22 November 2005
QV Valuations
Box 13 443
Christchurch
Fax 03 341 1635
This submission is made on behalf of the New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association Incorporated (NZDA).
NZDA is the national body of recreational deerstalkers and other big game hunters. We have 57 branches and a number of hunting clubs throughout New Zealand. We have 7200 members, and have been actively advocating for deerstalking and recreational hunting, and running training courses, trips, conferences etc since 1937. NZDA also maintains ethical standards for hunting and animal welfare for its members.
Summary: NZDA is very concerned at the inadequacy of this preliminary proposal. We have major concerns about the proposed intention to set up New Zealand's biggest private Tahr Safari Park (3,477 Ha) on proposed surrendered land going to conservation, on the eastern slopes of the Sinclair Range. Public hunters will be excluded, unless they pay, from going onto this proposed public land. This proposed 30 year exclusive hunting and tourism concession appears ultra vires the Crown Pastoral Lands Act (CPLA). We are astounded that the Minister of Conservation has agreed to this travesty.
The detail that should have been supplied about the environmental impact of this proposal has not been provided. The 30 year term is far too long. A 7 year term is more appropriate. We are also concerned about the exclusive nature of this concession.
NZDA is also concerned that further high altitude lands that are of low grazing value, but with high inherent values, are set down for freeholding, at significant cost in new fences. These include area around the High Terrace, Felt Hut and Moonlight Stream, and CC3. We also question why a 30 year grazing lease is proposed over CA1, with oversowing and topdressing, when this face has high scenic and landscape values.
Public access for walkers and vehicles has been severely compromised, especially up Scour Valley, where the lessee blocks marginal strip access with deer fences, in contempt of public access rights, and with foot and vehicle access over Bullock Bow Saddle, to the rear of the property. This seems a direct conflict between the public interest and the desire of the lessee to gain exclusive commercial advantage for his proposed tourism and hunting concession.
We do not support these aspects of this preliminary proposal. So we cannot support this Proposal.
We would also like to see fixed marginal strips included in all tenure reviews in future, so that all marginal strips are made movable at tenure review. We also ask that, in this and future tenure reviews, where protective mechanisms are used, that public access to and over them be provided. This is the intent of Section 24 of the CPLA.
The present lease is of 26,115 Ha on the SW side of the Rangitata River, above the gorge.
There are 4 areas of land to be returned to full Crown ownership and control. The first three, CA1, CA2, CA3, make up an estimated 21,037 Ha of steepland at the back of the lease (western and northern sides). They are to be made conservation area under S 35 (2) (b) (i) (restored to full Crown ownership and control as conservation area) and S 36 (1) (a), of the CPLA.
CA1: A small area of approx 619 Ha, fronting the Havelock River in the north of the lease, up to the 1,000 metre contour line on Rocky Ridge, between Alma Stream and Camp Creek (north-western boundary). It is subject to gazing and tourism activities concessions for 30 years.
CA2: By far the largest of the proposed conservation areas. Runs at the back of the lease from its northern to southern boundary, along its western boundary, along the Brabazon and Two Thumb Ranges, (to 2,371 m on Captain's Peak), and containing the all the upper watershed of Bush Stream, ie to the top of the Sinclair Range. Subject to a tourism activities concession, including hunting and tahr hunting for 30 years.
CA3: Eastern Side of Sinclair Range: 3,477 Ha including Mt Sinclair (2,065 m) down to about 1000 metres, above the proposed freehold area. Subject to the tourism activities lease, but with the express exclusion of all public recreational hunting from the area for 30 years.
The fourth is a 15 Ha area (CA4) of modified wetland on the river lowlands to be made conserv-ation area under S 35 (2) (a) (i) (restored to and retained in Crown control as conservation area).
Freeholding: 5,063 Ha, with 3 conservation covenants CC1, CC2, CC3, on the lower land.
Public Access etc Easements: Public access for persons on foot, with horses, person powered non motorised vehicles, and motor vehicles, over f-g-h, g-I and j-k under S 36 (3) (b) of the CPLA.
Access for DOC employees, tenants, agents, contractors and invitees of the Minister, with motor vehicles and implements etc over the 3 easements above, plus a-b-c (road to Scour Basin), b-d (round the side to Forest Ck) under S 36 (3) (b) of the CPLA.
Central South Is Fish & Game: f-g-h, j-k as for DOC, but under S 26 S of the Cons. Act.
