Thread: HuntingHQ.com

The problem I can see in charging for access and hunting is the question of 'who owns the deer' ?. The land owner can charge a fee for access across land they own, but can they then charge so much per animal for animals they dont own.?

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

The problem I can see in charging for access and hunting is the question of 'who owns the deer' ?. The land owner can charge a fee for access across land they own, but can they then charge so much per animal for animals they dont own.?

How do outfitters/ guides do it? Same as easements allowing access don't allow shooting of animals on easement. Conditions are often included.

Originally Posted by Stocky

How do outfitters/ guides do it? Same as easements allowing access don't allow shooting of animals on easement. Conditions are often included.

They are charging for a service if hunting on public land. Whereas on a private fenced hunt park a lot of the animals are bought in and owned, so they are charging for animals they own.
What would you think if fishing guides started charging per trout taken ?.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

They are charging for a service if hunting on public land. Whereas on a private fenced hunt park a lot of the animals are bought in and owned, so they are charging for animals they own.
What would you think if fishing guides started charging per trout taken ?.

Plenty of free range private low fence outfitters in NZ that charge on the animal that's wild and can often leave to public/neighbours. As for fishing guides not bothered as personally I feel better about it as it limits the amount of trout taken. I'd love to see foreigners pay per animal shot even when not guided.

There is a significant legal element for the company and for the farmer - health and safety. Because money is changing hands, the farmer may become vulnerable to prosecution by police or health and safety if an accident happens to the consumer (paying hunter) or other private prosecution may be another avenue the farmer will not want to walk down. Ultimately, the scheme seems like another element of privatization of the NZ way of life for personal profit. I am sure hunting would be seen in a similar light as 'risk tourism', like walking into live volcanoes. And we know what is happening to everyone who was involved in that activity; their lives are going to be absolutely ruined by government witchhunting.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Plenty of free range private low fence outfitters in NZ that charge on the animal that's wild and can often leave to public/neighbours. As for fishing guides not bothered as personally I feel better about it as it limits the amount of trout taken. I'd love to see foreigners pay per animal shot even when not guided.

I agree with you, that NZ outfitters are effectively selling a wild animal. That is the issue that I have questions about. Are those outfitters selling an animal that they dont have legal title to when they charge a trophy fee ?. The charge for guiding is one thing but the trophy fee is another ( on free range wild animals ). What would be the legal position if someone paid for access, shot half a dozen deer and refused to pay a headage fee when they left ?

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I agree with you, that NZ outfitters are effectively selling a wild animal. That is the issue that I have questions about. Are those outfitters selling an animal that they dont have legal title to when they charge a trophy fee ?. The charge for guiding is one thing but the trophy fee is another ( on free range wild animals ). What would be the legal position if someone paid for access, shot half a dozen deer and refused to pay a headage fee when they left ?

Not exactly sure but how does a trophy fee work in British Columbia on public land and public animals? Surely at the least the have only been given access with conditions breaching the conditions would mean they are now trespassing and poaching. They don't own the animals but do have the right to say what people can do on their property. Also the trophy fee is viewed as a negative but realistically it is there just as much to allow for costs to still be covered in the case of a unsuccessful trip. Outfitters in BC/elsewhere often do this on low success hunts etc like Grizzly. I would hazard a guess they treat the trophy fee as a bonus for performance vs the actual animal fee. So you pay your outfitter a bonus depending on how well they have done similar to many businesses giving sales bonuses etc?

My issue is the privatisation of a public asset, being wild game animals and the slippery slope to further access closures.

I'm looking for some straightforward places to take the son for a shoot. As newcomer to hunting, private farmland with accommodation on there seems like a good option. There's higher certainty of getting something, access, safety etc. When you have a 9-year old in tow, that stuff really matters.

Any thoughts?

Reading with interest. I'm not quite so negative. It might work out for some people and don't forget, there are no game animals in NZ apart from ducks, only pests. Sort out that travesty first, then things can move forward.

Originally Posted by Hunting Dad

I'm looking for some straightforward places to take the son for a shoot. As newcomer to hunting, private farmland with accommodation on there seems like a good option. There's higher certainty of getting something, access, safety etc. When you have a 9-year old in tow, that stuff really matters.

Any thoughts?

https://www.facebook.com/27411596671...739218269/?d=n

Originally Posted by stagstalker

https://www.facebook.com/27411596671...739218269/?d=n

Looks good but unfortunately we're in Christchurch.