Thread: Discussion on NZ Hunting moving forward - NZGuns

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

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

Many of us "townies" have long memories about how we were lectured to by many from the hunting community about how we were wackos when we warned of the very thing that is happening now. If this wasn't you, I apologise but it's difficult to refrain from telling such appeals to pound sand.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Many of us "townies" have long memories about how we were lectured to by many from the hunting community about how we were wackos when we warned of the very thing that is happening now. If this wasn't you, I apologise but it's difficult to refrain from telling such appeals to pound sand.

Good luck.

just trying to piece the context together there - do you mean sport shooters warning the hunting community about the slippery slope of the Semi ban etc? If so then no I lost my AR10 to the crusher and wrote submissions to each law, signed the petitions and voted accordingly.

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.

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

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

Well written piece. The resistance to change might be our biggest limiting factor though.

We as shooters need to join an assosiation that will represent all shooters and hunters - its been done in many countries, with great success. Rather than isolating each type of hunting/shooting group, we need to support each other and we also need to get the youth involved and well trained.

Its almost impossible to change an adults point of view and beliefs, but if we start by possitively influencing the youth, we might manage to change the view of tomorrows adults.

Originally Posted by Jaco Goosen

Its almost impossible to change an adults point of view and beliefs, but if we start by possitively influencing the youth, we might manage to change the view of tomorrows adults.

100% imo also. Tomorrows mountain users.. Educate those on the needs, like unity and standing up, whilst also leading by the example Set today.

IMO The key is to have game animals, fish and birds legislated as managed assets. Then NZ FISH & GAME should be removed from the Conservation Act and the Wildlife Act which governs NZF&G should be "stand alone" and funded by government under a specific minister totally independent of the minister for Conservation and the minister for the environment, much like fisheries. The total game management would then come under NZ F&G and its minister. These changes would allow / force formal debate and review at parliamentary level amongst DoC and MfE and Ministry for Wildlife Recreational Hunting and Fishing. Essential funding base would from treasury and supplemented by licence fees.
Decisions can then be rationally argued between this new ministry and the other affected ministries upon such subjects as allowable herd populations and environmental considerations, socio- economic trade-offs and regulation. Competative shooting such as NRA and NZCTA would be a subset under the new ministry and not necessarily funded any differently to what they currently are.
Such a change would have to be a part of a political party policy (perhaps ACT) in order to gain real traction.

Yawn...

Urbanization is an issue and lack of exposure to firearms and a lack of understanding. Technology is not our friend either with the current cell phone/media based culture.
I don't think immigration is necessarily helpful depending on country of origin again due to lack of exposure to firearms and a hunting base.
As I have mentioned before most of us of slightly older generation grew up with a 22. Not anymore.
As I have also mentioned the latest vegan craze is no help either .....
And the govt have already proven they give no shits about tourism with the tahr cull.... even when pointed out the tourist benefits from the tahr herd.

Originally Posted by Puddleduk

Yawn...

Brilliant contribution. Welcome to my ignore list.

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. Our member Whanahuia has an extremely good model for how this might look on private land, and his model might be adaptable more widely. To my mind the immediate issue will be to establish a system whereby hunting pressure is maintained to an adequate level in remote areas, where weekend hunters quite rightly may not want to travel to, and carry out meat for a long distance. I like your idea of guided hunting tourism focused into the most remote parts of NZ specifically to address this issue, and give an extremely good 'wilderness' experience to the tourist at the same time. Getting international tourists to pay us to do our pest control work for us, and pay our guides, transport, accomodation, maybe even butcher and chef as well while keeping our forests safe from excess damage is a win for the tourist, the hunting industry and associated sectors, and also for tourism. An advantage of this would be leaving the more accessible hunting for our NZ weekend hunters to collect meat from.

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. Our member Whanahuia has an extremely good model for how this might look on private land, and his model might be adaptable more widely. To my mind the immediate issue will be to establish a system whereby hunting pressure is maintained to an adequate level in remote areas, where weekend hunters quite rightly may not want to travel to, and carry out meat for a long distance. I like your idea of guided hunting tourism focused into the most remote parts of NZ specifically to address this issue, and give an extremely good 'wilderness' experience to the tourist at the same time. Getting international tourists to pay us to do our pest control work for us, and pay our guides, transport, accomodation, maybe even butcher and chef as well while keeping our forests safe from excess damage is a win for the tourist, the hunting industry and associated sectors, and also for tourism. An advantage of this would be leaving the more accessible hunting for our NZ weekend hunters to collect meat from.

Agree with what you’re saying but many affluent overseas hunters may not have the skill sets, fitness, or motivation to hunt in our remotest regions. Some of them just want a canned hunting package: knock over some 20 point monster behind the wire and then crack open a bourbon while the PH deals with the head skinning and butchery; this type of hunter won’t be interested in culling skinny hinds in the most gnarly inaccessible corners of our forest parks.

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...