2.1 Recreational and hunting values on this lease: Recreational hunting values throughout the wild areas of this lease are very high, as the lease is within the feral range of Tahr, Chamois and Red deer. This is especially the case with Tahr, a much sought after big game animal, with bull Tahr prized as a trophy. Equally, chamois and Red deer are prized big game animals. NZDA's annual conference in Timaru, earlier this year, highlighted Tahr hunting, and displayed Tahr trophies obtained from New Zealand Tahr.
The area is historically important for hunting, something not set out in DOC's conservation resource report, which we would like LINZ and its contractors to be aware of. DOC has a major apparent conflict of interest on this matter. Although it is the Crown's manager of the publicly owned big game resource, it prefers not see this as a public recreation resource, nor manage it as such. This is because DOC has become a botanic preservation agency, irrespective of its legislative responsibilities to be a balanced recreation and protection agency.
These big game animals are a natural resource owned by the Crown, and as such are a significant recreational and ecological inherent value on this lease. Under the CPLA, these significant inherent values are to be protected, and made easier for the public to secure public access to, and enjoy.
The undeveloped wildlands, unsuitable for sustainable grazing, also make valuable public wildlands, and should be surrendered, as they have been from other parts of this property in the past.
2.2 NZDA Agrees CA1-3 need Surrendering: We agree with LINZ that the areas to be surrendered, CA1, CA2, CA3, all being areas of poor soil, or scree, on steep faces, and at altitudes usually above 1100 metres, are not capable of economic management in a way that is ecologically sustainable. The land is almost exclusively LUC Class VII and VIII. These areas therefore cannot be freeholded. Because of their high recreational, scenic, landscape, and inherent values, they must be surrendered.
2.3 Tourism Concession and its Hunting sub-concession are Ultra Vires the CPL Act. Must be changed: The tourism concession proposed for CA1, CA2 and CA3 appears to give occupancy rights, as hunters will be required to ask the current lessee's permission before being allowed to go onto these surrendered lands. The comment in B of Schedule 2 for this concession "such permission will not be unreasonably withheld from - " is meaningless. Next it will be a $100 note if you want to hunt ie exclusive capture of hunting rights on the conservation land by the current lessee. This is just the sort of thing TR is aimed at stopping.
If the lessee has trespass rights, then he/she can do whatever he/she likes without fetter. If he/she has no rights under the Trespass Act, then he/she cannot do anything. Consequently NZDA assumes the concessionaire is being given trespass rights under the Conservation Act ie the Concession has the power of a lease under the Conservation Act.
S 24 (b) of the CPLA requires either the use of protective mechanisms (across or on freeholded land - easements, or conservation or sustainable management covenants), "or (preferably) By the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership and control"
If some occupier exclusive hunting right exists for 30 years, then the land has not been restored to "full Crown ownership and control". Consequently, the occupier rights proposed, requiring hunters to ask permission of the lessee (occupier), are ultra vires the Act as the land will have not been restored to full Crown ownership and control, as public conservation land. Also, permits to hunt on public land are issued by DOC, not a private concessionaire.
If the land had been truly restored to full Crown ownership and control, then the land would be available to all hunters eligible for a DOC hunting permit, and not restricted to those authorised by the proposed Concessionaire.
The proposed concession is also ultra vires S 24 (c), which requires the securing of public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land. Prohibiting one significant public group, namely recreational hunters, in an area renowned for recreational hunting of tahr and red deer, is not "the securing of public access". It is instead setting up an enormous (3477 Ha) private Tahr and Red deer safari park on proposed public conservation land, for 30 years. The size of this proposed private safari park is over two thirds of the area proposed for freeholding (5063 Ha), highlighting just how large it is, probably the largest in the country. We are astounded the Minister of Conservation has provisionally agreed to this travesty.
Decision Sought: NZDA therefore seeks that the occupier rights proposed by LINZ and/or DOC, to allow the concessionaire to exclude any person he/she believes is a hunter, from CA3, and also CA1 and CA2, be removed from this proposed tourism concession. No Occupier rights go with a DOC licence.
We note too that this DOC concession is a licence, not a lease. No exclusive occupancy rights are possible for a licence over conservation lands, except where there are buildings or structures.
NZDA notes that, under S 41(a) the Minister of Conservation has given his written consent for this concession. Under the Official Information Act NZDA requests a copy of this written consent.
2.4 Proposed Tourism Concession Term (30 Years) is too Long: Our understanding is that concessions, especially for grazing, are a transitional process to full Crown management and control. A grazing concession of 7 years would seem more in line with this. Equally, a 7 year term for the exclusive Tourism concession is also appropriate, and in line with what DOC normally offers.
