By Nicky Snoyink, Forest & Bird Canterbury/West Coast Regional Manager
If you have overly been lucky unbearable to visit the Southern Alps tall zone, you will be familiar with some of the 750 native tall plants species, subspecies and varieties and associated native animals that live there.[1] You may have plane seen a Himalayan tahr or twenty. Recent controversy over tahr tenancy prompts me to take a closer squint at just what is at stake in the tall zone.
In his typesetting Above the Treeline: A Nature Guide to Tall New Zealand Sir Alan Mark describes New Zealands no-go tall plant communities equal to altitude.
Low tall vegetation (the vegetation just whilom the small-time line) includes a sequence of
A grasshopper on a mountain daisy
- mixed snow tussock scrub
- snow tussock herb field
- herb field characterised by mega-herbs
- snow tussock grassland in the drier regions
- bogs, swamps, fens and flushes;
and upper tall vegetation includes
- fellfields dominated by stable rock
- screes where surface waddle is loose
- tundra like cocoon vegetation, and
- snow wall vegetation, where snow persists late into the summer.
Mount Cook buttercup
Along with a variety of tussock species, the tall plant communities contain many other species
- at least 19 species of buttercups
- more than 50 species of mountain daisies
- 16 species of vegetable sheep and mat daises,
- 38 Spear-grass species; and
- South Island edelweiss.[2]
Many of these species are theirs to New Zealand which ways they are found nowhere else on the planet. Many of these species are moreover highly palatable to tahr, an introduced large goat-like creature native to the mighty Himalayas.
Those tall plant communities are habitat and supplies sources for native insects including wetas, spiders, lizards, moths and grasshoppers. New Zealand has 15 species of grasshopper, 12 of which are found in the mountains! [3]
Kea
Some insects have a chemically ramified relationship with the plants they eat, and wilt dependent on a single type of plant, like for example the Speargrass weevil.[4] Specially well-timed tall birds like Kea (nationally threatened) and waddle wren (endangered) moreover segregate this tall environment as home. Mark notes that in 2008, while 75% of tall plants were considered not threatened, scrutinizingly 20% were naturally uncommon, and the remaining 5% span the range from nationally hair-trigger (1.3%) to data skimpy (1.1%). [5] Studies show that kea vacated eat over 200 variegated varieties of natural foods including a wide range of unprepossessing and vegetable matter.[6]
Bristly tall carrot
Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland Tai Poutini National Parks have been protected for their intrinsic worth and for the preservation of the native plants and animals. Subject to that preservation, the public have self-rule of entry and wangle to the parks, so that they may receive in full measure the inspiration, enjoyment, recreation, and other benefits that may be derived from mountains, forests, sounds, seacoasts, lakes, rivers, and other natural features.[7]
The current National Parks Act is a rewrite of the 1952 National Parks Act, which sets out the priority principle of preservation in perpetuity of natural features.[8] Earlier versions of the Act contained a similar principle and unquestionably threatened imprisonment for removing plants or animals, and for unauthorised shooting of animals with a gun in national parks![9]
Himalayan tahr were introduced to New Zealand at Mt Cook in 1904 and have since established tastefulness populations over well-nigh 7000 square kilometres of the Southern Alps. They were completely or partially protected until 1930, and then considered pests. From 1937 onwards tahr were culled by Government employees. DOC inherited management of tahr and decided it needed to undertake tenancy of the animals to fulfil its conservation obligations. As it was not possible to eradicate tahr from New Zealand, the Departments policy is to ensure that hunting and other tenancy pressure is maintained at levels which provide protection to natural values. [10]
The 1993 HimalayanTahr Tenancy Plan (the HTCP) identifies the tahr feral range and sets a total limit of 10,000 animals. The tahr feral range includes a stretch of the Southern Alps from the Wanaka/Haast Highway north to the Rakaia/Whitcombe Rivers. The tahr feral range includes national parks, other public conservation land (PCL), Crown Pastoral lease lands administered by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and private land.[11]
The HTCP describes seven management units within the tahr feral range that contain limits for tahr populations based on management goals to protect conservation values.[12] The Aoraki/Mount Cook & Tai Poutini Wstland National Parks are located within management unit 4 (MU 4) and make up approximately 20% of the tahr feral range. MU4 has a target density of zero tahr and a management goal of executive the population to the lowest practicable level. This is resulting with the national park management plans and the National Parks Act, to ensure natural values are protected and preserved. The HTCP has remained unchallenged since 1993.
Each year DOC should establish an operational plan to tenancy the tahr population within HTCP limits. Prior to 2018 it is unclear to what extent this had been occurring. In 2018, the New Zealand Conservation Validity raised concerns with the Department well-nigh exploding populations of tahr. Initial reports stated that the tahr population on PCL (including national parks) vacated could be anything between 26,000 and 45,000 and there were concerns well-nigh the level of impact (grazing and trampling) that this number of tahr was having on native tall plant communities. Species particularly vulnerable are tussocks, some buttercup species, mountain daises and speargrass. There are concerns that some plant communities are stuff pushed to a point where without urgent intervention recovery will be slow, if ever.
Despite tahr tenancy efforts (which are offset by breeding), the latest monitoring report confirms the tahr population on PCL was unscientific to be approximately 35,000.[13] This number does not include tahr on private land or LINZ land within the feral range, as this land is yet to be surveyed. So, the total tahr population is likely to be plane higher than 35,000.
