Source: Federated Farmers
ACT’s plan to transfer responsibility for managing game animals on conservation land to the Game Animal Council needs a major rethink, Federated Farmers says.
Richard Dawkins, Federated Farmers pest management spokesperson, says allowing the Game Animal Council to set game population targets is extremely concerning.
“ACT has fired a shot with this policy, but they’ve completely missed the mark,” he says.
“Hunters generally see deer as a valuable resource. They want healthy herd numbers, plenty of hunting opportunities and, in some places, quality trophy animals.
“On the other hand, many farmers view those same deer as pests that cause huge problems when they damage pasture, crops, fences, forestry and native vegetation.”
That conflict is evident in ACT’s description of Himalayan tahr as a ‘treasured herd’, Dawkins says.
“They may be treasured by hunters, but they’re also an introduced pest that can cause significant damage to vulnerable high-country vegetation.
“Under ACT’s plan, the people who value the animals would be setting the limits, while neighbouring farmers could carry the consequences and the costs.
“That is an obvious conflict of interest.”
Dawkins says there is plenty in the announcement worth discussing.
“Hunters make a valuable contribution to conservation and back country maintenance, and we support better access and more secure funding for community groups.
“But giving hunters control of population targets crosses a line.
“ACT has made a significant mistake by assuming the interests of hunters and neighbouring farmers are automatically aligned – they are not.
“Farmers should not be expected to carry the cost of maintaining game animal populations for someone else’s recreational benefit.”
Federated Farmers says the practicalities are also far more complex than ACT’s announcement suggests.
Game animal management sits alongside the Wild Animal Control Act, the Conservation Act, Treaty obligations, public access, visitor safety and communications with people using conservation land.
It must also work alongside OSPRI, regional pest management plans, 1080 operations and control programmes for goats, pigs and other species.
“These animals are often managed across the same landscape,” Dawkins says.
“Having one organisation managing deer while another manages goats, biodiversity and disease control risks duplication, conflicting objectives and more bureaucracy.”
Dawkins says the Wapiti Foundation demonstrates that carefully designed partnerships between hunters and government can work in specific circumstances.
“That success reflects a unique arrangement with clearly defined objectives and does not justify transferring responsibility for setting deer population targets nationwide.
“Good local partnerships should be expanded where they work, not used as the basis for a wholesale transfer of responsibility.”
Dawkins says the answer is clear targets, better coordination and targeted investment.
“Federated Farmers agrees the current system is not delivering the level of feral browser control New Zealand needs, but simply transferring responsibility from DOC to the Game Animal Council is not the answer.
“What we need is a properly funded national feral browser strategy that brings hunters, farmers, DOC, OSPRI, councils, iwi, foresters and conservation groups around the same table, with clear targets, responsibilities and accountability.
“Similar to the coordinated approaches used for wilding conifers and wallabies, hunters should have a strong seat at the table and an important role in delivery, but they should not set population targets alone.”
Population targets should be informed by independent ecological monitoring, animal health risks and the effects on neighbouring landowners.
Dawkins says more International Visitor Levy funding could significantly increase pest control, monitoring and community partnerships.
“Hunters are an important part of the solution, but they cannot be the sole judge of how many pest animals should remain on the landscape.
“Good policy must balance hunting values with the rights of neighbouring landowners and the protection of New Zealand’s environment.”