New Zealand is one step closer to formally recognising and managing some of its most iconic wild game populations after the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill progressed through Committee of the Whole in Parliament this week.
The New Zealand Game Animal Council (NZ GAC) has confirmed the Bill is expected to receive its third reading shortly, followed by Royal Assent, at which point the amendments would become law.
If enacted, the changes would establish a clear pathway for the Minister for Hunting and Fishing to designate Herds of Special Interest (HOSI) within national parks, allowing those herds to be exempted from blanket eradication settings elsewhere in legislation.
The principle is simple but significant: where particular herds carry recreational, cultural, heritage or economic value, management should reflect that value rather than defaulting to elimination.
Potential early candidates frequently discussed in New Zealand include Fiordland Wapiti, alongside iconic Tahr and Sika herds.
From a Victorian perspective, the most interesting thing about HOSI is not that New Zealand is recognising game animals.
Victoria has already done that.
Wild deer in Victoria are recognised as game under the Wildlife Act, reflecting an important public policy principle: these animals are wildlife resources capable of delivering recreational, social and economic value.
In recent years, organisations including the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) and Invasive Species Council (ISC) have repeatedly argued against maintaining deer as game and have advocated approaches that move toward universal pest framing and a one-size-fits all approach to management that is effectively taxpayer funded control with no strategic aims.
We disagree with that approach. Not because deer never cause impacts, they clearly can and do in some places, but because reducing every conversation to “eradication versus inaction” ignores the reality that wildlife management is more nuanced than that.
A proper deer management strategy in Victoria would be predicated on the simple truth that different places can justify different objectives.
New Zealand’s HOSI reforms raise a more ambitious question for Victoria. If deer are game in law, shouldn’t we give that status more practical meaning?
Because if “game” means anything, it should mean more than simply allowing people to hunt while management settings are still ultimately driven as though every population exists to be removed.
The next evolution may be moving from recognition of game to active game management. That does not mean preserving every herd. It does not mean opposing control. And it certainly does not mean ignoring environmental impacts.
Good game management should include:
- Strategic population control where justified;
- Protection of sensitive ecological values;
- Habitat management;
- Monitoring and adaptive management;
- Targeted harvest; and
- Where necessary, population reduction.
But it should also be willing to say something that sometimes feels controversial in Australia: Some wild game populations are iconic and worth deliberately maintaining.
Victoria already manages species differently. Hog deer are tightly regulated. Access arrangements vary. Hunting objectives differ by landscape. So could we go further? Could we explicitly identify and actively manage populations that have exceptional recreational, historical or cultural significance?
Examples that inevitably come up include:
- Grampians red deer;
- Wonnangatta and Alpine sambar populations;
- Gippsland hog deer.
Not as museum pieces. Not as unmanaged populations. But as herds managed intentionally for quality, sustainability and long-term stewardship.
That could include clear objectives around:
- Maintaining huntable populations;
- Protecting habitat;
- Investing in research;
- Improving access;
- Managing impacts proportionately; and
- Involving hunters directly in management outcomes.
One of the strengths of New Zealand’s HOSI model is that it rejects a false binary and asks a more useful question: What do we want this landscape to look like, and how should wildlife be managed to achieve that?
Victoria already has the legal foundations through game status. The opportunity may now be to give that status real teeth. Not by abandoning control where it is needed. But by being more deliberate, more strategic and more confident in recognising that some of Victoria’s iconic herds are not simply problems to be solved, they are hunting traditions and wildlife assets worth managing and preserving.
