Pukaha Mt Bruce
Bridget Percy made this Official Information request to Eugenie Sage
The request was successful.
From: Bridget Percy
Dear Eugenie Sage,
Due to the conflict of interest of Reg Kemper being a Pukaha Mt Bruce Board member I trust that someone other than Mr Kemper will respond to this request.
1. Rabbit infestation
Despite Reg Kemper stating in an OIA dated 26 November, 2018 that 17,000 rabbits had been shot in the buffer zone around Pukaha, the farm at the northern-eastern end of Pukaha on SH2 now has such chronic rabbit damage that hundreds of rabbit holes are visible from the road:
a) What compensation are DOC and the Pukaha Mt Bruce Board giving local farmers for the cost of ammunition and the hundreds of hours they have put into controlling rabbits (a problem caused, and compounded by, Pukaha’s pest control) and for the considerable impact on farm production (and therefore financial return) of their farms?
b) In preparation for New Zealand becoming predator-free by 2050 will the NZ Government be investigating the financial and environmental impacts (including the high number of deaths of native birds due to predation as well as the devastation of the surrounding farmland) of projects like Pukaha’s to help avoiding replicating these mistakes elsewhere?
2. Kaka Numbers
Despite Reg Kemper’s estimate from Pukaha staff that there are 150 kaka at Pukaha Mt Bruce, visitors before the Covid-19 lock-down were still reporting just a handful of kaka at the 3pm feed and Pukaha staff were telling the public that there were many more male than female kaka in the Pukaha Forest as the females ‘fight to the death to protect their young’.
a. How many (monitored or unmonitored) female kaka have died protecting their nests from predators at Pukaha Mt Bruce and how many juvenile kaka have died due to losing their mothers in this way?
b. Why, when their absence is so apparent, are kaka not being monitored again and why are DOC and Pukaha staff still refusing to complete a ‘kaka census’?
c. In an OIA dated 4 April, 2019 Reg Kemper stated that no monitored kaka had been lost during aerial 1080 baiting however in an earlier OIA dated 27 November 2018 he had stated that kaka at Pukaha are no longer monitored. Please explain how DOC and Pukaha Mt Bruce staff are being held accountable for kaka numbers (and deaths) if all monitoring tags have been removed.
d. Are more 1080 drops planned for the Pukaha Forest and if so, what will stop the remaining kaka from eating the baits dropped in their habitat?
3. Kiwi Numbers
a. Please confirm the current number of kiwi (monitored and unmonitored) at Pukaha Mt Bruce (in the Pukaha Forest, in enclosures and in the kiwi house).
b. Please confirm the total number of kiwi released into the Pukaha Forest each year since 2003.
c. Please indicate how many (monitored or unmonitored) kiwi have died in the Pukaha Forest in the past 18 months.
d. Please confirm that despite media reports of a ‘bumper kiwi breeding season’ at Pukaha that only three eggs have been brought in from an enclosure (and none from the Pukaha Forest) to hatch this season (despite approximately 152 kiwi being brought into, or bred at, Pukaha since 2003; approximately 120 kiwi having been released into the Pukaha forest in that time; and bearing in mind that no kiwi bred at Pukaha have ever been translocated from Pukaha to other areas of New Zealand).
e. Please confirm that the three kiwi eggs brought in from the enclosure to hatch this season (MtB107, MtB 108 and MtB 109) are all off-spring of Manawa and Mapuna which would mean that Pukaha just has one breeding pair at present.
f. Are the two female kiwi which laid eggs in the Pukaha Forest last year dead, or are Pukaha Mt Bruce unable to confirm that as they weren’t monitored?
g. Please explain why the Pukaha Mt Bruce Facebook page is reporting that they have hatched 24 eggs without clarifying that only 3 of those eggs (TBC) were from Pukaha and the rest of them were brought in from other areas (such as Maungatautari) to be hatched.
h. In an OIA dated 18 January, 2019 DOC stated that the Pukaha Mt Bruce Board’s ultimate goal is to prevent 100% of adult kiwi deaths. Please explain how this success will be measured when adult kiwi are not monitored.
i. Was a kiwi call count done in 2019? If so, what were the results?
j. Is a kiwi call count planned for 2020 and if so when will this take place?
