Wild deer hunting policy in New Zealand : analysis, issues and options

Wild deer, predominantly red deer Cervus elaphus introduced 100 years ago as a hunting resource have adapted well and spread into the mountain lands and indigenous forests because of lack of predators, abundant evergreen forage and because they were protected. Changing official perceptions since their introduction now defines them as a pest. Eradication campaigns have failed and deer are presently controlled by the harvest of recreational hunters and commercial venison hunters in helicopters. The commercial hunters control in remote areas where recreational hunting is ineffective. Overharvesting and poor commercial returns has reduced profitability and introduced the likelihood of a reallocation of hunting rights to deer. Budgetary restrictions in the managing agency, the Department of Conservation (DOC) preclude control which means they must rely on manipulating hunting and land zoning to fulfil their goals. The (DOC) have a mandate to control deer numbers for the protection of indigenous biota, putatively susceptible because it was never before browsed by mammals. Technical uncertainty means only slow clarification of this relationship. DOC's mandate grants them broad discretion in choosing objectives for deer densities, when and to whom to allocate hunting of deer. DOC does not specify its mandate in specific terms. This study evaluates the DOC allocation policies in two dimensions: firstly how they determine acceptable deer densities and secondly on what basis they partition hunting rights. The aim is to clarify the technical justifications, socio-political factors and institutional aspects of these two functions. The study uses policy analysis and qualitative analysis in conjunction with a review of relevant biological and economic data to derive alternative institutions thought to provide greater benefits for the long term control of wild deer. The research indicates that DOC has not stated specific densities of deer it finds acceptable or indicators of acceptable indigenous vegetation change-only broad statements of intent. The salience of these statements is doubtful as they avoid any substantive measurement, specification of indicators or correlations of links between deer and vegetation. The perception of measurement is likely to be greater than the substance of evaluation. The outcome is to make DOC policy impervious to logical or scientific analysis. DOC decisions on allocation are not open to independent review. Without review or indicator contestability DOC avoids evaluation of its decisions making them non-accountable on a scientific or legal basis. Because DOC behaves in this way there is little opportunity for policy learning about the technical factors or social values of conservation and hunter interest groups. The information on acceptable modification is not generated. Proposed reform separates DOC's roles of advocacy of indigenous biota benefits and servicing of wild animal control. Provision for arbitration on acceptable deer densities is on specific and measurable objectives. The separation would clarify the trade-offs between conservation and economic objectives which are presently obscured. DOC should remain an advocate of indigenous biota while delivery of control services is placed within a separate agency. Of the three options evaluated, the preferred option is, that delivery of allocation functions be delegated to regional government. Regional government empowered by the Resource Management Act 1991, is better placed to integrate into strategic policy the multiple interests in wild deer and possible future impacts. Under the Act regional councils are better placed, if wild deer become a serious host of bovine tuberculosis to coordinate control with landowners, to combine wild deer control with existing regional vertebrate pest control and levy fees. If deer resource value increase, regional council are better placed to coordinate licensing of hunters within regional recreational plans and to promote tourist hunting ventures which are largely of a regional benefit. These commercial functions are beyond DOC's mandate. DOC while retaining its role of policy advice to the Minister is better placed to argue the national benefits and tradeoffs of deer habitat with other pressing national conservation priorities and be an unabashed advocate of conservation. In sum this reform would allow the public interest to be better met while providing the opportunity for integration of activities with a regional focus allied to the resource or pest values of deer