# Hunting > Hunting >  Commercial vs Recreational Hunting in NZ

## R93

There is some healthy discussion that started in another thread that we could carry on here as it is has gone off track regarding the intentions the OP. 

Maybe the mods could shift the whole lot from post #11 of GDs NZ Hunter adventures thread here if it is possible and everyone that is involved is happy to do so? 









Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Kudu

Good topic and title! This should be a good discussion.

My personal opinion is that there should be no commercial hunting on department of conservation land. I do not like the idea of someone making money off what effectively is not theirs and belongs to all NZ'ers. However I realise that this would impossible to manage as an operator could just tell a client to say that he isn't getting paid if someone pulls them up, or that they are just mates.

I'll use Tahr as an example. I am sure if there is a guide in the Alps and the only shootable bull is an 11" they will probably pull the trigger as they want their client to go home with an animal. Where a recreational hunter would more than likely leave it to grow and look for a bigger one.

I want NZ's deer herds to be managed so that they are healthy for my kids or grand kids. If there is a commercial operation of any sort I don't believe this will happen as 9 times out of 10 the dollar trumps morals. In cases like the wapiti and whitetail on the mainland I would love for there to be no hunting for years or even a decade in the case of the white-tail, and heavy fines for people who breach this. As I am not worried about what hunting is there for me and would sacrifice my hunting for the benefit of the next generation.

......I won't say that I would also love to bring in pure wapiti semen and AI a few cows in the wapiti area as I realise that this is not allowed and very controversial.....

----------


## Bavarian_Hunter

I believe hunting should be available for everyone as long as it's managed effectively. I hate the idea that someone does or doesn't have the same chances at someone else just because of good fortune in where they're born or lack thereof. 

I support international opportunities for hunters in Australia and by the same token I want those opportunities in other countries. 

Talking diy hunting on public land so probably a separate topic again.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

----------


## MB

Isn't the official line that deer are a pest that needs to be eradicated? Obviously not what I think, or what I imagine most people on this forum think, but until deer and other species get "game animal" status (like a bloody duck!) and conserved to some degree, then nothing is going to change. If deer are a pest in legal terms, why would DOC take issue with them being killed by anybody by any means?

----------


## Mathias

> Isn't the official line that deer are a pest that needs to be eradicated? Obviously not what I think, or what I imagine most people on this forum think, but until deer and other species get "game animal" status (like a bloody duck!) and conserved to some degree, then nothing is going to change. If deer are a pest in legal terms, why would DOC take issue with them being killed by anybody by any means?


Correct thinking there. The legal description of our introduced deer, TAHR (@R93) and chamois needs to be revised before we can move forward with any type of recreational / conservation plan for their management as a resource.

----------


## R93

> Good topic and title! This should be a good discussion.
> 
> My personal opinion is that there should be no commercial hunting on department of conservation land. I do not like the idea of someone making money off what effectively is not theirs and belongs to all NZ'ers. However I realise that this would impossible to manage as an operator could just tell a client to say that he isn't getting paid if someone pulls them up, or that they are just mates.
> 
> I'll use Tahr as an example. I am sure if there is a guide in the Alps and the only shootable bull is an 11" they will probably pull the trigger as they want their client to go home with an animal. Where a recreational hunter would more than likely leave it to grow and look for a bigger one.
> 
> I want NZ's deer herds to be managed so that they are healthy for my kids or grand kids. If there is a commercial operation of any sort I don't believe this will happen as 9 times out of 10 the dollar trumps morals. In cases like the wapiti and whitetail on the mainland I would love for there to be no hunting for years or even a decade in the case of the white-tail, and heavy fines for people who breach this. As I am not worried about what hunting is there for me and would sacrifice my hunting for the benefit of the next generation.
> 
> ......I won't say that I would also love to bring in pure wapiti semen and AI a few cows in the wapiti area as I realise that this is not allowed and very controversial.....


Hunting guides are using public land for commercial gain.
A huge % of tourism ventures are using public land. What is the difference? 

I also have to ask if waro is ceased completely how do we manage the animals?
Search and destroy? 
Poison?
Government funded hunting?

Please dont say recreational hunting. 

Waro can possibly be done sustainably to appease all parties but somewhere along the line someone is going to miss out. 

I am all for a change concerning waro but the first thing is to get the animals classed differently to what they are now. 







Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## stug

WARO should be used to manage deer numbers. To manage numbers you need to cull the breeding animals ie hinds. They are the ones that increase numbers. One stag can service a large number of hinds. 
Shooting stags will reduce numbers in the short term, but not the long term.
We need to move to a better form of managed WARO, where areas are allocated to a single operator and they can shoot hinds only. They should not be areas easily accesibe by the weekend meat hunter.

----------


## Kudu

Geez and here I was thinking we would both agree on what I wrote @R93.... :Grin:  Just remember what I write is not based on fact, its mostly emotion. And it is only my opinion and if you ask my wife she will confirm that I am usually always wrong.

This thread was just called commercial vs recreational hunting. I have not mentioned or commented on WARO. That is a topic for another thread......




> Hunting guides are using public land for commercial gain.
> A huge % of tourism ventures are using public land. What is the difference? *I believe the main difference is that deer are a resource and can theoretically be removed 100%. i.e the last one in a herd could be shot. A tourist operator say paying a concession is not removing the resource he is using, unlike shooting a deer. So that is what I believe the difference is. Are you saying you support commercial hunting? even in the case of the mainland whitetail herd?*
> 
> I also have to ask if waro is ceased completely how do we manage the animals?
> Search and destroy? 
> Poison?
> Government funded hunting?
> 
> Please dont say recreational hunting. 
> ...

----------


## Kudu

Geez and here I was thinking we would both agree on what I wrote   @R93.... :Grin:  Just remember what I write is not based on fact, its mostly emotion. And it is only my opinion and if you ask my wife she will confirm that I am usually always wrong.

This thread was just called commercial vs recreational hunting. I have taken the title of Commercial hunting to mean guides taking paying clients out onto DOC land to shoot deer. I have not mentioned or commented on WARO. That is a topic for another thread......




> Hunting guides are using public land for commercial gain.
> A huge % of tourism ventures are using public land. What is the difference? *I believe the main difference is that deer are a resource and can theoretically be removed 100%. i.e the last one in a herd could be shot. A tourist operator say paying a concession to use a river for a rafting business is not removing the resource he is using, unlike shooting a deer. And it is there for the next person. So that is what I believe the difference is. And for the purpose of this thread what is your stand on commercial hunting? Like in the case of the mainland whitetail herd?*
> 
> I also have to ask if waro is ceased completely how do we manage the animals?
> Search and destroy? 
> Poison?
> Government funded hunting?
> 
> Please dont say recreational hunting. 
> ...

----------


## R93

> WARO should be used to manage deer numbers. To manage numbers you need to cull the breeding animals ie hinds. They are the ones that increase numbers. One stag can service a large number of hinds. 
> Shooting stags will reduce numbers in the short term, but not the long term.
> We need to move to a better form of managed WARO, where areas are allocated to a single operator and they can shoot hinds only. They should not be areas easily accesibe by the weekend meat hunter.


Good suggestions but have you seen what happen to the Thar when only nannies are targeted?

Allocating areas to operators and hinds only policy would stop waro in a heartbeat as no one could afford to do it in today's market.

I am not rubbishing your ideas just stating what would happen if it happened today. 


I think they should bring back RHAs in force and have them in known trophy areas. 
Numbers get monitored and if they get too high, only approved operators are allowed to thin them out. 

