Thread: Game Animal Council (GAC) to be scrapped by Conservation Minister?

Preditor Free . . . wonder when they start the search n destroy on urban (Felis domestica) . . . that'll free up half an isle in the supermarkets.
Perhaps they could start by just making it illegal to breed them.

Remind the nation again what caused the extinction of the stevens island wren:
( https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...d-wren-2014-12 )

Nothing against cats as indivuals or a species, just calling out the political nonsence of 'preditor free'!
Al hail the indigenous Bird reich, Tui! (Yeah right).

@Bugsplat i grew up in a dog family and have never been fond of cats. Built a house in town and it was neutral ground and lots of cats would use my crusher dust drive way as a little box and pissed on my house. I informed the council about my problem and that they're not my cats, that they must be "pest" stray cats i planned on catching and disposing of humanely. Unless their animal control officer wanted to take them. There are bylaws for dogs and dog control but nothing for cats.

They basically told me, There's no bylaws for cats, but i would be responsible to find locate the owner if i caught a cat. They only deal with dogs at our animal control. I thought to hang the trap from a post in front of my house with a sign *Is this you cat, contact me to collect it when im home*

so, when we're "pest" free does that entitle me to hunt kereru? They do look like a fat tasty bird.

A peaceful protest of fake 1080 in a helicopter dropped over suburbia and cities would cause a ruckus. I used to be a big believer in 1080 before getting into hunting, I believed what the media told me. Now I'm physically out there in the bush noticing the quietness of particular areas that have been 1080'd, compared to areas that are dealt with differently.

Hamilton city have a halo project they set up to bring tui, bellbirds, kereru and other bird life back to the city. People on the ground, bait stations, trapping, donating traps out to public and people restoring gullies. I live close proximity to a few of these bush blocks this project is focused on and town is full of tui,kereru during the days the flowers are out, moreporks at night. I hunt a couple of these blocks and although the bird life can easily give away your position or play tricks on you, they're nice to have around. Not very often you can be stalking along to hear a snoring kereru above you in a tree.

Well the great hunting opportunities we have had over the last 10yrs are going to take to a hit under Sage’s watch, between increased Waro including more access for them, more 1080 & the tree huggers aka Greens, etc

Originally Posted by Pengy

If the argument for pre European settlement is to hold any water, then Trout and non native Pines would also be on the hit list.
Their thinking is warped in the extreme

Has already happened Pengy - Look at the de-nuding of the original acclimisation societies (now combined into Fish and Game that has become almost toothless) and the lack of changes to protect species in leglislation over the last 30 years in the face of increased pressures (irrigation, drought/flood protection, dirty dairying etc and lack of environmental safeguards) as evidence of this. Twig and tweets original pursuit was to rid NZ water ways of invasive sport and coarse fish and let natives come back (yeah right) even if it means wholesale killing of every fish in the waterway by poison.... - Their members pretty much controlled DOC and probably still do as I remember it.

This is Greens/Forrest&Bird/ DoC - standard playbook just applied to the Game animals - First strip away the legal protection, the Power of the interest groups, outlaw and vilify it and eradicate in a scorched earth type cleanse...

Standard playbook - when's the next Election?

Not sounding great for the likes of us is it?
This Sage creature should crawl back to where she first emerged. Hard to believe there is a twisted extremist legally f*****g up our outdoors eh.

Pisses me off that one nutcase has the influence to ruin it for us all, makes me sick

Originally Posted by hotsoup

Pisses me off that one nutcase has the influence to ruin it for us all, makes me sick

I wish there was only one of them, the problem would be easily solved. But I think you will find that there are many with the same agenda well infiltrated in the system with their snouts in the trough.

Originally Posted by tetawa

I wish there was only one of them, the problem would be easily solved. But I think you will find that there are many with the same agenda well infiltrated in the system with their snouts in the trough.

Unfortunately yes the Sage is surrounded by political activists with hollow heads.

Originally Posted by Gibo

We (hunters) for the most part seem to be quite emotive and quite rough around the edges. To try and pull all of the hunters together as a united front always seems to end in internal rows. A lot of us don't/can't put our words into constructive sentences and resort to name calling and insults. This is one reason why we fail to be heard. Just my thoughts on it anyway.

Agreed it is difficult to pull hunters together. What is the answer ? well that can be found by asking which group is successful in pulling it's members together. That group is fish and Game. They have statutory protection of game fish. For those who doubt what I am saying, please Google search the Conservation Act and read under 'fish and Game Councils' it might surprise you just how much authority they have and how little is granted to game animals! Now moving this to a conclusion we can ask they question ' Why do introduced fish have this protection and not game animals' ? put simply because fishers buy a licence and that is where our future must also be.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Agreed it is difficult to pull hunters together. What is the answer ? well that can be found by asking which group is successful in pulling it's members together. That group is fish and Game. They have statutory protection of game fish. For those who doubt what I am saying, please Google search the Conservation Act and read under 'fish and Game Councils' it might surprise you just how much authority they have and how little is granted to game animals! Now moving this to a conclusion we can ask they question ' Why do introduced fish have this protection and not game animals' ? put simply because fishers buy a licence and that is where our future must also be.

