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

I have and will continue to support the GAC, among other groups .They have a low profile but do a reasonable amount of advocacy work for recreational hunters behind the scenes.I have recently become a member of NZDA ,due to it being the easiest way to satisfy forest company requirements, but having followed their advocacy for firearms holders and hunters in general I am somewhat dis-illusioned with their efforts to date. BUT we must support any group that promotes the continued use/ownership of firearms by individuals, no matter what discipline of gun sports they participate in, as long as no group is willing to throw another group under the bus to promote their own survival
As regards the present government, hopefully they are a single term one. Labour sold their souls to the devil when they partnered with the Greens and let list MP's become government ministers.Sage and others will f-ck this country completely with their idealistic air headed thinking if they are allowed to carry on as they are.
Sorry, rant is nearly over,but most of us spend hundreds/thousands of dollars participating in our chosen firearms discipline so get your hand out of your pocket and contribute to any of the groups that are promoting your continued right to own and use firearms in whatever sport you follow.

sage is a two faced cow full stop.shes still rabidly embedded in the twg&tweet brigade with xgreenie MP kevin hague &co -they were behind the unillateral decision re mining on the crown estate on the coast,though these socialist bastards ,herr cluck being of significance have always told coasters what to do...(.Hmmremember Pike river)
however sage furtively sneaks about a couple of mines on the coast and whoa -..."reverse the decison"-do i need hearing aids or are you a patronising bitch.
in fact an impeccaable source whispered in my ear the original decision came from the vertical human milk tanker in dorkland the one whose mouth looks like a test keyboard at a steinway factory,the same one who declares taranakis oil&gas redundant so we can keep our country green!

The concept of the GAC was originally good, but I will not donate to a group that is controlled by DoC approved appointees. The executives should be elected by hunter members and DoC can keep the hell out of interference. At the same time, the legislation must be in place to allow this structure, along with a decent portion of government funding.

Reading some of the GAC minutes it is obvious the considerable difficulty the GAC has with DOC's recalcitrance.

My personal view is that Hunters should join NZDA. They can never be disposed of by Govt, and if you read their code of ethics on what they stand for you will see they line up with majority of our views.

https://www.deerstalkers.org.nz/code...uidelines.html

Although I have disagreed with several of the comments made by the previous Nat. president in the past, instead of continuing to complain I've actually got involved instead. First with Wellington Branch, then the NZDA Heritage Trust and now as Lower North Island delegate on the National executive. The NZDA do a huge amount of lobbying behind the scenes but have struggled to get that message out to their members and hunters, so most people believe they do very little, when that is not true. They are hoping to turn that around.

The old bumper sticker comes to mind "Over 200,000 Kiwis Hunt, Fish and Vote". If we could all come together under the one banner then we'd be taken a lot more seriously by Govt with those kind of numbers. The NRA in the US comes to mind- if they don't want something to happen, it usually doesn't.

Then I believe a hunting license would not be necessary. We already pay taxes and we already pay to go into ballots. Our collective voice and voting power at election time could sort-out getting our game animals off the "pest" list and more herds of special interests could be created. The FWF has shown the way with their excellent herd management.

A good example of the influence we could have, was the recent social media back-lash against the proposed Arms Act changes by Police. The Firearms community got in the ear of a lot of politicians and got those changes marginalized.

It will always be a constant battle, but if we put the squabbling/egos aside and came together then we would be a lot more effective.

One of the ideas I'm thinking of proposing is that the NZDA makes a special low-cost membership option (and then ran an effective marketing plan to promote it) so that our "voice" would go from the current approx 8000 members to far more. It would be good to hear your thoughts on this.

-Tim

@FRST - great post, I like your ideas on NZDA membership. Keep up the good work. I recently rejoined after a 25 year hiatus but somehow my membership has lapsed again - I must remedy that.

Originally Posted by Tentman

@FRST - great post, I like your ideas on NZDA membership. Keep up the good work. I recently rejoined after a 25 year hiatus but somehow my membership has lapsed again - I must remedy that.

Yeah I joined only 3-4 years ago, after years of people telling me it was a waste of time/money. They couldn't have been more wrong, but you definitely get the most out of it by what you put in. I've met some awesome characters, stalwarts a lot them, dedicated to the cause of NZ hunting.

Originally Posted by FRST

My personal view is that Hunters should join NZDA. They can never be disposed of by Govt, and if you read their code of ethics on what they stand for you will see they line up with majority of our views.

https://www.deerstalkers.org.nz/code...uidelines.html

Although I have disagreed with several of the comments made by the previous Nat. president in the past, instead of continuing to complain I've actually got involved instead. First with Wellington Branch, then the NZDA Heritage Trust and now as Lower North Island delegate on the National executive. The NZDA do a huge amount of lobbying behind the scenes but have struggled to get that message out to their members and hunters, so most people believe they do very little, when that is not true. They are hoping to turn that around.

