W;
Gov't tries to avoid like the plague , having direct operational control over commercial enterprises . It exposes Govt to compensation where the value of an activity reduces as a result of Gov't determination.
ie
by re-prescribing what rights are attached to a license
They like collecting generic license fees to participate in an activity , but not assume control of the activity .
ie
gov't has learnt what not to do in control over Taxi Licenses, egg quotas etc etc on both sides of the ditch.
They adopt a "one step removed" control in licensing.
- primarily they establish control over regulating skills .
- managing sustinability.
&
- issuing licenses to undertake an activity on proof of attainment of skills .......usually by an industry body that administers skills training etc which is approved & licensed by Govt to do so ( more Gov't income in another license for the trainer/examiner).

In the end that is typically administered thru a peak industry body.
The relevant minister & bureaucracy retain power, they identify goals & objectives in the legislation and blame the industry body when things go wrong.
The minister needs someone to blame to get the heat off themselves when things go wrong.....if they take too much direct control the heat stays with them.

A lot will depend on the relationship the peak industry body establishes with the Minister & his bureaucracy & the framework that the legislative arrangements provide for the peak industry body.
ie
if the industry body is purely voluntary & does not have a role in formal self management it becomes a toothless tiger when black sheep have a pathway around the peak body to the bureaucrats for licensing.

On the other hand;
If the peak industry body has a formal role in the accreditation of industry participants in achieving licensing for an activity ........it gives the peak body much more control over the participants in the activity & the minister a buffer between themselves & those operating the activity.
Minister's love that sort of arrangement.
when they are hassled by the grass roots participants , they tell them to talk to the peak body who were consulted on the legislative arrangements.
when the public hassles over issues , the minister gets the peak body to front
& tells them the objective they have to deliver a regulatory framework for, with the bureaucrats.
( the basic message being......." I don't want this flak.......fix it ")

great place for the Minister & bureaucracy to be , not so great for the peak industry body...........but a lot better place for them than on a broom picking up the pieces, with the good operators paying the price for missbehaviour by the black sheep.
Industry self-management is not freedom to do whatever you like........its merely the ability to manage an industry within the legislative guidelines.......and cop all the blame , IF they cannot achieve it.

The Minister takes all the credit when things work well.
.

quote:

Originally posted by Weathered:


I advocate within NZDA that we need to get a working open relationship with the guides, its the guides who think they can ignore the rest of NZ.
When NZPHGA police their own members I will be the first to extend my hand I will however reserve the right to count my fingers afterwards.
If you dont get your house in order quickly, I think guides will find themselves the subject of external regulation from a GAC/govt appointed body. There are plenty who can detail problems and issues with New Zealand guides on public land. As the Parlimentary Commissioner to the Environment is now investigating concession activity on public land including helihunting the dead rat of helihunting will be laid squarely on the NZPHGA's doorstep. Whats the thought that the PCE may reccomend self regulation be removed from guides in New Zealand and govt regulation is brought in, or the GAC takes over administering you guys?
The associate minister of conservation may be given advice that guides operating on public land be govt licensed.
What are your thoughts?

How can an industry assoc be blamed for any industry-wide problem... if membershiup of said org is not compulsory or even majority participation??

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
How can an industry assoc be blamed for any industry-wide problem... if membership of said org is not compulsory or even majority participation??

They failed themselves and the rest of us ?

quote:

The formation of the New Zealand Professional Hunting Guides Association arise from senior industry members seeking to upgrade the industry over-all, determined to provide a consistently high standard of professional service to all who visited New Zealand to trophy hunt.

In 1985 those senior members successfully petitioned the Government of the day to register professional hunting guides under an Act of Parliament. The Government wisely granted this petition and after a period of submission and guidance from professional guides, a Registration Committee was established in 1986 for the first time in the history New Zealand professional hunting guides were registered under the signature of a Minister of the Crown.

After the process was tested and refined the Government passed the process of vetting and approving of professional hunting guides over to the industry, considering that the industry would best grow in strength if it were self-regulatory. Today the New Zealand Professional Hunting Guides Association Inc has over fifty members, functions under a strict Code of Ethics, with processes and procedures in place requiring the highest possible professional and safe practices by members. The safety of clients, professional performance of members, the conducting of hunts in the highest possible ethical manner, are all demanded of members.

When you decide to book a trophy hunt in New Zealand be sure to first establish that the guide you are communicating with is indeed a member of New Zealand Professional Hunting Guides Association Inc.

quote:

NEW ZEALAND PROFESSIONAL HUNTING GUIDES’ ASSOCIATION
CODE OF BEST PRACTICE FOR HELICOPTER ASSISTED HUNTING
MEMBERS SHALL ABIDE BY OUR CODE OF ETHICS

1. The use of helicopters to assist with guided hunting shall be limited to the locating of an animal and the setting down of the client and the guide to hunt the animal.

2. No client shall shoot from a helicopter during Helicopter Assisted Hunts.

3. No shotguns to be on the helicopter during Helicopter Assisted Hunts.

4. Helicopter Assisted Hunting shall only be done in areas for which permission is held and concession conditions shall be observed.

