views may inform and help to direct the view of the Executive in this submission.

A small number of submissions were received, including those of three former presidents and several members of high standing.

We include a simple qualitative theme based analysis of the views expressed in these submissions in table 1.

The themes are tabulated in their order of importance, and the relative weight given to them by submitters.

We found they were instructive to us in forming our own view, and showed that the ECDD was well and carefully read by members who may yet contribute more to the development of the new council.

Table 1
Views of senior members of NZDA analysed by theme.

Theme:	Specific concern or observation.
Representation and governance:	High number of farming representatives proposed may disadvantage recreational hunters.
	Several proposed representatives have nothing to do with sport of hunting, or with wild animal management.
	Farming interests may gain too much influence through a deer farmers’ representative and a Federated Farmers’ representative.
	How and why unaffiliated hunters should be represented on the council is unclear and therefore is of concern.
	Conservation NGO’s seat should not automatically go to Forest & Bird; other candidate organisations may be more suitable.
	17 on the council is too many.
	Some candidates may seek appointment for personal gain, not for the good of sport.
	Any scientist appointed must be a credible wildlife biologist with empathy for hunting and the value of game as a resource.
Business and mandates:	Conflicts between commercial and farming interests, and recreational interest on council may compromise and derail council’s business and compromise impact.
	Any processes adopted other than election of councillors may diminish its popularity and credibility with hunters.
	Council may end up being in direct competition with NZDA in delivering hunter training courses, competitions, and hunts.
	If the council has no mandate to operate on private lands, private land owners should have no say in how wild animals are managed outside their own lands.
	The council may inadvertently become a means of legitimising helihunting at the expense of recreational hunters.
	Compliance and law enforcement liaison function must be part of the core functions of the council.
	The council may be duplicating what NZDA does already.
Congruence with NZDA values:	Joining the council may compromise and go against long established NZDA policy.
	Compulsory charges for game management may result in adverse reaction from NZDA members.
	National governance may not uphold regional uniqueness of special herds and hunting clubs who help to manage those who hunt them.
	NZDA members may object to paying for what they have enjoyed for nothing, for so long.