Have a mandatory punishment if anyone breaches the rules. Not fighting it in court no leniency. 

Poach and your waro concession is gone. You would be banned from participating in anyone else's venture or part of their concession. You will never get another. 





Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## R93

> Geez and here I was thinking we would both agree on what I wrote  @R93.... Just remember what I write is not based on fact, its mostly emotion. And it is only my opinion and if you ask my wife she will confirm that I am usually always wrong.
> 
> This thread was just called commercial vs recreational hunting. I have not mentioned or commented on WARO. That is a topic for another thread......


I am not having a go at you @Kudu.
I opened this thread coz I was enjoying the discussion with you. 

To be fair I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
I am genuinly interested if you have any answers or solutions.
Sorry if I come across wrong.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Kudu

> I am not having a go at you @Kudu.
> I opened this thread coz I was enjoying the discussion with you. 
> 
> To be fair I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
> I am genuinly interested if you have any answers or solutions.
> Sorry if I come across wrong.
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


No its all good. Its a good conversation. I do have answers and solutions. But whether or not anyone agrees or not is another story..... :Have A Nice Day: 

Basically there is nothing wrong with Commercial Hunting on private land and I have been involved in that industry for a few years.(Not currently) But I am not keen on it, as I have said before happening on DOC land. This is because I have seen the dollar over rule ethics in the past.

1. First the classification of Pest needs to be removed from deer.
2. Then there needs to be areas of interest set aside for herds to flourish. Like the mainland whitetail herd, the wapiti area, certain otago and canterbury areas for example. 
3. These areas need to be managed as a private hunter only resource. i.e not commercial, no WARO, no 1080 and with guidelines in place. Like what can be shot, numbers etc. And I am not talking whole national parks, just certain areas so the weekend hunter can go and shoot his couple of spikers for the pot in other parts.
4. This area set aside will help everyone though as the quality of deer improve they will spread to other areas naturally.
5. Since these certain areas will not be huge they can be managed easily for pests etc, which is why 1080 will not be needed.

My fingers hurt now so I can't type anymore....... :Have A Nice Day:  but the brain is working overtime...lol

----------


## R93

> No its all good. Its a good conversation. I do have answers and solutions. But whether or not anyone agrees or not is another story.....
> 
> Basically there is nothing wrong with Commercial Hunting on private land and I have been involved in that industry for a few years.(Not currently) But I am not keen on it, as I have said before happening on DOC land. This is because I have seen the dollar over rule ethics in the past.
> 
> 1. First the classification of Pest needs to be removed from deer.
> 2. Then there needs to be areas of interest set aside for herds to flourish. Like the mainland whitetail herd, the wapiti area, certain otago and canterbury areas for example. 
> 3. These areas need to be managed as a private hunter only resource. i.e not commercial, no WARO, no 1080 and with guidelines in place. Like what can be shot, numbers etc. And I am not talking whole national parks, just certain areas so the weekend hunter can go and shoot his couple of spikers for the pot in other parts.
> 4. This area set aside will help everyone though as the quality of deer improve they will spread to other areas naturally.
> 5. Since these certain areas will not be huge they can be managed easily for pests etc, which is why 1080 will not be needed.
> ...


That's what I was after. We are on the same page.

 However I am of the opinion and witnessing what happens in areas like this, waro/selective harvesting may have to be allowed if the numbers warrant it.

I would also like the management of these said areas to be separate from the government somehow. 






Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Bavarian_Hunter

I reckon the whitetail situation is pretty simple, list them as game and give them protected status. Maybe even create a no hunt zone. Give them time to build up numbers over a decade or two then allow balloted hunting. 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

----------


## Mooseman

The problem I see in reducing waro operations will only cause poaching. Tough penalties may deter some, those that need the machine running and bringing in deer will be less cooperative with reduced hunting areas and hinds only, the money is in the bigger(stags)animals. The other side of the coin is animal numbers will increase in remote areas and eventually trophy quality will suffer. 
Unfortunately the mighty dollar dictates everything in this world today.
Hopefully the Game Council can address a lot of these issues so everyone's interests are taken care of.

----------


## Ryan_Songhurst

Waro is neccesary, and believe it or not it's not some kind of get rich quick scheme and most the operators that do it use it as a tool to keep cash flowing to make the finance payments on their machines, no waro equals less machines and higher prices for other users (ie:hunters), no waro also means DOC take on full responsibility for managing animal numbers and we all know what that means...
Every time I hear a "hunter" come up with some wonderful story about how a machine came and chased away all "their deer" I do have to wonder how much exaggeration bought on by a acute case of butthurt is involved. There are plenty of animals to go round now more so than ever, if you can't find one and need to blame the machines for your shortcomings maybe take up golf? The way it's been done doesn't need to change at all, there's a few attitudes out there that need a shake up though you guys bagging it seem like the type that moan about politics when you don't actually understand politics, moan about business when you don't understand business etc.

----------


## R93

> The problem I see in reducing waro operations will only cause poaching. Tough penalties may deter some, those that need the machine running and bringing in deer will be less cooperative with reduced hunting areas and hinds only, the money is in the bigger(stags)animals. The other side of the coin is animal numbers will increase in remote areas and eventually trophy quality will suffer. 
> Unfortunately the mighty dollar dictates everything in this world today.
> Hopefully the Game Council can address a lot of these issues so everyone's interests are taken care of.


I think poaching in a helicopter should be treat like anyone poaching on foot regarding fit and proper person requirements.

If the punishment is substantial it will go a long way to reducing the risk of it happening. It is just a wet bus ticket now. 





Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## BRADS

> I think poaching in a helicopter should be treat like anyone poaching on foot regarding fit and proper person requirements.
> 
> If the punishment is substantial it will go a long way to reducing the risk of it happening. It is just a wet bus ticket now. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Good point 
Unfortunately you pay more poaching on foot than in a chopper these days been there done that in both cases more than once.
As for waro it does a good job I have no problem with it, deer numbers are out of control around these parts so something must give.
As with ground hunters its the same with chopper pilots a bad few letting us all down 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

----------


## R93

> Good point 
> Unfortunately you pay more poaching on foot than in a chopper these days been there done that in both cases more than once.
> As for waro it does a good job I have no problem with it, deer numbers are out of control around these parts so something must give.
> As with ground hunters its the same with chopper pilots a bad few letting us all down 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


It makes no sense eh? 


I have no problem with waro either.... Obviously


But a lot can be done to identify a potential trophy if not obvious from the machine before shooting. 
You would know yourself, even if a stag has just cast there are a lot tells and it just takes a bit of time to see them. 

If deer are in the tussock you can herd them anywhere you want generally. 
The odd smart hind will make it hard.

 I don't see why ether banning waro in certain areas or have savvy crews leave the good ones can't be mandatory in certain areas. 

All a pipe dream I know but it's good discussing it. 


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Gibo

Is herding the same as hazing?

----------


## BRADS

Do you think the days of savvy crews are gone R93?
I don't say that lightly as 2 good mates still have birds doing venison recovery in non busy times
One has a very successful business one is not so big time.
In my experience the guys hating on waro in these parts can't hunt there way out of paper bag so blame waro for the lack of animals. When you go out for 3 days and see 70 odd deer you realise there's some culling needed.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

----------


## R93

> Is herding the same as hazing?


No. At least not as I understand it.

