Thread: Discussion on NZ Hunting moving forward - NZGuns

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?

Happy to fund hunters if they'll also help fund the maintenance on the ranges I shoot on.

I'll advocate for hunters and target shooters, put draw the line at paying for others if they won't pay for me.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Happy to fund hunters if they'll also help fund the maintenance on the ranges I shoot on.

I'll advocate for hunters and target shooters, put draw the line at paying for others if they won't pay for me.

Ever used an NZDA range mate? Genuine question. We need to stick together - the "they won't pay for me" shit needs to stop.

Originally Posted by johnd

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.

Already happening in my part of the world. A large chunk of my old haunts are now closed to hunting and are biking/tourist areas now. And its spreading....
And even the areas still open for hunting are becoming overrun by bikers looking for new places to face plant into a tree.....
And the local council are on the side of the bikers , not the hunters... even though we were there first....

Very good article.

First we need to get game animals listed as game animals in law rather than as a Pest, that would be a huge step in the right direction, then take there management away from DOC and give it to the GAC. I’d be happy to pay $100 a year for a nationwide permit, it’s the same as an annual back country hut pass or tank of gas to go hunting.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Ever used an NZDA range mate? Genuine question. We need to stick together - the "they won't pay for me" shit needs to stop.

No, never used an NZDA range.

I am a financial member of every range that I shoot on or an affiliated member of that range's national body.

It's not shit, I get really pissed of with other thinking they have a right to put their fingers in my wallet.

Yes shooters need to stick together, but not by taking money of one shooter to subsidise another.
I'm not undermining other shooters, I support hunters and their rights. I just won't help pay for there sport - user pays.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

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

A levy is a state tax.

Easier access to remote forestry blocks is key and shooting females massively to rebalance the populations of animals we are chasing is the second part of the solution.

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.

I like most of the ideas in the article but I can’t imagine the current government having any motivation to make legislative changes to game animal management or put any focus into developing hunter tourism. Nash’s focus will be on reviving generic tourism, hunting will be deemed to be relatively insignificant and won’t be given a second thought

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.