National News & Information > Fish & Game Positions

Fish & Game New Zealand Position Statements

This section provides the lastest views and opinions from Fish & Game New Zealand on major sporting, environmental and other issues facing the fishing and gamebird hunting communities in New Zealand.

These statements will change regularly to reflect new developemnts, and new issues will be analysed as they arise.

To be kept up to date with Fish & Game NZ position statements, please sign up for Reel Life and Both Barrels.

If you would like to see a particular issue covered, please contact reellife@inbox.net.nz

For the Record
Canada Geese
Steel Shot
Access
Dairy Farming

Canada Geese

It is often said by hunters that geese are the ultimate gamebird; wily, quick learners, very mobile, flocking in large numbers, and successfully hunting these birds requires planning, dedication and experience. The nature and habits of these geese mean that they are generally harvested in small numbers by casual hunters, and that excellent hunting is had by those who plan their hunts well, equip themselves accordingly, and who take the time to learn and apply the right techniques. To many of these keen goose hunters, culling goose populations is a senseless catastrophe!

Clearly, goose populations have increased in some areas to the extent that farmers have understandable concerns about crop and pasture damage. However, it is also well recognised that agricultural development and intensification has increased the environment’s goose carrying capacity. Richer pastures provide a wonderful food source and we see a corresponding increase in goose numbers, which of course eat more grass and crops! This is not why the land was developed in the first place, and some farmers believe eradication of these birds as the obvious and sensible approach!

Fish & Game’s assessment indicates that adverse farmer feeling toward Canada geese is not directly proportional to the number of geese, or the number of complaints received. It seems that once some critical mass is breached, many in the farming community regard geese as a pest whether they personally experience goose damage or not.

However, goose management in the South Island has proved it can work well. The South Island Canada Goose Management Plan was developed in consultation with all stakeholders and provides landowners and other interested organisations with a say in goose management. Organised hunts and culls are management tools, but problems with Canada geese tend to be localised and successful management is best achieved by working together with landowners on a case-by-case basis.

The key ingredient in a successful goose management plan is effective partnership between landowners, hunters and Fish & Game. Farmers must be part of the solution, as they would whether Canada Geese remain on Schedule 1 as gamebirds managed by Fish & Game, or become Schedule 5 pests and the responsibility of regional authorities. What is clear by now is that where farmers and Fish & Game are already working together, goose management can work well.

Future certainties are:

· goose management and control costs will increase, largely as a result of ongoing improvements in habitat resulting in more geese,

· population control options will remain the same. Pest status will not provide any new options or silver bullet solutions to goose management, and

· increased landowner cooperation, partnership and cost sharing will be required with whoever controls goose numbers.

In the days of lead, any budget 2 ¾ inch, 1 ¼ ounce No. 5 shot would kill ducks just as well at 40 yards as the best premium magnum load (but a very different story past 40 yards!). The difference in steel is that at the same 40 yard mark, premium 3 inch steel kills, but the budget steel ammo sees feathers falling out and the duck flying on. Top quality steel has hard, perfectly round galvanized (prevents rust) shot with tough wads to fully enclose the shot (as steel must not touch the barrel). Round shot means it will fly true and pattern beautifully. Being hard means it will not deform during firing. Premium ammo will have a waterproof seal protecting the primer and powder. Budget ammo will have cheaper-to-produce, lower grade shot. It may even be deformed – meaning patterns will suffer, and wads will be thin – and sometimes allow the shot to touch the barrel causing damage. Some budget steel loads have been tested and found patterns do not change regardless of the choke used! This means that even if the shooter centers the bird perfectly at any range, there will be insufficient pellets striking the bird to kill it. This is where the majority of stories come from regarding steel’s “poor killing capacity”.

The other reason for poor performance is that hunters are using the wrong choke – improved cylinder is good for close decoyed birds, and a modified choke as birds get more wary works well with steel shot..

· That New Zealanders have practical foot access to, and along, the coastline, rivers, around lakes and to public land; and

· No person should be advantaged over any other by the observance of the first principle (which deal with the exclusive capture issue); and

· People accessing public places do so responsibly and recognises private property rights.

Exclusive capture

This is an issue predominantly for anglers and hunters, but has implications for other parties. Wildlife and fisheries do not attach to land title and should be accessible to the public, especially the public who pay licence fees to hunt/fish. Specific provisions in the Wildlife and Conservation Acts preclude the sale of hunting and fishing rights. In some situations, however, landowners have sought to exclude those who didn’t either pay/stay or use the services of particular commercial guides. Fish and Game, anglers and hunters are seeking that the matter is properly addressed. Even if it doesn’t directly relate to non anglers/hunters, the issue is that access may be ‘captured’ to public resources by land owners.

Walking access only?

Fish & Game’s position is that New Zealanders have “fair and reasonable access on foot along the coastline, rivers, around lakes and to public land”.

Many organisations with interests in public access other than on foot only, (e.g. mountain bikes, 4WD, kayaking, and hunting with guns and dogs), are keen to submit that, as a minimum, their interests are not adversely affected by any proposals to improve foot access. The scope of the issue needs to be widened to accommodate these issues, as were raised during the last submission process.