4. DOC agreements with Private Charities
In November 2019 Pukaha’s General Manager Emily Court contacted the employer of a member of the public regarding that person’s concerns about Pukaha Mt Bruce which they had expressed on social media. It appeared that Ms Court’s intent was to attempt to interfere with this person’s right to the freedom of expression and to bring them into disrepute with their employer. Despite legal action being taken by the complainant and the Pukaha Board ‘tendering an apology’ the Board declined to settle the matter fully with an apology letter on Pukaha letterhead and by covering the complainant’s legal costs; citing the Board’s ‘not-for-profit’ status for this.
a) Does DOC condone attempts by employees of its charitable trust partners to silence the public when they express genuine concerns about wildlife losses at DOC partnership sites such as Pukaha Mt Bruce?
b) Does the DOC/Pukaha Mt Bruce partnership agreement contain a clause about a member or employee of either party bringing the partnership into disrepute?
c) Does Charitable status in New Zealand provide charitable organisations’ members and employees exemption from the same moral and ethical obligations in their dealings with the NZ public as are expected of other public and private businesses in this country?
Yours faithfully,
Bridget Percy
From: E Sage (MIN)
Eugenie Sage
Tçnâ koe
Thank you for your email.
We wanted to let you know straight away that the efforts we’re all making
across Government and Parliament to manage and respond to COVID-19 may
mean that it will take a bit longer than normal to get back to you.
If you’re writing to ask for advice about COVID-19, we recommend you first
visit [1]www.covid19.govt.nz, where you can find all the latest
information associated with the Government’s response.
If you’re not sure who to contact for help about COVID-19, call the free
government helpline on 0800 779 997 (8am–1am, 7 days a week). If you have
symptoms of COVID-19, call your GP before you visit. Or call Healthline on
0800 358 5453 (or +64 9 358 5453 for international SIMS).
Thank you for contacting the office of Hon Eugenie Sage MP, Minister for
Conservation, Minister of Land Information and Associate Minister for the
Environment.
The Minister considers all correspondence to be important and thanks you
personally for taking the time to write. However as she receives a
significant volume of correspondence, and it is not always possible to
provide a personalised reply to every email:
· If your message is for Minister Sage’s advice, or if you have
copied your email to another Minister and/or Member of Parliament with
more appropriate portfolio responsibilities, then this will be noted.
· If you have invited Minister Sage to an event then a member of
staff may contact you for more information.
· If you have made a request for official information then this will
be manged in accordance with the provisions of the Official Information
Act 1982, which may include transfer to a more relevant Minister or
agency.
· If you are a journalist then your request will be passed on to
Minister Sage’s Press Secretary.
Ngâ mihi
Office of Hon Eugenie Sage
Minister of Conservation | Minister for Land Information | Associate
Minister for the Environment
6R Bowen House, Parliament Buildings | Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160
| New Zealand
E: [Eugenie Sage request email]
This email communication is confidential between the sender and the
recipient. The intended recipient may not distribute it without the
permission of the sender. If this email is received in error, it remains
confidential and you may not copy, retain or distribute it in any manner.
Please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and all attachments. Thank you.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’
portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or
constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list:
date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the
meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the
Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will
be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet
with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be
released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a
private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the
provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy
considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a
copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to
be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of
your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the
release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the
sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at
[2]https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.covid19.govt.nz/
2. https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
From: E Sage (MIN)
Eugenie Sage
OIA20-034
Tēnā koe Bridget Percy
On behalf of Hon Eugenie Sage, I acknowledge your email of 19 April 2020 (included below) in which you submitted an Official Information Act request.
Minister Sage is considering your request in accordance with the Act, and you can expect a response by 18 May 2020.
