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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimjon
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimjon
1080?Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
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.
for the most part but also huge increase in population/hunters/ everyone has a 4wd /boat/thermal/nv etcQuote:
Originally Posted by kimjon
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
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,
As George Carlin famously once said “The planet is fine. The people are fucked.”
https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmiffy
You're on the money, the above is correct.
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
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:
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.
:D It's fun to speculate.
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:)
Off on a 3 week walk next week down south
I hope I have misunderstood what you are implyingQuote:
Originally Posted by kimjon
I too, would agree....seems to me a lot of land being transferred back to its original owners,are now ......”Gorse farms”.....sarcasim includedQuote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying. If not this old joke is along similar lines...Quote:
Originally Posted by Taff
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!...