You can quietly push deer to a more suitable place to shoot and recover them. Generally up hill and you can sit off them a fair way.
Thar and chamois are not as quiet (lack of a better word) as deer.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Micky Duck

Gibo....yes and no.... herding is like shepherd rounding up sheep in a paddock with his strong eyed heading dog and putting them through the gate
hazing is when the two german shepherds and the foxy from down the road come in under the fence and take to worrying.
both use machine to move animals one is controled to get them into/out of area quietly the other is used to run them to a standstill.

----------


## Micky Duck

november to may is a taboo time to take animals from the air...... 90% of issue solved.....takes the velvet out of equation and leaves animals to get on with breeding. shooting hinds only in areas would be nice but bar having controls in place like they do in fishing industry to police it...well it becomes hard....
you could do it at chiller end I guess...no stags allowed to be sold????
which brings up another possible solution ,some sort of quota system but that will all be $$$$$$$ so just about as bad.

----------


## R93

> Do you think the days of savvy crews are gone R93?
> I don't say that lightly as 2 good mates still have birds doing venison recovery in non busy times
> One has a very successful business one is not so big time.
> In my experience the guys hating on waro in these parts can't hunt there way out of paper bag so blame waro for the lack of animals. When you go out for 3 days and see 70 odd deer you realise there's some culling needed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Definitely. I was lucky and started out shooting and then flew for a team that have been doing it since the sixties.

I learned a lot from them. But they have forgotten more than I will ever know. 

They no longer fly. I think the experience is dwindling, especially here in the south. There still a handful of experienced guys doing it but they are getting on in age. 


I pity anyone who gets a licence and thinks they can just go and make a living on venison 
They will either go broke or end up a smoking hole in the ground. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Gibo

Cheers

----------


## R93

> november to may is a taboo time to take animals from the air...... 90% of issue solved.....takes the velvet out of equation and leaves animals to get on with breeding. shooting hinds only in areas would be nice but bar having controls in place like they do in fishing industry to police it...well it becomes hard....
> you could do it at chiller end I guess...no stags allowed to be sold????
> which brings up another possible solution ,some sort of quota system but that will all be $$$$$$$ so just about as bad.


Still good ideas whether hard to implement or not.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Smiddy

More RHAs esp around then main divide,  
Limits on what can be shot 
A fucking big fine and complete life ban of the person caught poaching, not the company so they can just start another, life ban for the individual
There are plenty of other ways to make money with a chopper rather than shooting the fuck out of our valued herds 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## R93

> More RHAs esp around then main divide,  
> Limits on what can be shot 
> A fucking big fine and complete life ban of the person caught poaching, not the company so they can just start another, life ban for the individual
> There are plenty of other ways to make money with a chopper rather than shooting the fuck out of our valued herds 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bloody oath on the life ban.
Like you say they can get anyone to get a concession for them and work off that they way it is now. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## GregD

Ryan Songhurst, to say quote "There are plenty of animals to go round now more so than ever, if you can't find one and need to blame the machines for your shortcomings maybe take up golf?" is simply untrue. Up until Waro started up again last February with a vengeance, it had been starting to look very promising with a whole generation of stags being allowed to get some age on them. We are fast degenerating into how bad it was in the dark days of the 80s in a lot of areas.
There are plenty of areas that have had an absolute pasting in the last year, with a whole generation of chopper naive deer since Waro was last viable a number of years ago that have been sitting ducks. I have no issues with them shooting a good number of hinds and cull stags, but of course they have been targeting the big stags in some of our premier trophy bloodline areas, destroying them for another who knows how many years - all for a short term financial gain. I get sent so many pics on a weekely basis of what they are shooting, and it makes you sick. Just this week another massive 16 pointer out of the Canterbury Alps. The operators are largely only doing what the system allows them to do, so I'm not blaming them.
But this boom and bust scenario has to stop, which was sposed to be addressed in the promised Waro review which DoC have now reneged on.
The current system is simply not fair to the majority of public land users, nor sustainable for the Waro guys.

----------


## R93

> Waro is neccesary, and believe it or not it's not some kind of get rich quick scheme and most the operators that do it use it as a tool to keep cash flowing to make the finance payments on their machines, no waro equals less machines and higher prices for other users (ie:hunters), no waro also means DOC take on full responsibility for managing animal numbers and we all know what that means...
> Every time I hear a "hunter" come up with some wonderful story about how a machine came and chased away all "their deer" I do have to wonder how much exaggeration bought on by a acute case of butthurt is involved. There are plenty of animals to go round now more so than ever, if you can't find one and need to blame the machines for your shortcomings maybe take up golf? The way it's been done doesn't need to change at all, there's a few attitudes out there that need a shake up though you guys bagging it seem like the type that moan about politics when you don't actually understand politics, moan about business when you don't understand business etc.


I agree with you if you're just after meat.
I haven't ever seen deer numbers this healthy where I spend my time chasing them. 

I can only speak about the coast as I rarely venture elsewhere for meat deer. No need.

We also in parts of the coast have regular waro but in my opinion those areas are still highly productive areas to hunt because of the terrain and how the animals use it. 

It's the trophy or potential trophy stags being shot for weight etc out of known trophy herds for a dollar. To me it is just a waste and there is honestly no reason to do it as they are few and far between. 
Leaving 1 or 2 stags alone won't make a difference.

You could argue that every spiker is a potential trophy but in reality that is not the case. 
I can think of a few areas that could be closed up or have selective waro that would make no difference to any  operation worth its salt. 

Haast region has seen constant pressure since late 2003 after the sale of feral venison was shut down in 2001. The animals exploded in those 3 years. It was piss easy to fill the chiller. 

However, every year since venison started up again there has been one or more 300+ class stags taken out of the region by recreational hunters. 

I spose my point is that some areas can handle it due to the country/terrain. 

Other areas further north are easy to clean out as the animals do not have the feeder country that is found in South Westland and Otago. 
Easier again to hunt from a machine in late summer where the animals are away from cover, stags are generally mobbed up and complacent after no pressure. 

I dont want or expect to see a trophy red stag in every valley but I would like to know if I do my research and put an effort in, there is a good chance I might find one because I will only be competing with someone else who planned their hunt the same as me and not a helicopter. 











Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## Ryan_Songhurst

> Ryan Songhurst, to say quote "There are plenty of animals to go round now more so than ever, if you can't find one and need to blame the machines for your shortcomings maybe take up golf?" is simply untrue. Up until Waro started up again last February with a vengeance, it had been starting to look very promising with a whole generation of stags being allowed to get some age on them. We are fast degenerating into how bad it was in the dark days of the 80s in a lot of areas.
> There are plenty of areas that have had an absolute pasting in the last year, with a whole generation of chopper naive deer since Waro was last viable a number of years ago that have been sitting ducks. I have no issues with them shooting a good number of hinds and cull stags, but of course they have been targeting the big stags in some of our premier trophy bloodline areas, destroying them for another who knows how many years - all for a short term financial gain. I get sent so many pics on a weekely basis of what they are shooting, and it makes you sick. Just this week another massive 16 pointer out of the Canterbury Alps. The operators are largely only doing what the system allows them to do, so I'm not blaming them.
> But this boom and bust scenario has to stop, which was sposed to be addressed in the promised Waro review which DoC have now reneged on.
> The current system is simply not fair to the majority of public land users, nor sustainable for the Waro guys.


