20 April 2012, 00:06
Weathered9th April 2012
Director General
Department of Conservation
Private Bag 4715
Christchurch 8140
Attention: Jenny Williams
Dear Ms Williams
Intention to grant concessions for aerially-assisted trophy hunting
This submission is in respect of the
• Adams Wilderness Area
• Hooker/Landsborough Wilderness Area
• Olivine Wilderness Area
I am opposed to the granting of a concession for aerially-assisted trophy hunting in these three wilderness areas.
The National Parks Act (S 14 and 14A (Reserves) makes it clear what the terms, purposes and conditions for a Wilderness Area are.
It follows logically that activities on public land should be guided by these acts. Legal challenge has however determined that the National Parks and Conservation Act are subject to the WAC Act which is the over-riding legislation governing WARO activities. The Minister must “have regard” to the matters set out in Section 23 of the WAC 1977
It is my hope that the minister will address the legislative shortcomings that currently allow AATH in this term of government. It is unacceptable to me and the New Zealand public that an exclusive aerial access concession for guided recreational hunting can be carried out without reference or check from the Conservation Management Strategies or the two defining acts for our backcountry, the Conservation act and the National Parks act.
Amending legislation currently used for AATH has implications that must be considered by the decision maker in granting any concession for more than 12 months. No AATH concession should be longer than 12 months. AATH concession holders have been informed of no right of renewal (OIA response SC451 C451011120109440)
When the will of the New Zealand people is counter to a law as interpreted by the Minister of Conservation it is the law that must change not the will of the people.
I will address the determinate act, the WACA however as the minister is also required “to have regard” to the Conservation Act and National Parks Act, these will be mentioned as relevant to the WACA
Wild Animal Control Act 1977
Wild animals to be controlled
• (1) This Act shall apply to all land, having regard to the provisions of any Act applying to the land, and shall be for the purposes of controlling wild animals generally, and of eradicating wild animals locally where necessary and practicable, as dictated by proper land use.
(2) This Act shall be administered, having regard to the general purposes specified in subsection (1), so as to—
o (a) ensure concerted action against the damaging effects of wild animals on vegetation, soils, waters, and wildlife; and
o (b) achieve co-ordination of hunting measures; and
o (c) Provide for the regulation of recreational hunting, commercial hunting, wild animal recovery operations, and the training and employment of staff.
Section 4(2) (c): amended, on 1 October 1999, by section 3 of the Wild Animal Control Amendment Act 1997 (1997 No 80).
The Wild animal control act section 2 (c) shall Provide for the regulation of recreational hunting, commercial hunting, wild animal recovery operations, and the training and employment of staff.
The WAC act considers recreational hunting, commercial hunting, and wild animal control operations as separate activities. AATH cannot be considered under the WAC act in any single category. AATH concessions are a nonsense proposed by the Department of Conservation Canterbury as a WARO activity.
AATH is either recreational, commercial or a wild animal recovery operation. Instead AATH is given consideration as a hybrid activity to facilitate an exclusive guiding concession on public land. If a recreational hunter and his guide using a helicopter to access a wilderness area or national park is considered to be carrying out Wild Animal Control work with its associated WARO privileged access then so should every single recreational hunter who accesses the same park to kill animals, we can shoot trophies too. I have often accounted for 20 plus females, on just one hunt. Why is this not animal control work too? A helicopter in the park is a helicopter in the park, no matter who is inside it. How is a tourist with his guide on a recreational tahr hunt engaged in WARO but I can shoot 20 nannies and not get the same status.
This is an obvious absurdity designed by the Department of Conservation to deny access to one group and grant preferential access to another. WARO access is either extended to all recreational hunters or none of us it can’t be selective and still permitted under the WAC act.
National Parks Act Section 4 (1), Parks to be maintained in natural state, and public to have right of entry (1) It is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public,
How is right of entry upheld universally when one group using AATH is granted preferential access above other recreationalists?
One of the few justifications for motorised access to the wilderness areas is to enable animal control this has been acknowledged under the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan (HTCP). The HTCP is the operative Wild Animal Control Plan (WACP) issued under the WACA for these areas.
