Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board Minutes July 2010
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Minutes of a meeting of the Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board held on Friday 2 July 2010 in the Aoraki Room, Department of Conservation, 195 Hereford Street, Christchurch 1. Karakia Steve welcomed board members to the meeting. 2. Seminar – Work on the development of Canterbury Conservation Management Strategies – board responses to questions from Maree Long, Senior Planner, National Office – facilitated by Poma Palmer 10.15 a.m. – 12.15 a.m. 3. Present/apologies Present Board: Steve Lowndes (Chairman) Dr John Keoghan Joseph Hullen Jimmy Wallace Mal Clarbrough Jan Finlayson David Round DOC: Cheryl Colley Mike Cuddihy (part) Apologies: Wiki Baker Fiona Sloan Joseph Hullen (for the morning session) Mandy Waaka Home DOC: Rob Young Kingsley Timpson George Hadler Bryan Jensen Richard McNamara 4. Declarations of conflicts of interest for recording There were no declarations of conflict for recording. 5. Confirmation of minutes of Friday 23 April 2010 CHCCO-615768 1 Recommendation: That the board confirm the minutes of Friday 23 April are a true and accurate record of the previous meeting. Steve Lowndes Carried 6. Matters arising from previous minutes There were no matters arising from the previous meeting. 7. Late agenda items and any matters to raise from the board’s informal meeting No late agenda items were received 8. Section 4 Matters No section 4 matters were raised. 9. CANTERBURY CONSERVATOR’S VERBAL REPORT AND UPDATE FROM AREA MANAGERS The Board received reports from Raukapuka, Mahaanui, Waimakariri and Aoraki Area Offices. Mike reported that The Draft Recreation Plan will soon be completed and copies provided to board members. David Round referred to the report from Raukapuka and asked what the taxonomic name of Canterbury pink broom was. It was subsequently confirmed as Carmichaelia torulosa, formerly called Notospartim torulosum. Mike Cuddihy recently held a meeting with the Ngäi Tahu Property group on the issue of land exchanges. Land exchanges in Canterbury are relatively infrequent but are a sensitive issue because they are excluded from the ‘first right of refusal’ under the Ngäi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act only applies to land that was under the department’s management prior to the date of the Settlement. A recent example of such an exchange is Lords Bush and Porters Ski Area. The department has worked through the issues that arose from that process, most of which centred on communication and ensuring that Ngäi Tahu is aware early on that an exchange is proposed. This land was purchased after the Settlement so technically does not fall within the ambit of the exchange process. CHCCO-615768 2 Porters Ski Area recently put forward another exchange proposal. The department has encouraged the applicant to enter into discussion with Ngäi Tahu so that all parties understand how the proposal fits within the Treaty Settlement framework. The department did however fail to notify the local Runanaga at Tuahiwi about the Spittle Hill exchange and consequently didn’t arrange a site inspection of the land that was being exchanged. Even though it fell outside the technical requirements of the Claim, because the department was alienating it, an assessment should have been completed on that piece of land. Rachel Puentener brought that to the department’s attention and Mike has subsequently apologised to Ngäi Tahu for this oversight. Heli-hunting An update on heli-hunting is available on the department’s website together with a copy of the second version of the draft concession document. The second version incorporates the changes made following discussions with the aircraft operators legal advisors. Most heli-hunting business will finish at the end of July so a new version of the permit will not be operational in 2010. The department is obliged to process the 16 applications for permits it has received. Those applications have been notified to conservation boards, conservancies and Runanga. The department will receive their comments in due course. Operators are able to apply to operate within National Parks and within Wilderness Areas but the department needs to clarify whether any wish to do so. If any operators do wish to operate in a National Park or Wilderness Area their application/s will be referred back to Runanga and Boards for advice. They cannot be advertised until that process has been completed. Advice from Runanga and Boards will then be integrated into an Officers Report. The applications will then be notified to the applicants and publicly notified. The department hopes to carry out the public notification process later this year. - Applications for concessions must be considered under legislation as it is currently written. There are areas of legal debate around how heli-hunting fits into the legislation but it needs to be remembered that when the Wild Animal Control Act was developed in 1977 this activity didn’t exist. That is when the General Policies, the National Park Management Plans and the CMSs were all developed and no one raised this as an issue. Staff are therefore in the process of having to consider these applications through a statutory concessions process in the absence of clear legislation, general policies, CMSs and National Park Management Plans. The first version of the new permits stated there was to be no shooting or herding of the animals from the air. It was subsequently identified that this prohibition has no sound legal basis. Wild animals are specifically excluded from animal welfare legislation and the Wild Animal Control Act specifically provides for the shooting of animals from helicopters. Staff must now consider these applications according to the legislation as it currently stands. CHCCO-615768 3 David Round asked about the status of Wilderness Areas and whether or not helicopter activity could be prohibited within them. Mike Cuddihy said this is one of the areas where there will be a lot of discussion and legal argument. The department currently permits the recovery of wild animals and the taking of animals for food processing out of Wilderness Areas and National Parks and late last year the department ran a process to renew National Wild Animal Recovery Permits. Wilderness Areas and National Parks are by and large open to game recovery for food processing and in fact the CMSs and the National Park Management Plans also provide for it in National Parks, Wilderness Areas and Conservation Act Wilderness Areas. The question then turns on what the nature of heli-hunting is and that is a debate on which there are various perspectives so it is not a blanket “no”, it is more subtle than that. Many hunters coming to New Zealand are members of Safari Club International and that club has developed a code of hunter ethics that includes a policy on the use of aircraft. In the United States the animals they are hunting are native animals in their native environment. Some states, such as Alaska, have quite specific laws about how hunting can be carried out. Alaska has a law where you can’t fly and hunt on the same day, so the aircraft can’t be used to support the hunting activity. Clearly that is not New Zealand’s culture. New Zealanders fly into the back country and go hunting as soon as they are dropped off. SCI has developed an aircraft policy that says that in terms of entering a trophy into the trophy book a helicopter cannot be used to herd or haze the animal and that their guides are not to undertake that activity either. Mike passed around a recent copy of the June 2010 edition of the U.S Safari Times in which their chairman, Mike Christenson, refers to their policy and to conversations he had with Mike Cuddihy about it. The article states “SCI draws the line when animals are herded to a hunter, or hazed in some way. Our policy classifies this as unethical conduct whether or not the animal is put in the record book.” The relevance of this is that although it is indirect this is an international hunting organisation, putting in place a code of ethics and aircraft rules that pertain to its members. One of SCI’s other codes is that members must obey the laws of the country in which they are hunting. Joseph said “so effectively the onus is on the Conservation Authority and conservation boards to write into CMSs and other documents legislation or rules that prevent this activity”. Mike said you can only put into a Policy, a CMS or a planning document provisions which are supported by legislation. When the concessions are advertised that will provide a basis for informed public debate but any decisions made through the concession process will have to fit the legislation as it currently exists. One of the aims of the Wild Animal Control Act is to better facilitate the co-ordination of hunting effort on wild animals that prior to the Act were called noxious animals. The National Parks Act has strong provisions that support the removal of animals. The department is trying to maintain the natural state of wilderness areas so there are a number of contraindicating things that existed before anyone thought about heli-hunting. Jimmy asked Mike if he would agree that a prudent thing for the department to do would be that if any permit were granted then it would be for quite a short period. Mike Cuddihy responded that under recent changes to the Conservation Act applicants are entitled to a maximum of 10 years. If the department decides not to grant a permit for CHCCO-615768 4 10 years then there have to be reasons of sufficient merit that would lead to a shorter period. Steve asked if the spider tracking system was working and whether flights were being monitored.