Ngā mihi
Office of Hon Eugenie Sage
Minister of Conservation | Minister for Land Information | Associate Minister for the Environment
6R Bowen House, Parliament Buildings | Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
P: 04 817 8727
E: [Eugenie Sage request email]
This email communication is confidential between the sender and the recipient. The intended recipient may not distribute it without the permission of the sender. If this email is received in error, it remains confidential and you may not copy, retain or distribute it in any manner. Please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and all attachments. Thank you.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’ portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list: date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget Percy [mailto:[FOI #12651 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 19 April 2020 10:16 AM
To: E Sage (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Pukaha Mt Bruce
Dear Eugenie Sage,
Due to the conflict of interest of Reg Kemper being a Pukaha Mt Bruce Board member I trust that someone other than Mr Kemper will respond to this request.
1.Rabbit infestation
Despite Reg Kemper stating in an OIA dated 26 November, 2018 that 17,000 rabbits had been shot in the buffer zone around Pukaha, the farm at the northern-eastern end of Pukaha on SH2 now has such chronic rabbit damage that hundreds of rabbit holes are visible from the road:
a)What compensation are DOC and the Pukaha Mt Bruce Board giving local farmers for the cost of ammunition and the hundreds of hours they have put into controlling rabbits (a problem caused, and compounded by, Pukaha’s pest control) and for the considerable impact on farm production (and therefore financial return) of their farms?
b)In preparation for New Zealand becoming predator-free by 2050 will the NZ Government be investigating the financial and environmental impacts (including the high number of deaths of native birds due to predation as well as the devastation of the surrounding farmland) of projects like Pukaha’s to help avoiding replicating these mistakes elsewhere?
2.Kaka Numbers
Despite Reg Kemper’s estimate from Pukaha staff that there are 150 kaka at Pukaha Mt Bruce, visitors before the Covid-19 lock-down were still reporting just a handful of kaka at the 3pm feed and Pukaha staff were telling the public that there were many more male than female kaka in the Pukaha Forest as the females ‘fight to the death to protect their young’.
a.How many (monitored or unmonitored) female kaka have died protecting their nests from predators at Pukaha Mt Bruce and how many juvenile kaka have died due to losing their mothers in this way?
b.Why, when their absence is so apparent, are kaka not being monitored again and why are DOC and Pukaha staff still refusing to complete a ‘kaka census’?
c.In an OIA dated 4 April, 2019 Reg Kemper stated that no monitored kaka had been lost during aerial 1080 baiting however in an earlier OIA dated 27 November 2018 he had stated that kaka at Pukaha are no longer monitored. Please explain how DOC and Pukaha Mt Bruce staff are being held accountable for kaka numbers (and deaths) if all monitoring tags have been removed.
d.Are more 1080 drops planned for the Pukaha Forest and if so, what will stop the remaining kaka from eating the baits dropped in their habitat?
3.Kiwi Numbers
a.Please confirm the current number of kiwi (monitored and unmonitored) at Pukaha Mt Bruce (in the Pukaha Forest, in enclosures and in the kiwi house).
b.Please confirm the total number of kiwi released into the Pukaha Forest each year since 2003.
c.Please indicate how many (monitored or unmonitored) kiwi have died in the Pukaha Forest in the past 18 months.
d.Please confirm that despite media reports of a ‘bumper kiwi breeding season’ at Pukaha that only three eggs have been brought in from an enclosure (and none from the Pukaha Forest) to hatch this season (despite approximately 152 kiwi being brought into, or bred at, Pukaha since 2003; approximately 120 kiwi having been released into the Pukaha forest in that time; and bearing in mind that no kiwi bred at Pukaha have ever been translocated from Pukaha to other areas of New Zealand).
e.Please confirm that the three kiwi eggs brought in from the enclosure to hatch this season (MtB107, MtB 108 and MtB 109) are all off-spring of Manawa and Mapuna which would mean that Pukaha just has one breeding pair at present.