Management of wild animals
• The Minister shall administer and manage wild animals in accordance with—
o (a) statements of general policy under section 5(1)(ca); and
o (b) wild animal control plans under section 5(1)(d); and
o (c) Conservation management strategies.
Section 5B: inserted, on 10 April 1990, by section 37 of the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 (1990 No 31).
The operative plan for management of tahr in the three wilderness areas is the Himalayan Tahr Control plan (HTCP) 1993. A passing mention of helicopter use for trophy hunting on page 13 of the HTCP is no credible basis to insert AATH within the HTCP. The current HTCP is the operative management document its objectives are consistent with the outcomes of hunting management as determined under section 4, subsection 2 (b). The HTCP is recognised within the relevant CMS’s and aerial access policies. The HTCP as approved within the CMS’s does not include or mention AATH. AATH has substantial risks for effective tahr control as we will demonstrate. On this basis AATH concession applications for tahr within any wilderness area subject to the HTCP should be declined.
Aerially Assisted Trophy Hunting applicants have not advanced a case that existing animal control plans and CMS’s are ineffective. Rather they are proposing an exclusive guided hunting concession to partially relieve the department of its biodiversity obligation to fund existing animal control programs. This a flawed concept based on inadequate in formation.
DoC have not collected accurate data on tahr numbers or recreational hunter activity for over 10 years. It is unacceptable that a commercial guiding concession in the national parks can be given consideration and opportunity to accumulate activity information over 2 years but the same courtesy is not extended to recreationalists.
The Department of Conservation have supplied no data on recreational hunter activity or benefit in terms of animal control (Tahr population Summary 1993 to 2008).
Unless detailed recreational hunter information and accurate tahr census figures (as required under the HTCP) can be made available to the decision maker I will consider advocating for a review of any decision in favour of AATH through the office of the ombudsman and the parliamentary commissioner of the environment.
In terms of mitigation the decision maker shall be bound to consider alternative forms of animal control and revenue opportunities. This is an appropriate process considered under The Conservation Act section 17U subsection(1)(c) any measures that can reasonably and practicably be undertaken to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the activity.
DOCDM-804025 - PAC-12-15 Provisional heli-hunting report
“To date (18 August 2011) around $190,000 has been generated through the payment of activity fees. It was hoped income generated from activity fees in 2011 would be used directly for wild animal management on public conservation land. Allocating this money back into herd control has proved more difficult than anticipated due to the Department’s financial management system. For future operations, it may be more beneficial to explore alternative options or opportunities for commercial/Departmental partnerships that might better assist the Department in its animal management rather than the collection of trophy fees”.
Animal control/management funding can be achieved without AATH. Each tahr trophy that leaves New Zealand must have a certificate of origin issued by MAF or DoC. The current fee is $40. This fee goes into the general fund the same as all AATH revenues do now. This fee can be raised to a much higher value, for example $2500 dollars. This trophy export fee would be levied over the entire 7 tahr Management Unit Zones (MUZ’s) for any trophy tahr taken in NZ intended for non-resident export. Approximately 500 tahr trophies leave NZ each year that equates to $1.25 million. This money could be allocated directly from the general fund under ministerial guidance for co-ordinated DoC search and destroy (SAD) “pulse” type animal control carried out by DoC employees with its associated efficiencies and minimal intrusion in the backcountry. The current cost of the HTCP is $180,000 to $280,000 annually. Currently the AATH fees charged equate to less than $197,000 with a further $25,000 of “free” animals still partially “owed” to be culled by AATH operators. There are heavy costs in AATH administration reducing the net benefit of AATH to less than $100,000 net. Declining the concession for a better and safer method of Department search and destroy shooting funded by export levies on trophies is also related to the minister’s requirement to achieve co-ordination of hunting measures under the WACA section 4, subsection 2 (a) & 2 (b).
This is an acceptable method of mitigation as it eliminates AATH entirely and achieves the objectives of the wild animal control plans in the most efficient manner. There are serious operational deficiencies and conflicts in animla control outcomes with AATH. It is a serious mistake to hand animal control over AATH as I will detail in my submission.
