Increased DOC funding

Increased DOC funding

Something that has flown under the radar for many is that under the current government DOC's budget has been slashed and burned. Not only is preserving the conservation estate vital for it's own sake, it also brings in a lot of tourists. Funding to DOC needs to be increased, possibly in part through looking at charges for some heavy use areas (Tongariro Crossing springs to mind).

Showing 17 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?

Sign in with

Or sign in with email

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
    • Chelsea Finnie
      tagged this with essential 2016-12-03 22:45:45 +1300
    • Sue Rine
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-29 19:27:40 +1300
    • Paul Eaton
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-28 21:43:51 +1300
    • Anna White
      commented 2016-11-27 20:17:34 +1300
      I could not agree more. As a volunteer for a not for profit environmental group for 10 years I have witnessed first hand the degradation of DOC under this government, or is it a metamorphisis – from an agency charged with protecting our precious environment, to a business model charged with making money from tourism. A summary of recent changes has been recorded by someone who worked for DOC for 15 years ( It is a troubling report, worthwhile reading for anyone who has a stake in our public estate, and that surely is all kiwis? What doesn’t seem to be understood by many now pulling the DOC strings is that environmental damage (or lack of care) is not something which can be remediated in years, or even centuries. We know that New Zealand’s natural environment is unique and much envied by many. As environmental degradation around the globe worsens (as it surely will) our natural landscape and all she contains will become ever more desirable. Get serious about investing in its wellbeing, and protecting the one element which will set our country apart from all others in the future. It’s the jewel in the crown but oh, so easily destroyed.
    • Anna White
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-27 20:17:34 +1300
    • Anna White
      followed this page 2016-11-27 17:57:09 +1300
    • John Rusk
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-26 10:05:32 +1300
    • David ten Have
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-26 05:10:43 +1300
    • Jane Upton
      tagged this with important 2016-11-25 22:53:48 +1300
    • Oscar Dowson
      tagged this with important 2016-11-25 15:29:20 +1300
    • james reardon
      commented 2016-11-25 15:19:02 +1300
      So I declare my COI, I’m a DOC scientist, so my tagging this as essential could be viewed as nest feathering but I would ask that it be seen as an informed opinion on the costs to the persistence of our biodiversity and ecosystem function and the back-sliding due to what is extremely minimal funding compared to other sectors and the cost of the work.
    • james reardon
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-25 15:19:01 +1300
    • Peter Jamieson
      tagged this with interesting 2016-11-25 14:52:29 +1300
    • Bart Brichau
      commented 2016-11-25 14:41:46 +1300
      As long as there is strong policy around how this funding is used. I would hate to see it go to 1080 or the likes.
    • Bart Brichau
      tagged this with important 2016-11-25 14:41:45 +1300
    • Nathan Rattray
      tagged this with low priority 2016-11-25 14:21:53 +1300
    • Jonathan Swadling
      published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-25 13:20:39 +1300