Decision Sought: Seven year term for the Tourism, exclusive hunting and grazing Concession. Note: We do not support the exclusive hunting component of this proposed concession.
2.5 S 39 CPLA not fulfilled: S 39 CPLA requires significantly more information on proposed concessions on surrendered land than is provided in this PP. For example, S 39 requires "A preliminary proposal designating land as land to be restored to and retained in Crown control, subject to the granting of a concession - - must include:
(c) A description of the potential effects of each proposed activity, and any actions the proposed grantee of the concession proposes to take to avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects.
(e) A statement of the proposed duration of the concession, and the reasons for the proposed duration.
(f) Relevant information about the proposed grantee, including information relevant to the grantee's ability to carry out each proposed activity.
Decision Sought: Re-advertise the PP with this information provided. We also note that, under S 50 and 51 of the CPLA, the Minister of Conservation can refuse this preliminary concession proposal.
2.6 Tourist etc Concession must not be exclusive: This is essential to stop exclusive capture of concession values on this massive area of land (over 21,000 Ha) being surrendered. There is certainly room for more than one concessionaire. There is a need to provide better public access also, to stop exclusive capture.
2.7 Land proposed for freeholding, not capable of being managed ecologically sustainably: We request that the following steeplands not be freeholded, as they do not appear to be capable of ecologically sustainable agriculture:
1 The area on the west of High terrace, running down the ridge to Forest Creek, at its junction with Moonlight stream, and upstream to the next tributary draining tongue spur. This face and area is very steep. Also, there is significant cost to the Crown in fencing for this very small area of steep terrain. The cost of fencing alone must be more than the land is worth. Reducing the area would halve the new fence length. It would also remove the private land blockage to Bullock Bow Saddle. An alternative proposal would be to surrender all land from point Q on the map south, and save enormous new fencing costs.
2 A significant part of CC3: This has high landscape values because of its location on the river faces. Yet the covenant allows it to be oversowed, topdressed and fenced. Also, a major fence (new or replacement) is shown as required to protect the covenant. The cost of this is likely to be greater than the value of the land. Why is LINZ wasting public money in this way?
Decision Sought: Replace freeholding and covenanting with surrender, a summer grazing lease, and no ridgeline fence to be supplied. We note the area of this covenant is similar to CA1, which is surrendered.
There are some difficulties that mean the public access proposed is inadequate, and should be rectified.
3.1 Public access up the Scour Stream (a-b-c) is not proposed to be provided by the farm track. But it is a direct walking access to Scour Basin, more convenient than the marginal strip in the stream bed. This strip has 2 metre high deer fences across it, so blocking public access. The lessee has refused offers to provide styles for the public. NZDA asks that this track access be available for walkers, including hunters.
There is a conflict of interest because DOC is the public advocate for public access. DOC has provided for itself, for all modes, plus access for the Minister and his friends. But not for the walking public. The Sinclair Range provides attractive alpine tramping, and ready access to high view points looking across and round the Rangitata Valley and its outstanding nationally important landscapes and scenery.
It also has attractive wild animals for hunters to shoot, thereby assisting DOC control wild animal numbers. These attractions seem an ideal reason under S24 (c) (i) - the securing of public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land.
We note there are major conflicts of interest between the lessee, who wants to obtain an exclusive tourism, and hunting concession, with maximum exclusive rights and resale value, and the CPLA requirements for public access to enjoy inherent values. The exclusive commercial rights for the lessee seem to be winning hands down, counter to the requirements of the CPLA. Why?
The issue also appears compromised the lessee's desire to operate a game hunting farm on the eastern slopes of the Sinclair Range, and his consequent desire to keep public hunters out. Again, this is not a reason to keep the public out.
Decision Sought: Allow easement a-b-c to be a public easement for walking access to Scour basin and beyond.
3.2 Public Access needed to Bullock Bow Saddle and the Upper Reaches of Bush Stream: Even for walking access up Forest Creek, the little bit of freehold that blocks access up the next stream west of Moonlight Stream looks like a device to stop walking access, and stop Fell Hut being available to the public.
We strongly oppose this sort of tactic by the lessee, and by LINZ/DOC. This seems a device, agreed to by LINZ, for the current lessee to cement his competitive advantage as a tourism concessionaire, against the public and any competing concessionaire. LINZ and DOC run a strong risk of behaving in an anti-competitive manner on this issue. This is exclusive capture by the lessee for a proposed 30 years, and is not acceptable. The whole purpose of tenure review is to stop this exclusive capture of the adjoining public conservation land by the lessee.