AATH/ helihunter’s have taken 109 trophy animals from the wilderness areas and national parks and failed to maintain the required 5:1 male female cull ratio taking only 391 females despite being given free rein to remove them as efficiently as possible (DOCDM-804025 - PAC-12-15 Provisional heli-hunting report “The cull areas tend to include difficult locations for recreational hunters to access due to the steep and difficult terrain. Deliberately, restrictions on when and how the culls might occur were not included in the temporary 2011 permits to observe how operators would carry out the permit requirement and to see if the level of cull (five nannies or juveniles/trophy) was achievable”) The required cull ratio was clearly not achievable. This trend of reduced aerial culling efficiency will continue as AATH becomes more frequent. Option 2 offered to the applicants in their contract concession fee clause 4 extending the 5:1 to the total concession area has significant implications for poor vegetative outcomes.
Removal of females in the wilderness areas by AATH operators did conflict and threaten co-ordinated hunting measures by impacting recreational ground hunting activity in the area (docdm-792073 - PAC-12-15 Provisional report on 2011 heli-hunting season 11)
Alternatives to AATH should also include supporting recreational hunting opportunities. DoC does not collect casual recreational hunter data and none is available for the decision maker, a significant oversight of a large hunter influence on animal populations. This is due to Department of Conservation’s incompetence as “the land manager”
The tahr liaison group however does collate cull and ballot data. This is a fraction of the unknown hunter contribution due to but it dwarfs AATH in it efficiencies. In the period June 2010 to June 2011 recreational hunters culled 580 tahr in wilderness areas and targeted population hotspots, in co-operation with DoC field officers.
In the period June 2011 to Feb 2012 recreational ground hunters culled 137 bulls and nannies in Aoraki Mount Cook National Park, 220 nannies and juveniles in the Godley Havelock region and 488 juveniles and females in the Landsborough/Jacobs wilderness areas for a total cull of 845 animals. The cull data from the balloted access for 2012 will likely add 200 more this winter. Ground hunters are more efficient and flexible than AATH operators who struggle to cull helicopter shy animals.
Balloted or otherwise recreational ground hunter aerial access to control animals meets the requirement of temporary under the wilderness area guidance
14. Wilderness Policy (1983)
Management of Wilderness Areas: “
(e) Because wilderness areas are places for quiet enjoyment, free from obvious human
impact, and require physical endeavour to achieve in full measure the wilderness experience, the use of powered vehicles, boats or aircraft will not be permitted”,
(h) Exceptions to restrictions on facilities, boats, and aircraft may apply temporarily
to… (ii) Control of introduced plants and animals”.
AATH applicants have requested a 10 year concession for operational planning security needs they need to be reminded of the policy for Wilderness areas.
Section (h) states any exception to restrictions may only be temporary. It would be difficult to consider temporary as any longer as to complete a single season of ground based or aerial culling activity. Ground hunters using balloted helicopter access accept they have no claim or right and receive approval for access only 3 months before the event. AATH operators take bookings and expect access to wilderness areas 3 years in advance (appendix 10 page 1 operators comments CS Withnall ) On this basis the applicants conditions of activity are more than temporary, the decision maker must decline the application.
AATH operators are already expressing resistance to enhanced ground hunting opportunities. (ref applicant comments appendix 10 “ more recreational hunter campsites means more opportunities for conflict, once you bring in concessionaires own mitigation procedures then much of the landscape is ruled out, effectively excluding industry”)
If AATH is unable to be mitigated unless recreational hunters, climbers and recreationalists are removed from their own park the application must be declined. The attitude of AATH that recreationalists, for whom the wilderness and parks areas are set aside for, will interfere with their commercial guiding business because there are too many of us in the parks is unacceptable in a concession. This is in conflict with the National parks Act which also covers wilderness areas.
