Discussion on NZ Hunting moving forward - NZGuns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

A levy is a state tax.

---

Don't care what you call it - and as I said, I wouldn't advocate for state control.
Given your proclivity for constructive suggestions: what would your esteemed wisdom suggest? Or are you just going to keep kicking the tyres?

If every licenced firearm owner was prepared to part with $1 per week, we could collectively fund an advocacy group to the time of $15.6 million annually. If we could each give up the oft touted 'one coffee a week', we'd be flush to the tune of $70m per year! That is a healthy fighting fund, and invested wisely, could really make a difference.

The only obstacle we have to overcome is that we have a group of 300,000 individuals, many of whom just don't get that unity is strength, and actively advocate against a single collective that has the ability to become a major force in the political landscape that cannot be ignored and won't sit quietly and bleed to death, instead fighting for legitimate firearms use, and stopping the rot that is seeing us lose whole shooting disciplines at the stroke of a pen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

If every licenced firearm owner was prepared to part with $1 per week, we could collectively fund an advocacy group to the time of $15.6 million annually. If we could each give up the oft touted 'one coffee a week', we'd be flush to the tune of $70m per year! That is a healthy fighting fund, and invested wisely, could really make a difference.

The only obstacle we have to overcome is that we have a group of 300,000 individuals, many of whom just don't get that unity is strength, and actively advocate against a single collective that has the ability to become a major force in the political landscape that cannot be ignored and won't sit quietly and bleed to death, instead fighting for legitimate firearms use, and stopping the rot that is seeing us lose whole shooting disciplines at the stroke of a pen.

---

The flaw in your argument is that you expect all shooter tos pay for advocacy for only one aspect of shooting.
By contributing financially to COLFO I put my money into a group that advocates for all shooters.

Honestly, as I've written previously, I support hunters but not with my hard earned money.
I don't expect hunters to fund target shooters like me and can't understand with others think I should fund hunters.
It isn't about working together, it's about being fair and reasonable.

I'll work with and for hunters, target shooters, sports shooters, for fair rules and legislation that benefit all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody

Recognition of these introduced game animals as assets to be managed as permanent long term implies the necessity of a dedicated management structure and therefore a cost. Such cost would have to come partially from treasury and part from users. Because the game animals of concern are by and large on public (govt) land then establishment of a licence fee to assist in preservation and administration of the "asset herds" immediately gives the users / licence holders leverage at parliamentary level.
To my mind, this is the only feasible way forward, but the extreme green factions within and outside govt know this and will try to block it ruthlessly in the same way they block meaningful alternatives to aerial poisoning. Game animal management under a specific body such as NZF&G and under a unique minister and stand alone Wildlife Act will have far more strength than the GAC or any othe NGO and is the most legislatable way to address DoC and MfE and the NGO's like forest and bird. Bear in mind that existing legislation claims govt ownership of wild animals, not hunters.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

The flaw in your argument is that you expect all shooter tos pay for advocacy for only one aspect of shooting.
By contributing financially to COLFO I put my money into a group that advocates for all shooters.

Honestly, as I've written previously, I support hunters but not with my hard earned money.
I don't expect hunters to fund target shooters like me and can't understand with others think I should fund hunters.
It isn't about working together, it's about being fair and reasonable.

I'll work with and for hunters, target shooters, sports shooters, for fair rules and legislation that benefit all.

---

@Cyclops - mate, I never even mentioned hunters in my post! You, however, seem to have the 'us' vs 'them' thing down to a fine art! What I think would work is a single organisation - COLFO seems to fit the bill at present - that every firearm owner will support financially, and gun shops come on board as well with a donation from every dollar spent on guns and ammo, to create a monster that cannot be ignored by government. Reading your post, I actually think you and I are on the same page.

Yes , that should then encourage a political lobby and lead to legislation creation they way we need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

Good article, I like the way you think.

To my mind there is a major contradiction between hunters and ecologists. The hunter has a vested interest in maintaining the animal populations, and is focused on sustainable meat collection. The ecologist/greenie is focused on sustainable biodiversity/forest health, and has a vested interest in removing feral 'pest' species. Finding common ground can be very challenging, but is essential to avoid the green rain future.

