19th June 2006
1. Summary:
The brown kiwi sanctuary in Turere Stream will create a major conflict with current dog users of the Orongorongo Valley, one of the most used areas of the Rimutaka Forest Park. This is not the sudden discovery of native kiwi, and a consequent need to bring in protection. Forest parks are for the facilitation of public recreation and enjoyment.
It is a provocative move by DOC and the Trust to change the public use of this area. The clear outcome, if the Turere Stream kiwi release is successful, will be to prohibit all recreational dogs in the Orongorongo Valley. NZDA strongly opposes the proposed Turere Brown Kiwi Sanctuary, because of the direct conflict with current dog users in the area. Current use should prevail.
2. Detailed comments:
2.1 Forest parks are for recreation, and are popular with Dog Owners: Conservation and Forest Parks are primarily “to facilitate public recreation and enjoyment” Section 19 (1) (b). Consequently, current use which includes many dog owners taking dogs into the valley, and hunters taking dogs for hunting, should prevail over the new use of a kiwi sanctuary.
In terms of S 19 (1) (a), the introduced kiwis are not part of the natural resources of the park, but are being introduced ie a new high conflict use with current dog users. The proposed kiwi sanctuary area will not be fenced. So stray dogs will also be a problem, as well as pests such as rats, ferrets, stoats. We are disappointed that DOC and the Trust consider such a high use recreational area with many hunters dogs, is appropriate for a “mainland island” without fences.
S 6 of the Conservation Act says DOC’s role is to foster recreation, which includes taking dogs as part of that recreation. This proposal seems designed to create direct conflict between dog owners and kiwi preservationists, and is very poor planning.
I personally have experienced half the users one Sunday with dogs out of the 30 or so people I met on the Orongorongo Track. This is because the Catchpole is probably the most used road end in a forest park in New Zealand, and because of the 100 or so “huts” in the Valley most of which are near the Turere Stream part of the Valley. There is already a dog exclusion zone in DOC and Landcare’s possum breeding area of 1200 ha, just downstream of Turere Stream.
2.2 A successful Kiwi Sanctuary will mean recreational dog exclusion over a much larger area of the Park:
In the East Coat-Hawkes Bay Conservancy, DOC is requiring all dog owners to have their dogs trained at significant time and expense, before they can be taken onto any conservation land in the Conservancy. This is a thinly disguised ploy by DOC to discriminate against dog owners.
This proposal looks a similar ploy by the Wellington Conservancy. If the Sanctuary is successful, and the kiwi population grows, then they and the dog ban will spread to the whole of the Orongorongo Valley. This may even happen if one or more kiwi get taken by dogs, as a counter reaction.
DOC knows from the experience with Waitangi pine forest in Northland that dogs and kiwis don’t mix. Why is DOC and the Trust creating this conflict? Preservation of native species is not the only thing in DOC’s role. There is a need to consider people and recreation as well.
2.3 Wellington already well served by Kiwi Sanctuaries: Wellington must be the best served regions in New Zealand for kiwi sanctuaries. There are Kapiti Island, Mana Island, Karori Sanctuary, and Mt Bruce. Maybe there is room for another one somewhere. But surely not in the Turere Stream area, which is already highly used by the public and their dogs, and is a very provocative site.
3. Conclusion:
The conflict being created with other users by this Sanctuary proposal should have been readily apparent initially. If it wasn’t this dog exclusion proposal makes the conflict clear. The proposal should not proceed. The Trust should look for a site with less conflict with recreational users.
Hugh Barr, National Advocate