The old bumper sticker comes to mind "Over 200,000 Kiwis Hunt, Fish and Vote". If we could all come together under the one banner then we'd be taken a lot more seriously by Govt with those kind of numbers. The NRA in the US comes to mind- if they don't want something to happen, it usually doesn't.

Then I believe a hunting license would not be necessary. We already pay taxes and we already pay to go into ballots. Our collective voice and voting power at election time could sort-out getting our game animals off the "pest" list and more herds of special interests could be created. The FWF has shown the way with their excellent herd management.

A good example of the influence we could have, was the recent social media back-lash against the proposed Arms Act changes by Police. The Firearms community got in the ear of a lot of politicians and got those changes marginalized.

It will always be a constant battle, but if we put the squabbling/egos aside and came together then we would be a lot more effective.

One of the ideas I'm thinking of proposing is that the NZDA makes a special low-cost membership option (and then ran an effective marketing plan to promote it) so that our "voice" would go from the current approx 8000 members to far more. It would be good to hear your thoughts on this.

-Tim

I'd consider joining but I think the South Auckland branch has disappeared.

Originally Posted by Steve123

I'd consider joining but I think the South Auckland branch has disappeared.

What I'm thinking though is that joining us on a cheaper rate wouldn't necessarily involve meetings or the full range of benefits, but it would put you in the loop with all our news, and you'd be counted as a member when it came to lobbying the government. Kind of like an associate member of sorts. I believe NZDA have done it before, it just wasn't marketed all that well. My intent is that we pull in as many hunters as possible.

Originally Posted by FRST

What I'm thinking though is that joining us on a cheaper rate wouldn't necessarily involve meetings or the full range of benefits, but it would put you in the loop with all our news, and you'd be counted as a member when it came to lobbying the government. Kind of like an associate member of sorts. I believe NZDA have done it before, it just wasn't marketed all that well. My intent is that we pull in as many hunters as possible.

I think an associate membership could be good if it includes insurance and all.
I must try to contact them again.

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

I think soon as we start paying a lot more farmers/private blocks owners will see a opportunity to tap in and make same money. Also i wouldn't be that happy to pay the same money as a overseas hunter. IF i was made to pay $100 a year they should be charging $1000 for a non nz tax payer. Even then that's not enough.

Think it was suggested in earlier posts about the GAC funding, but a voluntary donation at hunting/outdoor retailers (stores and online) when making a purchase would be simple enough. Even if a couple dollars at a time. Easier to get people to contribute when they're paying for something already rather than having to donate online etc. I'd guess a lot of people have good intentions to contribute but not the motivation to find out how.

Originally Posted by turtle

..... As Moana Mackey said, there are 34,000 hunting permits issued each year by the Department of Conservation.....

Every hunter should be putting in for DoC permits every four months for the areas on public land they may possibly hunt. This is whether they end up visiting those areas or not. Each year, every year. It cost nothing, and is a simple way of having a voice for those not able or willing to express their concerns in other ways ( I agree with NZDA membership being the next step if financially able). It is also a requirement for hunting on public land. What sort of message would be sent if there were 250,000 hunting permits issued each year? A better message than the current stats: that most hunters trespass when they hunt on DoC estate.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

We pay for a game bird licence now, but some areas have seen a drastic drop in game bird numbers. So I don't think paying for a licence for big game will have any benefit in numbers.

While I agree with that statement, it is also true that the government and it's agencies aren't dead set on exterminating non-indigenous ducks. While a hunting license wouldn't in itself bring about a change of policy, I would see it as part and parcel of deer and other large animals getting game animal status.

Originally Posted by Pengy

Not sure I get your point

@Pengy DOC are hypocrites period. They farm trout for release into the wild, fresh water ecologist tell me trout predate on native species. It's worth money, the gac is not and easy political points for the watermelon party. Talking of hypocrisy look up Eugenie Sage and water bolting plant

I think that some of the important points regarding licencing and representation are being missed.
Firstly do we want to accept the status quo with politicians deciding the fate of Big Game animals or do we see that a positive change needs to be made ?

We want a voice that has some political clout.
We need to be represented by a body that has it's status recognised in law by an act of parliament - the same as Fish and Game.
How do we achieve this ? by bringing all hunters together under one umbrella body and financing that body so that is able to represent us. The only body that has a legal recognition is GAC
Licencing does NOT mean hunting seasons or extra restrictions, it is only a mechanism to get every hunter to become a member of a universal representative body and get their name down as a member of that organisation.
There is little point in the negative writings here in this forum about the Greens, the Minister or DOC it might make the writer feel better but it does not help find a solution to what we can see coming, and it most certainly won't change anything

As a suggestion, is it possible for GAC to act as an umbrella body with associate membership of other hunting organisations like the NZDA ?