5. Guides shall avoid Helicopter Assisted Hunting close to occupied huts or camps.

6. Guides shall comply with the Helicopter Operations Safety Management System, located within the comprehensive NZPHGA Occupational Health & Safety Management System.

7. Guides shall fully brief the hunter and have the hunter sign and date relevant documents.

8. Members shall respect the rights of other recreationalists.

Looks like no-one in New Zealand helihunts do they?

Look again

quote:

Heli-hunting concessionaires in 2011:

Helicopter only
Amuri Helicopters Limited

Guiding component only
South Pacific Safaris (NZ) Ltd
Glenroy Station Ltd
Mt Cook Trophy Hunting Ltd
New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd

Guide and helicopter components
Alpine Deer Group Limited
Station Air Ltd
Alpine Hunting Adventures Ltd
Mountain Helicopters Fox Glacier Ltd
Aspiring Helicopters Ltd
Way to Go Heliservices Ltd
Mount Hutt Helicopters Limited
Back Country Helicopters Ltd

Official concession definition of helihunting

quote:

Heli-hunting, or aerially-assisted trophy hunting, as it is also known, is defined as a continuous activity involving searching for an animal by helicopter, the positioning of hunter and guide on the ground to allow shooting of the animal, and then uplifting of trophy, hunter and guide to return to base. The helicopter may, at times, be used to herd animals out of difficult to reach areas or to safe shooting positions
The difference between aircraft landing concessions, where aircraft are used to convey and position hunters directly to specified landing sites and then return for pickup at a predetermined time days to weeks later, and heli-hunting concessions, is that in heli-hunting the aircraft is used to search for a trophy and is integral to a continuous operation where all on board return to base as part of the one trip.

Who asked for that inclusion? the helihunters, heres a list of NZPHGA members
NZPHGA members
There are at least 6 names in that list who are helihunt concession holders.
Solid evidence of helihunting was delivered into the president of NZPHGA's hands detailing a helihunt with pursuit and hazing confirmed from a govt thrid party source.
Nothing has happened I dont expect it too either.
NZPHGA are kinda a joke .... a bad one played on our public land.
I never intended to outline the above but it was sititng there and I grabbed it only to make a point and generate a response from the guides.

Matt if you want more info PM me.

Who are the six??

Laurie Prouting
Harv Hutton

I dont know who the others are?

W,
I don't have a card in that pack, but......
in a spirit of fair play lets look at the code of practice & where helihunting sits
- no defence to shooting from a helicopter
- clause 1. of the code is open to interpretation as to what " locating an animal" means in practice.
- clause 4. in providing for the conditions of the concession to be observed provides an effective meaning to the interpretation of Clause 1. for a concession holder.....as per the official concession definition of heli-hunting associated with the concession and its liberal interpretation by the concession holder.

What is a voluntary industry body to do.
The situation exists in many voluntary organisations where they don't have a legal basis for even "disciplining" their own members where the code of practice has no basis in legislation & circumvented by govt concession issue.You cannot criticise a member who has been issued Govt approval for an activity.

Its a tough deal
The optimal result is where the relationship between the Industry body & the code of practice is enshrined in legislation and the Gov't agency with jurisdiction does not issue concessions which themselves abrogate the code of practice .
Its not the end of the world, it can be fixed where the implementation actions that provide effect to the Review recommendations are constructed so the agreed code of practice is incumbent on both the Industry body members & the Gov't jurisdictional agency.
Such is the tragedy of voluntary industry associations in many cases.
Hunting is not alone in that.

A fairer assessment of the situation is probably that the Gov't backdoored both the general hunting public & the Industry Association by issuing concessions that effectively contradicted the intent of the industry code of practice.
You can't blame the Industry association for that .
Hark back to my earlier post reference to legislation containing exemption mechanisms for most things & the the name of the game is managing the scope of those exemptions.
Gov't has to carry the blame for issuing the concessions not the members of the Industry Association........the Gov't action neutered the association.

quote:

Originally posted by DenisB:
W,
I don't have a card in that pack, but......
in a spirit of fair play lets look at the code of practice & where helihunting sits

Anyone on this forum knows I dont do fair play when I discuss the helihunters on these pages. The issues you raised were thrashed out years ago, its too boring to revisit. Helihunting/NZDA/NZPHGA/DOC/Rec hunters conflict is a NZ issue and our issues are unique to our train wreck hunting culture. If I thought we were stuffed I would just go hunting so I am an optimist. I am busy building deer yards velveting fallow and other fun things.

Heli-hunting concessionaires in 2011:

Helicopter only
Amuri Helicopters Limited

Guiding component only
South Pacific Safaris (NZ) Ltd = Mike Wilks
Glenroy Station Ltd = Jim Hunter
Mt Cook Trophy Hunting Ltd = Neville Cunningham
New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd = Gary Herbert

Guide and helicopter components
Alpine Deer Group Limited = Toby Wallis
Station Air Ltd = Laurie Prouting
Alpine Hunting Adventures Ltd = Shane Quinn
Mountain Helicopters Fox Glacier Ltd
Aspiring Helicopters Ltd
Way to Go Heliservices Ltd
Mount Hutt Helicopters Limited
Back Country Helicopters Ltd = Harvey Hutton

If and when it is made law (has it actually happened yet??) thereis going to be an aweful lot of 'watching of outfitters' going on!!

quote:

Originally posted by Weathered:

Anyone on this forum knows I dont do fair play when I discuss the helihunters on these pages. The issues you raised were thrashed out years ago, its too boring to revisit.

