Submission to the Local Government and Environmental Select Committee on the Game Animal Council Bill.

Transcription

1 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission Submission to the Local Government and Environmental Select Committee on the Game Animal Council Bill. Date: 14th March 2012 Submissions close on the 20th April 2012 To the Local Government and Environment Select Committee: This is a personal submission from Gary Herbert, Professional Hunting Guide, and Managing Director of New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd. My Address is I do not want to be heard but am very happy to answer any further questions the committee may have.

2 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission 2 Submission to the Local Government and Environmental Select Committee on the Game Animal Council Bill. Gary Herbert, Waimate. l oppose the bill. My Personal Background and Expertise l have been a professional hunting guide for 17 years, In 1995 and at the age of 22 I formed New Zealand Mountain Hunting Limited. I am member of the New Zealand Professional Hunting Guides Association, and in conjunction with my NZ hunting operation have guided hunters throughout the South Pacific, North America, Asia, Europe and England. This means I am well qualified to write about the tourism hunting industry, the overseas market place, the expectations and sophistication of today's hunting/tourism clientele, as well as hunting in general. My reputation has been built on providing international trophy hunters some of the best hunting opportunities New Zealand has to offer. To better understand the level of sophistication required I would urge committee members to take a look at my website l am a life member of Safari Club International (SCI) and have been a long time supporter of SCI and the Auction Program. Also a member of FNAWS, Grand Slam Club, Mule Deer Foundation, and many other wildlife organisations. In 2006 I received the prestigious SCI International Professional Hunter of the Year Award in Reno, Nevada. l am a deer farmer in Waimate as well as owner of a hunting estate in the Mackenzie Basin. I lease two other Game Estates to ensure I can meet the diversity of game trophies and expectations of all my clientele. I also hunt on public land under a concession. Hunting to me is more than a business; it is my career, my life style, my hobby. I eat, sleep, and breathe hunting. If not hunting and guiding here in New Zealand, then I'm usually overseas guiding hunters for other companies, or marketing hunts to clients for the up and coming season. Some general observations for the committee to consider. One of the fundamental principles the committee must understand about hunting in New Zealand is that every hunter is different. In NZ there is a wide diversity in hunting values, a preferred hunting method, the manner in which a hunt is undertaken, and the physical capabilities for each hunter. The vast majority of hunters are not members of any organised hunting body, and most never want to be. The vast majority are just ordinary people who enjoy an extraordinary freedom which is New Zealand hunting and its minimalist regulatory framework. The select committee needs to for starters fully comprehend how unique the New Zealand hunting situation is compared to the rest of the world. Not until you become a seasoned traveller/ hunter like me do you fully appreciate what we have here in NZ, and the hunting opportunities; which are free from costs, bureaucrats, and politicians. l've been on all sides of the "fence" as a recreational hunter, commercial hunter, the guide, and the client. I witnessed commercialisation of hunting resources around the world at the detriment of local indigenous hunters who have been misled by politicians and other lobbyist organisations. The process and outcome is

3 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission always the same, gradual creep, false promises, then eventual exclusion from their hunting resources and rights, including access to public lands. My goal as a hunting tourism based business is to provide honest, challenging and ethical hunting for future hunting generations. My personal goal as a hunter is to ensure the unique hunting opportunities here in NZ are not lost to regulation and those that wish to exclude the average kiwi hunter unless they pay for access and this includes public land. This is a birth right that is worth protecting and fighting for. The Game Council Establishment Committee whose work led to the Game Animal Council Bill that is before parliament today threatens these existing opportunities we have. I have tracked their progress since the early days and am well aware of the true agenda of the Establishment Committee full game management, greater regulations, all funded by hunting, and I consider this same committee has treated us as fools. A very slick PR campaign indeed. One key motto I live by is that I treat people the way I would like to be treated; I think it is time the true agenda of the Establishment Committee members is tabled for public review instead of us having to extract the information and placing on the floors of parliament instead. Transparency is always healthy. We are seeing the highest wild deer, chamois, tahr, and pig populations on both private and public land for the last 30 years, the hunting opportunities have never been greater for the average kiwi hunter, commercial hunter, or hunting guide. Yet, we see this attempt to regulate hunting, exclude parties from debate, and increase bureaucracy and costs to all those that hunt. The committee needs