19th December 2006
Almost all NZDA branches can and do hunt in this Park, because of the sixteen huts provided for deerstalkers by the Rakiura Hunters Camp Trust, throughout the Island. Many of these huts have been built as joint projects with NZDA Branches, or their members. North Taranaki, Southland, West Coast, Taranaki, Gore, Blue Mountains Western Southland, Southland and West Coast branches, for example, have all assisted in building huts. These huts, usually built to replace 1960s vintage tarpaulin tent camps, underline the major longstanding deerstalking interest in the Stewart Island Whitetail deer herd. This is also underlined by deerstalkers being probably the major interest group accessing the remoter bush areas of the Island, with some 3,000 deerstalker visitors per year.
If you are hearing submissions, or holding workshops, or further meetings NZDA wishes to be heard in support of this submission, or involved directly in the debate.
Summary: NZDA makes the following points, which are enlarged on later:
1. Recognition for Stewart Island Whitetail deer herd within the National Park and CMS as a valued recreational resource, and not a species to be exterminated.
2. Retain and grow the Hunter Trust’s huts: Recognise the longstanding very high interest from recreational deerstalkers in Stewart Island, as a major user group. Recognise the financial contribution they make to the Region’s economy. The Rakiura Hunter Camp Trust, a volunteer hunter trust, has provided 16 huts already to replace initial untidy and rat infested tarpaulin camps – see before and after photos in the Appendix.
This is an important recreational service provided at no cost to DOC. Deerstalkers also manage the deer herd natural increase at no cost to DOC. NZDA supports the Trust’s request for an additional 5 Trust huts planned, some to replace untidy tarpaulin campsites. NZDA also supports more Camps Trust huts if a hunting need is shown.
3. Downgrade the residual Nature Reserve on the eastern boundary of the Park to scenic or recreation reserve, or conservation area.
Recreational Zonings:
4. Back-country drive-in: Recognise that all coasts and inlet margins are accessible by motor boat, and zone them back country drive–in (accessible). Mason Bay is also aircraft accessible, reinforcing that zoning.
5. Remove Wilderness Zones: Remove the proposed Northern Wilderness Zone. Retract the Southern Wilderness zone back significantly in the east. Review the need for the Southern Wilderness Zone now Stewart Island is a national park. A remote zone would be more appropriate.
6. Reduce Remote Zones: Given access by boat and plane, and the tracks and huts in many of the areas proposed for remote zoning, this zone is inappropriate. Remote zones are areas where tracks and huts can be removed.
There has been a long history of tracks and huts in the areas they are now in. They are the main areas for long tramps/walks on the Island. Remote zoning should be changed to back-country walk-in; with the water margins being back country drive-in. Remote zoning is also inappropriate for Codfish Island, where there are DOC houses and large numbers of staff in residence. Though because the public is locked out of Codfish, the question is academic at present.
7. NZDA supports the vision of Stewart Island as completely predator free, where predators are rats, cats, possums (carnivores and omnivores) ie do not include deer.
8. No specially protected areas are needed or required based on the DOC information supplied.
9. Commercial lodges on public land should not be allowed. They are a privatisation of the land.
10. Aircraft Access – Hunters able to access hunters’ huts by helicopter where requested. Allows taking out of harvested venison.
Specific comments:
1. Have Whitetail deer recognised in the Plan and CMS as a valued recreational resource: Ideally this is best met by a dispensation by the Conservation Authority under S 4 (2) (b) of the National Parks Act. It is expanded on in the 2005 General Policy for National Parks, under Section 4.2 Determinations. This consultation ie now, is the appropriate time to propose this change, according to Section 4.2(a) of the General Policy, as it needs to be done during the development and approval of the Conservation Management Strategy or National Park Management Plan.
Consequently: NZDA asks that the NZ Conservation Authority considers the dispensation for Whitetail deer, and asks to be part of the process, in presenting the case.
The following considerations are relevant to the case for a dispensation for Whitetail deer:
1.1 Whitetail deer numbers have been adequately limited on Stewart Island for at least the last 15 years, by the enthusiasm of New Zealand’s recreational deerstalkers. The herd is not a large one, but it is healthy and living sustainably with the Island’s environment. For example the assessment from the Summary report from Stewart Island Forest Health Survey 1998-2000, prepared by Cathy Allan, Technical Support Officer, Biodiversity Team, Southland Conservancy, Department of Conservation, was:
- Deer pellet frequencies are low to moderate at many sites on Stewart Island, but Mason Bay and Chew Tobacco Bay had high pellet densities in 1999.
