5 February 2010
The national executive of the New Zealand Deerstalkers’ Association Incorporated, makes the following substantive preliminary submission in resolute opposition to the proposals for heli-hunting concessions on lands not subject to general land management policy, or administration via CMS and CMP instruments. We recognize that the proposed lands are simultaneously, not currently used by wild animal recovery (WARO) operators.
The executive is alarmed at suggestions made by employees of the office of the first-named recipient of this submission, communicated to us by at least one branch member, that feedback at this point should be simple and of a cursory, “for or against” nature. We are also concerned that DOC staff appears in this instance, and in respect of the Mt Cook heli-hunting review process, to be trying to guide submitters on what they should say, and when they should say it. Such censorious condescension by DOC staff is quite out of order and far from becoming of public servants, however embarrassed or defensive they may be about the questionable process being operated here.
The executive wishes to make clear that this submission is only the first step in a process of opposition which may go well beyond the purview of the department itself.
Our submission addresses our ideological view, and also specific papers on this matter, on DOC’s website, on whose content, it has asked for feedback. We also include material alerting DOC to its obligations to ensure concessionaires’ compliance with civil aviation rules, a matter on which its own documentation is curiously silent at this point.
1. General.
NZDA is very concerned about this pending proposal because:
- It targets lands already used by recreational hunters traveling on foot, and may seriously endanger them and their sport;
- It covers huge tracts of land populated by chamois, tahr, goats and Red deer, which are not part of any approved regional animal control plan or any national park management plan;
- It will cover areas where NZDA believes populations of target animals are already quite low, posing minimal risk to native biodiversity;
- Heli-hunting will by its intrusive and dangerous nature exclude recreational hunters, trampers, climbers and skiers from using areas proposed by DOC, and will severely compromise the natural quiet and serenity of these places for those not in helicopters;
- The proposal may encourage more helicopter based activities in more remote areas, which may impinge on the isolation and special remote character they currently have.
- The authorization of heli-hunting will provide favourable conditions for guided hunters who may use transport, and will exclude unguided hunters who wish to use helicopters to enter an area, and then hunt using their own skills. DOC has excluded unguided hunting which uses helicopters merely as transportation, from its “official” definition of heli-hunting, and the determinations of the concession documents clearly favour guided hunts and hunters, over more self-sufficient recreational hunters.
2. Legislative constraints not observed.
The executive is very concerned to note that DOC may be considering allowing concessions to commence where formal public consultation has not been completed. NZDA believes this to be in direct contravention of section 17T(4) of the Conservation Act 1987, in particular, and to be counter intuitive to the provisions allowing public objections to new proposals, contained within section 49 of this act.
The executive does not believe the regional conservator has fulfilled his statutory obligations under the above named sections simply by notifying one NGO meeting, sending private letters to heli-hunting operators, and posting limited information on DOC’s website.
The executive also strongly holds the view, informed by some local branches, that all yellow areas identified on the mapping DVD, which are wilderness areas, should be excluded from DOC’s plans. Our reasoning arises directly from Section 47(4)(d) of the Reserves Act 1977, which specifically prohibits the use of such areas by vehicles, including helicopters. It is notable that helicopters are quite precisely mentioned in this section.
3. The current process.
The national executive makes the following points about the current process, which appears to have no statutory or regulatory backing at all, and whose devising must surely come out of standard operating procedure or policy documents held within DOC, to which the public has no ordinary access. The executive will use the Official Information Act, after the close of submissions, to ascertain precisely how DOC could adopt this process, using internal policy or operational process.
NZDA’s points are:
4. Conditions of the draft concession for heli-hunting.
The executive alerts DOC to the following problems with its draft conditions in the permit it wishes to grant to heli-hunting operators.
4.1. Clause 46 of the standard conditions of schedule 2, states:
“A breach or contravention by the Concessionaire of any legislation affecting or relating to the Land or affecting or relating to the Concession Activity will be deemed to be a breach of this Concession.”
