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

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...-trout-centre/

Once we as hunters start paying to hunt there will be no going back. The price will only keep going up and the average kiwi want be able to afford it. It will become a rich mans sport for the kiwi rich and foreign hunters.

Originally Posted by bigbear

Once we as hunters start paying to hunt there will be no going back. The price will only keep going up and the average kiwi want be able to afford it. It will become a rich mans sport for the kiwi rich and foreign hunters.

Exactly

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...-trout-centre/

Not sure I get your point

Originally Posted by bigbear

Once we as hunters start paying to hunt there will be no going back. The price will only keep going up and the average kiwi want be able to afford it. It will become a rich mans sport for the kiwi rich and foreign hunters.

It has already gone that way largely in the respect of private land access.
As a kid I could if asked nicely,mabe do a bit of farm work in return or drop of some meat if successful hunt pretty much any local farm.
Nowdays more often than not if it is not being run as a game park someone has brought the sole hunting rights.

Originally Posted by Pengy

Not sure I get your point

Agree Pengy,
Taupo even when their were regional acclimatisation societies in other areas was still always run by DOC. always has been...
Ask locals about what DOC does for the species there... minimal... Invasive catfish in the delta area, plenty of research FA action.
Ask Didymo Dave about how much or little maintenance they do... Locals and volunteers, clubs yes, DOC not so much... OH, License checks to protect their revenue stream - yeah plenty of that.

Oh and the trout centre as a breeding ground also protects the revenue coming in through licensing by artificially adding new fingerlings to the environment. makes up fro the years where whole years of naturally produced young would be decimated by weather events. keeps the wheel turning... BTW licensing costs I've never seen go down..year to year..

I understand the concerns being voiced here. However, if Fish & Game were to take on management of game animals I don't see that this would create unaffordable costs for hunters. The cost of a trout or game bird licence is not exorbitant and if a similar cost was placed on game animals it would be a tiny price to pay in return for protected management and formal recognition of those game animals on public land. Without that formal recognition the future will only lead to high cost and exclusive private ownership of game animals; in fact a hell of a lot higher than a F&G licence. The alternative is what we are witnessing now from DoC and it bodes ill for the future of public land game animal hunting.

Originally Posted by Woody

I understand the concerns being voiced here. However, if Fish & Game were to take on management of game animals I don't see that this would create unaffordable costs for hunters. The cost of a trout or game bird licence is not exorbitant and if a similar cost was placed on game animals it would be a tiny price to pay in return for protected management and formal recognition of those game animals on public land. Without that formal recognition the future will only lead to high cost and exclusive private ownership of game animals; in fact a hell of a lot higher than a F&G licence. The alternative is what we are witnessing now from DoC and it bodes ill for the future of public land game animal hunting.

Yeah personally I don't hate the idea, as long as the revenue stream is transparent and actually out towards the conservation and management of public land, rha's and game animals. I think if visible results were achieved many would begrudgingly accept the fees place. The sceptic in me however can just see the money going into the pot and little good coming of it.

Also I think DOC is ttarred and feathered often on here quite unfairly. They have a limited budget. Yes their bemuerocratic wing has an agenda and makes some silly calls, but there are many passionate hard working people of the front lines that work to maintain and protect our public lands. It's not perfect but it is valuable

The heads need to be cut off the DoC Hydra; but: if f&G took on licenced game animal protection and management the funds would be protected just as they are under current F&G legislation and structure, including democratically elected councillors who manage staff and budget allocations.

Taupo, I think should be under F&G, Ive fished the Lake for many years, since I was 16 and having the bach at Kinloch for the past 17 yrs. I have seen the demise of Taupo over the passed 17yrs from 600mm to 350mm for legal trout. I have heard all the bullshit and excuses from DOC on the causes. My opinion is DOC know SFA about what is happening to the Lake and are doing even less about it. Being a natural fishery is a problem, but needs to stay that way. Id ban downriggers and jigging for a start, only harling, spinning and trolling. Something tells you, when charter boats guarantee a fish, its not fishing anymore. Lake level being controlled by 3rd parties doesn't help.
I rarely get the boat out to just go fishing anymore, but have bought myself a downrigger, so things may improve! I also jig and know about targeting fish, latest finders make it easy. Back to basics @ $90 per yr for a licence, I expect some return on investment!!

Yip I'd happily pay $10-$30 bucks for my 3 month doc permit, hell even more, might make me get of my arse a bit more too

I’d go along the lines of $100 pa fee to hunt anywhere public land for 12 months. But until the Noxious Animal Control Act of 1953 is rescinded....not gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there was a license, it might mean that there will be animals to hunt in the future. On our current trajectory, I doubt that will be the case.

Originally Posted by Woody

I understand the concerns being voiced here. However, if Fish & Game were to take on management of game animals I don't see that this would create unaffordable costs for hunters. The cost of a trout or game bird licence is not exorbitant and if a similar cost was placed on game animals it would be a tiny price to pay in return for protected management and formal recognition of those game animals on public land. Without that formal recognition the future will only lead to high cost and exclusive private ownership of game animals; in fact a hell of a lot higher than a F&G licence. The alternative is what we are witnessing now from DoC and it bodes ill for the future of public land game animal hunting.

Well said Woody. Can I add the following : I have been a F&G Councillor and that organisation is NOT the one to lead big game hunting, however it is a model that works to protect an introduced species group for recreational use. That protection is enshrined in law. I doubt that game fish would have been granted protection under the conservation act if the acclimatization societies were not in existence and collecting licence fees at the time the Act was written.
We have a Game Animal Council with statutory recognition that is at risk of being dissolved. That organisation is underfunded and because of that underfunding is of limited effectiveness.
The GAC is the only organisation representing hunters with statutory recognition and therefore it is the organisation that we must get behind. Certainly we can start an online petition to keep it.
If we look into our Crystal ball of Hunting what do we see ? I see an increasing population in NZ and around the world, putting more pressure on our wild places with not only hunting but more and more bush walking tourists coming. I see a stronger and stronger green movement following on from awareness about polluted rivers, the current plastic bag campaign and the Global Warming news we see all the time. Are we likely to be looked after if we carry on with the status quo ??
Back to GAC, if right now we had 150,000 firearms owners paying a sub (licence) to GAC, would the Minister consider shutting them down ?? Everything we do in life is a form of politics, negotiations at work, with the missus etc etc. So in my opinion we need to use our collective political skills and wisdom and work out a way to counter the Ministers move against GAC. If I were the minister I would cut GAC's budget to an unsustainable level and hamstring them that way, then after twelve months shut them down.

Originally Posted by Mooseman

That sucks looks as if the minister is all for getting rid of our game animals any way it can and because the GAC questions the use of methods like 1080 it has to go. Just when we get a council that has our interest at heart the government is thinking of canning it …. we know who to vote for next time, and it won't be them.

Mate no one voted for them last time (Greens) yet they are here it,s corrupt the govt sold there sole to get into power , how a group of nutters with such a small following is basically trying to destroy peoples lively hoods and our way of life is sickening at best.