- Our study found no evidence to suggest deer threaten population structures of the main canopy tree species in the long term. However, greater rates of recruitment inside exclosures compared with outside does suggest that survivorship of seedlings and saplings may be lower when deer browse the understorey.
- Overall, woody seedlings and saplings have increased in density over 20 years on Stewart Island. This includes some species known to be browsed on by deer.
Higher density areas, at Mason Bay, as apparently occurred in 1999, appear to now be much lower, according to hunter reports. Chew Tobacco Bay is outside the Park, on RML land, and not directly a DOC responsibility.
1.2 An increasing number of recreational deerstalkers visits Stewart Island annually: The many hunter camps and replacement huts attest to the long-term popularity of hunters visiting Stewart Island to harvest deer. 3000 hunters visit every year and that number is increasing. Hunters spend an average of 7.2 days hunting. That is the same as having 49 hunters on Stewart Island hunting every day of the year. They spend on about $600 + each - $1,800,000/year.
1500 deer are killed every year. 1 deer for every 2 hunters. If you want more dead deer, increase the hunting opportunity.
1.3 There is a significant economic benefit to transport operators. Every hunter must be transported to the Island. Hunters increase the viability of transport operators in Bluff, Invercargill and Oban, and help the sale of hunting equipment nationally.
1.4 Deerstalkers are accommodated at no cost to DOC: In the last six years hunters through the Rakiura Hunting Camp Trust have built 15 huts on Stewart Island. (ten on DOC land and five on RML) These huts now cost over $20,000 each for materials, transport etc. All these huts have been built by volunteer labour.
An additional five huts are maintained by the Trust. The aim of this project was to reduce site degradation and rubbish. It has worked. Trust members have been given a Conservation Award in recognition for their work on Stewart Island.
1.5 The volunteers are deerstalkers from all over New Zealand. Gives great training and enthusiasm: The training and experience gained from deerstalker trips to Stewart Island gives them the confidence and capability to hunt anywhere in NZ.
1.6 Deer were established long before the National park was proposed: Red deer were introduced to Stewart Island in 1901. Whitetail deer were introduced in 1905. There were four Red releases, all Windsor Great Park strain. The first was in 1901 and three in 1902. The Windsor strain came from the Wairarapa (1901 and 1902), Weribee Park (1902) and Paraparaumu Enclosure originally of Wairarapa strain (1902). All are recorded between pages 264 and 266, The Royal Stags of Windsor, 1994.
The National Park was not created until 2002. There has been a prior acclimatisation by deer for 100 years before the Park. This is a significant reason to accept the Whitetail deer in the new park.
1.7 Extermination policy for National Parks dates from an earlier era: The policy of extermination of all introduced species from national parks dates from the 1953 National Parks Act, and was not changed in the 1980 revision. In 1953 there were only six national parks. Now Rakiura is the 14th.
The total area of national parks has doubled with further additions and parks since 1953. Whitetail deer, as vegetarian small deer, are well below the threat level of all the predators – cats, rats, stoats, possums, wasps etc and below the damage level of other ground browsers such as goats, cattle, sheep.
Although management of deer numbers nationally in 1953 may have been problematic, the current high recreational hunting pressure and availability of other methods of management means there is no issue of runaway deer numbers on Stewart Island now.
In spite of extermination policies in all our national parks, extermination of deer from the relatively low levels they are at now, has not been seen as a priority. There are many more effective ways to assist endangered native species.
1.8 No known extinctions by deer: Wayne Fraser, a noted Landcare deer research ecologist stated categorically at a Deer Issues workshop last year that there are no known extinctions from the high deer numbers in New Zealand during the high deer numbers of the early to mid 20th Century.
Native vegetation is much more robust than New Zealanders have been led to believe. Our native vegetation has had to survive the 6 million years between 28 and 22 million years ago, when much of New Zealand was under water, and as well through many ice-ages, that constrained vegetation, especially on Stewart Island, some of which would have been under ice.
1.9 Example of browsing Sheep: A sheep pastoral lease existed at Mason’s Bay for many years, without the browsing sheep having a detrimental effect to the native plants, kiwis or other animals.