Greg I don't doubt you one bit that maybe they could be more selective when it comes to shooting stags if that's what you're worried about, you do realize that hinds carry genes also? 
I don't believe for one minute that we are headed for a situation where deer are going to become extinct in our high country, the problem lays with the attitude that the average hunter has where he goes and thrashes around a hill for a morning, can't find a deer and then blames it all on waro because of the gobbledegoop he's heard and read through places such as this forum. You have stated yourself it comes and goes in waves, maybe we are "riding the crest" of one of those waves at the moment but it's not going to last forever and it's certainly not going to be the end of deer in NZ. There are too many people in this country that have that attitude where they think if someone looks like they are doing better than them or getting an easy ride then they get the pitchforks out, again these guys in the choppers are not making mega bucks out of this and they do it as a way to drum up cash flow to keep their machines in the air, apart from a select few you will find that waro makes up a very small part of their business. Look into guidelines for animals suitable to be taken by waro operators, fine, but ground the machines because you are worried they are going to wipe out an entire herd?? Yea nah.

----------


## Micky Duck

ryan....hinds carry genes but even if she drops fawn with perfect genetic footprint this year or is in process of weaning it now....its still going to be another 6-8 years untill that maybe perfect/big mature stag is at his peak potential
whereas that 8-10-12pt  stag out there now will be good in 1-2 years IF he gets left to grow it out....
heck im a bush hobbit at heart and shoot/fish for the pot 99% of the time HOWEVER if im going to target a big stag it would be nice to know he might be old enough to be worth the effort to pursue..... I know when I do squeeze trigger on a big fella I will nearly kill myself getting as much meat out as I can carry aswell as the antler.

----------


## GregD

Ryan, yes hinds carry genes but don't grow antlers. Its takes about 6 years for a crop of fawns to mature into possible trophy stags. The Waro guys in some areas have shot a huge percentage of the males, and if it stopped know, its going to be 6 years before anything is going to be old enough again to grow a trophy head. And it looks like these prices are going to continue for the foreseeable future. And in a lot of areas this year they have been shooting all the hinds as well. We don't need/want a high deer population - that is not good for anyone. But we do want a reasonably stable low population with at least 60% stags. That is a sensible balance for both the hunter and the environment. Right now, I can name many, many areas that have had their population reduced to almost zero. Even the Waro guys are struggling to find a deer in there. Because its been 6 or 7 years since these areas have seen a Waro chopper, the deer were completely naive, and the Waro guys themselves have admitted they think they have shot nearly every deer in there over the last year since they started up again. Its going to get harder and harder for them to get the numbers, they move into the remaining less desirable areas, and down and down it will go till it will like it was back in the 80s.
Stupid for them and for us. A sensible managed system with blocks and quotas (and hind/stag ratios) is the only way forward for everyone's sake.
And Berg, this has all taken place in the last year. The last 6 years have been good. Lets see what most hunters think after their annual roar trip this year, unless they're hunting a farm edge reasonably Waro safe area. There is going to be some sad faces come April!

----------


## Micky Duck

its a shit sammie no matter how you cut it......good on you Greg for getting this info out there...just aswell you have short bush rifles aswell as long range stuff,methinks we will be back to bush hobbit hunting again soon,just when Im finnally starting to get hang of sitting on bum and glassing tussock for deer.....

----------


## kimjon

This is a very difficult debate to win, as often hunters will try and argue "both sides of the coin" and end up contradicting themselves.

Examples like:

Hunters are doing doc a favor shooting deer. Then turn around and say they are a game animal not a pest.


Ban 1080 as it kills deer. Then post a photo of a hunter posing next to a dead deer they've killed.


Hunting is a right for all New Zealander's to participate in free of charge. Then state we need to change the classification of deer to game animals where you'd more than likely have to pay into a management fund in order to increase the chances of getting a big stag.


I guess the bottom line is we all know too many deer (or any other introduced species) isn't a good thing for the Bush. The greenies don't give a rat's arse how the deer are removed...they just want them gone. Hunters on the other hand are willing to accept the cost to the environment and the steady decline having these animals will cause. And there in lies the conflict.

There really isn't an acceptable compromise, as these views are directly opposing. Any compromise will come at an unacceptable cost to the others values. 

If I'm to be 100% honest, I value my hunting slightly more than the quest to restore NZ to its pre European environment. Mainly because the genie is already out of the bottle. But my lens on life comes from a bias of been raised around hunters.

----------


## kimjon

> actually if you factor in what 2million moa ate some who could eat up to 2m from the ground and had a diet similar to deer they are just replacing what was wiped out. funnily takahe survived away from doc control in an area that had a heavy deer presence the possum on the other hand is a new type of vegan in the bush.


According to the internet, which we all know is a reliable source of information...there were 58,000 Moa pre Maori in nz.

Also according to the internet, there's an estimated 250,000 wild deer in nz.

So assuming what you're saying is correct about feeding habits; that's 5:1 deer/Moa ratio.

Now factor in that over 70% of the forest has been destroyed by Maori and Europeans. That's 5x the pressure on only 30% of the remaining land...or as a factor (5/0.3=16.7) 16.7 times the pressure on the remaining bush.

I think you'd have your head in the sand if you really believed that introduced animals are doing no harm to the environment. But in perspective with what humans have/are doing...it's nothing. If we really cared about the environment we'd be looking to eradicate people :Grin:

----------


## veitnamcam

> According to the internet, which we all know is a reliable source of information...there were 58,000 Moa pre Maori in nz.
> 
> Also according to the internet, there's an estimated 250,000 wild deer in nz.
> 
> So assuming what you're saying is correct about feeding habits; that's 5:1 deer/Moa ratio.
> 
> Now factor in that over 70% of the forest has been destroyed by Maori and Europeans. That's 5x the pressure on only 30% of the remaining land...or as a factor (5/0.3=16.7) 16.7 times the pressure on the remaining bush.
> 
> I think you'd have your head in the sand if you really believed that introduced animals are doing no harm to the environment. But in perspective with what humans have/are doing...it's nothing. If we really cared about the environment we'd be looking to eradicate people


You can slue figures however you like....
How much developed land/farm/forestry/re gen is now supporting deer(The majority of the population id wager)

----------


## Micky Duck

depends on which introduced animal in particular you are thinking of....
Im sure the moa must have already done the boom n bust thing and been in semi settled state when the canoes arrived and started the first KFM paddle through...it was alays going to go downhill from there. any other animal that was introduced just HAD to find its own balance in the ecosystem...some would slot into niche others had to push another off or over to make room...
its a bit like argument that happens each year about dairy bobbie calves "why dont they keep them and rear them all" well you dopey bra burning cardigan wearer...within 3 years there wouldnt be a blade of grass left on entire country including the ones on your back lawn and the front lawn would be covered in crap..your swimming pool would be drank dry and your own water supply would have to be heavily clorinated.  add in sheep/goats/poultry and the place would look like Noahs ark before he got the cleaners in....
all things in balance. good supply of stags and a few fat healthy hinds would mean great roaring action and good meat animals. the hard bit it to keep things in balance and majority of people happy.

----------


## kimjon

> depends on which introduced animal in particular you are thinking of....
> Im sure the moa must have already done the boom n bust thing and been in semi settled state when the canoes arrived and started the first KFM paddle through...it was alays going to go downhill from there. any other animal that was introduced just HAD to find its own balance in the ecosystem...some would slot into niche others had to push another off or over to make room...
> its a bit like argument that happens each year about dairy bobbie calves "why dont they keep them and rear them all" well you dopey bra burning cardigan wearer...within 3 years there wouldnt be a blade of grass left on entire country including the ones on your back lawn and the front lawn would be covered in crap..your swimming pool would be drank dry and your own water supply would have to be heavily clorinated.  add in sheep/goats/poultry and the place would look like Noahs ark before he got the cleaners in....
> all things in balance. good supply of stags and a few fat healthy hinds would mean great roaring action and good meat animals. the hard bit it to keep things in balance and majority of people happy.


