Thread: Forest and Bird

Just went to have a look on the forest and bird website to see if there were any comments about this whole Tahr thing but in order to do so :

Your payment options

Forest & Bird Membership Option

Please click on your option
Membership $57
Adult annual membership including the Forest & Bird magazine.
Online membership $57
Select this membership option if you prefer an online version of Forest & Bird’s magazine.
Overseas membership $135
An overseas adult annual membership including Forest & Bird’s magazine.
Youth membership $45
For ages between 14 and 25 years old.

I no it includes a magazine but still go,s to show they are more organised than us !! this is how they pay lawyers to go poking into our business , especially when councils have reviews for water and pest control etc they go through them whilst no one else is really looking and submit changes unless they are opposed they sneak through , as a group we need to be more onto it , just thought id post this to keep the discussion going , you can guarantee there will be more & more of there Bs coming, I guess the easiest thing to do is join a club and hopefully be heard ?

due to political correctness.
forests can be a home garden and "bird" is a sexist term for a good looking woman it should now be referred to as T&T, twig and tweet.
oh wait some birds cant sing (sorry penguins) and some plants dont have twigs (sorry cactus)
so now lets call it F&F for flora and fauna.............oops thats latin, the people that oppressed some religious groups and invaded other countries ( ok they brought the aqueduct, sewers. health....) <<----monty python reference
oh bugga it back to forest and bird

Their ad about how "they" stopped the Ruataniwha dam in Hawkes Bay both annoyed and amused me. It showed a tramper walking through the river with her dirty, sweaty boots. I mean FFS, someone's poor dairy cows have to drink that water further downstream! And how come it's okay for trampers to contaminate the environment but not animals? We are all introduced species, would the greenies still want to protect the natural areas if they weren't allowed to go there themselves?

It would appear they are not happy!! Copy and pasted from Forest & Bird


2 October 2018

Department of Conservation

Attention: Andy Roberts

By Email



New Zealand Deerstalkers Association

Attention Bill O’Leary

By Email

Dear Messrs Roberts and O’Leary

TAHR LIAISON MEETING

1.

We are writing following the Tahr Liaison Group meeting yesterday. We were troubled and concerned by media reports that an agreement had been reached on a draft operational plan.
In particular,Radio NZ reported that:
1
Former president of the Deerstalkers Association Bill O'Leary told RNZ that a draft operational plan was agreed on at the meeting which would reduce the number of tahr to be killed -but he did not give a number.
2.
This is inaccurate. Nothing that could be described as a draft operation plan was put to the meeting. The scribbled notes on the whiteboard could not properly be described a draft plan.
3.
In any event, we made it clear that Forest & Bird’s agreement to any draft operational plan is
conditional on a clear undertaking that the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan (the plan) plan would be implemented.
This was not present in the scribbled notes and Mr Roberts made it clear that Forest &Bird’s position
was understood and indicated that this would be the subject of consideration over the coming days, including discussions with us.
4.
It is also disappointing that such disinformation makes its way into the media. Many attendees at the meeting commented on the productive and positive nature of the discussions. This is
undermined when one of the participants seeks to “write into stone” preliminary views of the group which were the subject of serious reservations by one of the parties. This undermines any trust that might be built between participants.
5.
The only option we have is to publicly respond to such disinformation, which is likely to further undermine
the trust and confidence that has built up as the result of productive meetings like yesterday.
Royal Forest and Bird Protection
6.
In our view the legal position is clear and unambiguous. The plan is a wild animal control plan
under section 5(1)(d) of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. The Minister is required to manage tahr in accordance with this plan.
5B Management of wild animals
The Minister shall administer and manage wild animals in accordance with—(a) statements of general policy under section 5(1) (ca); and (b) wild animal control plans under section 5(1) (d) ; and (c) conservation management strategies.
7.
The reported outcome of 6,000 tahr being culled immediately with a “commitment” to further 10,000 by the end of July,does not implement the plan.
Tahr will not be being managed in accordance with the plan.
8.
The key elements of the plan from our perspective are: a.the 10,000 limit;
b.zero density in National Parks; and
c.the exclusion zones.
9.
For the avoidance of any doubt, we reiterate the view expressed at the meeting yesterday.
Nothing has been agreed by Forest & Bird. We do not necessarily oppose the 6,000/10,000 proposal reported in the media but any agreement is condition on: a. a clear undertaking by the Minister and Department that the plan will be implemented; and
b. detail of how this will be achieved.
10.
There has been a suggestion that the plan includes some form of adaptive management. This is not the case. If there is to be any change to the key matters set out in paragraph 8 above, this needs to be done by amending the plan.
At the current time there is not enough information available for proper decision to be made. Yours sincerely, Peter Anderson
Nicky Snoyink