2. Other matters NZDA wishes to raise:
2.1 Residual Nature Reserve – Change designation eg to Recreation or Scenic Reserve: The formation of the National Park has left residual rectangles of a Nature Reserve on the SE boundary of the Park that no longer serve a coherent preservation purpose. They do form a buffer between the park and Maori land. NZDA proposes this residual nature reserve become a recreation or scenic reserve.
The residual nature reserve area is popular with recreational hunters, eg the mid and upper reaches of the Lords River. Also the Hunters Camp Trust wants to build a hunters’ hut at the navigable top of the Lords River to replace a messy hunters’ tent camp.
2.2 Recreational Zones: Remove the Wilderness areas over the upper Lords River, and in the North. Make water-accessible areas Back country drive-in: There are at least ten Hunters Camp Trust huts around the eastern coast, and the South coast of Patterson Inlet, and a number of hunter tent camps, eg Upper Lords, Lords River estuary. There is easy motor boat access to these water-accessible sites and huts/camps. The area is consequently the water equivalent of “Back country drive-in”. It is not wilderness.
This easy boat accessibility negates any wilderness zone in this area. NZDA notes that the Southern Wilderness Zone has been extended from the existing CMS, especially in the east and north, with “Popular zone” being converted to wilderness. NZDA opposes this extension, because of the boat access.
NZDA notes the 1978 Federated Mountain Clubs Wilderness Conference excluded the whole of the Lords River catchment. The area now gets much more use than it did in 1978. We propose the maximum extent of this wilderness area should not be greater than the 1978 FMC Wilderness Conference proposal, if that. There are good reasons why that wilderness area has now become redundant, given that more people camp at Port Pegasus, and use the Tin Range track.
It is also desirable to replace hunter camps in the Upper Lords River area with Hunters Camp Trust huts. Huts are not permitted with a wilderness zoning. Neither are the permanent tent camps. Given the hunting pressure and historic use of these areas by hunters, and the need for recreational hunting pressure on the Whitetail deer, this is another reason for removing the wilderness zoning from the Lords River catchment.
NZDA also questions why the Northern Wilderness Zone has been introduced. This area was previously only a remote zone. NZDA sees no reason why this area should be made wilderness. We oppose it. It does not have specific wilderness characteristics, having high use tracks and huts all around it. Remote zoning, if that, is all that is needed. Wilderness zoning could also require removal of the track to the top of Mt Anglem. There would instead be the opportunity to extend a track from Mt Anglem out to the Ruggedies. There was also previously a track from Freshwater Landing direct to Hellfire Pass Hut, making a shorter round trip option
2.3 Back country Accessible Zoning in place of Coastal Remote: Any area accessible by water is effectively Back-country drive in (called Back country accessible in the discussion document). Back country drive-in should be the zoning round all coasts and estuaries, where most travel is by motor boat. This would impose a zone of say five km back from the coast being Back country walk in, and a zone of say 1 km that was Back country drive-in. This would eat significantly into the remote zone south of Mason Bay, and into the Southern wilderness zone. This reality should also be recognised at Port Pegasus.
Huts and tracks would not be allowed in the proposed wilderness zone. We see this as an unnecessary restriction. It may make it more difficult for recreational hunters to access these areas, and keep deer numbers low.
The southern wilderness zone may not be appropriate now the area is a national park, with corresponding higher use.
2.4 Rakeahua Remote Zoning inappropriate: NZDA also requests the Remote zone be removed from the Rakeahua Track-Doughboy Bay-Mason Bay area. This is really Back country walk-in, and has had tracks and huts for many years. Mason and some other bays also have low tide beach air access, which DOC has no control over. It is ridiculous to zone this area “remote”. It would indicate DOC intends to take these huts and tracks out, and reduce even further the recreational opportunities on the Island, now it has become a national park.
We now answer the questions posed in the Discussion Document:
1. The elements of Stewart Island etc you value most (Review, page 12):
2. Preservation of Indigenous species (Page 13):
a) What species require the most urgent protection and why –
- Whitetail deer – an important recreational resource
- Nesting and fledging native birds
b) What DOC controls for species protection and why?
- Traps and bait stations targeted at specific pests, and constructed so as to avoid non-target species. Gives a body count of kills.
- No use of aerial 1080 as it is a broad spectrum poison and one of the most poisonous substances known to man. It kills all life from microbes and insects up, and causes as well secondary poisoning.
