Safari permit opposed

Press, 31 May 1985, Page 3

Safari permit opposed

A permit for a commercial mountain guide service on Crown land in the Southern Alps would unfairly disadvantage a Lake Tekapo hunting lodge in the international marketplace, the North Canterbury Lands Settlement Committee heard yesterday. Mr Gary Joll, of Lilybank Safari Lodge, said that the applicant, Kiwi Hunting Safaris, could afford to charge its clients a much smaller fee because it was not faced with the same costs that were imposed on Lilybank when it was granted its recreation permit 10 years ago.

This meant that if both firms were at an international hunting conference, in adjoining booths, Kiwi Hunting Safaris would get most of the business

because of its lower fees.

Kiwi Hunting Safaris has applied for a recreation permit to take hunting safaris for chamois and thar, and red, fallow, and white tail deer on unoccupied Crown land between Mount Cook and Arthur’s Pass.

Lilybank’s recreation permit was granted in 1975 but allowed the safari lodge to use only 2.94 per cent of the 27,500 hectare lease. This had to be fenced in and the wild game enclosed, said Mr Joll. This had meant a considerable investment.

Kiwi Hunting Safaris could charge $5OO for a bull thar because it had no money invested in the stock and fences. The hunting lodge had to charge $6OOO for a bull thar to try to regain some of the money invested, he said.

“If Kiwi Hunting Safaris is issued with a recreation permit, the terms and conditions must be the same as for Lilybank, otherwise the department is open to serious question regarding the severity of conditions imposed on Lilybank,” Mr Joll said.

Mr Bruce Candy, of the Big Game Hunters’ Association, said the association objected to the application because of the conflict of interest between recreational hunters and commercial safari firms.

The nature of the country over which Kiwi Hunting Safaris wished to hunt would make a helicopter essential.

“Our experience has been that its clientele will be completely incapable of

negotiating the terrain and will be phsyically unfit to stand the rigours of hunting in this country.” Firms with aircraft had continually made flagrant breaches of the law, endangered their own lives and the lives of recreational hunters when competing for wildlife, and often deliberately set about to harass hunters on foot, said Mr Candy. “With game numbers the lowest my association has ever known them in the areas proposed by the applicant, it would be unfortunate indeed if a permit to hunt was considered by the board for at least five to seven years,” he said. Mr Peter Chamberlain, manager of Kiwi Hunting Safaris, said that the difference between his firm and the safari lodge was that he could not guarantee a hunter would make a kill and take a trophy. The firm had never applied to be sole operator on the land, he said. It would never use a helicopter unless for an emergency because many of the animals in the area were already “helicopterscared.”

All of the people taken on safaris by the firm were physically fit, some even more so than the guides, said Mr Chamberlain.

Five other objections were received — from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society; a private hunter, Mr R. T. A. Crawley; and three branches of the Deerstalkers' Association. The committee has reserved decision.