Makes sense to me. Like I said earlier, I have a hunters bias...so as bad as it sounds, I'm okay with the bush steadily declining as I really can't see any way of changing things now.

We all make choices, often to or own detriment. I like alcohol...a lot. Same with eating junk food, and driving and riding vehicles with internal combustion engines. I know I'm an asshole... but there's a lot of others pretending not to be...they're only deluding themselves.

----------


## veitnamcam

> Makes sense to me. Like I said earlier, I have a hunters bias...so as bad as it sounds, I'm okay with the bush steadily declining as I really can't see any way of changing things now.
> 
> We all make choices, often to or own detriment. I like alcohol...a lot. Same with eating junk food, and driving and riding vehicles with internal combustion engines. I know I'm an asshole... but there's a lot of others pretending not to be...they're only deluding themselves.


Do you actually see bush steadily declining? I see the opposite....what was nice openish bush with a few game trails is now choked thick under-story in a lot of areas round here.

----------


## kimjon

> Do you actually see bush steadily declining? I see the opposite....what was nice openish bush with a few game trails is now choked thick under-story in a lot of areas round here.


1080?

----------


## kimjon

I think most hunters find these conversions very uncomfortable to participate in, as if you choose to argue a pro hunting stance - you're basically saying you value your own hunting opportunities more than the preservation/restoration of the New Zealand environment. But don't feel like it's just you (hunters)...hardly anyone truly cares about the environment. Business, governments, council's, farming, forestry...etc...etc...all pretend to care, but they really don't. If we/they truly did give a fuck, non of us would be living the current lifestyle we are. Once you admit to not fully caring about these things, it's quite liberating as you no longer have to come up with justifications.

----------


## veitnamcam

> 1080?


for the most part but also huge increase in population/hunters/ everyone has a 4wd /boat/thermal/nv etc

----------


## Micky Duck

regeneration of bush/vegetation damage is an interesting one, lets for arguments sake take mount somers as an egzample. pinacles hut was built in slaughter gully back about 25 year ago. its called slaughter gully because Gerry Orouke got stuck into mob of over 100 hinds in there way back in 1900 and nuts and bolts
another fella who meat hunted area in 60s said a group of 6 hinds lived in that same area during that period of time
I spent a heap of time in andaround that hut before I got married and the deer just dont LIVE there any more,neither do the sheep that used to graze right to there from over the back towards waterfall creek.... when I first started hunting area some 25ish years ago I took series of photos right around me (didnt have flash panning digital cameras back then) and the majority of vegetation in the area was about a meter high,if you go back to that same spot now it is well over your head,even the hebe type bushes are huge by comparison to what they were.
the bush in that area has well deserved reputation for being thick tangled crappy going.....plenty regen going on.... beech seedlings everywhere AND broadleaf five finger,seven finger etc too so animal numbers arent whipeing out the vege anytime soon.
the whole arguement that deer COULD go back to numbers of the 40s etc is flawed as times have changed,technology has made your weekend hunter far more able to get out and harvest an animal ,sure we arent as fit as we were back then but with 4wds etc we dont need to be. the big herds of unchecked numbers wont build up because they wont go undetected...eg the back of high country stations get visited all the time and flown over all the time,deer arent going to go undetected and breed up into huge herds because they will be seen...thus able to be dealt with,weather that is by shooting a few for the pot/allowing easier access/search n destroy either foot or by air or waro and dare I say it poison.
times have changed.
put trusty 222 and his lot in the bush areas and some of the long range guys out in open areas and your block animal numbers could be reduced in a big way quickly,buzz around in a 44 on search and destroy and same applies.
its so much easier now as to be a non issue.

----------


## kimjon

I don't disagree with what you're saying...which is basically reduce deer numbers and the bush grows.

However I've just returned from hunting the RHA blocks...numbers of deer aren't exactly thin on the ground. I did my part the same as most keen recreational trophie hunters willing to pay top dollar to fly into these blocks in search of pre roar trophies do, and didn't shoot a single deer because they were all too small. So did the others hunting neighboring block's. We all saw plenty of deer, they just weren't big enough to shoot. 

Relying on recreational hunters to control numbers really isn't going to work, as there's an immediate conflict of interest. We all do it, "nurse a block along" even our meat hunting spots. Not many hunters purposely hunt a block out of all deer, we selectively harvest, if our efforts are returning low results we go somewhere else.

For the environment to recover, we need more "slaughter gully" type examples. Any farmer can tell you that after a paddock has been heavily grazed - you've gotta move all the stock out. If you left even a low number of stock in that paddock the grass would be kept down...it's exactly the same in the bush.

What's less obvious in the bush is that there are many species of pants and trees that deer, goats, pigs etc don't find that palatable. So at a quick glance, the uneducated would say "looks fine to me...there's plenty of trees here". Yes there's "plenty of trees" but they're seeing lots of the same trees, with very little diversity as all the good stuff has been eaten. 

I guess my points are that the choices we make have consequences. I'm simply pointing out what that is. I'm not saying if its right or wrong. Even the most hardcore vegan greenies will be underestimating what there own shitty, soulless, anti fun existence has in terms of environmental impacts on this country by simply choosing to live here.

----------


## Steve123

> Do you actually see bush steadily declining? I see the opposite....what was nice openish bush with a few game trails is now choked thick under-story in a lot of areas round here.


Have you thought about how weather patterns have changed? Nelson used to be dry as a nun's cnut when the rain only came with south westerlies. There's a lot more crap weather from the noth east now days. Maybe the extra watering's helping the growth?

----------


## MB

I value hunting opportunities over what type of tree is growing in a forest. Makes f*** all difference to me. There, I said it. I'm being honest. I don't understand the obsession with all things native. If you want a native environment, get rid of all the deer and basically any mammal that walks on four legs, including cats and dogs, and sheep and cows, and if you're really serious about it, the people too, whether they arrived by canoe, boat or plane. The whole of society wants it both ways, not just hunters,

----------


## kimjon

As George Carlin famously once said “The planet is fine. The people are fucked.”

https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

----------


## csmiffy

"I won't say that I would also love to bring in pure wapiti semen and AI a few cows in the wapiti area as I realise that this is not allowed and very controversial....."
KUDU-from memory there was a Wapiti rehabilitation program in the 70's where prime specimens where netted and relocated to a govt farm for genetic protection from interbreeding with reds. the Wanaka region somewhere?
Potentially these and/or their progeny could be released back into area after the red numbers were reduced enough to justify it.
Sticking point came when the govt types worked out that they were still classed as a pest and as such could not be repatriated under a govt system.
Please forgive me if I have got this wrong. I read it many years ago and may not have the detail correct. Cant' therefore comment if the farm is still govt owned or even still running.

----------


## kimjon

> "I won't say that I would also love to bring in pure wapiti semen and AI a few cows in the wapiti area as I realise that this is not allowed and very controversial....."
> KUDU-from memory there was a Wapiti rehabilitation program in the 70's where prime specimens where netted and relocated to a govt farm for genetic protection from interbreeding with reds. the Wanaka region somewhere?
> Potentially these and/or their progeny could be released back into area after the red numbers were reduced enough to justify it.
> Sticking point came when the govt types worked out that they were still classed as a pest and as such could not be repatriated under a govt system.
> Please forgive me if I have got this wrong. I read it many years ago and may not have the detail correct. Cant' therefore comment if the farm is still govt owned or even still running.