The "like" I stuck on your post was because I agree with your logic, not because I like the concept, we as hunters are probably never going to have an effective lobby group, but if hunters had a fee generating "hunting licence" then we would have value and thereby some measure of protection (maybe.....)

To all in general: find out who your local mp is, make it your mission to get in front of it and make sure it understands you will vote in whatever direction that keeps the stupid greenies from strangling us with their idiotic ideology, reminding it that you will do your dammdist to influence every member of your family, friends, work mates, and that are connected to a whole bunch of other people ( like on this forum for example ) that will do the same.

Roughly I worked out that I could get about 50 people to vote in one direction to obstruct the stupid green mob, imagine what a few thousand hunters could achieve with the right mindset.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Agreed it is difficult to pull hunters together. What is the answer ? well that can be found by asking which group is successful in pulling it's members together. That group is fish and Game. They have statutory protection of game fish. For those who doubt what I am saying, please Google search the Conservation Act and read under 'fish and Game Councils' it might surprise you just how much authority they have and how little is granted to game animals! Now moving this to a conclusion we can ask they question ' Why do introduced fish have this protection and not game animals' ? put simply because fishers buy a licence and that is where our future must also be.

The trouble with that is all our game animals were provided and acclimatized with the goal/Intention that hunting should not be only the domain of the wealthy anybody should be able to hunt, and also as a protection for some species that were in a threatened population in their home ranges.

Returning the land to pre European settlement as @Pengy suggested is flawed as the first settlers the Moriori and second settlers the Moari had already hugely modified the land with fires and hunted/destroyed habitat of many species into extinction and pushed many others to the very brink....this was all well before the arrival of the evil white man and introduction of deer/pigs/thar/cham/goats/sheep/stoats/ferrit/possum/rabbit/hare and all those other things that provided a means to stop eating each other to survive.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

The trouble with that is all our game animals were provided and acclimatized with the goal/Intention that hunting should not be only the domain of the wealthy anybody should be able to hunt, and also as a protection for some species that were in a threatened population in their home ranges.

Returning the land to pre European settlement as @Pengy suggested is flawed as the first settlers the Moriori and second settlers the Moari had already hugely modified the land with fires and hunted/destroyed habitat of many species into extinction and pushed many others to the very brink....this was all well before the arrival of the evil white man and introduction of deer/pigs/thar/cham/goats/sheep/stoats/ferrit/possum/rabbit/hare and all those other things that provided a means to stop eating each other to survive.

Were our game animals introduced with the intention … that anyone should be able to hunt. No they weren't. That might be a nice 'feel good' thought however critically examining the evidence of history will show a different story. In fact licences were expensive and only the Gentry hunted in the prized areas. If the intention had been to allow the common man to hunt with the same opportunity then the licences would have been balloted and at a low cost. Tourist hunting by the English Gentry was very popular here and many of the top trophies shot were taken by Lords and Majors. In large part because of the Wars 1 & 2 Game animal populations got out of control and protection was lifted and licencing taken away from acclimatization societies. But now that the animals are under control there is no reason that they should not be protected and hunting licenced.
We have free hunting for the common person now on public land but that hunting is under the perpetual threat of poisoning, WARO and the likes, so it is perhaps not as much 'our right' as we might think it is. The truth is we are tolerated and treated as a fringe group
On the one hand I hate the idea of paying for a licence but on the other I know that there is only one way to unite and give a voice to big game hunters.

A united voice or at least a coherent voice is vitally important and I don’t see that directly connected to a license fee. These are two different aspects. If a license fee would guarantee us (hunters & outdoors people) a real voice and leverage then I’d be for it. But for now we need to focus on the issue at hand - stopping the crazy green/labour/DOC political machinery from destroying our heritage on public land. I don’t do book face, but hopefully this is getting attention and traction there. Get hold of your local MP and ring their bell. If there was a decent journalist who could do a rational and in depth investigation it would help a lot. This issue needs visibilty

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Were our game animals introduced with the intention … that anyone should be able to hunt. No they weren't. That might be a nice 'feel good' thought however critically examining the evidence of history will show a different story. In fact licences were expensive and only the Gentry hunted in the prized areas. If the intention had been to allow the common man to hunt with the same opportunity then the licences would have been balloted and at a low cost. Tourist hunting by the English Gentry was very popular here and many of the top trophies shot were taken by Lords and Majors. In large part because of the Wars 1 & 2 Game animal populations got out of control and protection was lifted and licencing taken away from acclimatization societies. But now that the animals are under control there is no reason that they should not be protected and hunting licenced.
We have free hunting for the common person now on public land but that hunting is under the perpetual threat of poisoning, WARO and the likes, so it is perhaps not as much 'our right' as we might think it is. The truth is we are tolerated and treated as a fringe group
On the one hand I hate the idea of paying for a licence but on the other I know that there is only one way to unite and give a voice to big game hunters.

I disagree. Thats ok we can disagree.
Most "real" hunters I know are older than me, I know in that group not one of them would pay a license fee and they would hunt without said license to make a point.
I think the firearms owning/hunting population is generally older but have no stats on hand to back that up, feel free to backhand me with stats to the contrary.
I personally would not be happy with paying a hunting license fee and would resist it by any means I could but I value my FAL perhaps more than my older hunting mates so if forced to then I would comply up untill the point I could not afford it then I would become a criminal.