f.Are the two female kiwi which laid eggs in the Pukaha Forest last year dead, or are Pukaha Mt Bruce unable to confirm that as they weren’t monitored?
g.Please explain why the Pukaha Mt Bruce Facebook page is reporting that they have hatched 24 eggs without clarifying that only 3 of those eggs (TBC) were from Pukaha and the rest of them were brought in from other areas (such as Maungatautari) to be hatched.
h.In an OIA dated 18 January, 2019 DOC stated that the Pukaha Mt Bruce Board’s ultimate goal is to prevent 100% of adult kiwi deaths. Please explain how this success will be measured when adult kiwi are not monitored.
i.Was a kiwi call count done in 2019? If so, what were the results?
j.Is a kiwi call count planned for 2020 and if so when will this take place?
4.DOC agreements with Private Charities
In November 2019 Pukaha’s General Manager Emily Court contacted the employer of a member of the public regarding that person’s concerns about Pukaha Mt Bruce which they had expressed on social media. It appeared that Ms Court’s intent was to attempt to interfere with this person’s right to the freedom of expression and to bring them into disrepute with their employer. Despite legal action being taken by the complainant and the Pukaha Board ‘tendering an apology’ the Board declined to settle the matter fully with an apology letter on Pukaha letterhead and by covering the complainant’s legal costs; citing the Board’s ‘not-for-profit’ status for this.
a)Does DOC condone attempts by employees of its charitable trust partners to silence the public when they express genuine concerns about wildlife losses at DOC partnership sites such as Pukaha Mt Bruce?
b)Does the DOC/Pukaha Mt Bruce partnership agreement contain a clause about a member or employee of either party bringing the partnership into disrepute?
c)Does Charitable status in New Zealand provide charitable organisations’ members and employees exemption from the same moral and ethical obligations in their dealings with the NZ public as are expected of other public and private businesses in this country?
Yours faithfully,
Bridget Percy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #12651 email]
Is [Eugenie Sage request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Eugenie Sage? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
From: E Sage (MIN)
Eugenie Sage
OIA20-034
Tēnā koe Bridget Percy
I refer to your Official Information Act request of 19 April 2020 regarding Pukaha Mt Bruce (copied below).
We have transferred your request to the Department of Conservation as the information to which your request relates is believed to be more closely connected with the functions of the department. In these circumstances, we are required by section 14 of the Official Information Act to transfer your request.
You will hear further from the Department concerning your request. If needed you can contact them at: [email address].
Nāku iti noa, nā
Office of Hon Eugenie Sage
Minister of Conservation | Minister for Land Information |
Associate Minister for the Environment
6R Bowen House | Parliament Buildings | Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160 | P: 04 817 8727
E: [Eugenie Sage request email]
This email communication is confidential between the sender and the recipient. The intended recipient may not distribute it without the permission of the sender. If this email is received in error, it remains confidential and you may not copy, retain or distribute it in any manner. Please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and all attachments. Thank you.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’ portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list: date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: E Sage (MIN)
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2020 3:42 PM
To: 'Bridget Percy' <[FOI #12651 email]>
Subject: Acknowledgement of Official Information Act request OIA20-034 - Bridget Percy - Pukaha Mt Bruce
OIA20-034
Tēnā koe Bridget Percy
On behalf of Hon Eugenie Sage, I acknowledge your email of 19 April 2020 (included below) in which you submitted an Official Information Act request.
Minister Sage is considering your request in accordance with the Act, and you can expect a response by 18 May 2020.
