WARO - Correspondence with Janine Sidery of DOC
Posted 31/5/2015 by GG
Hi guys, the message string below is one of a range of avenues tried to get DOC to meaningfully talk to recreational hunters, The Game Animal Council were also trying to get them to discuss the matter, All to no avail with DOC completely leaving hunters out of the process and seemingly changing what they like. So much for “partnership.
Spread the word !
GG
The last message from Janine is below – I obviously tweaked a nerve somewhere within DOC as I got a followup call from the Manawatu Area Manager to tell me they were reducing the restrictions in the Ruahines. GG
Thank you for your email Mr George.
I will follow the various items up for you, and have lodged the new OIA request.
Regards
Janine
From: Gordon George [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2015 8:17 p.m.
To: Janine Sidery
Cc: 'Derrick Field'; 'Don Hammond'; 'Garry Ottmann'
Subject: RE: WARO concession review - public consultation - lack of.
Hi Janine
Please note that it is about 2 months since you stated you would respond to me, I can find no record of any response ? Strictly speaking my request complies with the provisions of the Official Information Act and a response is well outside the maximum of 20 working days
Can I please have a response ?
Please note that you are however in good company with your DG also very late in responding and your minister very late in responding. Matters that will also be taken further and should it be necessary to contest any concession decisions the lack of response from DOC adds weight to hunters, an affected party, being left out of the process and simply ignored.
Unless your DG And minister have decided to further defer decisions on concessions then they should be available soon so I will also note our previous request to have the Wellington/Manawatu/Hawkes Bay comments to the WARO review. These comments were stated by DOC to be provided to us post the decision making and we re-request them now please.
Please note that we do not believe the approach taken to this review was appropriate. There has been virtually no consultation with arguably the most affected party (40,000 hunters) and any decisions are believed readily challengeable – its not just the heli operators who can employ lawyers.
Could you please provide details of the consultation including organisations consulted with, how and when etc. I.e. please provide evidence of specific consultation with recreational hunters or representatives. This request though strictly speaking automatically subject to the provisions of the official information act should for the removal of any doubt be considered as an official information request and subject to a statutory timeframe – i.e- as soon as possible and no later than a maximum of 20 days.
The request immediately above is in addition to the previous outstanding requests and its timeframe can start anew unlike the outstanding matters.
Yours in dismay
GG
Gordon George
Secretary NZDA – Hutt Valley Branch and Chair, Lower North Island Hunter Liaison Group
Ph 027-222-5714
From: Janine Sidery [mailto:
Sent: Friday, 27 March 2015 7:51 a.m.
To:
Cc:; Dianne Brown (NZDA); ;
Subject: RE: WARO concession review - public consultation - lack of.
Hello Mr George
Just a note to say I have received this email and will respond as soon as I can which may not be until next week.
Thank you
Janine
From: Gordon George [mailto:
Sent: Friday, 27 March 2015 12:28 a.m.
To: Janine Sidery
Cc:; Dianne Brown (NZDA); ;
Subject: RE: WARO concession review - public consultation - lack of.
Hi Janine
Thank you for responding. I have copied in a wider audience as the WARO issue is of great significance to hunters given its potential to impact upon us and to be locked out of the process and effectively have only DOC and industry as the consulted parties is a farce. There is no conservation act mandate to foster industry but there is one to foster recreation !
I think the short version of your response is as follows:
The dept believes it has set the scene so as it does not need to consult hunters other than GAC, even though hunters are directly affected by WARO and the most relevant legislation (The WAC act with s23 as below ) specifically requires the effects of WARO on recreational hunters to be considered. It seems the only attempt at fulfilling that requirement is some degree of consultation with a new organisation, GAC. I have copied some of them in as should the non-notified review result in changes detrimental to hunters they may well be seen as the departments fall guy.
You note
“Therefore, the effects of the concession activity are the ONLY basis on which a Decision-Maker may decide to notify a concession. “Effect” is defined as having the same meaning as in section 3 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Other matters such as the ‘public interest’ are not relevant to the decision whether or not to publicly notify.“
Having some familiarity of RMA processes your contrast is interesting in that any RMA consent notified or not can be appealed to the environment court and court action or adverse publicity seems to be the only options DOC is leaving to hunters – we are seemingly denied any ability to have our views canvased or heard meaningfully – this is not consistent with the legislative requirements.
