Significance?: NGO's and Areas of Significant Conservation Value (2011)

From GEOG397 Topics
Jump to: navigation, search

--Garca899 18:14, 3 October 2011 (NZDT)



Work in progress




Contents

Evaluate the environmental significance of non-governmental organisations in relation to the areas of significant conservation value on private land

Introduction

New Zealand has a large number of non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) that act in order to benefit the country in many ways, most of which are done away from the public forum. Non-governmental organisations play a huge role in the development of areas of significant conservation value on private land. The group has decided to look at a local, national and international context of the issue and thesignificant role these non-governmental organisations have on private land with significant environmental or conservation value. The group has used multiple case studies to show the impact these types of organisations have an impact on conservation. The examples we have used are New Zealand Fish and Game, The Yellow Eyed Penguin Trust, Orokonui Sanctuary, Karori Sanctuary, National Farmers Federation (Australia) and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The group believes that these organisations give a diverse cross-section of the types of organisations and the causes they are involved with on a local, national and international scale The objectives of this website are to outline the role Non-governmental organisations and the role they play in areas of significant conservation value on private land. How these organisations are managed, how funding is acquired and how effective these organisations are at achieving their goals will be examined in this website. The implications of what the organisations achieve will also be looked at.



Fish and Game, New Zealand

[1]Fishandgame.jpg

Fish and Game New Zealand is an organisation entirely funded by the sale of fishing and game licences. It has a number of key functions but its main priority is to maintain the environmental quality of the habitats in which freshwater fish and game-birds breed and live. Its key interest is in maintaining appropriate numbers of the fish and bird species that fall under its jurisdiction. This interest in species nurture means that Fish and Game NZ are in the business of conservation. Just to be clear: Fish and Game NZ do not deal in pest eradication (meaning that they are not in charge of deer hunting, rabbit shooting, possum shooting etc. They are only in charge of the hunting of ‘game birds’. There is a combination of both introduced and native species that fall under the term ‘game birds’ in New Zealand and the goal is NOT eradication but to maintain appropriate numbers for recreational ‘sport’ hunting. The same applies to fishing. Basically all of the money that Fish and Game NZ make goes directly into habitat conservation or restoration. However a lot also goes into the research that is required to know how many of a certain species remain and in what areas. The bag limits (number of animals allowed to be shot/caught) for each species can change year by year and place by place because of research Fish and Game NZ does into how many remain. So what does this mean for conservation on private land? Technically speaking all fresh-waterways are crown owned land but massive amounts of them are situated on or dissect privately owned land. Fish and Game NZ’s conservation efforts help to restore and maintain the health and cleanliness of these waterways indiscriminately (whether located in government or private land). Many native species (some endangered) in addition to game species benefit from these ongoing efforts. There is also the population control aspect to take into account. Whilst some game bird species are endemic to New Zealand (Paradise Shelduck, Grey Duck, Pukeko etc), most are introduced species. By far the most numerous game bird species is the Mallard Duck which is introduced and an incredibly adaptive and successful breeder in comparison to our species. It is not classified as a pest species simply because its numbers are successfully controlled by duck hunters each season. Without duck hunters buying the Fish and Game licence each season and hunting these birds their numbers would be out of control and they would be considered a pest species for agricultural degradation and displacement of native species.


The New Zealand Deer Stalkers Association (NZDA)

[2]Deerstalkers.jpg

The NZDA is basically an organisation that supports the promotion of hunting big game in New Zealand. It is proudly owned and run by hunters and is generally thought to represent the wants/needs of hunters in New Zealand. The NZDA supports a strong code of conduct that it believes all hunters should uphold and is famously very opposed to ‘heli-hunting’ (shooting game from helicopters) Despite what the name suggests, the NZDA is actually all about the hunting of any large wild mammal in New Zealand. This means any of the seven species of deer in NZ, tahr (a mountain goat), chamois (a mountain antelope) and to a lesser extent feral goats (not really a desirable trophy). The NZDA is seemingly not associated with pig hunting presumably because of the vastly different hunting style and issues involved. The NZDA is not actively a conservation organisation but as a side effect of what it promotes, conservation is achieved. When in large numbers deer cause massive degradation to New Zealand’s native flora. Many would argue that they (and all large introduced mammals) should be eradicated from New Zealand wilderness. The NZDA however has an interest in keeping the animals here in controlled numbers for recreational hunting (the reason they were introduced initially). Tourism operators have a similar view maintaining that there is massive money to be made from international tourists who pay to be guided on hunts or to heli-hunt. The NZDA has a more traditional approach to hunting and does not fully agree with the interests of tourist operators (specifically heli-hunting as mentioned earlier). In addition to this the NZDA does not have an interest in complete eradication of deer even though it is classified as a pest. Both of these organisations act a measure of pest/game control on both private and public land. Fish and Game NZ’s contribution is arguably more significant as it puts money into researching species numbers and developing natural ecosystems. However without the hunters neither organisation could function and costly measures would have to be adopted by either government and/or private land owners to control game/pest numbers. So the significance of these organisations cannot be overlooked with respect to conservation on private land.

--Garca899 18:14, 3 October 2011 (NZDT)== '''The New Zealand Deer Stalkers Association (NZDA)''' ==

--Garca899 18:14, 3 October 2011 (NZDT)<math>%^##&*#*</math>