Thread: The results are in

Originally Posted by gsp follower

as long as the ''bullshit/audit tells me how the process to get to 8 was done and it was a council voted and consulted process,i,l be happy but so far no.ones saying and theres no ''paper trail''??
given what i,ve seen nz council technicly werent involved but they were informed of the intent and a lawyer consulted at the highest level.

What are you talking about GSPF? I had an OIA request with NZF&G on the issue of the HB election- which has been answered and there is no mention of lawyers. Have you seen something that suggests lawyers have been involved in checking the process? Could you elaborate. I hardly think public officials would be deliberately misleading or lie.

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

What are you talking about GSPF? I had an OIA request with NZF&G on the issue of the HB election- which has been answered and there is no mention of lawyers. Have you seen something that suggests lawyers have been involved in checking the process? Could you elaborate. I hardly think public officials would be deliberately misleading or lie.

yes i can tim i have an email from one b johnson to one peter mac saying he,d consulted an office solicitor at doc head office who he names.
he goes onto say the HB COUNCILL can do this change themselves and notify warwick lampp of the decision.

problem is i can find no evidence or trail of the councill ever making that decision???

What is it that you are specifically wanting to achieve through your posts here? Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?
It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most

what i dont want is behind closed door decisions predicated on the thought that we dont know whats good for us?? after all we pay the bills and a countrywide licence gives us the right to expect every region to behave to the highest standard.
specificly i want to see that the decisions made are ,fair. consulted on,voted on or at least proposed and seconded and passed and there for all to see.if this flys who,s next more specificly i want to stalk up on the big rawhiti damn like i used to without having to hire a guide or pay an access fee or have them driven over me.
[the arguement i had over southland and subgauge lead, the lack of the consultation process
i was am prepared to live with either outcome there]

n regards to the reduction to 8, "good men are few, one is worth ten thousand if he is the best".

yes tahr but no man/councill is a island if it is used as a precedent to pass the shaft on down the line.look at easterns hen pheasant take and put and take ducks

The council at no stage consulted its licence holders of their intentions to reduce councillor numbers and have bypassed all required processes
when they voted on an item that was in General business, and stated that it was a proposal to look at the possibility of reducing numbers, so no motion, no record of who moved it, no record of who seconded it., NOTHING AT ALL and that is the most telling fact that they have acted improperly.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

as long as the ''bullshit/audit tells me how the process to get to 8 was done and it was a council voted and consulted process,i,l be happy but so far no.ones saying and theres no ''paper trail''??
given what i,ve seen nz council technicly werent involved but they were informed of the intent and a lawyer consulted at the highest level.
so if the process was dodgy i get the feeling plausable deniability will rear its ugly head and hb councill ''doing as it sees fit in its own region''. will be the official line.
great leadership aint it?? drop to 8 ''do as you like'' shoot wild hen pheasant and ignore the party line on ''properties with special conditions /interests'' do as you like???personaly i think they should look at letting the next four highest vote candidates in before the excrement hits the proverbial

What is it that you are specifically wanting to achieve through your posts here? Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?
It seems to me that the voters have put on the 8 candidates that they wanted the most. You seem to now want the the next 4, or those who the voters wanted the least.

If it is a constitutional issue that you are raising, once again, be specific about what the breech is and how you intend to go about having it remedied.

In regards to the reduction to 8, "good men are few, one is worth ten thousand if he is the best".

Had a response?

Have you lodged a complaint?

wealth good looks and hb complaints all queus i wont be at the front of mike.

there better be another election...some of us are paying attention...maybe not all the time, some much of the time...

@gsp follower...plausible deniability...seeing as they can all sign their names, I doubt that wimpish bollocks will gain any traction...be like shooting an overfed tame mallie if you ask me...

stealth for the wealth...

Originally Posted by EeeBees

stealth for the wealth...

thats what i dont get either EeBees how come your reasonably flush but you cant get keep staff??
it sure as hell aint the climate or working space

Or rather, what can be achieved through your posts?

the same as southland if enough people say enough wellington will have to listen .
if the nzc is as politised as im lead to believe then they,l follow the key theory.[ oil the biggest squeak.]bad as southlands actions were this, if its played out the way it looks,it demands that nzc take the same stance as they did against southland and at least send hb back to survey/consult thier licence buyers.