Your stance also ignores potential new or adverse effects generated by any change to concession conditions. Using your RMA analogy, the moment you change some of the concession parameters there is a need to review whether the effects are also changed and the impact upon whether to notify or not. Merely saying that WARO has existed for decades is irrelevant to determining the effects of matters like land area or closure period changes. You seem to be suggesting that DOC can change what it likes and not have to meaningfully reconsider the effects. Clearly such an approach is unreasonable and inconsistent with the RMA treatment of effects and their assessment.
You also noted “There have been previous consultation processes, including CMS and National Park Management Plan processes, with stakeholders including recreational hunters, and as the activity has been undertaken for over 30 years, there are no additional or new effects which would indicate there is a need to publicly notify the intention to grant these concessions.”Perhaps its worth noting that virtually all the CMS documents are well past their statutory review dates, I think the local one is 15 years old or more, So to pass those off as a relevant basis for not consulting is a bit of a stretch. I reiterate that if there are land area or closure period changes then there are new effects upon public land users and specifically recreational hunters.
Unlike industry, hunters are denied the ability to advocate for improvements let alone the status quo. How is that fair or even handed.
Specifically we have an interest in potential changes to one of our local areas, the Ruahine Forest Park. There has been a sustained debate with the conservancy over industry friendly hunter unfriendly changes they wished to make in breach of the present WARO concessions. They publically backed away from “trial” changes in 2011 or 2012 (after significant protest and adverse media publicity) but the suspicion is that they will use a now clearly non-public WARO process to unilaterally impose changes to the 20 year plus current regime. Any additional opening of the area to WARO would create adverse effects on recreational hunters that any reasonable person or judge would consider “more than minor”.
If there are no changes then perhaps you could reasonably argue no new effects however if there are proposed changes then surely you need to consult ?
If changes are proposed to land area offers or exclusion areas or closure periods do you see that as generating new effects ?
Lastly
You refer to the OIR in which I sought the finalised comments from the local conservancy. The failure to supply has gone to the ombudsmen, the DOC DG and now the Minister with the DG failing to respond for 2 months. The failure to supply is significantly at odds with the Terms of Reference (TOR) document our liaison group agreed with DOC in which they signed up to “no surprizes” amongst other openness clauses. Perhaps openness, no surprizes and partnership are now seen as “when suits” options by DOC.
Yours in dismay
GG
Gordon George
Sec NZDA Hutt Valley Branch Inc
Chair, Lower North Island Hunter Liaison Group
PS – Dianne is no longer with NZDA
From: Janine Sidery [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 4:06 p.m.
To:
Cc:; Dianne Brown (NZDA)
Subject: RE: WARO concession review - public consultation - lack of.
Dear Mr George
Thank you for your email seeking clarification on what process the Department is following in regard to the expiry of the 2009-2014 national WARO permit and the development of the new national WARO permit. I apologise that I didn’t get back to you last week.
Prior to the last set of WARO permits expiring in 2009 a comprehensive revision of the WARO concession framework was undertaken in response to feedback from stakeholders, industry, MPI, CAA and DOC staff to make the permits ‘fit for purpose’. This involved extensive consultation outside of the formal concession process.
This led to a non – notified national WARO permit being developed (with other wild animal recovery activities of aerially assisted trophy hunting, and tahr carcass and live capture being separated to different permits and processes) and offered to operators who held genuine supply contracts to a processor, who held the appropriate NZFSA accreditation for supplying wild animals and who met CAA requirements.
The expiry and development of the new national WARO permit is not being done in secret, but is being processed (as 2009 and earlier WARO concessions were) as a non notified concession process. As you are aware the Department has been assessing all public conservation land against the relevant legislation (which includes the Wild Animal Control Act) and statutory management documents such as Conservation Management Strategies, National Park Plans and other statutory management plans, and this process is just about finalised.
The Department has sought feedback from the Game Animal Council (which includes representatives of recreational hunters) on the current and proposed framework and permit.
The Conservation Act identifies for us when a notified concession process is appropriate for a permit in section 17T(5), which relevantly states: "…. The Minster may give public notice of the intention to do so if, having regard to the effects of the licence, permit or easement, he or she considers it appropriate to give the notice."
Therefore, the effects of the concession activity are the ONLY basis on which a Decision-Maker may decide to notify a concession. “Effect” is defined as having the same meaning as in section 3 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Other matters such as the ‘public interest’ are not relevant to the decision whether or not to publicly notify.
As WARO is a long standing activity, it is considered that the effects of this activity are well understood. There have been previous consultation processes, including CMS and National Park Management Plan processes, with stakeholders including recreational hunters, and as the activity has been undertaken for over 30 years, there are no additional or new effects which would indicate there is a need to publicly notify the intention to grant these concessions.