You're on the money, the above is correct.

----------


## kimjon

The idea of killing 100 red deer and in return been allowed to release one pure wapiti makes perfect sense...however the law can be a funny thing sometimes. You see, it really doesn't matter how many good deeds you do...it only cares about the one bad thing you do. There will be many Catholic priests in prison who could testify that's how the system works.

----------


## Micky Duck

if the greenies want to go backwards its not only the animals that have to go...start with the vegetation....look in your own backyard and the roundup will skonk 98% of everything green there. grass,flowers,trees the lot has to go. here in Geraldine we mightny be totally nuked as there are a lot of natives in gardens but lawns will have to be nuked bare.
no animals at all you got cats n dogs,sheep,cows,horses but the list is far far larger than that.
bottom line is it wont happen,we have let geanie out of bottle and need to live with what we have and try to refind BALANCE..... it will be artificle balance as we CANT let it take its own course as we have moved scales too far to just leap of then end of the beam ourselves.
its finding a balance point to satisfy the majority that is difficult bit.

----------


## kimjon

> if the greenies want to go backwards its not only the animals that have to go...start with the vegetation....look in your own backyard and the roundup will skonk 98% of everything green there. grass,flowers,trees the lot has to go. here in Geraldine we mightny be totally nuked as there are a lot of natives in gardens but lawns will have to be nuked bare.
> no animals at all you got cats n dogs,sheep,cows,horses but the list is far far larger than that.
> bottom line is it wont happen,we have let geanie out of bottle and need to live with what we have and try to refind BALANCE..... it will be artificle balance as we CANT let it take its own course as we have moved scales too far to just leap of then end of the beam ourselves.
> its finding a balance point to satisfy the majority that is difficult bit.


Bingo!

You've got it. That George Carlin clip nails it. People don't do things to save the planet, they do it to enhance their own environment so they have a nice place to live. It just so happens that I feel "my environment" would benefit from a few animals to hunt :Thumbsup:

----------


## Frodo

I have slightly more respect for people who are living their lives 'entirely wrong' by societies standards (within legal means!), but who are honest with 'WHY' they're doing what they're doing (i.e not trying to rationalize it) - than people who only pay lip service and go through the motions of 'appearing' to do the correct things, but not actually fully committing to whatever it is. 

Time for some anecdotal examples!

_E.g Climate change sympathizers who denounce the beliefs/actions of those who aren't environmentally conscious, but who still drive fuel hungry cars, take expensive international flights (business class) to attend climate change conferences, buy the latest 'greatest' electronic technology (made from oil) etc. It's laughable. Do you really give a f*ck about the environment?!_ 

_E.g DOC workers who are hell bent on culling every introduced mammal there is, and doing it in the name of 'conservation', but then going out and shooting animals for leisure in their own time and 'enjoying' the resource. On one hand, the deer are the work of the devil, and on the other they provide 'pleasure' in the form of recreation?_ 

_E.g Our GOVT endorsing the notion that possums should be killed at every opportunity and treated like trash (because they're introduced, and they have a negative effect on our native bush), but the introduced trout is sacred and takes precedence over our NATIVE fish?? Wait - I thought introduced = bad? Oh; if it brings in revenue it's all good. I forgot._ 

There are so many contradictions when it comes to environmentalism, that it's just a headache trying to make sense of it all.

I'm a proponent of instilling balance, mitigating detrimental, human induced influences on the environment, and generating revenue via natural resources...but without the bullshit. Bullshit clouds everything. If it's okay for 'certain' introduced species to take priority over certain native species, then just tell it like it is (i.e It's not about native vs introduced, but about nurturing the existence of species that are playing active and productive roles within the ecosystem). But that will completely rip apart any argument which puts certain native biota on a pedestal, simply by virtue of them being 'native'...because, people will argue - well, what is the Takahe actually contributing? Other than being a national icon which we can all feel giddy about and exploit for tourism purposes. 

When people aren't straight forward. When people try and contort the truth - that's when everything turns pear shaped.

 :Grin:  It's fun to speculate.

----------


## Tararuas hunter

Haven’t really posted in this pub, before. But this topic is a bit of an interest to me, having had to battle with DOC over this very issue. (through the Lower North Island Red Deer Foundation) With the current revival of WARO due to the price increase, its an issue that isn’t going to go away, and in fact in a year or two, hunting in many public lands might be quite different. If that isn’t whats happening already

The “rights” of recreational versus commercial on Conservation lands is interesting. In deer control, commercial permits are provided for under the wild animal control act (WAC act). Permits to hunt are likewise issued under that act.

 The act doesn’t give any precedence to recreational of commercial. Generally, commercial (WARO) and rec hunters are competitors, for the same animals (mostly) But WARo does have an advantage over foot hunters and can ruin the chances of success of foot hunters. But that’s not an issue, as far as he WAC act is conserned

But, the departments main legislation, the conservation act, does recognize the obligation to “foster” recreation. DOC now acknowledge that this includes rec hunting

The same act does not recognize any need to “foster” commercial use, only “allow” tourism.

So hunters do have a precedence over commercial use on conservation lands

But because WARO permits are issued under the WAC act, DOC chooses to ignore the rights of recreation. This is mainly due to DOC maintaining the policy of Only Good deer is a Dead one, and openly favour WARO, often at the expense of rec hunting

As has been stated here, the forests have evolved since the days of deer population explosions and the massive impacts on vegetation. Not, while being mainly unpreferred species, the forest now are unrecognizable from what existed in the 1950s, 60’s. And in these new forests, palatable species are reappearing.  It isn’t known how much deer populations need to be reduced to restore the most preferred species, but exclosure plots suggests near zero population is needed. This is never going to happen over nearly all of NZ.

So theres a legitimate argument that rec hunting needs can be accommodated in many areas, without jepordising conservation. To do this would need more restrictions over WARO

In fact, other than to “control” deer, WARO have no statutory right to  a business that has negative effects on public use.
The term “Control” is not ever understood by DOC. It doesn’t mean the lowest possible deer population. 

But DOCs propping up of the WARO industry is preventing any logical discussion about this. (a major review of the sustainability of WARO versus recreation was planned by DOC this year, but was canned by DOC after nearly 2 years of saying it would happen. This decision coincided with the recent revival of WARO. It wasn’t long ago it was doom and gloom in DOC. WARO reps objected to this review, and seems DOC bowed to their wishes. Despite the review being not only about commercial but also recreation. 

DOC has seen the revival of WARO as their saviour, and for the time being, are happy. Its just more of the Boom and Bust. And we will see a repeat of the past decline. But neither DOC nor the WARO industry seem to have any strategic understanding of how deer control could be better managed.

That’s an issue that DOC is still being challenged over, as DOC gave commitments to the High Court (during the legal challenge of Lower North Island WARO permits ) or other commitments made by DOC

So my own view , is that unless conservation is not put at risk by inadequate recreational hunting, commercial hunting has no rights that effect hunting. 
Having said that, the reality is that WARO need to be viable to be able to do the control job where its needed. And in places only WARo is capable of achieving deer control

But often, a mix of WARO rec hunting can achieve deer control, while still accommodation recreation needs. Ie mainly hinds harvest, limits on period of operating, harvest levals for waro, etc etc

But as a general rule, if recreation can manage deer, they should have priority.

But to get DOC to think about this has failed for the last 30 years or whatever. To a fair extent, also with the NZ Forest Service before. (except NZFS did create RHAs and some Closed areas.)