- Cage traps to catch wild cats
c) Are there particular areas that warrant further protection for species, what are they and why? No. NZDA understands Whitetail deer and kiwis and other native birds live together without conflict
3. Pest management (page 13):
a) Priority pests: Possums; Wild cats, rats – especially tree climbing species, where native birds are nesting.
b) Yes, Codfish Island, Ulva Island, Bench Island – keep them pest free; possibly other offshore islands
c) Should the vision for Stewart Island be completely predator free? Yes. It could be a big ask though both to achieve and maintain, given the history of ship rat escapes eg on Big South Cape Island in the 1960s, and similar risks today from fishing vessels. NZDA opposes any aerial use of poisons eg 1080, brodifacoum, as these both put ground dwelling native birds, and Whitetail deer at risk.
d) What are the key biosecurity concerns? Possums, rats, cats, water borne diseases
4. Management of dogs (P 13):
a) Are there any conservation lands where dogs should be allowed? NZDA does not support the use of dogs anywhere on the Island. They would put the kiwi population at risk if allowed.
5. Deer:
a) How should the effects of deer on the vegetation and ecosystems of Stewart Island be managed? In the same way they have been managed successfully for at least the last 30 years ie by recreational hunter harvest. The high level of hunter pressure has led to a healthy deer herd, indicating that numbers are not high. The native vegetation is also healthy. Herd size may even be decreasing under this hunting pressure. Pellet counts, though not ideal, indicate places where deer numbers are likely to be high. There is no indication in terms of increasing hunter pressure increasing the individual harvest of deer. One would expect this if the herd size was increasing.
NZDA strongly opposes the use of poisons especially 1080 and cumulative anti-coagulants being used. These contaminate the venison food chain. They could very quickly remove hunter interest in the Island to the detriment of deerstalkers and DOC.
b) Should Whitetail deer be managed differently on Stewart Island to other introduced animals? If so why? YES, because of their importance to the main back-country recreational group, deerstalkers. The herd is small and is not growing. They are a small sized deer. The impact of their browsing is small. The reasons why are set out in full in earlier sections of this submission.
c) How should deer hunting be managed? As it is at present, by using recreational hunters, with the current individual block system over much of the Island. Where Hunters Camp Trust huts are used, gaining the permit also requires paying a fixed charge hut fee, which covers maintenance of the hut. Recreational hunters should have priority for hut bookings, both because the recreational hunters set up the huts for recreational hunters, and because of the need for continuing hunting pressure. DOC has made no direct contribution to the cost or maintenance of the huts.
Deerstalkers come for the deer, and built the camps from the 1960s on. The huts tidy up the camp areas. More huts are needed to replace the last of the canvas camps. Research and monitoring eg jaw collection, as is being undertaken by NZDA members now should be encouraged.
d) Your view of the current permit system? Support it. A mix of individual and open blocks provides the safer individual bookable blocks, while allowing an open block area in the middle and south of the Island. Would be good to encourage more kill etc returns from hunters. Helps ensure users pay hut fees to the Trust.
6. Weeds: Target gorse and broom at Mason Bay.
7. Marine: Recreational hunters also often fish for food. So need the ability to go recreational fishing and shellfish collecting near their huts and campsites.
8. Cultural ie Maori Values (P 15):
a) What cultural values should be reflected in the Plan/CMS and how? Both Maori and non-Maori values.
b) What amount and location of interpretation? Balanced iwi and New Zealander interpretation
c) Culturally significant mahinga kai and wahi tapu sites? Mahinga kai - all New Zealanders have recreational fishing rights independent of race. For sacred sites other than cemeteries, then managed for all New Zealanders by DOC.
d) How should the planning documents relate to the Rakiura Maori Land Trust Management Plan, and Tutae Ka Wetoweto forest NZDA wants public access across these lands, and the ability of the public to hunt, sea fish from, and camp on them ie the same conditions as if the land was public conservation land. We would also like hunter huts built by the Hunters Camp Trust, to replace tent camps, to continue to be available to hunters.
As the land is private, these conditions will depend on the agreement DOC negotiates with the landowners. Once/if this agreement is signed, given DOC is the signatory on behalf of all New Zealanders, we ask that there be public consultation with the public (including NZDA and the Rakiura Hunters Camp Trust) before any changes are made to the agreement; ie that DOC not treat it as a 2 party agreement without reference to consulting with the recreational public.
