14 June 2012

Game Animal Council a political trophy

Forest & Bird told a hearing today that proposals to establish a Game Animal Council are flawed, saying that changes to the Bill are essential to minimise its conservation risks.

“The council is being established for all the wrong reasons,” Conservation Advocate Claire Browning said after appearing before the Local Government and Environment select committee this morning. “It’s a political trophy awarded to Hon Peter Dunne for his loyalty to the current government, that’s all.”

Claire Browning advised the committee that if a council were wanted, it could be easily and properly established under the existing Wild Animal Control Act.

Forest & Bird’s principal concern about the Game Animal Council Bill is that the council would be responsible for managing so-called “herds of special interest” on public conservation lands, and, potentially, deciding whether a particular herd should be designated as one of “special interest”.

The herds of special interest are herds of mammal pests – deer, thar, chamois and wild pigs – whose impact on conservation land has been summed up by the New Zealand Conservation Authority as “major and damaging”.

But with passage of the Bill inevitable, Forest & Bird’s submission focused on recommending relatively simple changes that would allow the council to go ahead, while minimising its risks to conservation and national heritage.

These included balanced council membership with adequate conservation expertise, expert and public scrutiny of the council’s performance of its functions, and a requirement for measuring and monitoring the conservation impacts of these herds.

Claire Browning noted that Forest & Bird supported hunting on public conservation lands, and would like to see more of it. Hunters were an ally in pest control, she said.

“We are not opposed to a Game Animal Council for education, advice, co-ordination of the hunting sector and lobbying – although we are not sure why DOC should have to fund what is, essentially, a glorified lobby group.”

Forest & Bird disagrees with hunters being given self-management powers because the problems with “big game” are their impact on the environment. Past examples in New Zealand showed self-management did not work, and produced poor conservation outcomes.

ENDS

© Scoop Media