to ask itself why? The only reason for this bill is the Government and United Future's confidence and supply agreement. I do not believe that National would have supported this if Mr Dunne did not hold the casting vote for asset sales. The outcome of this agreement is that my business along with many others will be punished as we now face an increase in business tax, bureaucracy, restrictions, and over time eventual exclusion to public land. I have witnessed these events elsewhere in the world and always the same outcome for hunters eventual loss of rights and the best hunting only available to those that can pay. Mr Dunne and his political back room are stealing the average kiwi hunter's birth right through this GAC legislation. The Minister of Conservation said it herself "Their (establishment committee) proposal needs to be simplified in my view, however, to avoid undermining the current management regime and to keep regulation, associated costs and the cost to hunters to a minimum" I note with interest the Minister of Conservation's amendments to how the Establishment Committee originally proposed the GAC structure and Bill. I think that this clearly signals the amount of work the Select Committee will need to do to bring the bill inline with existing land management legislation. The GAC legislation as is stands still creates the risk of being hijacked by those that want fully regulated hunting in NZ either under the NSW model or a variation of. Again, the loss will be to the average kiwi hunter long term on public land. l am sceptical that just because the government puts in place legislation that this will empower hunters to take responsibility of wild animal control and therefore we will see some form of additional conservation gains. History shows that this is not the case because in 2001 the commercial deer industry ceased for 5 years. In that time you would have thought the various hunting sector would have organised themselves and increase their effort knowing the deer number would rise. Instead hunters sat on their hands and said "great more deer to shoot". Himalayan Tahr is no different; at a local level with easy access DOC tells us that particular catchments (30,000 ha in size) have been controlled by hunters effectively, but hunters have failed to deliver South Island wide. Tahr numbers are on the rise and I am witnessing increased browse impacts in remote areas. The committee must not make the assumption that new GAC legislation

4 4 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission directly equates into greater conservation gains; this would risk branding the committee as holding a lack of land management knowledge and skills bordering on environmental vandalism. My recommendation is that the select committee should recommend to parliament that two key principles are enshrined in any Game Animal Council Act. First, guaranteed free access to all hunting opportunities on public land for all hunters. Second, enshrine the principle of no additional cost burden to recreational hunters or business through unnecessary bureaucracy by either a Game Animal Council or any Advisory Group. Otherwise if Ilook at the examples overseas; the creep starts, regulation and cost burden increases, and the only looser will be the hunter on public land. This unique hunting opportunity and freedom will be lost. Game Animal Council Legislation l believe the Game Animal Council and legislation is not required under a new Act. A Council/Advisory Council can already be established under section 5 of the Wild Animal Control Act, which allows the Minister of Conservation to establish any type of committee that is relevant to the purposes of that Act. Instead this government has headed down a path of greatest restrictions, greatest bureaucracy, greatest cost burden, and new taxes against industry. I would remind all politicians that if hunters really supported this legislation then they would have swarmed to United Future and their Party vote would have been far higher than the meagre 13,000 votes it did get. There are250,000 hunters out there and the vast majority did not vote for this. l have concerns that GAC legislation will not be sufficient to satisfy the hunger of political hunter lobbyists who will only accept a full game management model, and therefore leads to increased DOC staff time wasted on having to negotiate their way through basic land management tasks with the council. This is a cost the NZ tax payers' should not accept and always challenge. DOC must always have the final say on the management of any public land. The additional staff time costs should be monitored to ensure hours and costs to the tax payer do not increase through the behaviour of GAC bureaucracy on public land. All parliamentarians need to remember that traditionally the crown dictating what people can do or hunt on private land has a high political risk for any party. All land managers understand biosecurity and their obligations regarding pest control. So this means in reality the GAC will only be able to influence what happens on public land. Should the GAC try to dictate to private land owners then as NZ Fish & Game learnt, this only leads to court and a large bill for your licence holders. Granting additional privileges to one group over another on public land does have consequences and political ramifications. The one theme that runs right through this entire process is the goal of exclusion and privilege, including on public land. The committee needs to be very careful it does not deliver legislation that is divisive setting one NZer against another on public land, or the perception that privileges are being granted to one user group over another on public land. My recommendation is that the Game Animal Council Legislation is unnecessary and an expensive bureaucratic burden which neither business nor recreational hunting can afford. An advisory body should be set up under existing legislation Section 5 of the Wild Animal Control A ct. The advice from Treasury, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Primary Industries (MAF), State Services Commission, and Department of Economic Development is along the same lines and should not be ignored by politicians. The Game Animal Council Legislation should not override the welfare and management of conservation land which is the legislative responsibility of the Department of Conservation,

