Thread: FWF Ban for Non Attendance

Once all the facts are presented, a letter to the chair of the FWF ( copied to the Minister Of Conservation) requesting that the letter be tabled and discussed at their next meeting is a path I would consider

Originally Posted by Hunteast

This whole story may have a twist now to it - see FB under Venison Hunters for more info.

Lots of us banned from venison hunters.... Allan is th perfect example of one of these blokes with an over inflated opinion of himself

Can someone post the whole story from both sides once it's resolved? Had a read on the venison hunters fb page and apparently this post is light in fact and truth??

Originally Posted by Hunteast

This whole story may have a twist now to it - see FB under Venison Hunters for more info.

....can you just re-post the gist of it here mate?
Sure, if someone wants to find it on Faecesbook they can, but save us the hassle and having to wade through the shit please....

Looks like taken down from FB Veni Hunters? But they made a quote; this post is light in fact and truth Time will tell.

Just that the admin of the venison fb page is in touch with the GAC and FWF. They can't say anything more because of privacy etc etc.

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.

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

Lots of us banned from venison hunters.... Allan is th perfect example of one of these blokes with an over inflated opinion of himself

Good to know I’m not the only one who got a ban.

This thread was started for the purposes of discussion. Its not our job to ascertain the real facts, assess evidence nor to make the final judgement. So we can work with just the account in the original post. We debate the principles. They do this exercise in law school and its called a moot.

The first point is that the weather forecast was bad. We all know fiordland can have severe weather which can make hunting tramping and generally being there uncomfortable and a little dangerous if youre not careful. We also know that forecasts are generally pessimistic, possibly intended to discourage the poorly prepared in planning, experience or temperament. Many other parties went ahead with their trips for that period. So, the statement that someone decided to cancel a trip based solely on a bad forecast is implausible.

Next, we see their initial stated concern was not safety but value for money.

Then we take into account that these organised ballots, Haast roar, tahr and wapiti, each bring a couple if months’ domestic tourism to the local economies. Sure, most of the money is spent in big city shops, airlines and so on but some will end up locally.

Ok im tired of this now. These are just some unexplored aspects of the case for discussion.

Originally Posted by Bagheera

We also know that forecasts are generally pessimistic, possibly intended to discourage the poorly prepared in planning, experience or temperament. Many other parties went ahead with their trips for that period. So, the statement that someone decided to cancel a trip based solely on a bad forecast is implausible.

Baseless speculation and assumption resulting in a fallacious conclusion

Then we take into account that these organised ballots, Haast roar, tahr and wapiti, each bring a couple if months’ domestic tourism to the local economies. Sure, most of the money is spent in big city shops, airlines and so on but some will end up locally.

Not a concern for the FWF within their mandate. Irrelevant.

Was he the only party to pull out for that period because of weather?
if a few other parties pulled out because of weather then it shouldn't have ended with a ban,
but if he was the only party to pull out and the others parties carried on to their blocks, then i can see why the FWF
put a ban on him.

Originally Posted by HUNTY

Was he the only party to pull out for that period because of weather?
if a few other parties pulled out because of weather then it shouldn't have ended with a ban,
but if he was the only party to pull out and the others parties carried on to their blocks, then i can see why the FWF
put a ban on him.

It can easily be that the odd one out is the only correct one and the majority suffered from task fixation.

Originally Posted by gimp

Not a concern for the FWF within their mandate. Irrelevant.

@gimp You have picked up my point.

Who gives FWF a mandate ?
As a trust they have "objectives". list of published objectives on web site
They don't seem to have an objective to run a wapiti ballot. What powers do they have to do it and what are the ground rules ? Their main leverage must be through controlling helicopter access and possibly hunting permits, which would be through DoC.

This is the closest section to promoting or organising hunting.
3.1.4 To inspire responsible educational adventure in the mountains and wilderness areas of the Fiordland National Park and particularly the area in which the Wapiti type feral deer herd is located.
Admittedly, there could be more in objective 1, 2 or others that aren't on their web site.

The rules are the rules. If you going , you going and if you have to ditch it then 4 years is the wait for next time. Ten years is abit over the top
because you had a heated debate on the phone. Dont agree withj the ten year ban, but 4 is reasonable as its just the way it is, and everyone knows it.

Originally Posted by Bagheera

@gimp You have picked up my point.

Who gives FWF a mandate ?
As a trust they have "objectives". list of published objectives on web site
They don't seem to have an objective to run a wapiti ballot. What powers do they have to do it and what are the ground rules ? Their main leverage must be through controlling helicopter access and possibly hunting permits, which would be through DoC.

This is the closest section to promoting or organising hunting.
3.1.4 To inspire responsible educational adventure in the mountains and wilderness areas of the Fiordland National Park and particularly the area in which the Wapiti type feral deer herd is located.
Admittedly, there could be more in objective 1, 2 or others that aren't on their web site.

Their mandate is under their management agreement, which is impossible to find but appears to be summarised in this infographic