So the obvious solution would appear to be to maintain pest populations at a level suited to allow healthy forest biodiversity. .

---

well a few years back local council got all excited over small patch of ground,it has some rather rare types of grasses in it..being swamped by non native grasses ,so they ASKED me if I would put sheep in to graze it....block devided in half....the idea was to graze one half,not the other and work out what density of sheep per ha was GOOD for keeping reserves health and lower fire risk etc.... all went well and I built up sheep numbers as requested...then we got dry year and loads of rabbits in felled trees....the grass got eaten down in parts hard,not so much in others ...then the greenie element decided sheep eating too much other shrubbery so all had to go...NOW
the whole idea of finding balance abandoned at first hurdle..I was left with small mob of sheep and no big area to hold them.....still had grazing on couple of small reserves so didnt have to slaughter them all.....
it really opened my eyes to how short sighted the twig n twitter element can be...

As an outsider and from a country which effectively banned almost all hunting and currently on the verge of loosing guns. All kind of shooters hunters/non-hunters need to support each other in every possible way. Make no mistake, if hunting is gone then will take your guns too asking reason why you need guns. Public at large has no idea about plinking shooting for fun etc. Only thing you will be left with ISSF or something like that.

Get more girls into shooting/hunting. You will have next few generations who will shoot. Take out people, get your colleagues to shoot with you. I have taken out hardcore anti-guns people and believe me once they are on range and shoot few rounds they convert. \

Charging hefty amounts to foreigners. Ha ha that is like making a lion taste blood. You can forget free/cheap hunting for locals then and then a time will come when only foreigners will be hunting. We have seen that in INDIA prior to hunting ban, wealthy Americans were doing all hunting then.

Stop being apologetic about guns/hunting. You are not doing anything illegal. I like guns and hunting and if someone has a issue with that then they can go F themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inder

As an outsider and from a country which effectively banned almost all hunting and currently on the verge of loosing guns. All kind of shooters hunters/non-hunters need to support each other in every possible way. Make no mistake, if hunting is gone then will take your guns too asking reason why you need guns. Public at large has no idea about plinking shooting for fun etc. Only thing you will be left with ISSF or something like that.

Get more girls into shooting/hunting. You will have next few generations who will shoot. Take out people, get your colleagues to shoot with you. I have taken out hardcore anti-guns people and believe me once they are on range and shoot few rounds they convert. \

Charging hefty amounts to foreigners. Ha ha that is like making a lion taste blood. You can forget free/cheap hunting for locals then and then a time will come when only foreigners will be hunting. We have seen that in INDIA prior to hunting ban, wealthy Americans were doing all hunting then.

Stop being apologetic about guns/hunting. You are not doing anything illegal. I like guns and hunting and if someone has a issue with that then they can go F themselves.

---

This!

absolutely correct. I shoot clays and targets as well as hunt. lets face it if we dont have viable hunting, we dont have firearms. The latest regulation change debacle should have proven that by and large we are all one group and can support each other and face the same threats. As well the game animal council can use its advisory role in support of firearms users in general, not just hunters.

taking the girls out hunting and or shooting is a load of fun..... my girls know how to shoot but BOTH are cack eyed ..left eye dominant and right handed so trying to get them to line anything up is problimatic....might just HAVE TO fit red lazer and be done with it LOL.

I'd hate to see us get locked out of public land hunting. I also dont like how lots of foreigners specifically (pre-covid) come here to hunt public land.
I think non citizens should have to engage a guide and primarily be restricted to private land.
The best way forward is to join political parties so our voices are heard.


Sent from my SM-G390Y using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

well a few years back local council got all excited over small patch of ground,it has some rather rare types of grasses in it..being swamped by non native grasses ,so they ASKED me if I would put sheep in to graze it....block devided in half....the idea was to graze one half,not the other and work out what density of sheep per ha was GOOD for keeping reserves health and lower fire risk etc.... all went well and I built up sheep numbers as requested...then we got dry year and loads of rabbits in felled trees....the grass got eaten down in parts hard,not so much in others ...then the greenie element decided sheep eating too much other shrubbery so all had to go...NOW
the whole idea of finding balance abandoned at first hurdle..I was left with small mob of sheep and no big area to hold them.....still had grazing on couple of small reserves so didnt have to slaughter them all.....
it really opened my eyes to how short sighted the twig n twitter element can be...