An Access Agency

There seems to be general acceptance that this would be a good idea. We need to ensure its membership, terms of reference, legislative framework and resources are adequate for its task.

An Access agency would:

· have a mandate to complete the Queen’s Chain and provide access to public resources,

· be Independence from central and local government; preferably reporting to Parliament, and

· have Adequate funding.

Property rights

Achieving the right balance between public and private property rights is essential. Land ownership is not absolute; the Queen’s Chain exists in many areas, there are plenty of unformed public roads and water, and fisheries and wildlife do not attach to the title in New Zealand as they do in other countries. The public can, and do, reasonably expect reasonable access to their own resources, while recognizing legitimate private property interests where these exist.

Negotiation

Negotiation on a case by case basis is usually supported, but the basis for the negotiation needs to be clearly specified. The issue is how to achieve the objective of walking access, not whether this is a valid objective.

Negotiation should be the preferred option for all parties to achieve an enduring and equitable result, but if either party refuses to negotiate that should leave open the option for a decision to be considered without that party’s involvement

Negotiating parties must both be in a position where the primary objective is not able to be ‘traded away’. In particular, where the negotiation includes any changes to public road provisions, any new access created should not have lesser rights available to the public than was available on road. This is particularly important to recreationalists and hunters seeking access to areas of public land with vehicles.

Compensation

Fish & Game believe that compensation could be payable only for demonstrable loss of any property right, which would not necessarily be restricted to loss to private property owners. This would not include any costs of facilitating access, such as by the provision of signs or stiles, which should not be borne by the landowner. In particular, it was considered that ‘it would be rare and exceptional for walking access to result in demonstrable loss of a kind that ought to attract compensation.’

Maori land

Unlike general land, customary Maori land has never been alienated and so the ‘Queen’s Chain’ provisions don’t apply.

Enforceable Code of Conduct

Landowners have raised a number of concerns about inappropriate behaviour by visitors. While the Trespass Act is relatively draconian, it is also relatively ineffective from a landowner perspective at dealing with most of these issues. An enforceable code of conduct, and mechanisms supporting landowner’s legitimate concerns on this issue is supported Note however, that many of the issues raised in submissions by landowners were not real issues or are irrelevant to the issue. It would be useful to clarify which we agree are real issues which need to be addressed.

Public Roads

The greatest extent of the Queen’s Chain, where this exists, is public roads. In addition, there are extensive unformed public roads throughout rural New Zealand which were originally surveyed to provide access to all lots. Where solutions to access issues involve closure of public roads, the resulting access arrangement should not be of a lesser standard than the pre-existing legal access.

Land use change

Frequently access issues arise with land use changes (such as subdivision; land use intensification; tenure review; sale, especially to overseas owners). Previous arrangements to secure/provide public access may have been adequate, but may no longer be appropriate or sufficient after the land use change. Some of these have specific mechanisms (e.g. subdivision) which can enable provision of public rights of access where these don’t already exist.

Moveable strips

Both esplanade strips and marginal strips may be noted on the title and not surveyed. This can make them hard to find but at least there is theoretical certainty of access along a river where they do exist where access is provided.

Marginal Strips/Esplanade Provisions

While these are not usually extensive in total, they are the only way in which the Queen’s Chain is presently able to be extended on the sale of Crown land or on certain subdivisions, respectively. It is clear, however, that reliance on this as a mechanism to ‘complete’ the Queen’s Chain will be incomplete. There are many examples where local authorities and sometimes LINZ or DOC do not require or manage these appropriately to enable practical access.

More bluntly, what do we expect of the process where there are no rights of legal access? What is the preferred mechanism to achieve access to ‘complete the Queen’s Chain’. This major issue proved to be the stumbling block prior to the last General Election, where there was division between the recreational sector as to how it could be achieved.

‘Significant’ rivers

As a minimum, any river receiving recreational/public use or interest should be included as requiring access to and along. The only difficulty with this is where access has been denied as so use has been impossible and no history of use/demand is known. The only problem with this approach as it may preclude some legitimate public activities of a passive and unrecorded nature. Research has shown that ‘unspecific’ or passive recreational use can be an order of magnitude greater than active recreation. In some cases access may be sought to or along a river to facilitate other forms of recreation in public land beyond, even if there is no specific ‘freshwater’ recreational value in the river.

The following simple facts may help to clarify Fish & Game’s position on this issue.

Fish & Games statutory roles are to manage, maintain and enhance sports fish and game.

Adverse environmental affects of agriculture are real and ongoing.

Agriculture is therefore affecting the raw material (the habitat) of Fish & Game’s core business.

The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord is voluntary, has incomplete goals, and refers only to some of the aspects of dairy farming that degrade the environment.

Nutrient budgeting is one aspect covered by the Accord, and the last annual report on progress of the Accord (for 2004/05) revealed that only 19% of dairy farmers had a nutrient budget yet the Accord target is 100% by next year.

The Ministry for the Environment which publishes the Accord annual report, will soon publish a figure of around 30% for farms with nutrient budgets in the 2005/06 year, and estimates this may rise to 50% be the end of this year. The industry therefore has a long way to go in a short time. As the Accord is voluntary, there is no guarantee that the nutrient budgets will be implemented.

.