5 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission And to ensure the general public that the administration of public land remains with DOC and not impeded by adversarial GA C bureaucrats the GA C legislation should be subservient to the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, Conservation Act 1987, and the National Parks Act Proposed Game Animal Council It may be timely to establishing a Game Animal Council Advisory Committee where various members from the hunter sectors, science, farming, forest, Maori, and conservation can come together under a formal structure to discuss matters related to deer, tahr, chamois, or pig that are subject to the Wild Animal Control Act, and give the Minister of Conservation independent advice. This would be on the same structure and functions as the Conservation Authority or Conservation Boards. This could be beneficial for local authorities, private land owners, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, Conservation Boards and Government, by providing an overview on hunting and wild animal management in New Zealand, It could provide consensus or a position on a particular hunting topic or issue. Cost burden would be minimal to all parties and the tax payer. Herds of special interest could be addressed again through existing legislation Wild Animal Control Act. If these herds were of such status as presented by the GAC Establishment Committee then hunters would have already secure their status years ago ensuring some form of management or recognition. Access has always been a controversial but important topic with hunters. If anything, access to public land has become more difficult over the last five years for hunters. The Advisory Group could continue this work to ensure that access to hunting on public land remains free for hunters. My recommendation is that a Game Animal Council does not require separate legislation and all the functions can be carried already under the Wild Animal Control Act. However, it is timely that the government makes a move and does set up a Game Animal Advisory Council to report directly to the Minister of Conservation. Game Animal Council Management Role From my own 17 years of experience and what I have witnessed overseas, is that the main the function(s) of any Game Animal Council is hunter education, firearm use and safety, and advocacy with the wider general public, especially the large urban populations. The land management role is left to the owner/administrator of the land and only advice is given regarding herd management or control. Land ownership and any customary rights are protected. If the council fails in these primary tasks then slowly over time there will be erosion of hunting access and hunter rights. This is why hunter education, firearm use and safety, and advocacy are a priority over land management tasks. Ensuring the acknowledgment of urban New Zealanders that hunting has an important part to play in recreation and the great outdoors is critical if hunting is to have a future. Why hunter education is now critical the blatant disregard we see towards the law and authority by far too many hunters. I was always of the opinion that hunting accidents and deaths was mate shooting a mate in the same hunting block. However, the spotlight incident of a camper being shot while cleaning her teeth sets

6 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission a new precedent of disregard. All too often I see alcohol and firearms being mixed together, or reckless disregard of private land and property, then there is the fact that 40% of hunters on public land don't bother to get a permit. It is time hunting takes stock of the situation and take a very hard look at our hunter behaviour. Recently, North Otago has seen cooperative action by farmers and the local police to curb an increasing level of poaching (either by day or using a spotlight at night) by recreational hunters on private land. Higher deer numbers have meant that some recreational hunters think it is O.K. to shoot deer off roadsides into private land. All is unacceptable and places the public at risk. For me hunter education is the highest priority and role of any Game Animal council. Supposed conflict resolution within hunting sectors is a topic that has been overly inflated by those seeking political gains or organistaions pushing for a full game management model across all game animals. We have never had so many hunting opportunities in this country and shooting a deer, chamois, or tahr is now very easy with so many animals around. When you dig down into the conflict it usually turns out that one sector disagrees with another about access or opportunities to a resource "They are stealing my animals." My guided hunting business has profited from the boom in game animal numbers on public land, we