---

The ecologists get just as upset about non-native plant invasion of native biodiversity as they do about feral animals. Perhaps what we need to do is find some definitive examples of feral deer preferentially grazing exotic 'weedy' species invading otherwise native ecological regions to prove how essential it is to maintain both feral animals as well as hunting control mechanisms to keep them at the correct level?

I doubt that would go anywhere. In fact, would be inclined to establish vigorous non invasive exotics to slow erosion and accelerate and assist native flora succession. Anethema to the purists though.

the single biggest issue I can see going forward is lack of access to plink type shoot....... a big open safe area where its ok to shoot is getting harder and harder to find....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil_H

But they do already @Cyclops. I see the same names on your clubs membership as as I see on the NZDA membership down in Darfield.

Cheers
Phil

---

@phil Shooters can choose to be members of whichever clubs they wish and support those clubs and aspects of shooting.

My point, which I reiterate, is that shooters shouldn't be forced to support the preferred shooting/sport of others.
A hunter can be a target shooter, a clay bird shooter, a fisherman. Good on them if they are.
But none of those disciplines should be forced to fund the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil_H

@Cyclops, I understand your point of view. That said I think 'WE' - and I mean all firearms owners/user - can take the short view.

In truth all of us, Yes, every firearm owner/user, first and foremost belongs to one club before any other. WE all belong to the Firearm Owners/Users Club

<SNIP>

Cheers
Phil
AKA "The Full Sock Puppet"

---

Not sure what your point was in your post @phil.

I agree we are all firearm users and we need to support each others rights/privileges to use our firearms.

You didn't address the funding proposal in the original article that suggested all firearm users should essentially be levied to support hunters and hunting. That's what I have an issue with.

We, shooters, should support each other - but doesn't mean fund each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XR500

To 90% of NZ's population a gun is a gun is a gun.

The Pollies and the antis are playing the age old "divide and conquer" tactic.

We have been warned.

---

This

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

An interesting article.

You lost my support when I read


Some of us are shooters who aren't hunters.
Why should I pay tax on my equipment to benefit hunters?
Please don't propose to finance your sport from my bank account.

---

and divided we fall... sure target shooters may never benefit from hunting, except of course when hunting organizations defend firearms ownership or operate local ranges etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowsol

Hey guys,

Heres an article I wrote for NZGuns (I think its open for all to read, if not please say so and I'll do a brief summary) - would like to see some discussion and your thoughts / input as this is a vital topic

https://nzguns.co.nz/hunting/ensurin...n-new-zealand/

cheers

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody

Agree; but I also believe there could be major improvements such as 4wd bike tracks into many rrmote areas to allow NZ hunters to shoot and extract animals from such locations without forking out large heli fees. All possible areas should be made more accessible to us and I feel this would have a significant impact on deer and possum management. This would also reduce the ongoing aerial poisoning including that socio economic disadvantage and transforming to Advantageous benifits all round.

---

I don't really agree. By doing this you loose the remoteness and appeal of wilderness (official or not) . Helicopter access is bad enough as there's not much truly remote country. I personally beleive somethings are more important than everyone being able to access places. Some things aren't fair and never will be. It to me feels like giving participation medals in a triathlon and no places. Why work harder.

Look at all the easily accessed tourism and even hunting spots that are ruined by easy access. Huts that get vandalised and have huge amounts of litter and beer bottles are almost always those with 4wd access. We have some great access with more public free huts than almost anywhere do we really need to be able to drive to every deer chammy and tahr in the country.

Q: Do you prefer wild animal sustainable management by New Zealanders accessing recreational hunting; -- or wild animals randomly slaughtered as ferals, by poisons contractors courtesy of extreme green agencies or waro et al ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stocky

I don't really agree. By doing this you loose the remoteness and appeal of wilderness (official or not) . Helicopter access is bad enough as there's not much truly remote country. I personally beleive somethings are more important than everyone being able to access places. Some things aren't fair and never will be. It to me feels like giving participation medals in a triathlon and no places. Why work harder.

