I'm pretty late to this discussion but here's my thoughts on your article:
I think your goals are contradictory.
You began your discussion on hunting tourism by saying that we should embrace it. You then say that we should put additional barriers to tourist hunters in three different ways- by charging them for a license, by requiring them to hire a guide and by requiring them to buy a tag. There's nothing in the discussion about exactly how the tourists would be embraced. It sounds like three more reasons not to hunt in New Zealand. Also, towards the end of the article you say that we should shoot the hind to control numbers but implementing a tag system would preclude a tourist from shooting more than one.
I'm against the idea of taxing all firearms and ammunition. Not all firearm owners hunt and increasing the cost of being a firearm owner is contrary to your goal of encouraging more people to hunt. I'd be OK with it if it resulted in protected shooting ranges close to major cities as opposed to just "game animal management." Game animal management in USA costs money because they are actively working to increase herd numbers and repopulate decimated species. The only management required here is to decide what numbers we are happy with and keep them below that. Currently this is done by culling. I'd like to see culls replaced by a bounty system.
I don't want to be too critical of you because I agree with your concern for the future of the sport and I think you have some good points:
Yes we need as many shooters as we can recruit. And hunters.
Hunters for Conservation is a very good idea. I didn't know there were organized efforts from hunting organisations like NZDA to put out all those stoat traps I see around. I always assumed that DOC did them all. Maybe some better PR is needed.
Yes we are massively underrepresented in politics. I'm surprised that you never mentioned ACT. National pay lip service to hunting but I don't think there are any actual pro-hunting parties in parliament other than ACT.
Bookmarks