Arthur’s Pass Draft Management Plan

30th July 2006

There are many NZDA Branches around this Park, and all can hunt in the Park. Those within 300 Km include: North Canterbury, Ashburton, Malvern, Marlborough, Motueka, Nelson, Rakaia, South Canterbury, and West Coast.

NZDA wishes to be heard in support of this submission eg by phone link.

Comments on the Draft Plan:

Concern 1 2.3.4 Geological, Landform and Soil Features: Page 26 & p 58-59;

The Plan states there are eleven landforms recorded as geo-preservation sites. It is good to see the Plan taking account of such features. Presumably Falling Mountain is one of these. The Plan should make clear what the features are and where they are.

Also, the hot springs referred to are not geothermal, which are extensive areas, with water temperatures at lower levels well above 100 degrees C. They often have steaming ground, fumaroles, boiling springs eg Ketetahi. All land based New Zealand geothermal fields are north of Mt Ruapehu. The Arthur’s Pass springs are tectonic features, usually of minor heat outflow, and water temperatures usually below 50 degrees C. They are usually associated with earthquake fault lines, and are often transient.

Actions requested:

1. Listing: NZDA requests these be specifically listed eg in a Table, with their location, and reasons and characteristics to protect. Falling Mountain as one of the largest rockfalls in New Zealand should be one of them.

2. Tectonic Springs: Replace “geothermal” with “tectonic” in the Plan. Also, these features can easily change eg with earthquakes, rockfalls, floods etc.

3. Public enjoyment of Springs: Someone seems to be getting too precious about these remote springs’ protection. There are a number of other tectonic spring sites in the Southern Alps the largest of which are Maruia Springs and Hanmer Springs, both of which have been commercially developed. DOC getting officious about these and stopping people actually enjoying them is over the top. We ask that the Plan encourage use and enjoyment of the springs by the public, not locking them up. Such springs provide a welcome treat in the back country, especially in cool weather.

Concern 2: 2.6 Adjoining Lands: Page 33;

Action requested: List the public conservation and unalienated Crown lands adjoining the Park. Reason: Most readers will not be aware what lands they are. They could readily be shown on Figure 1. We note Figure 3 provides better information for the public.

Concern 3: 6.2.5 Introduced Animals: Page 64, “6.2.5 (b) Recreational hunting of wild animals should be encouraged - -“NZDA strongly supports this policy, which repeats the General Policy for National Parks 4.3 (j).

Action requested: We ask that “should” be replaced by “will”.

Concern 4: Ranking of pest threats:

For the last 30 years, big game animals have not been a threat because of their very low numbers – probably less than 2 animals/ sq km. At this density animal browse is almost un-noticeable. They do not eat native birds or their eggs as stoats, rats, cats, ferrets do. They do not eat berries, honeydew or climb trees, as possums, stoats, wasps do. They do not root up the forest as pigs do. They do not eat all vegetation as goats do. They do not pug swamps as cattle do.

NZDA supports much greater targeting of wasps, especially in honeydew (red, black beech) forests. The dawn chorus disappeared when European and common wasps were introduced to South Island red and black beech forests in the mid 1980s. Restoring the Dawn Chorus means controlling wasps, which compete with native birds for honeydew and insects.

Action requested: That the Plan increase wasp control in the park, as wasps are one of the highest risk pests because of their adverse impact on native bird species, especially bellbirds, robins, tomtits. Table 3 does not rank introduced animals by pest threat. It should.

Concern 5: Assisting Deerstalkers - Page 65: The Plan states (2^nd Para from bottom): “Introduced wild animals - - . Severe modification of vegetation has occurred in some parts of the Park, -”

NZDA asks where such modification has occurred due to deer in the Park in the last 10 years. Knowing such areas would assist deerstalkers target hot spots for deer in the park. This would assist implement Policy 6.2.5 (b)

Action requested: List places in the Park where deer are considered at too high numbers, and state these numbers.

Concern 6: Methods to implement 6.2.5 (b) Encourage recreational hunters Page 67-8

The only method referring to encouraging recreational deerstalking is 2. It says “Permits may be withheld –“. This is hardly encouraging recreational hunting.

NZDA Concerns: There are a number of ways in which recreational hunting can and should be encouraged in this Plan. They include:

1. Liaison between DOC and NZDA Branches and other hunters and hunting clubs in the region, identifying where DOC considers deer numbers are too high.

