Thread: Submission regarding fish and game

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.

Thank you guys for the input, that makes me understand things a bit better now.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Farmers in Canterbury have increased waterfowl habitat through the building of hundreds of water storage ponds with the result that waterfowl populations have increased dramatically.
Damage has been done too but its not all as F&G might say

or as farmers to for that matter.
without f&g thebraided rivers here would be screwed take a look at the selwyn as a example of irrigationgreed and now theyre pinching the river bed to

theres one cheeky bastard here that wants the council to gift him the land with the heap of council planted pines on it
cos the rivers shifted north and this lands closer to his than the river???wtf
so he thinks for some landed gentry bullshit reson he,s entitled to have first dibs on it
even tho it ecompasses a paper road and he thought he owned it when he bought the place
but a boundary search when a new irrigation scheme went in showed he doesnt

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

Iv had quite a lot to do with F&G Southland branch particularly around resource consents , one of the consents took a couple of years & some presentations to finally get it over the line & it’s a completely eco friendly project, most of the trouble hinged around how much my project would piss the fisherman off , so F&G where doing there job , I’m a keen fisherman so didn’t expect things to be to easy , in the end a compromise was made , from my dealings iv seen that most of the council members are fairly practical type guys sure there’s a fishing guide or 2 amongst them at one point I felt it was borderline conflict of interest however if I wasn’t involved in a project and was merely looking at how the council members were serving licence holders I thought they are doing a pretty good job , historically farming practices haven’t been good , there must be kilometres of nova flow or tiles draining into the many waterways throughout the country Not to mention all the irrigation and bloody baleage wrap hanging off willow branches so it not hard to see why F&G took the stance they did when it’s directly impacting fish & game bird habitat , iv spent my entire working life on farms so understand the important role they play for rural NZ The Last thing we need is for F&G to be affiliated in some way with Doc that would be a complete disaster.

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

Iv had quite a lot to do with F&G Southland branch particularly around resource consents , one of the consents took a couple of years & some presentations to finally get it over the line & it’s a completely eco friendly project, most of the trouble hinged around how much my project would piss the fisherman off , so F&G where doing there job , I’m a keen fisherman so didn’t expect things to be to easy , in the end a compromise was made , from my dealings iv seen that most of the council members are fairly practical type guys sure there’s a fishing guide or 2 amongst them at one point I felt it was borderline conflict of interest however if I wasn’t involved in a project and was merely looking at how the council members were serving licence holders I thought they are doing a pretty good job , historically farming practices haven’t been good , there must be kilometres of nova flow or tiles draining into the many waterways throughout the country Not to mention all the irrigation and bloody baleage wrap hanging off willow branches so it not hard to see why F&G took the stance they did when it’s directly impacting fish & game bird habitat , iv spent my entire working life on farms so understand the important role they play for rural NZ The Last thing we need is for F&G to be affiliated in some way with Doc that would be a complete disaster.

hallelujah
conservaTION AND increasing gamebird fish stocks invariably helps other waterfowl and species.
doc want to go back to pre european or even pre maori times.
preservation not conservation.

You mean regression?

I’ve been following a lot of the upland conservation organisations in the states for a while, cutting edge stuff, New Zealand has the potential to model itself in the same way I believe, where countries like Australia have too much red tape and not enough support, so at least there is a solid backbone to start with. Keep them seperate is vital (F&G + DOC). Funding is crucial, I think adopting a Pitman Robertson tax/act, where all the money raised outside licenses etc from the tax pays for public lands and habitat management, this could aid in keeping the cogs turning in a progressive manner. 90% or more of what’s good for game birds and fish benefits the native flora and fauna too, if we can agree on 90% between both parties I’m sure there’s a solid future for all.

Originally Posted by Shot Bro

I’ve been following a lot of the upland conservation organisations in the states for a while, cutting edge stuff, New Zealand has the potential to model itself in the same way I believe, where countries like Australia have too much red tape and not enough support, so at least there is a solid backbone to start with. Keep them seperate is vital (F&G + DOC). Funding is crucial, I think adopting a Pitman Robertson tax/act, where all the money raised outside licenses etc from the tax pays for public lands and habitat management, this could aid in keeping the cogs turning in a progressive manner. 90% or more of what’s good for game birds and fish benefits the native flora and fauna too, if we can agree on 90% between both parties I’m sure there’s a solid future for all.

f&g,s independence is vital that doest mean the government cant contribute when they do the governments job for them

Exactly. IMO fish & game have been extremely unfairly treated by successive government, like an annoying wart on the conservation acts arse. F & G needs to be given independence and a healthy share of the conservation funds allocation from treasury. F&G should also be allocated as entity for sustainable management of all gamebirds, fish and animals, thus formally recognising deer, tahr and chamois as managed assets; as are salmonids, eels, and gamebirds including pukeko, grey duck, paradise duck, black swan and the introduced pheasants, chukor, quail, partridge and mallard.

Originally Posted by Woody

Exactly. IMO fish & game have been extremely unfairly treated by successive government, like an annoying wart on the conservation acts arse. F & G needs to be given independence and a healthy share of the conservation funds allocation from treasury. F&G should also be allocated as entity for sustainable management of all gamebirds, fish and animals, thus formally recognising deer, tahr and chamois as managed assets; as are salmonids, eels, and gamebirds including pukeko, grey duck, paradise duck, black swan and the introduced pheasants, chukor, quail, partridge and mallard.

its fuckin travesty that pukekos are considered gamebirds and canada geese aint.
i dont know that the f&g model translatres to the management of big game animals.
canada geese bieng the prime example
cos they let them become a contest between what farmers needed and what hunters wanted.
big m0bs of larger game animals would become a more visable thorn in any orgs side if theyre painted as destructive

It was Minister of Conservation Wilkinson who removed canadas from managed gamebird status, some say at the behest of Federated Farmers reacting against the F&G dirty dairying campaign. A real shame because a few open seasons on geese could have had a chance of better control in specific areas and allowed the retention of their protection as a managed gamebird. IMO DoC acted shamefully in their capacity under the conservation act overriding the wildlife act and F&G.