Thread: Discussion on NZ Hunting moving forward - NZGuns

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.

An interesting article.

You lost my support when I read

Instead of a licence to opt in perhaps the best way could be copied from American hunters. In the US there is an 11% tax on firearms/ammunition and archery products that is mandated to only be spent to benefit hunting through conservation - this includes animal management, land acquisition to increase habitat, hunter education programs and maintaining some training ranges.

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.

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.

Sadly I think the "hunter access" via tracks would quickly become cyclist tracks and get those dangerous people outta here, my vegan wife feels offended by their presence.

Simple answer to that is; HUNTERS WERE HERE FIRST.

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.

Building small tracks should be cost-effective vs green rain.

Not dressed in lycra but--.

Originally Posted by Woody

Not dressed in lycra but--.

I don't know, it might add a new dimension... also may add to the popularity.

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.

Lesser of 2 evils mate - many shooters had their firearms "purchased" from our collective bank account when the confiscation occurred. I for one am OK with funding our collective interests - irrespective of how it happens; as long as any levy looks after our interests. Stop with the "shooters vs hunters" shit - we've seen where that ends up.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Lesser of 2 evils mate - many shooters had their firearms "purchased" from our collective bank account when the confiscation occurred. I for one am OK with funding our collective interests - irrespective of how it happens; as long as any levy looks after our interests. Stop with the "shooters vs hunters" shit - we've seen where that ends up.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Ryan

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Read it again..... and consider that @Cyclops was referencing no interest in funding hunters, I simply pointed out that we all need to stick together - and am happy to fund your lawful firearms interests if it assists more lawful firearms users to retain theirs. Hope this makes sense?

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Read it again..... and consider that @Cyclops was referencing no interest in funding hunters, I simply pointed out that we all need to stick together - and am happy to fund your lawful firearms interests if it assists more lawful firearms users to retain theirs. Hope this makes sense?

Read it several times and considered what you were responding to as well. Basically what you're advocating, is more state control.

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

I don't know, it might add a new dimension... also may add to the popularity.

We're after deer, not dears ay.

Originally Posted by Woody

We're after deer, not dears ay.

Yeah mate, coming up to my 25th wedding anniversary, too old and too married for that kind of stuff these days (also the wife might read this). But maybe the appeal may be there for others....

Originally Posted by Ryan

Read it several times and considered what you were responding to as well. Basically what you're advocating, is more state control.

....Nope, I'm arguing for advocacy in the same manner as FWF, COLFO, GAC etc. State control? No thanks.

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.

Whoa dude.... That's one hell of a can of worms you playing with there.....
Why am I paying tax for Auckland roads I will never use..?
Why as a motorcycle rider do I pay acc for mountain bikers in my rego costs...?

And that is another example of firearms owners divided into catagories who do not support each other as seen in the semi situation....

So when it's decided that shooting is not recognized as a sport and they threaten to close ranges but is allowed for hunting for pest animal control don't come crying to hunters for support if that's your attitude....
I really can't believe you posted that....