require just like recreational hunters plenty of trophy animals. Please note that I have paid a substantial sum of money to the crown through concession fees for that opportunity, nor do I begrudge recreational hunters getting the same opportunity for free as long as those opportunities are equal. Now with recreational hunters enjoying easy hunting and they want to enshrine this by placing restrictions on commercial hunting, the problem is that it will come at the cost to the environment, tax payer, and trophy quality on public land. My concern is now the environment because land health and trophy quality are intertwined "Stuff the land you stuff the herd" This is where DOC has an important role to play on public land and to ensure we keep this land in good condition. They are neutral in any hunter debate keeping a focus on the land and game animal impacts. History shows hunters and hunting organisations are very poor at making the hard call to control animals, hunters never get enough shot within the correct time period before the vegetation suffers. Look at recent Sambar management, and my fear is that the Wapiti Block is going the same way. There is no transparency on the Wapiti Foundation website about outcomes, so we just do not know vegetation health. Any Game Animal Management Plan needs to be vegetation health focused 1" priority, 2nd priority is the ability to control the herd effectively and efficiently to protect the vegetation, only then can the3rd stage take place which is trophy quality. Hunter conflict is still back arguing with DOC vegetation health, then whom has the 1" option on the control work. DOC at least sits outside this process and focuses on land health, making the final judgement. GAC and its function just complicate this process and generate costs through greater bureaucracy. Hunting sectors are extremely polarised in their positions and are adversarial in their approach. A game council will not shift this polarisation over night; there is a high risk that this legislation will just increase the polarisation if the GAC bureaucrats mismanage the whole situation. There is a total lack of trust between Green Groups and hunter political lobbyists and I do not blame the Green Groups for a high level of distrust. What I have experienced and witnessed is that the political hunter lobbyists act in a polite and co operative manner when they are achieving their own gains, but quickly swap to being adversarial and re litigate old history if they are told no, and do not move forward until they win concessions or try and use members of parliament to bully their way through. I can fully understand why there is a lack of trust because you never know if there has been a final resolution.

7 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission My recommendation is that the role of the Game Animal Council must be tightly defined in detail setting out priorities and tasks within the legislation. In the first 3 years their role needs to be tightly controlled with measurable outcomes. The lack of trust is deep seated across all parties involved with game animals and their impacts, and the behaviour of certain politicians has only polarised these groups further. If parliament thinks it can use big stick and legislate to fix this entrenchedpolarised behaviour problem then it has seriously misjudges the situation. You cannot legislate TRUST between parties. The way forward requires a forum where there is open and frank dialogue without the legislative and environmental threats that the GAC legislation brings to the table, this is why an advisory group under the Wild Animal Control Act is the next correct step forward. Membership l believe the core function of the Council should be to try to achieve greater hunter education, advocacy and with luck some level of consensus between sector groups over time, I agree with the large proposed membership (eleven) as it reflects the size of and diversity within the hunting and land management sectors. It is proposed that the membership would be appointed by the Minister of Conservation from public and organisation nominations, and includes members that represent the following interests related to these animals. The membership mix should be: > Recreational deer, tahr, chamois and goat hunting; > Recreational pig hunting; > Commercial hunting; > Game estate and safari park operations; > Deer farming; > Meat processing and export; > Tourism operations related to hunting (guiding, etc); > Maori hunting interests; > Farming; > Forestry; > Research; and > Conservation. Transparency in the membership decision making process will be important so this process is not manipulated. If you look at the GAC Establishment Committee, two members out of the five were senior official s in the Game and Forest Foundation, and good on the Foundation for achieving this outcome. But next time around the Minister will require better disclosure and more robust procedures. It will be important that the various government departments have the right to attend any meeting as well as speaking rights. Nor should they ever be excluded from any session. Transparency will build trust and is the best option forward. I agree with the membership proposal other than strengthening transparency and disclosure processes for membership. While the normal requirements for appointment to apublic body should apply, this is the l" stage in building trust between sectors so should be protected from undue political interference. The council should function along the lines of the Conser vation Authority model as this has proven its robustness over time.