The Games Animal Council has been promoting a more managed WARO industry but seems DOC is ignoring them
What is a problem, is the complacent attitude of rec hunters, “its never been better” or “they don’t get them all”. So DOC have taken the view that theres no need fore change.

 Our national hunting body, the NZDA do not appear to be making much noise about this situation, despite having the much awaited WARO review taken away, to pander to the commercial hunting sector

Realise this is a bit of a rant, for a 1st time post. Its something that occupied a fair bit of time of the LNIRDF, and our battles locally over the Ruahines, tararuas etc are still not over


I better post a trip report soon, don't want to just do the soap box thingy :Have A Nice Day: 
Off on a 3 week walk next week down south

----------


## Taff

> The idea of killing 100 red deer and in return been allowed to release one pure wapiti makes perfect sense...however the law can be a funny thing sometimes. You see, it really doesn't matter how many good deeds you do...it only cares about the one bad thing you do. There will be many Catholic priests in prison who could testify that's how the system works.


I hope I have misunderstood what you are implying

----------


## A330driver

> Do you actually see bush steadily declining? I see the opposite....what was nice openish bush with a few game trails is now choked thick under-story in a lot of areas round here.


I too, would agree....seems to me a lot of land being transferred back to its original owners,are now ......Gorse farms.....sarcasim included

----------


## kimjon

> I hope I have misunderstood what you are implying


I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying. If not this old joke is along similar lines...

An old irishman shuffles into a bar at sundown with his eyes low and his head down the bartender says "ay, billy! whats the matter. you seem troubled" billy responds with "you see this bar we're standing in. I built it with me own hands! but they don't call me the bar builder, no!

and the bridge everyone uses to cross the river to get to the market, i built that that with me own hands too! but do the call me the bridge builder? no, they do not.

and the wall that protects our city, i built that with me own hands too! and they don't call me the wall builder neither.

BUT YOU FUCK ONE GOAT!...

----------


## kimjon

I don't disagree with what you're saying...which is basically reduce deer numbers and the bush grows.

However I've just returned from hunting the RHA blocks...numbers of deer aren't exactly thin on the ground. I did my part the same as most keen recreational trophie hunters willing to pay top dollar to fly into these blocks in search of pre roar trophies do, and didn't shoot a single deer because they were all too small. So did the others hunting neighboring block's. We all saw plenty of deer, they just weren't big enough to shoot. 

Relying on recreational hunters to control numbers really isn't going to work, as there's an immediate conflict of interest. We all do it, "nurse a block along" even our meat hunting spots. Not many hunters purposely hunt a block out of all deer, we selectively harvest, if our efforts are returning low results we go somewhere else.

For the environment to recover, we need more "slaughter gully" type examples. Any farmer can tell you that after a paddock has been heavily grazed - you've gotta move all the stock out. If you left even a low number of stock in that paddock the grass would be kept down...it's exactly the same in the bush.

What's less obvious in the bush is that there are many species of pants and trees that deer, goats, pigs etc don't find that palatable. So at a quick glance, the uneducated would say "looks fine to me...there's plenty of trees here". Yes there's "plenty of trees" but they're seeing lots of the same trees, with very little diversity as all the good stuff has been eaten. 

I guess my points are that the choices we make have consequences. I'm simply pointing out what that is. I'm not saying if its right or wrong. Even the most hardcore vegan greenies will be underestimating what there own shitty, soulless, anti fun existence has in terms of environmental impacts on this country by simply choosing to live here.

----------


## Steve123

> Do you actually see bush steadily declining? I see the opposite....what was nice openish bush with a few game trails is now choked thick under-story in a lot of areas round here.


Have you thought about how weather patterns have changed? Nelson used to be dry as a nun's cnut when the rain only came with south westerlies. There's a lot more crap weather from the noth east now days. Maybe the extra watering's helping the growth?

----------


## MB

I value hunting opportunities over what type of tree is growing in a forest. Makes f*** all difference to me. There, I said it. I'm being honest. I don't understand the obsession with all things native. If you want a native environment, get rid of all the deer and basically any mammal that walks on four legs, including cats and dogs, and sheep and cows, and if you're really serious about it, the people too, whether they arrived by canoe, boat or plane. The whole of society wants it both ways, not just hunters,

----------


## kimjon

As George Carlin famously once said “The planet is fine. The people are fucked.”

https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

----------


## csmiffy

"I won't say that I would also love to bring in pure wapiti semen and AI a few cows in the wapiti area as I realise that this is not allowed and very controversial....."
KUDU-from memory there was a Wapiti rehabilitation program in the 70's where prime specimens where netted and relocated to a govt farm for genetic protection from interbreeding with reds. the Wanaka region somewhere?
Potentially these and/or their progeny could be released back into area after the red numbers were reduced enough to justify it.
Sticking point came when the govt types worked out that they were still classed as a pest and as such could not be repatriated under a govt system.
Please forgive me if I have got this wrong. I read it many years ago and may not have the detail correct. Cant' therefore comment if the farm is still govt owned or even still running.

----------


## kimjon

> "I won't say that I would also love to bring in pure wapiti semen and AI a few cows in the wapiti area as I realise that this is not allowed and very controversial....."
> KUDU-from memory there was a Wapiti rehabilitation program in the 70's where prime specimens where netted and relocated to a govt farm for genetic protection from interbreeding with reds. the Wanaka region somewhere?
> Potentially these and/or their progeny could be released back into area after the red numbers were reduced enough to justify it.
> Sticking point came when the govt types worked out that they were still classed as a pest and as such could not be repatriated under a govt system.
> Please forgive me if I have got this wrong. I read it many years ago and may not have the detail correct. Cant' therefore comment if the farm is still govt owned or even still running.



You're on the money, the above is correct.

----------


## kimjon

The idea of killing 100 red deer and in return been allowed to release one pure wapiti makes perfect sense...however the law can be a funny thing sometimes. You see, it really doesn't matter how many good deeds you do...it only cares about the one bad thing you do. There will be many Catholic priests in prison who could testify that's how the system works.

----------


## Micky Duck

if the greenies want to go backwards its not only the animals that have to go...start with the vegetation....look in your own backyard and the roundup will skonk 98% of everything green there. grass,flowers,trees the lot has to go. here in Geraldine we mightny be totally nuked as there are a lot of natives in gardens but lawns will have to be nuked bare.
no animals at all you got cats n dogs,sheep,cows,horses but the list is far far larger than that.
bottom line is it wont happen,we have let geanie out of bottle and need to live with what we have and try to refind BALANCE..... it will be artificle balance as we CANT let it take its own course as we have moved scales too far to just leap of then end of the beam ourselves.
its finding a balance point to satisfy the majority that is difficult bit.

----------


## kimjon

> if the greenies want to go backwards its not only the animals that have to go...start with the vegetation....look in your own backyard and the roundup will skonk 98% of everything green there. grass,flowers,trees the lot has to go. here in Geraldine we mightny be totally nuked as there are a lot of natives in gardens but lawns will have to be nuked bare.
> no animals at all you got cats n dogs,sheep,cows,horses but the list is far far larger than that.
> bottom line is it wont happen,we have let geanie out of bottle and need to live with what we have and try to refind BALANCE..... it will be artificle balance as we CANT let it take its own course as we have moved scales too far to just leap of then end of the beam ourselves.
> its finding a balance point to satisfy the majority that is difficult bit.


Bingo!