I can understand the fair play attitude towards the helihunters, and you have done a hell of a lot of work to highlight the sad issue, but the situation the Industry Association found itself in was not one of their making. Their CoP was neutered by the Gov't.

Not withstanding any of that , the fundamental issues remain the same today ( boring tho they might be ) , in constructing the regulatory framework to move forward in delivering the recommendations of the review & not see the intent lost in inadequate regulatory prescription and a CoP that remains voluntary within the Association and not compulsory on every participant in the guiding industry as a license condition, to the benefit of everyone who hunts in NZ.

quote:

A lot will depend on the relationship the peak industry body establishes with the Minister & his bureaucracy & the framework that the legislative arrangements provide for the peak industry body.
ie
if the industry body is purely voluntary & does not have a role in formal self management it becomes a toothless tiger when black sheep have a pathway around the peak body to the bureaucrats for licensing.

On the other hand;
If the peak industry body has a formal role in the accreditation of industry participants in achieving licensing for an activity ........it gives the peak body much more control over the participants in the activity & the minister a buffer between themselves & those operating the activity.

Wise and knowing words indeed.
And to me it pretty much states exactly where the NZPHGA finds itself.
I'm one of 8 on the executive, an executive that has too and does represent ALL members of the association.

MY primary role is safety and training. My present project is setting up a training and standards procudure that ALL members much achieve to be members, and as such recognisation with in the greater industry body of what we as guides represent(tourism operators).
If you go back to what DenisB has to say about greater control of its members you'll pick up the fine threat that I'm attempting to spin into a web to embody the hunting guiding industry.
Hell I'm a full time hunting and fishing guide and now I find myself an extramuarl post grad student again just so i can put a voluntary body in a new direction.I'm drafting with a lot of assistance, a set of industry standards. Why, because I want the guides to HAVE to met standards, standards, that are set by our guiding industry that will be accredited from outside of our industry.
Ask yourself this, what is a professional guide, says who? prove it. That in a nut shell is where I'm at and what I'm setting out for the NZPHGA.
If i can find the commitment on this that you have shown on the anti heli deal Shaun and the wisdom and knowledge of DenisB, I may, in 3 or 4 years time, manage to lead the guides in a new direction.
All I ask is that you put on a guides hat for a few weeks and see the situation from the other side.Becuz it is essentail to know all sides of a conflict if you are to reach what will be resolution. If this was easy it would have been sorted out long long ago. We are headed in a new direction and as an association the guides HAVE to be in control of their industry. DenisB mentions one or two reason, there are many others to consider. Welcome to the world of change.
Now I have a essay to finish, a business to run and a family to look after and I love every minute of it.

Good on you Gerald. Do the industry standards you envisage deal with conflicts relating to the resource and other users? Or is that an entire different area?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Good on you Gerald. Do the industry standards you envisage deal with conflicts relating to the resource and other users? Or is that an entire different area?

Without dealing with the specifics of this situation:-

In general terms, it is normal practice for an industry Code of Practice to identify how industry members will interact with every facet of elements of their activity that they typically interact with.

The legislation that directly administers an industry primarily prescribes the scope of the activity ( what you can do), and how it is authorised ( licensing after attainment of a certificate of training achievement by XXX )............not how you can do it.

An industry CoP identifies how a member/licensee conducts their activity with regard to:-
- possession of the relevant authorisations necessary to conduct the activity.
- ancilliary equipment standards
- animal welfare
- safety & first aid.
- pollution of the environment
- resource sustainability
- interaction with other user groups of common resources
etc etc.

The training requirements that are prescribed to achieve licensing & associated experience in the industry, in some cases, to achieve full licensing . is overseen by a Government Training Authority.
(the same one that oversees training standards for plumbers, electricians etc & approves course content at universities & TAFE in association with an industry reference group & a reference group from the training institutions).
The gov't authority also 'licenses' the training institutions to provide the courses and attainment certification.
Institutions approved to to provide training certification includes industry training councils ..........and it is typical in smaller industries that an industry training council conducts the training.
( this is because it is not cost efficient for govt training institutions to gear up & employ qualified people to provide training courses for small numbers of participants).

The process for subsequent monitoring & compliance of licensed industry members is achieved by an administrative structure where the license itself contains a requirement to have achieved the relevant training standard for the activity & a condition to abide by the approved CoP.( & the legislation includes penalties for non-compliance with license conditions).

Kudos Highlander, you have my sympathy in the workload you have shouldered. I hope the Gov't gives you the 3-4 yrs you envisage.......they often are not particularly practical in setting timelines when they are under pressure to resolve issues.( been there done that & its a necessary but often thankless task, most people ( both inside & outside the industry) only appreciate the value long after the event ).

Well done Highlander!!