Opinion piece by Peter Trolove
“The freshwater reforms aim to simplify and streamline freshwater farm plans, remove unnecessary complexity, and give more flexibility to deliver outcomes over time, especially vital in regions like ours that rely heavily on irrigation.”
—Hunting and Fishing Minister James Meager
Hostile takeover?
Definition: A hostile takeover is a type of acquisition where a company (the acquirer) takes control of another company (the target company) without the approval or consent of the target company.
Background
“Fish and Game was established in 1990 under the Conservation Act 1987, evolving from acclimatisation societies dating back to the 1860s. Fish and Game manages freshwater sports fishing (including trout, salmon, perch and tench) and game bird hunting (including ducks, black swan, pheasants, and quail) in New Zealand, with the exception of the Taupō Trout Fishery and the Chatham Islands, both managed by DOC”.
My take
It was the acclimatisation societies that imported and managed our freshwater fish and game birds since the 1860s. In essence the acclimatisation societies “owned” our game species, which resided in our freshwater and on our public lands.
In my view Fish & Game’s main assets are the recreational fisheries that reside in water that is publicly owned.
There has been 165 years of continuous “customary use” of New Zealand’s freshwater by our recreational fisheries.
Our unique egalitarian access to hunting and fishing is embedded in New Zealand’s culture and is envied by the rest of the world.
Government frustration with the independence of acclimatisation societies led to the government creating Fish and Game NZ with statutory authority under Part 5 A of the Conservation Act 1987 to replace acclimatisation societies. The functions of F&G largely replicate the role of the preceding acclimatisation societies. [S. 26 Q Functions of Fish and Game Councils]
The Minister and Councils appear distracted by administrative imperatives and have lost sight of the primary purpose of Fish & Game, which is the management of New Zealand’s recreational resources, our fish & game, and the active management and advocacy for the habitats essential for their survival.
Since 1990, the “ownership” of recreational fish is less clear, although I would argue they remain under the collective ownership of license holders rather than the State.
With Fish and Game having more than 160 years of existence going back to acclimatisation societies, I suggest the ownership of the fish is not held by the government, nor should they be considered mahinga kai, but rather remain the property of all licensed anglers thanks to the pioneers with the vision to create this taonga for all New Zealanders.
Bringing F&G under the control of DOC is confounded by DOC’s ideological view that our recreational fish are a “pest”. F&G must distance itself from this threat.
DOC has proved to be a poor manager of native fish
Further, in breach of the Conservation Act 1986, DOC has proved to be singularly inept in its management of New Zealand’s indigenous freshwater fish.
The once abundant ecologically critical keystone species of native fish, Stokell’s Smelt, geographically restricted to the lower reaches of several of Canterbury’s larger braided rivers, is now virtually extinct.
Stokell’s Smelt with artificial imitation
It is the disappearance of Stokell’s Smelt that has destroyed our sea trout fishery.
Stokell’s Smelt until recently made up by far the largest fishery by mass in several of Canterbury’s largest braided rivers.
This was the food web that underpinned the ecology of the hapua zones of these rivers.
(Hapua is a term that collectively includes the tidal braids, lagoon and
DOC had no management plan for this species having conducted its last survey in 1980/81, forty years before the belated survey of 2020/21 which failed to identify the presence of Stokell’s Smelt among the modest number of captured Common Smelt.
The Minister’s assertions
The Minister for Hunting and Fishing makes the following claims without explaining how they will come about:
The reforms will make several key changes, including:
· Clarifying the roles and responsibilities so that regional Fish & Game councils focus on delivering hunting and fishing opportunities on the ground, with the New Zealand Council responsible for administrative tasks and policies.
· Shifting to a nationalised fee collection system to reduce double handling of licence fees and ensuring funding follows the demand on the resource.
· Making more licence holders eligible to vote and stand in Fish & Game elections and requiring councillors to comply with professional standards.
· Requiring Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in
· Requiring a national policy around advocacy and restricting court proceedings to within that policy.
A
The last two bullet points appear to contradict S 26Q of the Conservation Act 1987.
The Minister’s confidential notes raise a number of red flags:
13 Fish and Game are not operating or governing the Fish and Game resource as well as it could be, resulting in
reviews and audits have found that the organisation is dysfunctional (poor decision-
making, governance, and accountability practices, and unnecessary discord with other
resource users like farmers), and that the legislative settings are no longer fit for purpose.
39 I seek agreement for Cabinet to delegate
Regulatory Impact Statement
48 The Department of Conservation’s Regulatory Impact Assessment Panel has reviewed
the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). The Panel considers that the RIS partially meets
the Quality Assurance criteria. The requirements were not fully met because of the
limited engagement undertaken to support this proposal. However, the constraints and
limitations have been well described.