9. Historic sites and areas:
10. Access and Visitor Management: National parks in New Zealand, by their nature are actually national development parks. DOC boasts about how much economic activity they generate. Given this, the decision was clearly made when the Park was set up, that DOC would be encouraging more tourists to come. And Stewart Island has been part of the New Zealand tourist experience for at least 100 years. DOC should be opening up the Island more, not closing down the remoter areas of the Island, and discouraging visitors. The national park status of the Island calls into question any wilderness area on the Island.
NZDA opposes the proposed extensions of wilderness areas, as discussed earlier in this submission. We are disturbed at DOC refusal to recognise that any shoreline or river is a Back country drive-in (accessible) zone, because of motor boat access, and propose this be changed because of this reality.
10.1 Recreational zoning: Wilderness, Remote, Back country accessible etc (P18):
a) Are there recreational areas/activities in Figure 5 that are inappropriate? Yes.
I) Wilderness Zones: See our comments on the inappropriateness of the Northern Wilderness Zone, and the eastern part of the Southern Wilderness Zone, and the water boundaries of the Southern Zone. The Southern Wilderness may be more appropriate as a Remote Zone.
ii) Remote Zones: Inappropriate round the NW Coast, the area south of Mason Bay, and along the South Coast of Patterson Inlet, and the area in the east of the Park. See our previous comments. Best zoned Back-country walk-in, which is what it is.
iii) Back Country walk-in: This is the zoning that should be used for beaches and areas with tracks, huts.
iv) Back country accessible: Zone all coastal and estuarine areas as Back country accessible. This includes round the coast of the Southern wilderness zone, and all of Patterson Inlet, and Mason Bay and other beaches where aircraft land at low tide.
c) Do you want the Southern Wilderness Zone’s status gazetted? NO. NZDA does not think it qualifies as a wilderness zone, given the activities along its northern and Port Pegasus boundaries, and the huts at Port Pegasus. Whether it is best considered a remote zone should be assessed.
d) Should any areas of the National Park be zoned “specially protected” ie public exclusion areas? No. There are very few of these in any national park. They are areas where the public is excluded, except by permit. Codfish Island, which as a DOC breeding ground for endangered birds, could qualify. But it was purposely left outside the Park. Pearl Island is not even a nature reserve. The concept of “specially protected area” sits uneasily with the concept of public freedom of access in the parks. Any case for such a zone would have to be very strong indeed.
e) Any additional recreational experiences? If the Southern Wilderness area is found to be untenable, which is our view, and then the opportunity to open up a track from Doughboy Bay to Mt Allen and the Tin Range, and down to Gog, Magog and Port Pegasus should be carefully considered. This would be a very interesting multi-day tramping/hunting trip.
10.2 Ulva Island: It would be good if it stayed as it is an open sanctuary. The concession numbers of 76,000/yr are nowhere near being reached yet. Visits should not be restricted to only commercially guided tours. This would be a privatisation of the Island, and probably against the Commerce Act and the Conservation Act.
10.3 Mason Bay:
a) What would you like Mason Bay to be in 10 years time? Much as it is today, but with the increased users spread about the area more.
b) What areas of Mason Bay do you value? Recreational hunting opportunities, the three Hunter Camp Trust huts, the open landscapes, the undeveloped sandy beach, the sand dunes, the historic farm building, sunsets
d) Do you think there is crowding at Mason Bay, and why: Not for hunters, because of the block hunting system.
e) What is your view of commercial lodges? Not allowed.
f) Should use be restricted if kiwi move away because of the crowds? Kiwi may not be driven out. If they are, No. There are plenty of other areas on Stewart Island where kiwi can be seen. Restricting the public is against the ethics of the National parks Act.
10.4 Port Pegasus: This is a popular place for recreational hunters and recreational fishers. The “remote” zoning causes problems, because an area as accessible and as popular as this is not remote. The “remote” zoning should be removed. See our previous comments.
a) What do you want PP to be like in 10 years’ time? As it is now, with somewhat more visitors. A place for deerstalkers to come and hunt deer. Not zoned “remote”. Possibly more huts, including a DOC hut, spread around. The bottom end of a track from Doughboy Bay via the Tin Range.
b) Should there be a limit on the number of visitors at any one time? No, not on the basis of the info supplied in the Discussion Document.
c) What facilities would be acceptable? More huts, but spread around. More informal camping areas.
d) What are your views on hunter huts being provided? Two huts are there now. They are a very good idea, if they replace hunter tarpaulin camps that were generally a mess. If there are deer there, then it is important to encourage recreational hunters to keep numbers managed. The huts are much tidier than what they replaced. Possibly a DOC hut should also be provided, eg for non-hunters and kayakers. It is a popular area for visiting Gog and Magog, boating, and deerstalking.
