In its on-going propaganda war with the anti-1080 movement, the Department of Conservation makes all kinds of extravagant claims about its members; among other things, that they represent the gun lobby, are anti-establishment, and engage in threatening behaviour — none of which are true, but unfortunately they get repeated as if they were by the automatically pro-government Mainstream Media.
This is an article by Alan Simmons, co-leader of the Outdoors Party which wants 1080 banned:
The Department of Conservation continue to repeat the same old story about attacks on staff and how it is affecting their role in protecting our precious wildlife. NZ herald https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12249704
This article repeats the same old same old story as if their spin doctors have told them that if you repeat the story enough, people will start to believe it. But the opposite is happening and dislike for the Department continues to grow at an alarming rate.
You would think that wise heads in the Department could be thinking what’s going on? What are we doing that has us becoming the most hated government department when we should be the most loved.
The Department of Conservation’s obsession with the aerial spreading 1080 has built a huge dislike of the department as predicted by advisors to the Minister Nick Smith when he rammed through legislation allowing the aerial dropping of 1080 without resource consents. Nick Smith’s advice to cabinet included a statement that “Loss of local decision-making is not an effect of the proposed regulation that could be avoided, but rather its primary purpose.”
In my opinion if you take away the public’s right to be consulted, then you will get opposition and resentment as the public have no ability to express their feelings except but by protest.
Using Doc’s own statistics it has 35 incidents per year where staff are abused or threatened, out of a staff of 4000. According to press reports, these are having an accumulative effect on staff and diverting them from their work. I would suspect the threats are mostly via social media and some to rangers in the field undertaking enforcement work, so how does this affect the other 3980 staff? Especially when OIA requests to police show few if any of these so-called threats are reported.