You've got it. That George Carlin clip nails it. People don't do things to save the planet, they do it to enhance their own environment so they have a nice place to live. It just so happens that I feel "my environment" would benefit from a few animals to hunt :Thumbsup:

----------


## Frodo

I have slightly more respect for people who are living their lives 'entirely wrong' by societies standards (within legal means!), but who are honest with 'WHY' they're doing what they're doing (i.e not trying to rationalize it) - than people who only pay lip service and go through the motions of 'appearing' to do the correct things, but not actually fully committing to whatever it is. 

Time for some anecdotal examples!

_E.g Climate change sympathizers who denounce the beliefs/actions of those who aren't environmentally conscious, but who still drive fuel hungry cars, take expensive international flights (business class) to attend climate change conferences, buy the latest 'greatest' electronic technology (made from oil) etc. It's laughable. Do you really give a f*ck about the environment?!_ 

_E.g DOC workers who are hell bent on culling every introduced mammal there is, and doing it in the name of 'conservation', but then going out and shooting animals for leisure in their own time and 'enjoying' the resource. On one hand, the deer are the work of the devil, and on the other they provide 'pleasure' in the form of recreation?_ 

_E.g Our GOVT endorsing the notion that possums should be killed at every opportunity and treated like trash (because they're introduced, and they have a negative effect on our native bush), but the introduced trout is sacred and takes precedence over our NATIVE fish?? Wait - I thought introduced = bad? Oh; if it brings in revenue it's all good. I forgot._ 

There are so many contradictions when it comes to environmentalism, that it's just a headache trying to make sense of it all.

I'm a proponent of instilling balance, mitigating detrimental, human induced influences on the environment, and generating revenue via natural resources...but without the bullshit. Bullshit clouds everything. If it's okay for 'certain' introduced species to take priority over certain native species, then just tell it like it is (i.e It's not about native vs introduced, but about nurturing the existence of species that are playing active and productive roles within the ecosystem). But that will completely rip apart any argument which puts certain native biota on a pedestal, simply by virtue of them being 'native'...because, people will argue - well, what is the Takahe actually contributing? Other than being a national icon which we can all feel giddy about and exploit for tourism purposes. 

When people aren't straight forward. When people try and contort the truth - that's when everything turns pear shaped.

 :Grin:  It's fun to speculate.

----------


## Tararuas hunter

Haven’t really posted in this pub, before. But this topic is a bit of an interest to me, having had to battle with DOC over this very issue. (through the Lower North Island Red Deer Foundation) With the current revival of WARO due to the price increase, its an issue that isn’t going to go away, and in fact in a year or two, hunting in many public lands might be quite different. If that isn’t whats happening already

The “rights” of recreational versus commercial on Conservation lands is interesting. In deer control, commercial permits are provided for under the wild animal control act (WAC act). Permits to hunt are likewise issued under that act.

 The act doesn’t give any precedence to recreational of commercial. Generally, commercial (WARO) and rec hunters are competitors, for the same animals (mostly) But WARo does have an advantage over foot hunters and can ruin the chances of success of foot hunters. But that’s not an issue, as far as he WAC act is conserned

But, the departments main legislation, the conservation act, does recognize the obligation to “foster” recreation. DOC now acknowledge that this includes rec hunting

The same act does not recognize any need to “foster” commercial use, only “allow” tourism.

So hunters do have a precedence over commercial use on conservation lands

But because WARO permits are issued under the WAC act, DOC chooses to ignore the rights of recreation. This is mainly due to DOC maintaining the policy of Only Good deer is a Dead one, and openly favour WARO, often at the expense of rec hunting

As has been stated here, the forests have evolved since the days of deer population explosions and the massive impacts on vegetation. Not, while being mainly unpreferred species, the forest now are unrecognizable from what existed in the 1950s, 60’s. And in these new forests, palatable species are reappearing.  It isn’t known how much deer populations need to be reduced to restore the most preferred species, but exclosure plots suggests near zero population is needed. This is never going to happen over nearly all of NZ.

So theres a legitimate argument that rec hunting needs can be accommodated in many areas, without jepordising conservation. To do this would need more restrictions over WARO

In fact, other than to “control” deer, WARO have no statutory right to  a business that has negative effects on public use.
The term “Control” is not ever understood by DOC. It doesn’t mean the lowest possible deer population. 

But DOCs propping up of the WARO industry is preventing any logical discussion about this. (a major review of the sustainability of WARO versus recreation was planned by DOC this year, but was canned by DOC after nearly 2 years of saying it would happen. This decision coincided with the recent revival of WARO. It wasn’t long ago it was doom and gloom in DOC. WARO reps objected to this review, and seems DOC bowed to their wishes. Despite the review being not only about commercial but also recreation. 

DOC has seen the revival of WARO as their saviour, and for the time being, are happy. Its just more of the Boom and Bust. And we will see a repeat of the past decline. But neither DOC nor the WARO industry seem to have any strategic understanding of how deer control could be better managed.

That’s an issue that DOC is still being challenged over, as DOC gave commitments to the High Court (during the legal challenge of Lower North Island WARO permits ) or other commitments made by DOC

So my own view , is that unless conservation is not put at risk by inadequate recreational hunting, commercial hunting has no rights that effect hunting. 
Having said that, the reality is that WARO need to be viable to be able to do the control job where its needed. And in places only WARo is capable of achieving deer control

But often, a mix of WARO rec hunting can achieve deer control, while still accommodation recreation needs. Ie mainly hinds harvest, limits on period of operating, harvest levals for waro, etc etc

But as a general rule, if recreation can manage deer, they should have priority.

But to get DOC to think about this has failed for the last 30 years or whatever. To a fair extent, also with the NZ Forest Service before. (except NZFS did create RHAs and some Closed areas.)

The Games Animal Council has been promoting a more managed WARO industry but seems DOC is ignoring them
What is a problem, is the complacent attitude of rec hunters, “its never been better” or “they don’t get them all”. So DOC have taken the view that theres no need fore change.

 Our national hunting body, the NZDA do not appear to be making much noise about this situation, despite having the much awaited WARO review taken away, to pander to the commercial hunting sector

Realise this is a bit of a rant, for a 1st time post. Its something that occupied a fair bit of time of the LNIRDF, and our battles locally over the Ruahines, tararuas etc are still not over


I better post a trip report soon, don't want to just do the soap box thingy :Have A Nice Day: 
Off on a 3 week walk next week down south

----------


## Taff

> The idea of killing 100 red deer and in return been allowed to release one pure wapiti makes perfect sense...however the law can be a funny thing sometimes. You see, it really doesn't matter how many good deeds you do...it only cares about the one bad thing you do. There will be many Catholic priests in prison who could testify that's how the system works.


I hope I have misunderstood what you are implying

----------


## A330driver

> Do you actually see bush steadily declining? I see the opposite....what was nice openish bush with a few game trails is now choked thick under-story in a lot of areas round here.


I too, would agree....seems to me a lot of land being transferred back to its original owners,are now ......Gorse farms.....sarcasim included

----------


## kimjon

> I hope I have misunderstood what you are implying


I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying. If not this old joke is along similar lines...

An old irishman shuffles into a bar at sundown with his eyes low and his head down the bartender says "ay, billy! whats the matter. you seem troubled" billy responds with "you see this bar we're standing in. I built it with me own hands! but they don't call me the bar builder, no!

and the bridge everyone uses to cross the river to get to the market, i built that that with me own hands too! but do the call me the bridge builder? no, they do not.

and the wall that protects our city, i built that with me own hands too! and they don't call me the wall builder neither.

BUT YOU FUCK ONE GOAT!...

----------