In regards to your earlier Official Information Act request, as advised at the time the information you requested at the time is draft advice which was yet to be collated and moderated nationally for consideration of a decision maker. However the final advice will be made publically available in due course once the national moderation has been completed and decisions have been made.
We hope to have the information publically available by the end of April/early May.
Kind Regards
Janine
Janine Sidery
Senior Permissions Advisor
Department of Conservation - Ōtautahi/Christchurch Office
70 Moorhouse Avenue | Private Bag 4715 | Christchurch.
VPN:5421| DDI:03 371 3721 | E:
Conservation for prosperityTiakinatetaiao, kiapuawai
From: Janine Sidery
Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2015 8:30 a.m.
To: ''
Cc: ''; 'Dianne Brown'
Subject: RE: WARO concession review - public consultation - lack of.
Hello Mr George
Thank you for your email you sent on Saturday evening. This is a courtesy email to say it had been received but has not yet been responded to as I was on leave. I hope to get a reply to you by the end of the week at the latest. I have not been able to send this response to Mr Field as I don’t appear to have his email.
Kind Regards
Janine
Janine Sidery
Senior Permissions Advisor
Department of Conservation - Ōtautahi/Christchurch Office
70 Moorhouse Avenue | Private Bag 4715 | Christchurch.
VPN:5421| DDI:03 371 3721 | E:
Conservation for prosperityTiakinatetaiao, kiapuawai
From: Gordon George [mailto:
Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2015 6:40 p.m.
To: Christchurch
Cc:; Dianne Brown (NZDA); 'Derrick Field'
Subject: WARO concession review - public consultation - lack of.
Hi
For the attention of whomever is in charge of the overly secret WARO review
The main question is at the end. I strongly suggest you put out some better info for recreational hunters to create some understanding of what is to happen or not happen, may save all some stress if you are actually intending to consult though with a May 31st deadline I can’t see how you can.
The 2009 – 2014 WARO permits expired in November and from the information on your website the permits were extended until May 31st2015 . Recreational hunters have been waiting for the opportunity to take part in the WARO review as happened in previous reviews and waiting and waiting but still there is no call for recreational hunter input. Nothing on your site under WARO concessions notes any reference to the need to consult recreational hunters and a recent DOC newsletter (Wgtn HB conservancy) only noted an intention to consult with industry, recreational hunters did not even rate a mention.
Your website states
“DOC is developing the new national WARO concession offer to replace the expired 2009-2014 concession. While DOC completes the new offer an interimconcession has been issued to existing concession holders.”
The Wgtn HB newsletter noted
“There are internal conversations in DOC at the moment about what a future management system could be, but no decision has been made yet about the future. Any such decisions will need to be informed by relevant legislation, statutory provisions, conservation best practice and thorough consultation with industry.”
No reference to the requirement for the minister to have regard (and as has been past precedent, consult with) recreational hunters which are an affected party and as the most significant harvester of feral deer we thought we would at least deserve a mention. Have we ceased to exist ?
I have tried via an OIR to get WGTN HB comments with regard to the WARO review but despite our Liaison group having agreed terms of reference with DOC that include openness and no surprises it seems DOC wishes to keep the WARO review a surprise from the most affected party, hunters. That failure to supply is now with the ombudsman.
From the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987 there are a number of sections which require the department to take into account recreational hunters and failure to do so (as seems to be occurring now) would potentially leave open to challenge any new WARO concessions.
WAC Act s23
Matters to which Minister to have regard in considering application for concession
In considering an application for a concession under section 22, the Minister must have regard not only to the matters specified in section 17U (other than subsection (3)) of the Conservation Act 1987 (as applied by section 22), but also to—
(a)the provisions of the Act under which the land concerned is held and the purposes for which that land is held; and
(b)the purposes of this Act; and
(c)the role of persons engaged in hunting for recreation in achieving the purposes of this Act.
Section 23: substituted, on 1October 1999, by section 9 of the Wild Animal Control Amendment Act 1997 (1997 No80).
CONS Act
17U Matters to be considered by Minister
(1)In considering any application for a concession, the Minister shall have regard to the following matters:
(a)the nature of the activity and the type of structure or facility (if any) proposed to be constructed:
(b)the effects of the activity, structure, or facility:
(c)any measures that can reasonably and practicably be undertaken to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the activity:
(d)any information received by the Minister under section 17S or section 17T:
(e)any relevant environmental impact assessment, including any audit or review:
(f)any relevant oral or written submissions received as a result of any relevant public notice issued under section 49: