Thread: DOC WARO review submissions

Please have a read of this, and make a coherent submission to the appropriate people (email addresses in the link). Submissions are now extended til 16 JULY, not 30 June.

https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved...ndations-2018/

Please note that the scope of the consultation is around the access dates in the concession documents, and around the classification of mainly-small new areas of PCL or land that was not previously classified. These areas can be found on the maps at the link, outlined in black. There are also some changes to previously classified areas which are proposed to be changed from open-closed or vice versa. You can submit on things outside the scope of this, but I think it's unlikely to produce any results.

My read of it, for the South Island only, is that there is one proposed increase in duration of closure periods - for WARO blocks in the Grey area, but it's not significant enough imo. There is no reduction in duration of roar closures anywhere as far as I can tell. I personally would suggest that closures from last weekend in March-last weekend in April, or 23 March - 9 April (different areas), are essentially meaningless, and these closures should be extended to include the entirety of March/April at least (and I submitted to this effect).

It appears that the majority of the new areas being classified, either as open or closed, are insignificant/small. Where they are being classified as open, it appears that it's usually because they're attached to a much larger area that is already open to WARO. Where they're classified as closed, it appears that it's usually because it's just an isolated small scenic reserve or similar. Unfortunately the wording and maps aren't entirely clear - e.g. Paparoa national park is proposed to be closed, but is shown as permitted on the maps still, so it's hard to gauge how large some of these areas are.

the main substantial changes to previously classified areas include:
-Proposing to close St James to WARO
-Proposing that all currently open areas in Nth Canterbury will have a roar closure period
-Proposing that roughly all of the Paparoas will be closed
-Proposing to open the currently closed part of Castle Hill CA/Torlesse
-Restricting Leatham/Branch to only a couple of months in winter (not sure what it is now - open?)
-Increased duration of roar closure periods for all WARO areas in Grey district



So it's not all bad - but please make sure that you make a positive submission supporting the good stuff and perhaps encouraging a greater duration for closure periods! It can't hurt to suggest that no additional areas be opened to WARO beyond those already proposed, and you may as well suggest that some others be restricted/closed. Remember that the WARO guys can and will be making submissions.

Cheers for that Gimp.

Submitted

Done

Here's some suggestions from Facebook

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Definitely going to put in a submission & trying to digest all the legal speak and DOC language to do so is a challenge.
Can some one please clarify for me
1. Whats "PCL" ? Am i correct to interpret each "PCL" as a bit of land that DOC want to add to the current WARO concession areas ? ie it increases area for WARO ?
2. Whats the difference between a "restricted" area and a "permitted area" ? WARO still occurs on "restricted" - correct ?? There's a hell of a lot of orange (Restricted) on some maps !!

PCL = public conservation land
Permitted = open with a permit
Restricted = open but with restrictions

thanks @gimp but for practical purposes does that mean "restricted" is pretty much open slather same as "permitted" ?
I guess you'd need to know the specific restrictions for each "restricted area", which would a PITA - so I'm trying to guage what the average or general impact of "restricted" under these regs ?

I'd love restricted to mean "can only harvest hinds"

It just means there's special conditions or extended closures for those areas, like maybe it's only open for WARO a couple of months a year instead of 365 days, or they have to supply GPS data of all kills within 10 days, or they have to remove all parts of the carcass or whatever

Hello Guys

I had a conversation with a very experienced submitter (who had already made his) and he raised the issue of GPS tracking of the choppers and kills - however I didn't quite follow what he was saying. Can someone please explain what the current requirements are on operators regarding "recording and reporting" and what a decent system might look like ?? It seems to me that it should be a fundamental requirement as they are using a public resource.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Tentman

Hello Guys

I had a conversation with a very experienced submitter (who had already made his) and he raised the issue of GPS tracking of the choppers and kills - however I didn't quite follow what he was saying. Can someone please explain what the current requirements are on operators regarding "recording and reporting" and what a decent system might look like ?? It seems to me that it should be a fundamental requirement as they are using a public resource.

Thanks

While most of us would likely agree with you statement that 'they are using a public resource' (and they very much are with respect to the land) the view of DoC is that the WARO guys are doing 'Gods work' and controlling wild animals, rather than enjoying a privilege of access to a public resource (the animals).

I understand that the GPS tracking requirements are determined by MPI, and that the concessions simply provide for DoC to also require that, and to have access to the info from them? Happy to defer to anyone who knows more?

It's hard to know what is or isn't currently done. Have a look at the concession documents at the link and search for GPS, there are a bunch of special conditions relating to GPS points and tracking but I don't know if they're new, old, and whether they're actually applied or not.


It should be a requirement to provide waypoints and numbers to DOC imo for informing management and for compliance. Obviously the operators want to avoid it and will use excuses like "pilots are too stupid to use a GPS so therefore it's an unfair burden"

Originally Posted by Maxx

the view of DoC is that the WARO guys are doing 'Gods work' and controlling wild animals.

While this could be considered generally true, I think it's important to note that the concession documents and new areas/classifications (for the South Island anyway) appear to be actually somewhat fairly positive for hunters, e.g. proposed closure of St James, Branch/Leatham becoming restricted to a couple of months in winter instead of open year round, extended duration of roar closures in Grey district, roar closures for all Nth Canterbury, etc.


e: still could be better!!

Thanks @gimp.....submission completed.

Prettysureitscoherent

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Tentman

Hello Guys

I had a conversation with a very experienced submitter (who had already made his) and he raised the issue of GPS tracking of the choppers and kills - however I didn't quite follow what he was saying. Can someone please explain what the current requirements are on operators regarding "recording and reporting" and what a decent system might look like ?? It seems to me that it should be a fundamental requirement as they are using a public resource.

Thanks

They have to show it to the processor but it seems like it's self regulating which is never successful in regulating anything.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk