Wapiti review decision baffles Te Anau reader

I CANNOT comprehend why Forest & Bird are applying for a judicial review in an attempt to have the iconic Fiordland wapiti herd exterminated.

For reasons only known to them, they are completely ignoring the work that the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation undertakes in the wapiti area with predator control giving whio, kea, kiwi and other native birds the chance to survive and thrive, culling to manage deer numbers, with meat being donated to food banks, maintaining tracks and huts, all this at no cost to the taxpayer. This allows Doc to spend elsewhere across the vast conservation estate.

Ideology versus reality and common sense as to what can actually be achieved working with nature.

In various places throughout New Zealand, red deer, wild pigs, goats, and wallaby numbers are getting out of hand. Forest & Bird’s time could be better spent doing something constructive towards addressing these issues rather than targeting wapiti. It appears there is no cost of living crisis with Forest & Bird, or perhaps they are trying to impose financial ruin on the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation by dragging them through the court system to achieve what?

I feel there needs to be a change in the legislation to protect wapiti; they deserve it.

Peter Dolamore

Te Anau

[Nicola Toki, Forest & Bird chief executive, replies: Forest & Bird has a constitutional role to preserve and protect the indigenous flora and fauna and the natural features of New Zealand.

We welcome the mahi undertaken by the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and other organisations which contribute to protecting New Zealand’s most precious places. Hunting is part of the toolbox in tackling the outofcontrol numbers of browsing animals.

However, hunting needs to take place in a way that is consistent with the law. That is why we lodged the judicial review. Fiordland National Park forms part of Te Wāhipounamu – South West New Zealand World Heritage Area.

Forest & Bird considers that the agreement is unlawful for a number of reasons. As the matter is before the court, it is not possible to go into detail about the case. However, we disagree that the judicial review is an attempt to exterminate the wapiti herd. The judicial review is a challenge to what we consider is an unlawful agreement. We feel it is essential that the Department of Conservation supports the hunting community, in this instance the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, by ensuring that any agreement it enters in to is in keeping with the law.

Aurora options

MAYOR Jules Radich has decided to give the people the mandate to decide on the sale of their ‘‘family silver’', Aurora Energy. This will give the impression that his decision to sell Aurora to pay off debt and make investments looks democratically devised, but how will ratepayers’ submissions make a difference to an already decided outcome?

Graeme Jeffrey's letter (ODT 30.3.24) letter and Scott Willis' article (The Mix,

30.3.24) need to be studied in full by the mayor and councillors and rationalised to benefit the people in Dunedin, Central Otago and Queenstown.

The decision to sell Aurora Energy, ‘‘the main contributor to DCHL's profit hike’’ (ODT, 26.3.24) would be welcomed by overseas investors as well as the big corporations, who will be rubbing their hands with glee.

What are the options? Sell Aurora, pay down debt and make investments (the sky will be the limit for energy dependents’ power bills); do not sell Aurora and keep the main profitmaking DCHL performer; make an indepth study of the wellrun Waitaki Board; or explore what else could be sold to pay down debt.

Kathleen Moore

Alexandra .....................................