8 8 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission Game Animal Council Administration Any person who sits either on a Game Animal Council or Advisory Group should be paid fees including travel expenses, just as any other government appointed body. The Council and its activities must be fully transparent to ensure the any crown funding or other donations/levies funds are used properly and for the purpose intended and measureable outcomes. My recommendation is that GAC council members are paid fees and travel expenses. This should be in alignment with the Conservation Authority. I would also recommend that these fees are paid by the crown if an Advisory Council is establish under Section 5 of the Wild Animal Control Act. Game Animals & Herds of Special Interest lllegal releases; this part of the GAC bill needs to be strengthened because of the proliferation of wild pigs being illegally released throughout the country. Part of pig hunter culture is to establish new populations in the wild and this has been a constant ongoing problem and cost to the crown. The two separate wild pig illegal releases in the Mackenzie Basin were both found to contain TB. As a farmer and game estate owner this is totally unacceptable and places the Animal Health Board multi million vector control programme in the Basin at risk. This matter of illegal pig releases needs to be addressed nationally. The GAC should not have the authority to release any wild animals as part of a Special Herds of Interest project. The NZ deer farming industry are world leaders at breeding world class trophies on mass and we as a business tap into this market purchasing stags for our estate. We do not want to see new blood lines put back into the wild where the crown (public land) and the GAC overtime becomes a direct competitor in the NZ market place, especially if using my trophy levy money to do so. It is important that any special herd of interest goes through a robust environmental and financial risk assessment process otherwise the NZ tax payers could end up in the same position as New South Wales where taxpayer bails outs are required. The other reason is that GAC bureaucrats would possibility attempt to off set any mismanagement by increasing trophy levies, or other charges to recreational hunters. This is entirely unacceptable. An example of mismanagement would be an attempt by the GAC to make the entire Himalayan Tahr herd a Herd of Special lnterest. This task alone would cost $300,000 in direct operational dollars excluding all the consultation hours and the additional staff requirements. Looking at the number of other priority tasks ahead of the GAC means tahr management across the South Island is both unaffordable and politically high risk. However, people are dumb enough to attempt this so the legislation needs to protect the public from this type of mis management and financial risk no government bailouts. Sub part 3 Herds of Special Interest fails to deal with the risk of herds being hijacked by elitism which then leads to the average kiwi hunter being excluded, and is a failing of the Wapiti Foundation model. This is a topic I understand very well as a hunting guide. You see in print Wapiti Foundation spokespeople openly criticising recreational hunters for shooting stags in the Wapiti Block that have not reached their full trophy potential, or telling hunters they are not qualified to cull stags. This is incredibility elitist behaviour, nor encourages ownership by hunters of what is meant to be a community project. If they listened they will learn that many hunters just want to experience Fiordland and the wapiti bugle. For many it is a once in a life time event, so an average quality head is still a great trophy, its their trophy, and when back at home will remind them of happy hunting days. To berate these hunters in print is just wrong, especially since this a crown herd on public land. It is incredibly important to establish what the hunters expectations are and the