The problem here is that several laws pertaining to the concession, including the Animal Welfare Act 1999, are well outside the jurisdiction of the grantor (DOC) and are not enforced actively, nor ever have been, on conservation lands, especially those without other policies which protect or preserve them. The executive sees this clause as impractical and unenforceable in a concession’s general conditions, and challenges the notion that DOC could ever gain compliance with it, in matters of civil aviation, animal welfare, and walking access and recreation law.
4.2. Clause 2 of the special conditions of schedule 3 will provide for a number of animals per block to be allocated for helihunters and their guides to harvest. These concessions are granted for five years at a time, yet no provision for the grantor to alter or amend harvest limits, subject to or influenced by changes in populations, is explicit in clause 2, or any other clause in these conditions. Such inflexibility will place enormous pressure on some populations, whose harvest may not be managed efficiently if it remains unchanged throughout five years. This is a dangerous omission by DOC.
4.3. The list of outdoor amenities in special condition 3, over which concessionaires should not fly, is too brief, and not prescriptive enough. DOC fails in its listing, to recognize that overflying of substantial areas around water-courses, alpine valleys, and low flying over rocky areas, substantially alters the acoustic ambience and acoustic dynamics of an area, and therefore will unavoidably affect the natural quiet of any area used by helicopters. NZDA strongly objects to a few selected amenities like tramping routes, being highlighted, where the pervasive noise and unsettling effect of helicopters and their presence, tarnishes much larger areas, and diminishes the experience of those who seek peace and solitude. Those rather elusive ideal conditions, in our outdoors, are proffered not merely by the track the hiker or hunter stands on, but by the faces, peaks and valleys around them. This list is specious, disingenuous, and openly attempts to conceal the true nature of environmental effects in a truly unprincipled manner. We wish to have rivers, streams, lakes, alpine tarns, bluff systems, peaks and alpine valleys added to this list, which reduces the potential area for flying to a rather small and inconsequential portion of the areas DOC would otherwise open to the intrusive and omnipresent helicopter.
4.4. Special condition 4 states that three flights maximum, per year may be authorized by the grantor for a staff member of DOC to assess impacts, but also to assess:
“the implications of the service offered to clients, on the Department’s responsibility to visitors in general.”
This is a bizarre and poorly drafted clause because:
A. It implies that DOC is unequipped as yet, to assess such “implications” on visitors and visitor services, using data and protocols for collecting data it already has; and,
B. It presumes, wrongly that three flights per year could be used as a holistic means of establishing evaluative data and acceptable evaluative reporting instruments, on this novel, hitherto illegal and patently unsafe activity, simply by the pleasure of the grantor, and the assumed cooperation of the concessionaire. We know of no other government department who could promise so much valuable insight, out of three 1.5 to 2 hour flights (DOC’s own time estimates), and find this entire clause to be yet another poor attempt at concealing potential for unpalatable effects, buried as it is in special conditions of immediate relevance only to the parties to a concession. NZDA will be challenging DOC repeatedly over the enormous promise and exaggerated intentions of its three flights per year.
We also observe that three flights per year in a season proposed as 7.5 months, is grossly inadequate, and wish to propose the number be doubled to six flights per year.
4.5. Clause 13 requires compliance with all notices and guidelines employed to avoid the spread of a single organism; (didymosphenia geminata). We sincerely question the validity of this clause in its current form, especially where it seems only to refer to pests, as prescribed under the terms of biosecurity act instruments like regional pest management strategies. It fails to cover the possibility that helihunters and their clients may easily exacerbate the spread of wild animals DOC itself administers, through repeated flying and harassment of chamois and tahr in remote places. Our experience of helicopters around deer suggests they can disperse and spread widely when disturbed, even by aircraft which are not pursuing them. This condition needs to ensure that helihunters do not aid the spread of wild animals, and other pest organisms, and is not explicit enough.