Ngā mihi
Office of Hon Eugenie Sage
Minister of Conservation | Minister for Land Information | Associate Minister for the Environment 6R Bowen House, Parliament Buildings | Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
P: 04 817 8727
E: [Eugenie Sage request email]
This email communication is confidential between the sender and the recipient. The intended recipient may not distribute it without the permission of the sender. If this email is received in error, it remains confidential and you may not copy, retain or distribute it in any manner. Please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and all attachments. Thank you.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’ portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list: date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
-----Original Message-----
From: Bridget Percy [mailto:[FOI #12651 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 19 April 2020 10:16 AM
To: E Sage (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Pukaha Mt Bruce
Dear Eugenie Sage,
Due to the conflict of interest of Reg Kemper being a Pukaha Mt Bruce Board member I trust that someone other than Mr Kemper will respond to this request.
1.Rabbit infestation
Despite Reg Kemper stating in an OIA dated 26 November, 2018 that 17,000 rabbits had been shot in the buffer zone around Pukaha, the farm at the northern-eastern end of Pukaha on SH2 now has such chronic rabbit damage that hundreds of rabbit holes are visible from the road:
a)What compensation are DOC and the Pukaha Mt Bruce Board giving local farmers for the cost of ammunition and the hundreds of hours they have put into controlling rabbits (a problem caused, and compounded by, Pukaha’s pest control) and for the considerable impact on farm production (and therefore financial return) of their farms?
b)In preparation for New Zealand becoming predator-free by 2050 will the NZ Government be investigating the financial and environmental impacts (including the high number of deaths of native birds due to predation as well as the devastation of the surrounding farmland) of projects like Pukaha’s to help avoiding replicating these mistakes elsewhere?
2.Kaka Numbers
Despite Reg Kemper’s estimate from Pukaha staff that there are 150 kaka at Pukaha Mt Bruce, visitors before the Covid-19 lock-down were still reporting just a handful of kaka at the 3pm feed and Pukaha staff were telling the public that there were many more male than female kaka in the Pukaha Forest as the females ‘fight to the death to protect their young’.
a.How many (monitored or unmonitored) female kaka have died protecting their nests from predators at Pukaha Mt Bruce and how many juvenile kaka have died due to losing their mothers in this way?
b.Why, when their absence is so apparent, are kaka not being monitored again and why are DOC and Pukaha staff still refusing to complete a ‘kaka census’?
c.In an OIA dated 4 April, 2019 Reg Kemper stated that no monitored kaka had been lost during aerial 1080 baiting however in an earlier OIA dated 27 November 2018 he had stated that kaka at Pukaha are no longer monitored. Please explain how DOC and Pukaha Mt Bruce staff are being held accountable for kaka numbers (and deaths) if all monitoring tags have been removed.
d.Are more 1080 drops planned for the Pukaha Forest and if so, what will stop the remaining kaka from eating the baits dropped in their habitat?
3.Kiwi Numbers
a.Please confirm the current number of kiwi (monitored and unmonitored) at Pukaha Mt Bruce (in the Pukaha Forest, in enclosures and in the kiwi house).
b.Please confirm the total number of kiwi released into the Pukaha Forest each year since 2003.
c.Please indicate how many (monitored or unmonitored) kiwi have died in the Pukaha Forest in the past 18 months.
d.Please confirm that despite media reports of a ‘bumper kiwi breeding season’ at Pukaha that only three eggs have been brought in from an enclosure (and none from the Pukaha Forest) to hatch this season (despite approximately 152 kiwi being brought into, or bred at, Pukaha since 2003; approximately 120 kiwi having been released into the Pukaha forest in that time; and bearing in mind that no kiwi bred at Pukaha have ever been translocated from Pukaha to other areas of New Zealand).
e.Please confirm that the three kiwi eggs brought in from the enclosure to hatch this season (MtB107, MtB 108 and MtB 109) are all off-spring of Manawa and Mapuna which would mean that Pukaha just has one breeding pair at present.
f.Are the two female kiwi which laid eggs in the Pukaha Forest last year dead, or are Pukaha Mt Bruce unable to confirm that as they weren’t monitored?
g.Please explain why the Pukaha Mt Bruce Facebook page is reporting that they have hatched 24 eggs without clarifying that only 3 of those eggs (TBC) were from Pukaha and the rest of them were brought in from other areas (such as Maungatautari) to be hatched.
h.In an OIA dated 18 January, 2019 DOC stated that the Pukaha Mt Bruce Board’s ultimate goal is to prevent 100% of adult kiwi deaths. Please explain how this success will be measured when adult kiwi are not monitored.
i.Was a kiwi call count done in 2019? If so, what were the results?
j.Is a kiwi call count planned for 2020 and if so when will this take place?