KWB, when you're copying and pasting stuff from the FishnHunt forum just copy the whole lot rather than only the bits you can twist to suit your view. Greg Duleys posts tell quite a bit.

does it now mike is that before or after the attacks from bj and jd on anyone who dissents??.id a thought you would be most aggreived mike after southlands iniative was sent back for licence holder consultation but this flys with none??
does it explain why any disccussion, vote or mention of licencee consultation wasnt recorded in either the minutes or the resolutions??
or why it would need to be on the june agenda when they,d already voted''unanimously'
'

This would be the crappiest, most negative, most tin foil hat worthy thread that I've ever followed on a hunting forum.

you may think that tahr but check the hb minutes for yourself.
the last thing i want is this carryon going region to region.
i can back up everything i say it remains to be seen if hb can.

(the candidate you support despite his failure to follow correct procedure or the councils instructions, a bit of a double standard here don’t you think?)

thats funny i reckon he followed councill instructions to the t

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete McIntosh [mailto:pmcintosh@fishandgame.org.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 April 2015 9:37 a.m.
To: Robert Sowman
Cc: Bryce Johnson
Subject: Reducing council members


Hi guys our council last night decided to limit the councillor numbers to 8 for the up and coming election.

What is the formal process we need to follow?

Do I need to speak to Warwick?

Regards,

Pete Mac

Peter McIntosh

Regional Manager, Hawkes' Bay

Fish and Game New Zealand

P.O Box 7345, Taradale, Napier 4141

New Zealand

Tel: (06) 844 2460

Fax: (06) 8442461

Cell: (021 ) 274 6119

www.fishandgame.org.nz

KWB, when you're copying and pasting stuff from the FishnHunt forum just copy the whole lot rather than only the bits you can twist to suit your view. Greg Duleys posts tell quite a bit.

I see our old mate kwb has been looking on her too and copying and posting bits he wants to pick out on the other forum.

nice to see you both care enough to check in on me merritt and mike

KWB, you forget that we weren't dictated to from above. We willingly consulted off our own bat because of the feedback we got from licence holders. We then made our own mind up to not pursue our initial motion. We were entitled to carry on with it if we'd chosen to.

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. They can elect to do consultation where they see fit but aren't forced to on every decision. They have been elected to make decisions for the likes of you and Tony H who would never consider standing.

And don't think Merritt and I mention you cause we care about you. Its simply you can't be avoided when you're present on a forum.

Originally Posted by Mike H

KWB, you forget that we weren't dictated to from above. We willingly consulted off our own bat because of the feedback we got from licence holders. We then made our own mind up to not pursue our initial motion. We were entitled to carry on with it if we'd chosen to.

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. They can elect to do consultation where they see fit but aren't forced to on every decision. They have been elected to make decisions for the likes of you and Tony H who would never consider standing.

And don't think Merritt and I mention you cause we care about you. Its simply you can't be avoided when you're present on a forum.

rewriting history again mike ??
dont be a hater mike
hate the game not the player

now wheres that email from nzc of the time mmmmm

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. ]

certainly but if consultation is good for one regions over such important things isnt it right for everybody??
and why not put the discussion and decision for all to see like every other decision was yours included??

Originally Posted by Mike H

KWB, you forget that we weren't dictated to from above. We willingly consulted off our own bat because of the feedback we got from licence holders. We then made our own mind up to not pursue our initial motion. We were entitled to carry on with it if we'd chosen to.

You and others seem to forget that councillors are voted in to make the decisions and they're entitled to do that. They can elect to do consultation where they see fit but aren't forced to on every decision. They have been elected to make decisions for the likes of you and Tony H who would never consider standing.

And don't think Merritt and I mention you cause we care about you. Its simply you can't be avoided when you're present on a forum.

How would you have any idea if I was considering standing or not, is this just another fact you have plucked from the far reaches of your rear end. You may wish to actually speak to me before you make a post stating what my own intentions were. Or are you working on the same principle the HB council had been doing. "we thought we had done it, but in fact we never did".
How about you ask someone who was at the meeting last night where the council admitted they had stuffed up the vote to reduce numbers. so please stay away from the keyboard until you have some actual facts and not assumptions and unfounded accusations which seem to be how you operate.