Kiwi Fishing and Hunting - Private or Public?

by Tony Orman

Tony Orman has been a freelance journalist, hunter and trout angler for almost 50 years and is the author of 22 books on fishing and hunting

The fishing and hunting side of the Kiwi psyche has a century long tradition. It is unique world wide in that almost anyone can go catch a trout, shoot a duck or hunt a deer at no cost. Fishing and hunting are truly public sports.

The public ownership of fish and game sport is no accident. Such a system was set in place by the early European settlers who sought to escape the feudal structure of the UK where the best sport by dint of income and wealth, is the preserve of those who can afford the high fishing-shooting-hunting rights charges and access fees.
New Zealanders have guarded and cherished this unique egalitarian foundation and principle for over a century.

But wedges are being thrust by a mercenary minority who would for private profit, have New Zealanders paying for the right to shoot a pond or fish a river or stream.

And that mercenary minority is mounting a take-over bid on the public's fishing and shooting by putting up candidates in elections of regional fish and game councils, that are currently taking place. It is in a few words, the privatisation of the public's fishing and shooting resource and sport.

The public nature of fishing and shooting is enshrined in law such as Section 23 of the Wildlife Act and Section 26ZN of the Conservation Law Reform Act.

Section 23 of the Wildlife Act states that the sale of game and the sale of shooting rights is prohibited and Subsection (2) No person shall sell or let for fee or reward any right to hunt or kill game on any land or any water or any adjoining land.

Certain individual words are significant. For example "any land or any water" clearly means anywhere in New Zealand. The same principle, under the Conservation Law Reform Act, applies to trout fishing.

But recently, privatisation has wormed its way into the public's fishing and hunting scene. Private hunting preserves now exist where for about $1,000 per day hunters shoot a maximum of 15 birds - pheasants and quail. However hunting preserves may not be legal. Section 23 of the Wildlife Act is crystal clear in banning selling rights "anywhere" in New Zealand.

Examination of candidates in the current fish and game elections show arguably "conflicts of interest." In the Auckland/Waikato region, 36 candidates standing for the 12 seats on council. Eight are standing as a group, allegedly sponsored by moneyed business interests in the hunting sector and mounting an expensive campaign for power.

As one Waikato angler told me "voting for all eight, fishers and hunters will get what suits big business, not necessarily what is in the best interests of license holders."
In another North Island region, the chief hunting guide of a "private" station that has advertised "private" trout fishing water, is standing for election. So too is a hunting guide on the same station. In yet another region, a hunting preserve operator is standing.

To date, 16 pheasant shooting preserves charging much more or little less than $1,000 a day, have been allowed to set up over the last few years. Economics have caused some to falter and collapse. At latest count, about eight are operational, charging the shooting public despite the law.

But don't heap the blame on the preserve operators. Fish and Game councils have naively given the green light and Fish and Game NZ spokesmen have ironically publicly championed preserves despite Section 23.

While some councils have misguidedly allowed game preserves, Auckland-Waikato Fish and Game has admirably refused to do so because it believes preserves do indeed contravene Section 23.

The Department of Conservation has a statutory duty to oversee fish and game administration. Game preserves should have not been permitted in the first place by Fish and Game NZ and the anomaly should have been detected by the Department of Conservation.

Ironically the democratic structure of Fish and Game has made regional councils vulnerable to take-over by self-interest groups.
At the 2009 fish and game elections, there is an underlying but real threat to a century old egalitarian tradition of public fish and game sport. Few within fish and game - only those with a vested interest - would want to see the public ownership of fish and game eroded and replaced with privatisation and shooting and fishing fees.