4.DOC agreements with Private Charities
In November 2019 Pukaha’s General Manager Emily Court contacted the employer of a member of the public regarding that person’s concerns about Pukaha Mt Bruce which they had expressed on social media. It appeared that Ms Court’s intent was to attempt to interfere with this person’s right to the freedom of expression and to bring them into disrepute with their employer. Despite legal action being taken by the complainant and the Pukaha Board ‘tendering an apology’ the Board declined to settle the matter fully with an apology letter on Pukaha letterhead and by covering the complainant’s legal costs; citing the Board’s ‘not-for-profit’ status for this.
a)Does DOC condone attempts by employees of its charitable trust partners to silence the public when they express genuine concerns about wildlife losses at DOC partnership sites such as Pukaha Mt Bruce?
b)Does the DOC/Pukaha Mt Bruce partnership agreement contain a clause about a member or employee of either party bringing the partnership into disrepute?
c)Does Charitable status in New Zealand provide charitable organisations’ members and employees exemption from the same moral and ethical obligations in their dealings with the NZ public as are expected of other public and private businesses in this country?
Yours faithfully,
Bridget Percy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #12651 email]
Is [Eugenie Sage request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Eugenie Sage? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
From: Hayden Barrett
Tēnā koe Bridget Percy
I refer to your Official Information Act request of 19 April 2020
regarding Pukaha Mt Bruce (copied below). Your request has been
transferred to the Department of Conservation for response.
This email is to advise you that we are extending the 20 working day
period to respond to points 2 and 3 of your request, as allowed under
section 15A(1) of the Official Information Act 1982.
An extension is required under section 15AA(ii): consultations necessary
to make a decision on the request are such that a proper response to the
request cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit. We have
taken into account the impact of the COVID-19 emergency on our operations
and the public interest in providing you with the information in deciding
the timeframe for the extension. Due to the staff resourcing required to
respond to your request, and the impact of the pandemic on the
availability of staff to respond to your request, we require an extension
of 30 working days, to 1 July 2020.
We will send a response earlier if possible.
You have the right, under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act to
make a complaint to an Ombudsman about the extension.
Points 1 and 4 of your request are not requests for information held by
the Department of Conservation, they are general enquires and as such will
not be addressed via the Official Information Act. The Department will
respond to these enquiries separately.
Yours sincerely,
Hayden Barrett
Acting Director Operations Lower North Island
Hayden Barrett
Director Operations (acting), Lower North Island
Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai
M: +64 27 703 8333
Wairarapa District Office
220 South Road | PO Box 191, Masterton 5840
T: +64 6 377 0700
Kia piki te oranga o te ao tūroa, i roto i te ngātahitanga, ki Aotearoa.
To work with others to increase the value of conservation for New
Zealanders.
[1]www.doc.govt.nz
Caution - This message and accompanying data may contain information that
is confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. We apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.doc.govt.nz/
From: Government Services
Morena Hayden – draft response now due with GS 24 June 2020.
Ngâ mihi
Gabrielle
Gabrielle Muir
Ministerial Support Advisor (Government Services)
Policy & Visitors Group
Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai
M: +64 027 564 0691
From: Hayden Barrett <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 4 May 2020 8:21 a.m.
To: [FOI #12651 email]
Cc: Government Services <[email address]>
Subject: Response to OIA request 20-E-0231
Tçnâ koe Bridget Percy
I refer to your Official Information Act request of 19 April 2020
regarding Pukaha Mt Bruce (copied below). Your request has been
transferred to the Department of Conservation for response.