There is also the matter of public motorised access. The easement a-b-d is the only vehicular track to get over Bullock Bow Saddle, to give access to the upper reaches of Bush Stream, between the Sinclair and two Thumb Ranges. Thus this track is important for public vehicular access also to allow public access to and enjoyment of surrendered land.
Decision Sought: 1 Allow public vehicular and foot access via a-b-d to Bullock Bow Saddle.
2 As well restore the area to public conservation land, as proposed above (Section 2.6)
3.3 Public Vehicular Access up the Valley to the Havelock: It is important that through vehicular access be provided to the Havelock, as a public road. At present this does not appear to be the case where the legal road is not aligned with the actual road at the north of proposed freehold block, CC3.
3.4 What Environmental Constraints on the Concessionaire's Horse Trekking, motorised vehicle use, aircraft use, etc: Horse trekking and motor vehicle use, at high densities, cause bad erosion and degradation. What levels of use is DOC proposing? NB this information should have been supplied under S 39 of the CPLA (2.5 above, but was not.) Guided horse trekking should be restricted to formed tracks only, because of the environmental damage they cause.
Also, aircraft noise can be disturbing to the enjoyment of wildlands. What constraints on aircraft noise is envisaged?
These two items deal with what the CPLA appears to allow for all Tenure Reviews. But they have not so far been proposed on this lease or others that have come through TR. We ask that these two ideas be evaluated for this and all future TRs.
4.1 Movable Marginal Strips Preferable: To provide adequate public access for current and future generations, as is one of the Objects of the CPLA.
As fixed marginal strips are areas of Conservation land, then, by S 31, given the agreement of the Minister of Conservation, these fixed marginal strips can be included in any tenure review. Obviously the Minister has not done this in this TR, probably because his department poorly advised him. Because of this poor advice, the ability to achieve all marginal strips on this lease as movable, and hence more likely to provide stream access in the future has been lost.
NZDA wants to see all future tenure reviews include all fixed marginal strips, so that they can be swapped for movable marginal strips via tenure review. If that can be done in this TR so much the better.
Lessees should be happier to seem movable marginal strips, where they should be, along river and stream beds, rather than going where the bed was in the past. In any case, lessees have had the grazing rights to these strips since they were set aside ie at least since 1990, for zero rental.
Decision Sought: Make all fixed marginal strips be part of each tenure review, via S 31 and agreement with the Minister of Conservation, and swap them for movable marginal strips during TR. There is also the opportunity for movable marginal strips that are wider than 20 metres, where this would help get round cliffs or bluffs.
4.2 Public Access to Covenanted areas: S 24 (b) makes it clear that the protection of significant inherent values of reviewable land is one of the objects of the CPLA, and that this can be done by protective mechanisms (conservation covenants, sustainable management covenants, or easements).
S 24 (c) states that subject to paras (a) and (b) an important object (c) (i) is to make easier the securing of public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land. This proposal does this for land surrendered to conservation. But it is deficient in not also providing access to protective mechanisms such as conservation covenants.
This is an important object, and should be provided for at least in some occasions eg both access to covenant, and access over the Covenant. There is no problem to have covenants that have public access over them eg the 135 Ha covenant on Makara Farm west of Wellington, which allows public access, and also has a nationally important Walkway on it.
It is clear access to or over covenants is not excluded by the CPLA, as LINZ and DOC seem to have assumed to date. S 40 (1) (c) makes it clear that land freeholded can have more than one of the protective mechanisms listed in S 40 (2) provided. This includes S 40 (2) "(c) public access across or to the land concerned" and S 40 (2) "(d) public enjoyment of the land concerned".
Consequently it appears that the intent of the CPLA is to provide public access easements to conservation and sustainable management covenants, and across them. The test is the significance and importance of the inherent values present on the Covenant.
We note too that the Minister of Conservation has to agree to covenants and easements to land to be freeholded. Consequently, as the Minister's Department has a duty to foster recreation, he should too, be encouraged to fulfil the objects of the CPLA by advocating for easements to and over covenants.
Decision Sought: NZDA proposes that:
1 In all future Tenure reviews, that the option of public access to and across protective mechanisms be positively considered, especially where the covenants protect significant inherent values.
2 In this tenure review, public access be provided to and across CC3, if it is kept as freeholdable land.
5 Conclusion: NZDA has the above major concerns about this TR, so cannot support it in its present from. We would appreciate, and request, the opportunity to discuss it further with LINZ or its contractors. We would be pleased to supply further information or comment as this TR proceeds.
Thanking you
Yours truly
Dr Hugh Barr
NZDA National Advocate
© 2011 New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association