Thread: FWF Ban for Non Attendance

Originally Posted by gimp

As long as they paid the ballot fee it's difficult to see the problem with not actually going in to hunt if the weather was appalling. Be interesting to hear the FWF's perspective on this as we've only got one side here.

Yeh but the idea is to get hunters into the blocks and the rules are pretty clear. If every aucklander scared of melting in the rain pulled out there would be a tonne of unused ballots and realistically not many people can organise to do a fiordland trip with even a months notice. I do see it as a bit harsh especially as its not even the core blocks but I can see both sides.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Yeh but the idea is to get hunters into the blocks and the rules are pretty clear. If every aucklander scared of melting in the rain pulled out there would be a tonne of unused ballots and realistically not many people can organise to do a fiordland trip with even a months notice. I do see it as a bit harsh especially as its not even the core blocks but I can see both sides.

I understand that the rules are clear, but I think the loss of the opportunity and the low likelihood of drawing again anytime soon is punishment enough so I don't know if I agree with the rules on that. I'm not sure why the FWF would want to be incentivising going in at all costs, what management goal do they achieve from it?

The problem with the ballot is low number of opportunities available and high demand, I would have thought, as opposed to lack of people taking up the opportunities resulting in some lower management goal than intended - it's not like the tahr ballots where the whole purpose of them is to get hunters into those usually difficult-to-access areas to kill nannies.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise of course, I don't hold a strong opinion here.

I have found the FWF rather opaque and difficult to get hold of when I tried, but it's still the only real model of hunter-led management in NZ so the good outweighs the bad on the whole.