Look at all the easily accessed tourism and even hunting spots that are ruined by easy access. Huts that get vandalised and have huge amounts of litter and beer bottles are almost always those with 4wd access. We have some great access with more public free huts than almost anywhere do we really need to be able to drive to every deer chammy and tahr in the country.

---

Fair comments and sentiments but are they borne out by actual observation ? 'Easy access' as in driving access hasn't ruined any hunting spots I know of , Helecopter hunting and 1080 have though. The Harper Avoca is not ruined or filled with rubbish despite open access, it is not easy hunting either but that is because the poorness of the country does not support numbers. The best spot in the whole of the Maruia valley Thistle creek is ruined and totally devoid of deer, pigs and birds from 1080. From my observation I have not seen any more rubbish at drivable huts than at remote walk in ones. I expect that this is because it is easier to take your rubbish with you when you have a vehicle on site. As well parties that arrive by vehicle are more likely to gather up rubbish left by previous dirty bastards.
There has to be a place for everyone to enjoy the outdoors. Why should people with young kids not have the opportunity to drive up a valley camp out and take the kids for a hunt ?
If areas a well used and animal numbers controlled by hunting then recreational hunting has a worthwhile future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

@phil Shooters can choose to be members of whichever clubs they wish and support those clubs and aspects of shooting.

My point, which I reiterate, is that shooters shouldn't be forced to support the preferred shooting/sport of others.
A hunter can be a target shooter, a clay bird shooter, a fisherman. Good on them if they are.
But none of those disciplines should be forced to fund the others.

---

Get with the program , a gun is a gun and if we all want to use them we need to ban together , if you shoot paper you should support the hunter and vise verser or we will be up shits creek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky

Get with the program , a gun is a gun and if we all want to use them we need to ban together , if you shoot paper you should support the hunter and vise verser or we will be up shits creek

---

I do support hunters and other sport shooters, but I draw the line at financial support.
I did contribute to COLFO to support all shooters as that was my choice.

The article said there should be a levy on components and ammunition to support hunters and hunting.
Not all of the levied items are used in hunting,.
No-one has yet sufficiently justified a levy on all shooters to support only some shooters.

As a car driver I'm not levied to support motor racing and nor should I be.

Let hunters fund hunting, target shooters fund target shooting.

I'll work together to lobby our politicians.

I’ve followed this with some interest. The article was one guys view.
Having been to 60+ countries and looked in depth at hunting across the world and how it’s managed. I’ve seen pretty much all.

Here in the UK we are getting it in the neck from all sides! It’s nasty! Gamekeepers beaten up there family’s threatened. I’ve been spat at shouted at as well as been threatened. I’m only part time. The “shooting community” is under attack!

Now you might well say “yeah but that’s over there and none of our business”! But your wrong. Because it’s come home to NZ. You just need to look at what’s happened right across the board since 2019. Even before then we started getting it in the neck. There not going to stop either, with the likes of Phill Elpha (or how ever you spell that twats name) etc. There is a whole list of em lining up to have a big old kick at us.

It’s not all bad news but we sure are behind the eight ball!
When I started shooting I was very much an individual. Did not like clubs. To many old guys doing nothing.
But we do need very much to banned together!
I never wanted a “Gun lobby” in NZ. But we have one. It’s not a bad thing either. We need it to protect our lifestyle choices.
We do need COLFO. We need people to lobby parliament.
I think it would be a good thing if every firearm owner had to join a club! Part of your sub would go towards COLFO and the GAC.
Now I know we all like to be independent.
But we need to face the fact that these guys are not going away. So we do need very much to change.

Yes user pays, if we had a game animal licensing system we would have more control on how our animals are managed!
Once that is in place we can then look at other issues like access etc.
But first we really do need this in place to stop the rot!

If you are doing something for the environment like those guys trapping, post it on FB in your local paper.
We really need to be proactive with this. We are dying by death of a thousand cuts. So let’s take a leaf out of the attackers books and start by getting in front of the camera and posting the good that is being done. Plant those seeds.
Good examples of that where “Take a Kid Fishing”. So....
Take a kid camping! (you can just carry your gun armed tramps are aloud, you don’t need to hunt it’s planting that seed though).
Take a kid target shooting! Good controlled environment safe and I’ve yet to come across a kid that was not at least a little interested, curious in guns.