AATH supported under the WACA as it is now, fully intends to displace recreationalists as well as ground based hunters and argues that even the presence of recreational hunters is an imposition for “their industry” under its code of practise (appendix-10-applicant-feedback-on-draft-officers-report page 6 comments from applicants “ It is in the interests of ground hunters (both recreational and ground based guides) to intensify the level of complaints against this industry in order to secure more of a share of what will become a resource under the Game Animal Council legislation process”)
AATH is in the business of selling tahr off the wilderness areas and like any business will resist competitors. AATH views recreational ground hunters on public land as competitors. Co-ordination of hunting measures as required under the WACA is incompatible with AATH business objectives. Recreational ground hunters are in a losing situation with AATH. AATH incorrectly claims ground hunters are unable to access the areas that they do and at the same time argues against enhancing ground hunting opportunities as a negative impact on their industry.
AATH reinforces animal helicopter avoidance. AATH’s continual sub-lethal over-flights force animal behaviour modification creating difficulties in animal control this is in direct conflict with the objectives of the WACA. (ref Watson MSc 2007 page 116 “Implementing one control effort per year ensures that tahr do not become accustomed to helicopter-hunting pressure, therefore reducing the likelihood of learning avoidance behaviour “). Personal comments from DoC staff detailing Timaru Creek tahr control operations also support this fact (as reported in NZ outdoor hunting Dec/Jan 2012). It is important to recognise the difference between legitimate WARO carcass recovery operations or department of conservation aerial culls (SAD) which have a financial cost efficiency incentive to kill every animal they can as soon as they can, therefore not introducing helicopter avoidance behaviour and AATH which operates helicopters sub-lethally under no such incentive to remove the maximum number of animals possible.
AATH creates animal behaviour modification forcing tahr off the open tussock and into the scrub impacting previously less browsed vegetation. (Page 120, Watson MSc quoting Tustin and Challies 1965 “Low tahr density is associated with low herd security, and a greater dependence on habitat features such as bluff systems to provide cover. This has consequences for management. Tustin and Challies (1965) found that when tahr were at a high density in 1965 "most inhabited the headwaters of Carney's Creek where vegetation cover is sparse and rock bluffs offer little cover from aerial hunting". This made tahr particularly susceptible to helicopter hunting and 93% of the Carney's Creek population did not survive the commercial meat-recovery boom of the 1960s and 70s. In 1977 a further census found the remaining tahr inhabited only those areas which have the most cover. This demonstrates both a functional and numerical response by tahr to hunting pressure, particularly helicopter hunting. The functional response is that individuals actively avoid open areas by escaping to cover. The numerical response is that the population changes its habitat use”).
This behaviour modification has negative or unknown implications for previously un-browsed vegetative health especially in the more heavily vegetated wilderness areas. Rumen studies from Tustin and Challies indicate over 60% of a tahr diet is tussocks what is the implication if their diet changes to sub bush-line vegetation.
AATH operators have been disingenuous by acknowledging this issue in their comments but failing to address it. Already within 2 years AATH operators are requesting alternatives from the required 5:1 ratio (appendix 10 page 5 “We request the decision-maker to set-aside Schedule3, 4.3 to 4.6; replacing these conditions with a clause which states that the delivery component of the culls is still a work in progress”). The use of either option 1 or option 2 within the concession contract 2012 even using the WACP’s will place the entire management component of the WACP in the hands of an industry that is opposed to a reduction in animal numbers to ensure its profits continue. The lack of logic displayed is astounding, if you shot five nannies for every bull you sold you will not be in business long. AATH operators have offered to cease AATH activity one week before SAD operations which is too late as the nanny groups will already be well dispersed and behaviour modification ingrained.
AATH threatens to impact and reduce ground hunting participation in the wilderness areas by removing the trophy incentive for recreational hunters to access these areas. Ground hunting by recreational hunters in wilderness areas targets open tussock equally as well as scrub and bush areas unsuitable for AATH activity. Ground hunting over the last 20 years has not negatively impacted DoC SAD aerial “pulse control” and has been integrated into CMS’s and control plans, unlike AATH.
Sufficient information has been gathered to determine that AATH is counter to the objectives of the WACA.
There is no supporting evidence produced by the applicants that vegetative values or animal control measures have benefited from AATH activities. Rather their own failure to harvest the required number of females indicates the opposite.