This email is to advise you that we are extending the 20 working day
period to respond to points 2 and 3 of your request, as allowed under
section 15A(1) of the Official Information Act 1982.
An extension is required under section 15AA(ii): consultations necessary
to make a decision on the request are such that a proper response to the
request cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit. We have
taken into account the impact of the COVID-19 emergency on our operations
and the public interest in providing you with the information in deciding
the timeframe for the extension. Due to the staff resourcing required to
respond to your request, and the impact of the pandemic on the
availability of staff to respond to your request, we require an extension
of 30 working days, to 1 July 2020.
We will send a response earlier if possible.
You have the right, under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act to
make a complaint to an Ombudsman about the extension.
Points 1 and 4 of your request are not requests for information held by
the Department of Conservation, they are general enquires and as such will
not be addressed via the Official Information Act. The Department will
respond to these enquiries separately.
Yours sincerely,
Hayden Barrett
Acting Director Operations Lower North Island
Hayden Barrett
Director Operations (acting), Lower North Island
Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai
M: +64 27 703 8333
Wairarapa District Office
220 South Road | PO Box 191, Masterton 5840
T: +64 6 377 0700
Kia piki te oranga o te ao tûroa, i roto i te ngâtahitanga, ki Aotearoa.
To work with others to increase the value of conservation for New
Zealanders.
[1]www.doc.govt.nz
Caution - This message and accompanying data may contain information that
is confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. We apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.doc.govt.nz/
Bridget Percy left an annotation ()
S. Magnodens there is a bigger story here, as you know. Good point about the public support, I am sure you will agree that the facts and transparency are important when public contributions are relied upon. Isn't it lucky we live in a country where this information is available through our OIA process :).
S. Magnodens left an annotation ()
Furthermore, female predation on the nest is not only an issue for kaka across the country, but for psittacine species globally. This is not an issue relating solely to Pukaha, or even solely to Strigopoidea.
Providing supplementary feeds is a useful general monitoring tool employed by parrot conservation organisations all over the world. It provides an artificial source of food that pre-release candidates will have been habituated to, in order to maximise survival of a newly released cohort and ease the transition into the wild. While some adult parrots are known to return to supplementary feed sites, their intended use is only temporary. Parrots have a large range and will move out to areas with an abundance of natural foods and good nesting sites - for many this will be at a distance from other parrots once they pair off from the flock, and from humans. So it is not surprising that parrot numbers at afternoon feeds would fluctuate. Again it is an observable trend at conservation projects globally.
Adult female kiwi are only recommended to be fitted with a transmitter temporarily, should they be found and caught while carrying out other forms of monitoring. They will only be fitted with a transmitter until such a time as they are found to be sharing a daytime shelter with a male, or a male is found using a daytime shelter associated with the female. If Pukaha do not monitor every adult female kiwi, that is simply following Best Practice guidelines.
From: Chris Visser
Dear Bridget Percy
Please find attached response to your OIA request on behalf of Hayden
Barret Director Operations ( acting) Lower North Island
Ngā mihi
Chris Visser
Statutory Manager Lower North Island Region
DDI: 027 563 4631 | VPN 6606
Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai
Kia piki te oranga o te ao tūroa, i roto i te ngātahitanga, ki Aotearoa.
To work with others to increase the value of conservation for New
Zealanders.
[1]www.doc.govt.nz
Caution - This message and accompanying data may contain information that
is confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. We apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.doc.govt.nz/
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
This request has been marked for review by the site administrators, who have not hidden it at this time. If you believe it should be hidden, please contact us.
S. Magnodens left an annotation ()
Would the two instances within the past week in which Bridget Percy has publicly, in written form, stated that there is a "scandal" or "a much bigger story" going on at Pukaha not cross the line from Freedom of Expression to libel given that any reasonable person can see it is attempting to damage the reputation of the organisation, which could impact the amount of public support they receive and depend on for day to day running; as well as having professional implications for the staff?
Link to this