2. Providing more hunting bivvies in isolated areas in the Park eg the eastern areas where there are to be no huts.

3. Providing better 4WD vehicle access for hunters up river beds. NZDA hunting ethic requires our members to utilise the meat of animals harvested. In any case, most deerstalkers hunt for meat for their table. Getting the meat out is much easier if 4WD access is permitted eg up river beds. Better 4WD access proposed by one of our Branches is to fix up the 4WD track up the Poulter, at least to the Park boundary, and with a car park there.

4. Have a designated DOC position for liaison with deerstalkers. Other DOC conservancies are doing this.

Actions Requested: Incorporate methods of encouraging recreational deerstalking, such as the four above, into the Plan.

Concern 7 6.3.2 Public Access and Use Policies 6.3.2(a)

NZDA Concerns: The list of policies (i) to (xi) is eleven reasons for NOT allowing public access and use. DOC is getting a bad reputation as a lock-up agency, and NZDA can see why. Action requested: This section should have reasons for where better access and more use will be provided eg

1. Upgrading unformed public (legal) roads to remoter areas of the Park

2. Permission to deerstalkers to use responsible 4WD access up river beds, to bring out harvested carcasses. After all, DOC staff use 4WD vehicles to access the Park. Why not responsible members of the public doing similar park services? Eg DOC access to the South Hurunui Mainland Island. Recreational hunters are helping DOC with Park management when harvesting deer.

Concern 8 Methods; 6.3.2 (d) Encourage recreational hunting of wild animals Page 89

NZDA Concerns: The Plan lists no methods for achieving Policy 6.3.2 (d). NZDA sees this as a major gap in the Plan. Landcare research in the late 1980s (Nugent et al) estimated that New Zealand’s wild deer population had been kept relatively constant from the early 1970s at a very low density of about 2 deer/sq km, with a national wild herd of some 250,000.

Under ideal conditions deer are considered possible of a 30% increase in population a year. So a maximum herd increase per year of 80,000 (30% of 250,000) was a possibility, given the very low deer densities.

This annual increase was balanced by a combination of the recreational deerstalking take of 55,000/year plus a commercial hunting take of 20,000-30,000/year by commercial deer recovery. So deerstalkers provided the bulk, 55,000 of the annual harvest of 80,000 required to stop exponential growth of the wild deer herd.

Commercial carcass recovery is at very low levels because of problems with 1080 and other possible poison contamination, and currently with very low European venison prices. Deer farmers ant the wild animal recovery stopped. Without the WARO normal harvest, the wild deer herd may be growing (though with DOC and the Animal Health Board spreading 1080 on 2 million Ha of public conservation lands, this needs further confirmation).

It is clear that deerstalkers and DOC should work together to encourage recreational hunting pressure. Arthur’s Pass with its good access (SH 73 etc) is well placed to maintain low stable wild deer numbers. Conservation Minister Chris Carter made the point that DOC should be encouraging deerstalkers and deerstalking, to help take the harvest currently not being taken by commercial carcass recovery, when he addressed the NZ Deerstalkers’ Assn Annual Conference in mid July this year.

Actions Requested: NZDA proposes that there be effective co-operation between DOC and deerstalkers, to help meet the Minister’s vision of co-operation. If it is possible for DOC visitor centres to make weather forecasts available for climbers, then it should be equally possible to make info on deer densities available for recreational deerstalkers. We have already mentioned other specific measures in our Concerns 4-7 above.

Another action would be for the Park to have a Deerstalkers’ Newsletter, and meetings with interested hunters from time to time, to discuss issues. Other conservancies provide such hunter newsletters.

NZDA Concern 9: Public huts: Table 7, Page 102.

NZDA strongly supports replacement in 2006-07 of the Hawden hut, burnt down a year ago. NZDA also proposes additional small hunter bivs in areas where hunter pressure is needed.

NZDA Concern 10: Ranger Biv, Page 98.

This is the only hut/biv on the east side of the Mid Poulter. If deer numbers do increase, this is the sort of area where a hunting biv would be valuable.

Actions Requested: NZDA strongly supports retention of this biv (which is not really incompatible with a remote experience zone anyway). Bivs give shelter for hunters, and given deer are in the area, will encourage hunters to visit. The fact that there are other bivs near the bushline does not help control deer in the east Poulter.

NZDA Concern 11: Car Parks & 4WD Access – Table 8 (page 103).

Our members have concern for better 4WD access at least up the Poulter Valley to the Park boundary. They would also like to se a car park at the end of this road. This would encourage more recreational hunting in the Poulter.

Action requested: Add this 4WD road (outside/inside the park) and the associated car park

Hugh Barr, National Advocate