Pegasus is expensive to get transport to and from. To some extent this limits use. But the Tin Range tramp is an attractive and challenging trip. Because of the reputation of the area, as very scenic seascape, use is likely to grow. Without the constraint of a wilderness zone, this can be catered for rationally ie A discreet DOC hut would reduce adverse impacts of camping pressures.
10.5 Tramping/Walking:
a) Should tracks be improved to reduce the mud? Or should the mud remain to limit visitors? Tracks should be re-routed, and improved where cost effective, to reduce the extreme mud. Numbers should not be limited.
b) Are there conflicts between different users? There is already as much accommodation specifically for hunters, as there is provided by DOC. There are always individuals in the back-country that are difficult to get on with. But generally different groups get along fine. Why should it be any different on Stewart Island? This sounds like DOC, the manager trying to find a reason to be officious. Hunters have to get a Firearms licence to have a gun. This requires testimonials and interviews with the Police, and investigation of any past criminal record etc. It is a significant test of character.
11. Hunter Huts:
a) How do you feel about the number of hunter huts, and should there be more? VERY POSITIVE and YES.
The Hunters Camp Trust is providing a service that DOC has not provided, at a price DOC can only wonder at. They have replaced messy hunters’ camps that have rat and rubbish problems, to the benefit of native species, and removal of eyesores. The camps were sometimes the result of inappropriate remote and wilderness zonings by DOC and its predecessors that prohibited huts being built. A number of the huts are built on private Maori land eg those in the east.
As a consequence there is a large group of New Zealand hunters prepared to come to Stewart Island to stalk deer, and keep deer numbers at acceptable levels. See our earlier comments. The Hunters Camp Trust has done what DOC should have done, but didn’t – foster recreational deerstalking. This has had major benefits for hunters, for the Stewart Island vegetation, and for Stewart Island transport operators in particular. It is in line with the General Policy on National Parks, of encouraging recreational hunting.
NZDA believes this initiative has been very positive for all parties concerned, and that deer on Stewart Island should be an exception to the usual DOC xenophobic policy of exterminating introduced species.
NZDA strongly supports provision of further huts by the Trust where they replace tent camps (as in the past) or where there is a need to put more hunting pressure on deer. NZDA strongly supports the five new huts proposed by the Trust.
b) Are there any conflicts with other recreational users using the huts?
The huts have been provided by the Trust with funds it has raised, and using volunteer labour and hut fees from users. NZDA understands they are open to all to book or use. Booking allows certainty as to availability, and is essential for hunting parties staying a week. The huts are in any case performing a management function for conservation of reducing deer numbers, as well as gaining recreational satisfaction.
Recreational hunters usually occupy a hut for a week or so. Trampers on the other hand may only stay one night. Again, the longer-stay users should have priority. Many huts eg in the east, are not on tramping tracks. So are only accessible by boat, specifically for using the hut. This may not be an attractive option for tampers.
The hunters’ huts are open to all, though presumably booked parties have priority. It is more difficult to collect hut fees from non-booked users. A booking system for non-hunter use seems essential, just as it is for hunter use, because of the high level of use by hunters during the roar.
The Trust, in its negotiations with DOC is best placed to judge and monitor non-hunter use, as it does with hunter use eg when a hunter party does not leave the hut neat and tidy. It may be too that there is more spare space in the summer time that kayakers could utilise. It is a problem between DOC and the Trust, that should be readily addressed, and not one requiring public consultation.
12. Aircraft Access:
a) Is there adequate aircraft access? Hunter access to hunter huts is both by water and air. This allows too taking out venison harvested. At least eight hunting blocks are usually accessed by fixed wing aircraft and occasionally helicopter. (Doughboy, Cavalier, Martins, Homestead, Little Hellfire, Ruggedy east & West, Smokey)
b) Where should there be additional sites? Ability for helicopter landings at hunters’ huts for use by hunters is desirable, because it allows taking venison out, and gear in. This is best dealt with by specific authorisation, not by a blanket landing site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact us if you need further information or comment on any points.
Hugh Barr, National Advocate