9 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission outcomes should be, then deliver to those expectations, not something else. Special Herds of Interest should never be able to be hijacked by the trophy hunter elitists which will always be to the detriment of the average kiwi hunter. Private land is the place for the elitist not public land. My recommendation is that better risk management and assessment processes are defined within the GA C legislation for the Special Herds of Interest (sub part 3), which includes a section on public liability and accountability. No public bail outs! Also, the GA C should be (through legislation) be made to publish its short, medium, and long term strategy along with funding streams and measureable outcomes. This is so the public and hunters can clearly see what the priority tasks are; herd management is a long term priority. This provides the government with certainty, and enables trust to be established in the l"year of operation between sectors. Funding The new Act is to impose an unfair levy (new tax) on the guided hunting business sector (export of trophy heads to pay for all GAC costs). What is more extraordinary is that it becomes a retrospective tax dating back 10 years. Then on top of this is that I will have to pay two costs; 1st the costs of Customs to collect the levy, and the 2nd to pay GAC bureaucracy. Also, what about the ability of the Minister of Conservation to set other fees and costs as they see fit. The GAC Establishment Committee signalled very clearly that if GAC legislation was passed they would continue to push hard for my business to receive additional hunting restrictions and increased costs burden. This fact alone makes it an absurd piece of legislation. The legislation also now raises Commerce Act questions which I for one will be investigating further. The Select Committee could consider alternative funding sources such as recreational hunter levy on hunting permits, but why should they pay for an existing right they already have, again absurd. Whichever direction the committee chooses regarding funding will only penalised hunters, funds bureaucracy, a provides a profit to the few that can bend the ear of a politician. I believe in fair tax not absurd tax which only penalises business. If a trophy levy is to be generated it should be used to help market New Zealand's Tourism and Hunting industry with the support of the Department Of Tourism. To develop a 5, 10, & 20 year Strategic Industry Plan so we keep our competitive advantage. These are the types of programmes hunting trophy export levy should be funding and benefits New Zealand, create jobs, as well as exports Not fund GAC bureaucracy. The Hon Kate Wilkinson stated in parliament recently that National supports building business not destroying business, yet here is a clear example of legislation and a tax regime that will do exactly that. Cabinet Papers stated the following and I agree with this position: The Treasury, Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of Agriculture consider that the proposal to partly fund the Game Animal Council through export levies on trophy heads is less efficient (and less fair) than funding the Council from other sources, such as recreational hunters. The link between those paying for the Council and the Council's activities is tenuous given that the benefits of the Game Animal Council will largely fall on recreational hunters on public conservation land, rather than international tourists who may or may not be hunting on public conservation land My recommendation that an advisory council is set up not a Council; this prevents the government from creating a new tax on business through a trophy levy to fund GAC bureaucrats. The government now sets an absurd commercial precedent whereby my business will pay all the costs of the GA C and its bureaucrats who in turn will use these funds to place further restrictions on my business, or even put me out of business. Should business accept this? "Yeah right"it makes a great Tui Beer advertisement and shows the absurdity of the situation.

