Blueprint For Wildlife Control “Impossible”—Chairman

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31784, 14 September 1968, Page 14

Blueprint For Wildlife Control “Impossible”—Chairman

It would be impossible to produce a blueprint of wildlife management and control to suit all interested parties, the chairman of the Wildlife Commission of Inquiry (Mr J. K. Hunn) said in Christchurch yesterday.

He told reporters after the completion of the hearings, which lasted two days and a half, that while there was broad agreement on how present problems should be solved there were many specific differences. Mr Hunn said the broad agreement among everyone would at least help the commission in formulating a report to the Cabinet on its findings.

The commission has heard submissions from more than 100 organisations and individuals at sittings in Christchurch, Wellington and Rotorua. It will prepare a report to the Cabinet after final hearings in Wellington next week. Mr Hunn and two other members of the commission —Dr R. K. Dell, director of the Dominion Museum in Wellington and Mr R. F. Stead, a Canterbury farmer—were impressed by the detail of the submissions.

They have been charged with taking submissions from all sections of the community interested in wildlife. Evidence has come from the four Government departments directly interested— Lands and Survey, Forestry, Internal Affairs and Marine. Acclimatisation societies, universities, sporting organi-

sations, commercial interests and private persons have also come forward. Final submissions were made yesterday by the Otago Acclimatisation Society and Otago University. The society agreed that while it had faults and weaknesses like other societies there was much good in its administration of wildlife matters. Both the Marine and Internal Affairs Departments appeared to have agreed with this.

The society was concerned that the interests of wildlife and fisheries be of greater concern than that of acclimatisation societies. It admitted the need for research, combined organisation, qualified biologists, local management, consolidation of administrative districts, trained personnel at administrative level, trained permanent staff at managerial and field staff level, and permanence in administrative authorities.

The society said there should be one over-all policy of conservation for the country, exercised by one branch of the Government department charged with conservation. This department should have representation on other Government boards and bodies whose activities might impinge on national conservation interests.

The society said the present organisation of the Wildlife Division of the Internal Affairs Department was admirably geared to control conservation in all its aspects. The division should retain control and have fisheries added to it. It should also be responsible for research fully using university facilities. The society asked that accli-

matisation societies have some say at national level of fish and game management. It advocated the setting up of a National Council of Freshwater Fisheries and Game Management.

The society said it was advocating a system which was in line with the system adopted by the Government for the constitution of other boards and agencies under other Acts.

The transition from the present system to that advocated should be simple and relatively painless to all concerned.

Acclimatisation societies should step back and divest themselves of ■ those functions of management for which they were least fitted. The University of Otago submitted that the only satisfactory solution to the present problem was to transfer all administrative functions to a Government department.