Thread: FWF Ban for Non Attendance

Originally Posted by stagstalker

Yea I can understand that and I have heard a share of such stories. I don’t doubt there’s some bullshit involved, there is in everything everywhere. I just feel that the bullshit/person/issue itself is what should be targeted/resolved as opposed to threatening to do something that screws over everyone without actually directly addressing the issue/failing itself.

If old mate is out of line then work to put that line straight, don’t go and screw with all the other good parts of the organisation whilst screwing fellow hunters at the same time. I imagine we are on the same page and it’s just a case of trying to communicate through words on a keyboard.

This is my exact thoughts. There can be issues in any organisation but this tendency to go straight to you did something I don't like screw you and everyone your associated with. Issue is all of a sudden you've told everyone to go fuck themselves.
You see it in politics that "won't" work with National, Labour, act, whoever because they do this once but realistically you've got to pick one and the only way to have any of them improve is tell them good shot when they do something you like and tell them to short there shit out when they don't.

In this situation I feel that maybe repremanding this bloke for inappropriate misuse of power, potentially sort the system to avoid this in future with clearer rules ie state you have to go to the briefing regardless as the intent is to have everyone give it their best go. No making up rules on the spot. If someone does something then add it to the rules to stop it happening again but this time just leave it.

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

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

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.

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....

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

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??

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.

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.

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.

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

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.