Forest & Bird is a member of the Tahr Tenancy Plan Implementation Liaison Group (TCPILG). This group was established to teach DOC on yearly tahr tenancy requirements as per the HTCP. The TCPILG is administered by DOC and members include wild unprepossessing recover operators, recreational hunting, commercial guided hunting and tahr farming interests, conservation workbench and conservation validity members. Members of the Game Unprepossessing Council moreover attend. FMC is a member and Forest & Bird is the sole self-sustaining conservation voice. It is understood that prior to August 2018 this group had not met for some time.
Since the TCPILG meetings restarted in August 2018, Forest & Bird has attended but became increasingly frustrated by the dominance of hunting interests and the capitulation by DOC expressly to some outspoken commercial hunting interests.
In March 2020, Forest & Bird made a declaration to the Upper Court on the 2019/2020 tahr operational plan on the understructure that the operational plan did not comply with the statutory requirements, by seeking to leave manful tahr in the national parks and considering of its transitional nature which provided no conviction that the numbers in the HTCP would overly be met.
Subsequently, DOC produced the 2020/2021 operational plan of which Forest & Bird could support some elements, notably the provision to stop the practice of not targeting manful tahr in the national parks and the increased effort (250 helicopter hours up from 80 the previous year) within the feral range. However we remained concerned well-nigh helicopter hours as a measure of effort considering it is not well-spoken how this relates to very tahr numbers controlled.
In July 2020 the NZ Tahr Foundation, a joint of hunting interests, sought an injunction versus the 2020/2021 operational plan considering they believed manful tahr in national parks should not be controlled by DOC (despite statutory requirements to aim for zero density of introduced animals in national parks). They moreover argued that the proposed level of official tenancy would decimate the tahr hunting industry.
The Upper Court visualization on the NZ Tahr Foundation’s specimen instructed the Department to not remoter wait tahr tenancy and to use half of the 2020/2021 operational plan effort where it saw fit, immediately. The visualization moreover stated that there was no reason to not target all tahr in the national parks. DOC were criticised for the lack of consultation on the 2020/2021 operational plan and have been instructed to undertake remoter talks with the TCPLIG to discuss where and how the remaining effort will be used to transition towards the legally unliable population of 10,000 tahr.
In light of this visualization Forest & Bird is reviewing its own Upper Court proceedings. The 2020/2021 operational plan addresses some of our concerns. We recognise the need for largest monitoring and understanding of the impacts of grazing and trampling of these large goats on fragile tall ecosystems and will be contributing to the conversation well-nigh how this will squint in future.
No one is seeking to eliminate the tahr population completely. By law this is not possible, a total population of 10,000 tahr is allowed. No one objects to the hunter who wants to take the kids out to teach them how to venery and harvest some organic wild meat for the dinner table, in fact Forest & Bird encourage increasingly of that and wed strongly recommend taking Sir Alan Marks typesetting on your next adventure. Hunting and wild unprepossessing recovery is recognised as the primary ways of tahr tenancy and then yearly official tenancy by the Department needs to happen where HTCP limits are not met.
Forest & Bird strongly believes that the national parks are refuges for native species, first and foremost. The protect and preserve natural values prerogative is unmistakably set out in the National Parks Act, the national park management plans and the HTCP itself. We need certainty that the national park natural values are protected, expressly the full suite of native tall plants and animals in the full sense [14] and that they are not sacrificed for any special group of users. This is a marrow line for Forest & Bird.
References:
[1] Mark, A.F. (2012) Whilom the Treeline: A Nature Guide to Tall New Zealand
[2] Mark pp.36-46
[3] Shaun Barnett. Head in the Clouds. Accessed 8 July 2020 at https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/heads-in-the-clouds/
[4] Mark p438 and Speargrass weevil Accessed 8 July 2020 https://teara.govt.nz/en/insects-overview/page-9
[5] Mark, A.F. Whilom the Treeline: A Nature Guide to Tall New Zealand p.14
[6] Kea Conservation Trust Kea nutrition accessed 14 July 2020 at https://www.keaconservation.co.nz/kea/kea-diet/
[7] The National Parks Act 1980 s 4 and National Park Management Plans for Aoraki and Westland
[8] National Parks Act 1980 s4 & National Parks Act 1952 s 3(2)b)
[9] Public Reserves, Domains, and National Parks Act 1928 s 83 (1) (e)
[10] Parkes, J.P. and C. Thomson, C. 1995 Management of Thar. Report for DOC
[11] Himalayan Tahr Tenancy Plan (HTCP) 1993 Accessed 8 July 2020 at https://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/science-publications/conservation-publications/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/himalayan-thar-control-plan-1993/ pp.23-24
[12] HTCP 1993 pp25-31
[13] Ramsey, D.S.L. and Forsyth D.M. September 2019. Estimates of Himalaya Tahr Abundance. Accessed 8 July 2020 at https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/things-to-do/hunting/what-to-hunt/tahr/tahr-control-operations/
[14] Protect in relation to a resource, ways its maintenance, so far as is practicable, in its current state; but includes
(a) its restoration to some former state; and
(b) its augmentation, enhancement, or expansion
Preservation, in relation to a resource, ways the maintenance, so far as is practicable, of its intrinsic values
