The tug-o’-war of N.Z. wildlife

Press, 19 October 1976, Page 21

The tug-o’-war of N.Z. wildlife

This is the first of three articles bv OLIVER RIDDELL, our Wellington reporter, on the progress made during the last 10 years towards reorganisation of wildlife management in New Zealand, and the prospects for a major public review of wildlife management.

Who is to be responsible for wildlife management and research in New Zealand?

At present, this responsibility is greatly fragmented. By far the largest component of wildlife management is the Wildlife Service, but the Lands and Survey Department, Forest Service, D.S.I.R. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and Ministry of Works and Development also have some responsibilities, while the Commission for the Environment and the State Services Commission have watching briefs. Anv reorganisation of this fragmented structure will effect ail these departments — some struggling to retain what they have, others fighting to assume greater responsibility. The situation has all the explosive qualities of a barrel of gunpowder.

There has been one major review of wildlife management already. The Hunn Report (1968) made many and radical recom-

mendations about the reorganisation of wildlife management' and research, but it foundered on the opposition from the Acclimatisation Society movement.

The Hunn Report recommended a management system which - gave very little (some would say no) authority to the private sportsman. The societies representing private sportsmen were able to have the report shelved because of their objection to this recommendation, an objection upheld by the National Government of the day. But both the Government and (reluctantly) the Acclimatisation Society movement recognised that some reorganisation was necessary and desirable. Very slowly and painstakingly the Wildlife Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, with responsibilities for fauna and fish, respectively, moved towards an accommodation with the societies.

This nearly reached fruition in 1972. but with the change of government at the end of that year the subject was reopened again. By the end of 1975 a new scheme, known as “the national executive scheme,” had been agreed to by the departments and a substantial majority of the individual societies. It had been adopted by majority decisions at both North and South Island society council meetings late last year.

Then there was another change of government. The two departments kept quiet for some months while their new Ministers got to grips with the existing situation. But the societies were less reticent. Although most of them had agreed to the

‘‘national executive scheme,” there was a substantial body of opinion that thought societies might get a better deal out of the new Government. So they repudiated the “national executive scheme.”

This created consternation within the Wildlife Service, and the Department of Internal Affairs which administers it, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries — not so much because they were wedded to the “national executive scheme,” but because the new delay meant that almost nothing had been achieved in nearly 10 years. They also feared that this further failure would encourage some of the other interested parties to pluck down their copies of the Hunn Report from the shelves, blow off 10 years of accumulated dust, and start lobbying for the implementation of some of its recommendations.

This fear has proved justified, and was sparked off by an action by one society — North Canterbury — which did not want to see the “national executive scheme” discarded. Nonh Canterbury opposed the rejection of this scheme and, while doing so, called for the amalgamation of all wild-

life management and research into the hands of the Wildlife Service under the Department of Internal Affairs. North Canterbury has since withdrawn this recommendation, but too late to stop the lobbying among the Government departments and members of the Government which it unleashed.

Its withdrawal is presumed to have been consequent upon the reception North Canterbury’s plan received at a secret meeting of South Island society presidents in Christchurch on August 6, although those who attended the meeting have never publicly revealed what actually occurred there.

The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Highet) said recently that North Canterbury would be “greatly flattered by how many of those walking the so-called corridors of power have interpreted this as a call from the societies for amalgamation and comprehensive re-

form.” The Department of Internal Affairs is also understood to have told North Canterbury that it did not want to manage the structure North Canterbury had proposed. It is certain that North Canterbury did not appreciate it was opening a Pandora’s box with its recommendation — but withdrawing the recommendation certainly cannot close the box. Mr Highet has asked the South Island Council of Acclimatisation Societies to say loudly and clearly whether it considered the time was opportune for the whole issue of wildlife administration to be reopened for public examination. Instead, the council, noting that consideration was being given by the Government to reexamination of the departmental structure for wildlife administration, expressed its “confidence in and support for” the Wildlife Service. The council, also said that it. “trusts that before any recommendations are made to

the Government on re-or-ganisation, the societies will be consulted and their views made known to the Ministers.” These two decisions fell a long way short of what Mr Highet had sought. Further, mild as they are, these decisions are not binding on any of the South Island societies or any future South Island council meeting. Still, it is to be presumed that the Government will be consistent with its own past policy and ensure full consultation with the societies. Wildlife management in New Zealand does need a thorough overhaul, - — hardly anyone disputes that. But for 10 years successive governments have .tried to get this overhaul accomplished in a way that suits everyone, and have failed. Just how long this failure will be tolerated is open to question. (The second part of this series will be published tomorrow. In it, Oliver Riddell looks at the parties involved