The Committee acknowledges that its terms of reference state that the proposed council has a wider mandate than just hunting. It is therefore suggested that the new Council be called the New Zealand Game Animal Council.

Do you agree with the proposed name? If not what changes would you suggest?


The Committee is recommending that DOC would continue to identify, via public processes, priority areas where deer, tahr, chamois and wild pigs need to be actively controlled for conservation purposes. Outside of these areas the Game Animal Council could manage these species for hunting bene?ts.

Do you agree with the proposed direction? If not, please suggest any amendments you would like to see.


The Committee has recommended statements of purpose, objectives and both general and speci?c functions.

What if any modi?cations would you suggest to these?


The committee is recommending that the new council be a single national organisation as opposed to a regionally based organisation.

Do you agree with this recommendation? If not, what alternative structure do you believe would better suit the functions suggested?


Taking into account the diversity of interests in deer, tahr chamois and wild pigs, and lack of an identi?ed constituency, a council of 17 members appointed by the Minister of Conservation following recommendations from organisations and sectors is recommended.

Do you agree with the proposed range of stakeholder representation? If not, what changes would you suggest?


The legislative designation of deer, tahr, chamois, and wild pigs needs to re?ect different management aims and outcomes. The following designations are recommended:
- Wild animals
- Game animals (subdivided into wild game animals, estate managed game animals and farmed game animals)

Do you agree with these categories? If not what would you suggest?


A number of funding options are recommended by the Committee. We are recommending that permits to hunt on public land remain free of charge but are also suggesting a registered hunter scheme.

What are your views on these recommendations? Do you support the concept of partially funding the GAC through a registered hunter programme and if so how much would you be prepared to pay annually?


Do you have any further comments or suggestions?