52 My proposal to strengthen the requirement for Fish and Game to have regard to nonhunting interests will better manage the impact on other resources and users of the
habitat. For example, farming, aviation, conservation, and iwi and hapū interests will
require more active consideration in Fish and Game
Consultation
Agency consultation
56 The following Agencies were consulted in preparing this Cabinet Paper: Department of
Internal Affairs, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Primary Industries, Office of
Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana — Te Tari Whakatau, and Ministry of Māori
Development – Te Puni Kōkiri are broadly comfortable with this paper.
57 The following Agencies were informed: The Treasury, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, Public Service Commission, Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet, and Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment.
60 Stakeholders and Treaty partners will have an opportunity to provide views on the
policies in this paper and contribute during the select committee consideration of the Bill.
I anticipate strong interest from Fish and Game councillors during this stage, and some
likely interest from Treaty partners and other key stakeholders such as farmers.
5.5 strengthen checks and balances to improve accountabilities and transparency and
provide adequate backstops so that the responsible Minister can intervene as
necessary in exceptional circumstances
Minister wears several conflicting hats
My concern is that James Meager has multiple ministerial roles and is attuned to the economic libertarian ideology that defines this coalition government. Ideology that puts “property rights” and short term economic gains ahead of the environment.
What of the “property rights” of anglers?
Minister for the South Island’s conflicting irrigation agenda
A
This article, published for a farmer audience, states: “The freshwater reforms aim to simplify and streamline freshwater farm plans, remove unnecessary complexity, and give more flexibility to deliver outcomes over time, especially vital in regions like ours that rely heavily on irrigation.”
Recent irrigation development has wiped out both the nationally and internationally outstanding salmon and
In 2013 the RWCO was amended to enable the abstraction of 70 m3/sec of water from this iconic braided River. The additional abstractions have largely destroyed the values the RWCO was enacted to protect.
The Rakaia was the last great unmodified South Island salmon river to succumb to the pressures of irrigation.
The Rakaia River had a historical mean flow of 201 m3/second, with an average flow of 176 m3/second. The monthly minimum flows in the RWCO range from 139 to 90 m3/second.
The 2013 RWCO Amendment allows “qualifying water” to be stored in Lake Coleridge for release to contracted irrigators at times when full irrigation restrictions apply in the lower river.
The RWCO has been
The mean flows in the lower river fall to around 50 to 80 m3/sec. At flows below 50 m3/second partial closure of the mouth begins.
With closure the lagoon fills and sediment drops out to choke the tidal braids and lagoon.
Large amounts of sediment are trapped by the algae that now coat the stones on the bed of the lower braids thanks to water abstraction and water storage “flat lining” the once variable “environmental floods” that prior to massive irrigation takes would regularly scour the braid beds
It is only since 2014 to 2015 when the CPW and BCI irrigation schemes ramped up that sustained low flows began to impact badly on the ecology of the Lower Rakaia River.
An era gone: A
A total of just 7 salmon were weighed in for the 2025 Rakaia Salmon Fishing competition
Issues for Anglers
1. Lack of consultation
A major criticism in writing this piece is due to the lack of consultation and lack of information given to the ordinary license holders who fund Fish and Game from the councillors we have elected to work in license holders interests.
We are all aware of instances where councillors appear to work in their own
All license holders should vote on the proposed reforms before the reforms are passed into law.
2. Separation from DOC
Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation make poor bedfellows, Fish and Game are tasked with managing recreational freshwater fish while DOC are applying themselves to removing them.
3. Advocacy and Irrigation
We have learned to our cost that irrigation & water storage greatly diminish our recreational fisheries.
In Canterbury many once passionate anglers no longer bother to buy a fishing license. With virtually no salmon and few trout left in the Rakaia River, North Canterbury Fish and Game risks becoming irrelevant.
“A $56.4 million Government investment in water storage and irrigation will be “a gamechanger” for Canterbury farmers, the Associate Regional Development Minister says.”
The present Coalition Government is riding roughshod over existing environmental protections and is presently replacing the RMA with legislation that will emphasise property rights.
The rights of the environment, and our ability to defend the environment has been targeted by the Coalition government. Hundreds of positions have been slashed from the Ministry for the Environment. The Ministry for the Environment is no longer a source of funding for environmental advocacy, as this government ended the Environmental Legal Assistance fund, which had been in place through different governments for 20 years to allow small local groups environmental advocacy.
The $56 million handout to 170 farmers, in combination with
Are anglers not water users, too?
4. Will Fish and Game remain able to effectively advocate for freshwater?
Is Meager truly on the side of anglers or is his bill simply a ruse to “unclog” further freshwater for irrigation?
The proposed reforms are a shift from regional to national control.
The proposed reforms increase the powers of the Minister to replace and appoint Fish & Game councillors.
The proposed reforms give the Minister final authority over the National Council as to whether or not to take court action.
The proposed reforms embed upland hunting preserves
While Ministers have never exercised their powers to control Fish and Game, it is a very big ask license holders to trust this minister and his Coalition colleagues, based on their clear signal to prioritise narrow economic interests over ecosystem and public health.
Dr Peter Trolove
NZFFA Executive Member