When posting or talking to the press be wise about it think what you are posting. If we are to turn this around it’s no good if the first thing you say is F this and Shit that...all dressed up in camo. Think...what dose this look like to an outsider? To left wing press? Do I look like/sound like some far right wing red neck? That’s the image that we really need to stop!
Clean and here, to help managed the environment and show that firearms are in the hands of citizens that are responsible and safe.

All the rest is just noise.

So the three points are.
1 Together we stand!
2 Join a club where subs go to COLFO and the GAC
3 Get involved! Post good images and talk to the press with how we are helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Fair comments and sentiments but are they borne out by actual observation ? 'Easy access' as in driving access hasn't ruined any hunting spots I know of , Helecopter hunting and 1080 have though. The Harper Avoca is not ruined or filled with rubbish despite open access, it is not easy hunting either but that is because the poorness of the country does not support numbers. The best spot in the whole of the Maruia valley Thistle creek is ruined and totally devoid of deer, pigs and birds from 1080. From my observation I have not seen any more rubbish at drivable huts than at remote walk in ones. I expect that this is because it is easier to take your rubbish with you when you have a vehicle on site. As well parties that arrive by vehicle are more likely to gather up rubbish left by previous dirty bastards.
There has to be a place for everyone to enjoy the outdoors. Why should people with young kids not have the opportunity to drive up a valley camp out and take the kids for a hunt ?
If areas a well used and animal numbers controlled by hunting then recreational hunting has a worthwhile future.

---

Yes plenty of places I won't hunt because it's downright dangerous during certain times of the year due to numbers (due to easy access). Also I see it in Montana.

With driving access comes spotlighters (have had a spotlight shown on me twice and that was enough).
As for dirty places the worst are fly in camps, I know plenty of spots in the middle of nowhere with rubbish, beer bottles etc in them that certainly cam ein with choppers. Same with plenty of drive in spots look to the huts down otago that had a 4wd rip the fireplace out multiple times. Access for everyone means access for the shit pricks. Add a little hard work and you weed out 95% of them.

I didn't advocate for removing access but I don't think we need more. Family's can already take their young kids places there's bloody great access already.

I do struggle to see the relevance of 1080 to access to be fair but feel free to enlighten me.

Ruined doesn't mean no deer to me ruined means the experience is degraded significantly. The selective method I choose when I hunt means buying meat would be cheaper so that not the sole reason for things. Its about the experience the connection to things and access and people don't help. They don't always hinder either but mostly they do.

I guess in summary I think we have plenty of access already you can drive up plenty of rivers in the south with families to huts. There are heaps that are manageable walks for kids. Do we really need a track to the headwaters of every catchment?

Also I've just move back down south Garth I think we are due for a catchup some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I do support hunters and other sport shooters, but I draw the line at financial support.
I did contribute to COLFO to support all shooters as that was my choice.

The article said there should be a levy on components and ammunition to support hunters and hunting.
Not all of the levied items are used in hunting,.
No-one has yet sufficiently justified a levy on all shooters to support only some shooters.

As a car driver I'm not levied to support motor racing and nor should I be.

Let hunters fund hunting, target shooters fund target shooting.

I'll work together to lobby our politicians.

---

I think you are perhaps looking at it the wrong way - I have no interest in raiding your wallet to fund my lifestyle. If there was a levy placed on all firearms / archery and that money could make a significant difference to conservation funding that would go a long way to protecting all shooting disciplines because the government would not want to have to find those funds elsewhere. Hunters might directly benefit from game animal control - however target shooters benefit because of reduced pressure to further restrict / remove firearms use. As mentioned it could also be used to help fund safe shooting / training ranges so people don't have to sight in on public land - more ranges benefit everyone and mean more access to safe shooting.

My intention was to start some debate / discussion - in some ways your reaction has illustrated my point that there is not enough cohession in the firearms community making us easy to sweep aside. Please dont take that as a dig - I would much rather see constructive discussion and ideas on how we can protect what we all do. As Phil put above it need to be "firearms owners club" not semi guys, pistol guys, hunters, target shooters, etc etc