Article on game societies defended

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33985, 28 October 1975, Page 14

Article on game societies defended

f From

OLIVER RIDDELL

WELLINGTON. i A charge that the national executive scheme to reorganise the structure and operation ot acclimatisation societies in New Zealand was “nothing more nor less the implementation of the 1968 Hunn Report." made in a letter to "The Press" by Mr J. !>• Ritchie, of Dannevirke. is incorrect.

Mr Ritchie said that a vole in favour of this scheme would give the Government control of game sport and that for every dollar the Government spent, about 75c went in administration. In its report, the Hunn Committee — established to ! inquire into the “organisation of wildlife management and research in New Zealand” — made a number of recommendations which have not been incorporated into the national executive scheme. ' Recommendations 4-6 of : the report were that: “A I Minister in charge of wild- : life be appointed to ensure co-ordinated advice, to the Government on wildlife policy and financial matters: an, executive national wildlife commission of three members be set up to give co-i ordinated advice to the Minister or to make co-ordi-nated decisions within their own authority, and the members of the commission: be a commissioner of wildlife, as chairman, a director of wildlife research, and a director of wildlife management, all appointed by the State Services Commission.” The effect of these recommendations would be to set up a Government organisation to take all relevant decisions, whereas the proposed national executive scheme seeks to give sportsmen a majority say in fish and game management in New Zealand. Report proposals Recommendations 15 and 17 of the report said: “The, acclimatisation societies be renamed fish and game societies and their statutory functions be transferred to the National Wildlife Commission” and “The Federation of Rod and Gun Clubs in each of the three Government acclimatisation districts be invited to consider' whether they would convert to fish and game societies to fit in with the new order.” The effect of recommendation 15 would be that acclimatisation societies had no powers and thus became downgraded to rod and gun clubs, as recommendation 17; suggests.

Mr Ritchie had written on October 11 saying that during the last month “certain individuals from the North Island have been publishing articles in your paper” dealing with wildlife in general and acclimatisation societies in particular. “I do not know what is motivating these gentlemen, nor do I know the reason i they are endeavouring to inI fluence South Island sportsI men. But I do know that the bulk of the material being I published is not only misleading but in some cases is definitely contrary to fact,” he said, and quoted an article in “The Press” of September 29 from Wellington headed — "Game societies may be reorganised.” “Mr Riddell goes to great lengths to brainwash sportsmen that the most wonderful thing that could happen to our fishing and shooting would be for the present system of acclimatisation societies to be scrapped and | the whole of the adminis- ! tration to be handed over to |a national executive.

j “Phantom body” i “I am a member of the | Hawke’s Bay Acclimatisation ! Society and there is not a i man on our council who can say when and how this phantom body came into being,” said Mr Ritchie. | “The Hawke’s Bay society is i against this proposed! : scheme, and has been air along. i “Mr Riddell goes to great: (lengths, in fact almost re-' :prints a brochure sent to the' I various societies recently, and states that ‘the Wildlife I Service has acted in an: | advisory capacity and arranged for the brochure to| be printed, but the societies (edited the material and paid for its printing.' “I can only speak for my society but I can state most definitely ... we had nothing to do with the editing nor the payment of this bro-j chure,” said Mr Ritchie. Any society which supported this national executive scheme was very short- ■ sighted and he could not understand why the South Island anglers, in particular, had let themselves be lulled into a situation where they not only supported this scheme but in some cases had closed down their hatcheries.

The South Island council (would meet on November 10 [and the North Island council on November 14 to vote on to go ahead with * the national executive scheme. [ “In the meantime, I would suggest that all anglers who have memories of happy hours spent chasing the wily trout stop and think for a

moment or two and ask themselves if they would like those who follow them to enjoy such moments,” said Mr Ritchie. Precis of scheme The article of September 29. to which Mr Ritchie refers, did quote the brochure at some length, as a convenient precis of the proposed scheme, and these quotations were attributed directly to the brochure. Mr Ritchie is not correct in stating that the Hawke s Bay society had nothing to do with the editing or payment of the brochure. The Hawke’s Bay society is a member of the North Island council which, along with the South Island council, edited the brochure and paid for it. The only source of funds for the island councils are the individual acclimatisation societies. The deputy director of the Wildlife Service ( Mr R T. Adams) said that although any one acclimatisation society might have disagreed with a decision of an island council, decisions made by the councils were by simple majority.

"Presumably, this is demo cracy in action,” he said “After all, any one person may dislike ‘the Government elected for three years, but it is elected by majority decision and the minority has to accept it.” Ombudsman's reply

As part of its opposition ,to the proposed national executive scheme, the Hawke’s Bay Acclimatisation Society wrote to the Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles) on July 9, 1974, asking him — among other matters — to investigate the activities of the Wildlife : Service and the Department of Internal Affairs. On August 7, he wrote to the society saying that. “From what I can see there does not seem anything here that can reasonably be criticised.

“I think the department has endeavoured to act as much as it can in the national interest, in view of the sharply divided opinions that existed with reference to the Hunn Report, and between those who are described as ‘conservationists.’ on the one hand, and those who are vulgarly and inaccurately known as ’hunters and shooters,’ on the other hand,” said the Ombudsman.

He quoted the Deputy Secretary of the Department (Mr P. J. Brooks) as saying, "The initiative for reform was taken by the acclima tisatisation societies themselves,” and, “the proposals now opposed by the Hawkes’s Bay Acclimatisation Society are proposals formulated by the societies ” He said that Mr Brooks’s account seemed to outline a fairly reasonable history of steady attempt to seek consensus on issues which h x produced strongly divided opinions.

“It must be a matter of judgment how far one goes to implement the provisions of the Hunn Report and, while there is a substantial body of opinion who would like to see the Government go much further than it intends to, I can see no evidence of faulty administration or advice by the department which could be regarded as unfair, unjust or misleading,” said the Ombudsman.