Game council lauds wapiti application
The New Zealand Game Animal Council says protecting wapiti deer would preserve an unparalleled opportunity for a hunting icon.
The council, said in a statement, it congratulated the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation on successfully submitting its wapiti "herd of special interest" (HOSI) proposal.
Minister of Hunting and Fishing James Meager was considering formally designating wapiti as a HOSI in Fiordland National Park.
To support the wapiti HOSI, the government will also introduce a Bill to Parliament to clarify the designation of HOSI in national parks, through a small amendment to the Game Animal Council Act 2013. If passed, the Bill will clarify that HOSI can be established in national parks as was originally intended and clarify the existing legislation.
This move was criticised by Forest & Bird, which said it amounted to letting a North American species use a national park as a "vege patch".
"The value of Fiordland wapiti is recognised in the Fiordland National Park management plan, representing one of the few truly wild wapiti herds outside their native range, and providing an unparalleled hunting opportunity in one of New Zealand's most remote and rewarding landscapes," Fiordland Wapiti Foundation chairman Grant Dodson said.
"The herd holds historical significance and is a New Zealand hunting icon, given to New Zealand by United States President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905.
"In 2011, the Wapiti Foundation began managing Fiordland wapiti under a community agreement with the Department of Conservation. The foundation has achieved sustained management of wapiti that protects Fiordland's unique biodiversity first, and provides for hunting purposes second, at near no cost to the taxpayer."
He said the foundation actively managed the wapiti population to reduce impacts on the environment.
It also managed six back-country huts and more than 500 predator-control traps, protecting native birds such as kiwi and blue duck.
It had recently established a charitable trust enabling hunters to give the venison they harvested to foodbanks.
"The annual wapiti hunting ballot attracts thousands of domestic and international hunters, bringing with it an estimated $1.3million spend per year. Additionally, wapiti hunters contribute thousands of hours to conservation initiatives.
"The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation are recognised globally for how hunters and conservationists can work together to achieve shared goals, which is something to be celebrated and supported.
"Designating a wapiti HOSI will safeguard the long-term gains already being made for conservation, hunters, the economy and the wider community and ensure they endure, independent of shifting government priorities or resources
"The minister's ability to designate a HOSI has existed since the council's establishment by legislation in 2013. However, no HOSI has ever been created," he said.
"The reasons for this are complex and include political considerations and lack of a formal process for considering proposals and developing a herd management plan.
"The council looks forward to supporting the minister, the Department of Conservation and the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation in the next phase of the HOSI process." — APL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Reform to ‘modernise' Fish & Game organisation
Southern Fish & Game councils say they broadly welcome proposed improvements to the organisation's operations, signalled by the government yesterday. Hunting and Fishing Minister James Meager has announced proposed new legislation governing Fish & Game, aimed at streamlining and compartmentalising the roles of the national body and its 12 regional councils. He said it would "modernise and strengthen" the organisation. "I want to make it as easy as possible for Kiwis to go hunting and fishing in New Zealand. This long overdue reform to Fish & Game will refocus the organisation on its core job of managing our sport fishing and game bird resources and implement a more professional approach to national decision making," he said. Key changes would include clarifying council and national body roles; shifting to a nationalised fee collection and funding distribution system; and voting changes. The proposed new act would also "require Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making". New national advocacy policy would restrict court proceedings to within that policy. Southland Fish & Game chairman David MacGregor said the minister had provided further clarification on that last point during interviews yesterday. "The minister has clarified that Fish & Game can still advocate for the health of waterways where it improves fisheries, which is entirely consistent with Southland Fish & Game's involvement in the Water & Land Plan, where the court found there were significant adverse effects on aquatic life," he said. Federated Farmers Southland clashed with Fish & Game Southland last year following a Court of Appeal decision regarding effluent discharge Federated Farmers claimed would prevent them farming. "Fish & Game has never taken frivolous court action, and funding for much of the Southland case came from the New Zealand council, so I can't see our advocacy function changing," Mr MacGregor said. Otago Fish & Game Council chairman Adrian McIntyre said he welcomed modernisation. "Making it easier for New Zealanders to go hunting and fishing is something we all support, and it's encouraging to see a proposal that retains strong regional decision-making — close to where the action is happening. "Regional autonomy is essential to what we do. It's great to see that the minister has preserved the ability of regional councils to make decisions based on local knowledge and direct engagement with hunters, anglers, landowners, iwi and scientists. That connection is one of our biggest strengths." A Federated Farmers spokesman said his organisation remained concerned about Fish & Game's political advocacy functions. "We're welcoming a review of Fish & Game's advocacy function, something Federated Farmers have been vocal in calling for, but we have serious concerns changes won't go far enough."
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
Changes To Fish & Game Continue Coalition's Handover Of Power To Polluters
Press Release – Choose Clean Water Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Games ability to advocate for the health of rivers. Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government's handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners. Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game's ability to advocate for the health of rivers. 'Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.' 'There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game's influence over polluters.' 'When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can't afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.' The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game's advocacy functions will be 'revised' so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy. This morning's press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation's ability to undertake court proceedings and require 'Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making'. 'It's telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.' 'We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.' Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders —similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against 'Dirty Dairying' and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island. More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland's waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming 'there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life'. 'Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government's decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.'
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Changes To Fish & Game Continue Coalition's Handover Of Power To Polluters
Press Release – Choose Clean Water Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Games ability to advocate for the health of rivers. Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government's handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners. Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game's ability to advocate for the health of rivers. 'Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.' 'There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game's influence over polluters.' 'When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can't afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.' The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game's advocacy functions will be 'revised' so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy. This morning's press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation's ability to undertake court proceedings and require 'Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making'. 'It's telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.' 'We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.' Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders —similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against 'Dirty Dairying' and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island. More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland's waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming 'there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life'. 'Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government's decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.'
