Submission regarding fish and game

https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved...fish-and-game/

I think it is important we send as many submissions as possible.
I am not sure what the whole story is behind the back doors.

But I guess fish and game should keep its curent statutory status .
I believe a new CEO wants to have everything centralised in Wellington, but would it be not better to keep everything regional ie each area with its own specificity?
I hope Sage will be gone by September , because anything she is involved in is a disaster.
It seems that there is a desir to put f and g under the Doc umbrella.
I am already not that keen on a lot of the work of the top brass from Doc , so if it is to f.ck fish and game as well, I would really not be too keen on that either.

But maybe done on the forum have better insight ?

BeJeezzus - don't piss about, submissions close 31 August . . .

Fuck F&G NZ, they sooner they are gone the better.
For the last ten years all they've done is take license holders funds and use them to bag NZ farmers.
Their dirty dairy campaign was dishonest and self serving.
RIP, they won't be missed.

So what alternative do you suggest to manage wetland, duck shooting and trout fishing?
Who is going to sue the dirty Chinese dairy factories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckdog

Fuck F&G NZ, they sooner they are gone the better.
For the last ten years all they've done is take license holders funds and use them to bag NZ farmers.
Their dirty dairy campaign was dishonest and self serving.
RIP, they won't be missed.

---

How was it dishonest ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

How was it dishonest ?

---

However Fish and Game director Martin Taylor said the report was well overdue and confirmed that dairying was a non-sustainable industry.
"Fonterra knows it's lost its social licence to operate and is desperate to regain it. But it is also singlehandedly destroying our clean, green image and undermining the efforts of other exporters."

I don't know much of the politics of the top brass on one side of the other.
But when I talk to some of the guys who are on the ground and working on the rivers everyday and see the kind of shit ( litteraly) that they see poured in some streams , I am happy to pay what I pay for my duck shooting and fishing licence and if they were not there to report and act on that crap ,who else would?
And I m not here to bash the hard working farmers, I love my dairy and my meat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Friwi

I don't know much of the politics of the top brass on one side of the other.
But when I talk to some of the guys who are on the ground and working on the rivers everyday and see the kind of shit ( litteraly) that they see poured in some streams , I am happy to pay what I pay for my duck shooting and fishing licence and if they were not there to report and act on that crap ,who else would?
And I m not here to bash the hard working farmers, I love my dairy and my meat.

---

me three
problem is some farmers arent pulling thier wieght and others consider a attack on them is a attack on all.
towns cities play thier part to
but theres no bigger sector in the area of fish and game responcibility than farmers
they are adjacent to where ducks and fish and other gamebirds habitat is and most water runs thru them past them or near them
hell their places are habitat.
i will say this of f&g they stood up for areas that doc didnt care about
unless it had a lesser spotted tit or longtailed bum fern doc stood with the govt

@Friwi have a read of this it will save us from covering the same old ground https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....ploding-60516/
:)

I'm no fan of Fish & Game but see this for what it is, a power grab by the Chief Executive to move F&G NZ into the Conservation Dept.

The Chief Executive of Fish & Game is a career bureaucrat with strong links to Labour. He has a Masters in Political Science & Government with no apparent background in the wildlife sector https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-taylor-1b497268/

A letter, from a Fish & Game “staff collective” is understood to be signed by the vast majority of the organisation’s regional staff. They raise “serious concerns” about Taylor, the national council’s (NZC) chief executive since late 2017.
He’s accused of a “continual aggressive, adversarial, dictatorial style”. Staff wrote they’re becoming increasingly alarmed, alienated and distracted, and morale is actively declining.
“The actions and poor transparency of the NZC CEO are causing the development of a concerning level of mistrust, a toxic culture within the organisation,” the letter says, noting “an unhealthy and deteriorating relationship forming between NZC and staff”.

Taylor’s public statements, it seems, were causing conflicts for regional staffers. In the letter, it’s noted the “content of external communications” is “hampering the ability of staff to effectively do their jobs, causing a significant deterioration in relationships”.
Another Fish & Game staffer, who asked to remain anonymous, said the council went to great lengths to “intentionally overstate” the findings of that audit. “There is a very strong feeling that there has been a huge amount of politicking going on by Martin, Lindsay Lyons and a small group of their supporters to force the minister into this review.”

Such a review is seen by some as a “power grab” by Taylor.
The staffer writes: “F&G will wither and die as a centralised bureaucracy, and water quality will suffer as a result.”

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/before-fi...eview-a-revolt

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Friwi

https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved...fish-and-game/

I think it is important we send as many submissions as possible.
I am not sure what the whole story is behind the back doors.

But I guess fish and game should keep its curent statutory status .
I believe a new CEO wants to have everything centralised in Wellington, but would it be not better to keep everything regional ie each area with its own specificity?
I hope Sage will be gone by September , because anything she is involved in is a disaster.
It seems that there is a desir to put f and g under the Doc umbrella.
I am already not that keen on a lot of the work of the top brass from Doc , so if it is to f.ck fish and game as well, I would really not be too keen on that either.

But maybe done on the forum have better insight ?

---

Sent mine away last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckdog

However Fish and Game director Martin Taylor said the report was well overdue and confirmed that dairying was a non-sustainable industry.
"Fonterra knows it's lost its social licence to operate and is desperate to regain it. But it is also singlehandedly destroying our clean, green image and undermining the efforts of other exporters."

---

This is what you are commenting about ?
https://fishandgame.org.nz/news/font...unsustainable/

That was 3 years ago.

This was Fonterra saying the same thing 3 years ago...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/3...-fonterra-says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

How was it dishonest ?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sore head stoat

This is what you are commenting about ?
https://fishandgame.org.nz/news/font...unsustainable/

That was 3 years ago.

This was Fonterra saying the same thing 3 years ago...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/3...-fonterra-says

---

Fair enough, then read these
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...airying-stance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...me-and-farmers
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...l-message?rm=a
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...-progress?rm=m
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/...s-intervention
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/before-fi...eview-a-revolt

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:(

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody

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.

---

shamefuly stupidly and dangerously .
there have been anecdotal repiorts of rifle fire on decoy set ups.
they made geese much harder to access and hunt foreveryone a stupid situation thatv will comeback to haunt them .
and is in towns cities regions [palmy kapiti chch]