Thread: Forest and Bird

It would appear they are not happy!! Copy and pasted from Forest & Bird


2 October 2018

Department of Conservation

Attention: Andy Roberts

By Email



New Zealand Deerstalkers Association

Attention Bill O’Leary

By Email

Dear Messrs Roberts and O’Leary

TAHR LIAISON MEETING

1.

We are writing following the Tahr Liaison Group meeting yesterday. We were troubled and concerned by media reports that an agreement had been reached on a draft operational plan.
In particular,Radio NZ reported that:
1
Former president of the Deerstalkers Association Bill O'Leary told RNZ that a draft operational plan was agreed on at the meeting which would reduce the number of tahr to be killed -but he did not give a number.
2.
This is inaccurate. Nothing that could be described as a draft operation plan was put to the meeting. The scribbled notes on the whiteboard could not properly be described a draft plan.
3.
In any event, we made it clear that Forest & Bird’s agreement to any draft operational plan is
conditional on a clear undertaking that the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan (the plan) plan would be implemented.
This was not present in the scribbled notes and Mr Roberts made it clear that Forest &Bird’s position
was understood and indicated that this would be the subject of consideration over the coming days, including discussions with us.
4.
It is also disappointing that such disinformation makes its way into the media. Many attendees at the meeting commented on the productive and positive nature of the discussions. This is
undermined when one of the participants seeks to “write into stone” preliminary views of the group which were the subject of serious reservations by one of the parties. This undermines any trust that might be built between participants.
5.
The only option we have is to publicly respond to such disinformation, which is likely to further undermine
the trust and confidence that has built up as the result of productive meetings like yesterday.
Royal Forest and Bird Protection
6.
In our view the legal position is clear and unambiguous. The plan is a wild animal control plan
under section 5(1)(d) of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. The Minister is required to manage tahr in accordance with this plan.
5B Management of wild animals
The Minister shall administer and manage wild animals in accordance with—(a) statements of general policy under section 5(1) (ca); and (b) wild animal control plans under section 5(1) (d) ; and (c) conservation management strategies.
7.
The reported outcome of 6,000 tahr being culled immediately with a “commitment” to further 10,000 by the end of July,does not implement the plan.
Tahr will not be being managed in accordance with the plan.
8.
The key elements of the plan from our perspective are: a.the 10,000 limit;
b.zero density in National Parks; and
c.the exclusion zones.
9.
For the avoidance of any doubt, we reiterate the view expressed at the meeting yesterday.
Nothing has been agreed by Forest & Bird. We do not necessarily oppose the 6,000/10,000 proposal reported in the media but any agreement is condition on: a. a clear undertaking by the Minister and Department that the plan will be implemented; and
b. detail of how this will be achieved.
10.
There has been a suggestion that the plan includes some form of adaptive management. This is not the case. If there is to be any change to the key matters set out in paragraph 8 above, this needs to be done by amending the plan.
At the current time there is not enough information available for proper decision to be made. Yours sincerely, Peter Anderson
Nicky Snoyink

General Counsel

Canterbury West Coast Regional Manager