Foresters’ group unhappy about conservation plan

Press, 20 September 1985, Page 7

Foresters’ group unhappy about conservation plan

The New Zealand Institute of Foresters is unhappy about the Government’s proposed Conservation Department. “To separate conservation and development managerially is environmentally damaging and it exhibits a lack of understanding about the environment.” said the institute’s president Mr Bill Studholme. “It appears that decisions about the use of public land are now being made primarily on political grounds. Objective problem analysis, sound land-use principles, and what is best for most in the long run have gone out the window.” The impetus for the change in environment administration came mainly from interest groups with “narrow outlooks,” Mr Studholme said. “During the so-called consultative phase the Minister

concerned ignored the input from professional groups with practical experience in land management. The vast majority of these groups did not favour the radical change option.” Other options had been available to remedy environmental shortcomings and avoid the changes proposed.

“No substantial evidence has yet. been produced that proves that radical change is necessary or would be successful. The Government has subjected the community to a consultative phase which can be described as a charade.

“The original environmental forum was handpicked mainly from narrowinterest groups. Opinions expressed at and the consensus of the forum run by the Minister of Forests, Mr Wetere, were quite clearly ignored.”

The Government’s decision would “drive another wedge” between the rural and urban communities, Mr Studholme said. ‘This wedge will ultimately be damaging to the environment. While the political solution adopted by the Government may satisfy factions with vociferous and narrow outlooks, in the long term it will result in less protection for the environment. The separation of conservation from development is ill-conceived.” Hanmer and Craigieburn State forests were examples where the separation of recreational, soil conversation, and production management activities would be impractical, Mr Studholme said. A former president of the institute, Mr John Groome, said that the institute was not aware of the Forest

Service’s acting with Government approval. “We do recognise the need for a watchdog body such as the Ministry of the Environement,” he said. “The is a great danger that skilled professionals forestry managerment will leave New Zealand for work elsewhere now that the Forest Service is to go.” Another former president, Mr Peter McKelvey, said that any alleged malpractice with resource management should be subject to an independent inquiry. “The best approach to these allegations is to establish the facts.” he said. Mr Studholme said that the institute planned to assert its views more in the future to balance the influence of other groups on the Government’s environmental decisions.