10 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission 10 Animal Welfare Animal welfare and hunting ethics has generated heated debate both here and overseas. At present the Animal Welfare Act is under review and I note there are some calls to have hunting included in this particular Act. I would like to point out to the committee that the Animal Welfare Act is silent on hunting for a very good reason. It is the intent of a hunter to always kill the game animal they seek as quickly as they can, however, being hunting there can be variables in that outcome (but is not intentional). If animal welfare was to become part of the Game Animal Council Bill or hunting incorporated into the Animal Welfare Act then automatically pig hunting will be brought into question, then eventually the rest of hunting and /or pest control will come under pressure. If you look around the world as soon as animal welfare regulations come into hunting then hunters are on a slippery downhill slope of greater restrictions. The existing status quo needs to remain and politicians need to keep hunting well clear of any new animal welfare regulations. My recommendation Animal Game Animal is that any reference to animal welfare and hunting is the domain of the Welfare Act. Any reference to animal welfare and hunting should be excludes from the Hunting Tourism Council bill. Since I started in hunting tourism in 1994 the sophistication of the market place skyrocketed, but so have the hunting opportunities and options. The New Zealand Professional Hunting Guide Association (NZPHGA) reflects that wide hunting diversity from members whose only investment can be their house and a four wheel drive to those like myself with 5 star accommodation, extensive game estates, and employ a large number of staff. But, with diversity within industry brings tension on how NZshould best market itself to hunters around the world and how resources are to be shared back at home. If we are to grow the hunting tourism market then NZPHGA needs to develop a long term Industry Strategy for New Zealand and piggy back on other larger national tourism initiatives overseas. NZPHGA committee has traditionally been consultative with members spending considerable time both in meetings and in various other consultative forums, seeking a mandate for new initiatives and improving industry standards through self regulation. A long term national industry strategy needs to come from industry and tourism itself, not a formal statutory organisation as a Game Animal Council. Regulation of guides or game animal herds is not going to be directly beneficial to market growth. A national industry strategy to ensure competitive advantage overseas, promoting sales point of difference, and improving customer service will have a direct benefit. Industry has the foundations already in place but not the marketing strategies overseas; a GAC will never deliver this. Our option of a National Industry Strategy is going to be lost because export trophy levies will be going directly to fund GAC bureaucrats and the wider hunting audience. Any funds that are left to promote and develop hunting tourism will be minuscule and inadequate for this task. Industry strategy development is more aligned with the Department of Tourism, not the Game Animal Council. Access is another critical issue for our business; the remote experience along with dramatic and diverse landscapes is the one competitive advantage we have in NZ over our competitors. Ingrained in this competitive advantage is the awe inspiring concept that a hunter can quickly shift from an ordinary mundane urban setting to a wild, remote, and untamed landscape. This is central to the hunting experience of our overseas visitors and we need to keep this; it is our one competitive advantage. My concern is that

11 New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd Game Animal Council Bill submission 11 the GAC will never fully comprehend these types of market concepts and slowly over time exclude us from these remote South Island areas. As I said earlier we sell into sophisticated global tourism market and have to compete against other countries. Hunting guides, tourism operators, deer farmers, and the aviation industry have combined to meet this market demand and the measure of its success is by the high level of the discretionary spending per client while here in NZ. Each sector is inter connected with the other and cannot be separated without a decline in discretionary spending which will directly equate to jobs. Politicians and their officials need to tread with care when dictating what industry standards should be or indicating that they know the market place better than we do, because clearly they do not. Aerially Assisted Trophy Hunting (AATH) debate isa classic example of this. The Hon Mr Dunne and his political advisors are signalling that they know what is best for the NZ hunting tourism market place better than business and therefore AATH will be banned. The Associate Minister of Conservation and his officials need to consult with the larger industry players instead of acting in a provocative manner that has led to the perception overseas that the NZ government has become hostile toward hunting tourism, especially if you are a "wealthy client". We live in a media age and press releases by Ministers of the Crown can do very real damage overseas. We know this because we have received cancellations because of his actions in the media. This type of political grandstanding has commercial consequences. My recommendation is there needs to be safe guards in the legislation so that the GA C cannot become apolitical football and open to personal agendas of apolitical party. If the committee condones the type of behaviour as seen by the Associate Minister of Conservation then the only alternative left to business is seek relief in the courts. This reverts everybody back to an adversarialpolarisedposition instead of seeking co operation and consensus. My conclusion is that the recommendations set out in the 2008 Report of the Future Management of Deer, Chamois, Tahr and Pigs was always the correct and most financially prudent option for New Zealand at this point in time, with the Panel recommending better representation and accommodation of interests regarding deer, chamois, tahr and wild pigs under the Wild Animal Control Act, and the establishment of a Wild Animal Control Advisory Committee. That position has not changed in END Submission by Gary Herbert, Managing Director, New Zealand Mountain Hunting Ltd.