Difficulty locating animals trained to avoid helicopters by using a helicopter is hardly a valid endorsement of successful control. More so when it is in the applicants business interests to fail to remove females and maintain a breeding stock for their business activity to flourish. This summarises the inherent conflict of AATH. Applicants are required to kill the tahr breeding stock upon which their financial success relies at the same time attempting to exclude recreational hunting activity in the same area. This is in breach of the WACA’s requirement under section 4 (b)” achieve co-ordination of hunting measures;”
There is strong enough evidence to state AATH impacts animal management best practise. There is no evidence from the AATH operators to contradict this view. AATH operators own admission of inability to reach the required cull ratio and requests to cull alternative areas undercuts the claimed benefits of AATH and invalidates it as an animal control method.
The applicants have offered no specific rebuttal of the negative vegetative effects from AATH suggested by Watson, Challies and Tustin. The decision maker must decline their application.
To ensure protection and operator compliance in 2012 and onwards the current 2011 requirements for spider-tracking and activity reporting must be continued or made even stricter for all AATH operators in all areas whether applicants are declined or approved concessions to operate in Wilderness areas. Previous GPS tampering has been suspected in 2010 and inconsistencies with animal locations were detected in 2011 (DOCDM-533897 GPs tampering) Possibly another breach is under investigation in April 2012.
National Parks Act 1980
Wilderness areas exist by virtue of Section 14 of the National Parks Act 1980. Section 14(1) (d) states
“No animals, vehicles, or motorised vessels (including hovercraft and jet boats) shall be allowed to be taken into or used in the area and no helicopter or other motorised aircraft shall land or take off or hover for the purpose of embarking or disembarking passengers or goods in a wilderness area.”
This freedom from the intrusion of motorised transport is one of the fundamental aspects that define a wilderness area. While the Act provides for the Minister to authorise a departure from the provisions of s14 (1), this can only be if that activity
“in a wilderness area is in conformity with the conservation management strategy or management plan for the area; and the Minister is satisfied that its doing is necessary or desirable for the preservation of the area's indigenous natural resources” (s14(4)).
AATH is not in conformity with any of the operative management plans or CMS’s relevant to any of the three wilderness areas.
There is evidence from the points raised previously with Watson, Tustin’s and Challies work to suggest that the preservation of the area's indigenous natural resources is threatened by AATH. If the applicants cannot respond to this issue there is no option but to decline the application.
Conservation Act 1987
Section 17U describes matters that must be considered by the Minister when considering a concession application.
Subsection (1)(c) requires the Minister to have regard to “any measures that can reasonably and practicably be undertaken to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the activity”. I submit that it is impossible to mitigate the additional adverse effects that aerially-assisted trophy hunting will have on wilderness qualities and on natural quiet. The only way that the adverse effects can be avoided is by declining the application.
Current balloted aerial access for ground hunters in a wilderness area is not a concession activity.
The balloted activity of ground hunter placement in wilderness areas is carried out under a WACP integrated within the CMS’s and national park plans. In this respect we have demonstrated it is completely separate in nature and impact from AATH an aerial commercial concession activity application in terms of the Wild Animal Control Act which is the determinate act to consider in this case.
Subsection (3) states that “The Minister shall not grant an application for a concession if the proposed activity is contrary to the provisions of this Act or the purposes for which the land concerned is held”.
The land is held as a wilderness area, and it is clear from any reasonable reading of the National Parks Act 1980, the relevant National Park Management Plan and the Wilderness Policy that this activity (AATH) is contrary to that purpose. It is also clear that AATH may in fact harm vegetative values through animal behavioural modification and is contrary to the provisions of the act.
Yours Sincerely
----------------
References;
DOCDM-804025 - PAC-12-15 Provisional heli-hunting report
OIA DOCDM-865952-OIA 152 Heli-hunting
DOCDM-533897 GPs tampering
Tahr population Summary 1993 to 2008
Himalayan Thar control Plan 1993
Watson MSc Aspects of the feeding ecology of Himalayan Tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), Some comparisons with Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra rupicapra) and implications for Tahr management in New Zealand
appendix-10-applicant-feedback-on-draft-officers-report
Aath-concession-officers-report
AATH trophy hunting permit 2012
throwaway lines and generalisations are cheap on AR.
Not a generalization Matt. I just think someone in your position should know a few of the basic answers. 