General Counsel

Canterbury West Coast Regional Manager

b.zero density in National Parks; and
c.the exclusion zones.

Wipe em out by the looks of that.

Sigh, Twig n Tweet has a very recently ex Green MP in charge. Ditto Greenpeace. You can ignore politics, but inevitably these people will shit in your lunchbox anyway.

Like it has been said the battle is far from over, great work so far just need to keep the pressure on. It annoys me no end to think that groups like Twitters and Twigs and governments can cause such a pain in the ass with regards to other peoples sporting interests. They need to take a serious look at how wildlife is managed overseas and see that animals and the environment can co exist together. The sooner our animals are seen as game animals the better.

Originally Posted by Mooseman

It annoys me no end to think that groups like Twitters and Twigs and governments can cause such a pain in the ass with regards to other peoples sporting interests. They need to take a serious look at how wildlife is managed overseas and see that animals and the environment can co exist together. The sooner our animals are seen as game animals the better.

X2 but while they hold the belief that everything non indigenous is bad that wont happen. Look what they did to the mining out of Westport on the coast. all about bloody snails. Oh and the snails a couple of k's away are significantly different enough to the other ones to be saved. Bollocks.
be careful if we went down the path of valuing the game animals. I reckon once they their numbers and value are quantifies, that would give them a number to work to. Kill the rest.

At the barbers the other day looked through 2 forest and bird mags. Seriously not twig and tweet, there into everything clean seas, rivers, weed control, pest management, global warming, bugs, commercial fishing, tourism and aquaculture . Big article on how good 1080 is (didnt read it). Very powerfull interfearing know all dangerous bunch of pricks.

Be very careful with this sort of thinking - they just "value" different things than what "you" do, hunters are a minority in both numbers and political clout, you'd think that "we" would understand that people might have views different to our own - and respect them.

a sort of fundamentalist christian approach to environmentalism is what TT are folks.
we are the only ones to know the truth ,the rest know nothing!they are heretics ,the dammed,the will never see the return of the moa!

Originally Posted by Tentman

Be very careful with this sort of thinking - they just "value" different things than what "you" do, hunters are a minority in both numbers and political clout, you'd think that "we" would understand that people might have views different to our own - and respect them.

Actually !! , perhaps not I was just reading some random information , seemly hunters & huntess,s could make upto 6% of the vote so that's more than the greens and getting close to Winnie the poo.

‘A 2017 report published by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council shows that while most registered hunters in New Zealand are men (153,341), women now make up 8 per cent (13,334).”

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

Actually !! , perhaps not I was just reading some random information , seemly hunters & huntess,s could make upto 6% of the vote so that's more than the greens and getting close to Winnie the poo.

‘A 2017 report published by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council shows that while most registered hunters in New Zealand are men (153,341), women now make up 8 per cent (13,334).”

Registered? I Didn't know I had to register lol. They must just mean DA members. Add another 50% to that number at least.

Maybe , it came from a news article so who no,s

Its a shame that F&B are such polarising zealots. They do some good work, and saving the planet isn't a half bad idea.