Access Dramas

Bryce attackes Fed Farmers with gay abandon, risking the ire of land owners and pastoral lessees' (of crown land) nationwide. There's a much bigger picture in the case of the lessees and it goes like this; if the chunk of high country that they are leasing has "amenity values" i.e. pretty streams and picturesque lakes on it, they have to pay more for their lease. And can't charge any more for the extra they have to pay. They can't charge people (yeah ehem) to go fish it. Bryce gets stuck in and anglers and shooters just get more and mores despised by the farming community. Now don't get me wrong, he's not a total goose - here's an excerpt from Rick Cullinane to (yet another) a one sided article in NZ Farmers Weekly:

27 May 2009 The Editor The New Zealand Farmers Weekly PO Box 529 Feilding Dear Sir, Alan Emerson’s vitriolic and erroneous rant (FW 25 May) warrants some clarity. Firstly, some facts. Fish & Game magazine has an audited readership of around 250,000 (around 6% of the population). In 2007/08 Fish & Game sold 36,000 gamebird licences (32,000 adult whole season licences) and 103,000 (76,000 adult whole season licences), with a total of 139,000 licences of all types sold. All adult whole season licenceholders have the opportunity to register and vote for their regional councilors. Fish & Game has never, ever, advocated for, or sought, any public ‘right to roam’ or ‘wander at will’. Fish & Game is just as keen on respectful and responsible public access provisions as any landholder. The majority of hunting and fishing licenceholders is not happy with the access status quo, and certainly not happy with the accelerating erosion of public access as land ownership and land use changes. In relation to the high country declaratory judgment, Fish & Game’s goal was to clarify the law regarding pastoral lessees’ rights to the publicly owned land they lease. Fish & Game recognise that the Crown, as the owner of the land, is responsible for managing public access. Fish & Game’s action in taking this case are entirely in accordance with the functions of the Fish & Game councils that require it to maintain and improve access to the fish and game resource under Section 26Q(1)(b)(i) of the Conservation Act 1987. The cost to the New Zealand Fish & Game Council for this process was $68,000; equivalent to less than 50 cents per licenceholder. Now some questions: If Fish & Game’s application for a declaratory judgment was so ridiculous, how come lessees have recently argued, in another High Court hearing, that their leases only confer rights to the pasture in order to reduce rentals to the Crown? Do you think they should have it both ways? If Fish & Game stopped advocating for public access to public resources, for the protection of lowland waterways from the degradation caused by poor farming practices, and for the protection of New Zealand ’s dwindling iconic natural free flowing rivers, who would do it? Or do you believe these rights and treasures that are so crucial to both our heritage and culture, and our national brand, should be sacrificed entirely for short term economic gain? The disservice to farmers not done by Fish & Game which makes a point of acknowledging the generosity and environmental responsibility of many farmers, but by agricultural lobby groups and immoderate columnists whose groundless ranting from polarized positions seeks to shut down any rational discussion or to simply discredit the bearer of inconvenient facts. Kiwi anglers, hunters and farmers have shares in all New Zealand ’s resources, and all have a stake in our combined future. It’s time for Alan Emersen’s polarizing style to be replaced by a bit of pragmatic dialogue. Yours sincerely, Ric Cullinane Communications and Marketing Manager New Zealand Fish & Game Council


Oh yes, and there's that ~35,000 duck license figure again. except its now 32,000. Where did 3,000 of our brothers go?