Thread: Submission regarding fish and game

Following on from my earlier post.

The current Fish & Game model is financially unsustainable.
It returned a $50k surplus in 2019, ran a $200k deficit in both 2018 and 2017. A recent financial status report assumed that Fish & Game would lose all of its non-resident licence income, and 10 per cent of its local licence income. It could lead to a loss of $2m this year and $1.5m the following year. This from an organisation that has annual revenues of $3.7m

The same document made broader observations about the organisation and its finances.
It noted that 78 per cent of regional expenditure was in the form of salaries and human resources costs. It said: “There is a significant lack of financial transparency across the organisation” and “there is little or no external review of decisions”.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/...s-intervention

Originally Posted by duckdog

Following on from my earlier post.

The current Fish & Game model is financially unsustainable.
It returned a $50k surplus in 2019, ran a $200k deficit in both 2018 and 2017. A recent financial status report assumed that Fish & Game would lose all of its non-resident licence income, and 10 per cent of its local licence income. It could lead to a loss of $2m this year and $1.5m the following year. This from an organisation that has annual revenues of $3.7m

The same document made broader observations about the organisation and its finances.
It noted that 78 per cent of regional expenditure was in the form of salaries and human resources costs. It said: “There is a significant lack of financial transparency across the organisation” and “there is little or no external review of decisions”.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/...s-intervention

This is the problem, what organisation can survive with such a high proportion spent on salaries. Of course this is not 78% of regional income but the allocated budget.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

This is the problem, what organisation can survive with such a high proportion spent on salaries. Of course this is not 78% of regional income but the allocated budget.

As a side note I hear what you are saying BUT how are you going to employ the best if you pay them a pittance?
Gone are the days of people doing it for the love of the job.
It’s a tough balance to maintain

Originally Posted by Sideshow

As a side note I hear what you are saying BUT how are you going to employ the best if you pay them a pittance?
Gone are the days of people doing it for the love of the job.
It’s a tough balance to maintain

by what measure do you sAY or remunerate them as to doing a good job more gamebirds more fish more habitat more shooting spots

Originally Posted by gsp follower

by what measure do you sAY or remunerate them as to doing a good job more gamebirds more fish more habitat more shooting spots

Why not just do some research and see how much the Regional Managers are being paid.
It will make you appreciate why so little is being spent on game bird habitat, trout release and wildlife enhancement in general