4.6. Clause 25 requires the concessionaire to contact relevant aircraft user groups, and to familiarize themselves with rules of these groups. This is a completely nonsensical condition of enforcement and can at best be considered merely as a recommendation, which DOC has no way of ensuring, for the benefit of clients, visitors, or bodies such as NZDA. We note that no code of rules of any “user group” is actually constituted as regulation, and the closest most ever get to being acknowledged by government, is when they are included as obscure appendices to CMS’s or national park plans. Appendix H of the Mt Cook National Park management plan is a case in point, as it contains a completely unenforceable code of rules, for the association cited in this clause. NZDA strongly urges DOC to desist from couching recommendations as “pseudo-conditions” in its concession permits, as such is dishonest and contemptible, given it has no direct jurisdiction for aviation codes or rules, operated by anyone.
4.7. Special conditions 32 and 34 relate to notification of heli-ski operators and land-owners and lease-holders of blocks, respectively. We are very concerned that the 24 hours notice period proposed here, will in fact compromise lawful activities of farmers and lease-holders of lands to be hunted, and those adjacent to the blocks being hunted, and that more notice to land-owners, including adjoining land-owners should be given by concessionaires, before conducting this activity. NZDA also queries how, if at all, the department can monitor conditions 32 and 34, and how they will ascertain precisely that notifications were given to ski operators. The clear day on which a good tahr-cull from a helicopter could occur, might just prove too tempting for a heli-hunting pilot with two fee-paying clients, we observe, and a phone-call to an irritant heli-ski operator or land-owner may just prove to easy to forego. How DOC intends to curtail commercial obligations and imperatives with unenforceable conditions such as this, we cannot tell. More assurance is necessary here, of the viability of enforcing or monitoring these conditions.
5. The mapping exercise.
The executivehas decided to allow branches to advocate on a regional basis, for the prevention of heli-hunting on any or all of the lands marked green, on the department’s DVD. We have assured branches that we will support and assist their local defence of their precious hunting lands, and will gather information from them as this process continues, which will assist more voluble opposition from ourselves in future.
Our stance on all yellow areas is recorded in section 2 above, and we see no way, other than by amendment of the Reserves Act, that wilderness areas could be opened up to heli-hunting. NZDA finds it unsettling that DOC believes it can include reference to these areas in a publicly available DVD, distributed to many who know already, that such reference is in direct contravention of the law, which specifically forbids use of wilderness areas by helicopters. This is an indefensible breach of public trust and calls DOC’s ability to preserve, interpret and uphold the law, very much into question.
6. Civil aviation rules and offences.
NZDA is concerned to find, that DOC and the Civil Aviation Authority, have yet to fully discuss the implications of this novel activity, on potential infringement by concessionaires, of current civil aviation rules. We note the proposed general and special conditions are silent on specific observance or establishment of procedures to ensure compliance with specific aviation rules, where such would be vital to the safe carriage of passengers and animals in heli-hunting operations.
We expect the department to take particular heed of schedule 1 of the Civil Aviation (Offences) Regulations 2006, in respect of penalties for breaches of the following rules. NZDA also expects it to give full account, after liaising with the CAA, of how it intends to modify its concession conditions to ensure operators can truly comply with these and other rules.
Rule 91.9(a)
Person may not carry, cause to be carried, or permit firearm to be carried in aircraft except as provided in rules.
Rule 91.9(b)
No person may discharge firearm while on board aircraft except when provided in rules.
Furthermore, we draw DOC’s attention to a widely-circulated video-clip, to which its Canterbury conservator and its minister, have been alerted. We have brought this to the attention of the CAA and expect the department to address two specific concerns raised within it, which openly challenge its own heavily sanitized definition of heli-hunting.
A. Lawful means of embarkation and disembarkation onto and from, a helicopter; and,
B. The shooting of animals in confined rocky areas, (probably in this instance), by untrained hunters), a situation highly likely to cause ricochet and contribute to avoidable accidents.
NZDA will be drawing public attention to this video-clip and to concerns it raises as this process continues.
NZDA looks forward to further contact with DOC and to devising and launching more initiatives in direct opposition to this proposal.
© 2011 New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association