Thread: Maybe need to start shooting everything we see in some areas

While we work on things like access, we'd have a better supporting argument if we shot more hinds (or nannies) in the places we CAN access easily or are going already.

Originally Posted by gimp

While we work on things like access, we'd have a better supporting argument if we shot more hinds (or nannies) in the places we CAN access easily or are going already.

The thermal crew are doing a stellar job of reducing numbers in all the easy access country up here.
If you have to carry the animal a few hours tho it's a different story.

I’m going in again next week for 5 nights and fully intend on going for maximum tail count

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

The thermal crew are doing a stellar job of reducing numbers in all the easy access country up here.
If you have to carry the animal a few hours tho it's a different story.

Is it legal to use a thermal spotter on public land?

Have the 'Murupara Moonbeam' guys upgraded?

Originally Posted by caberslash

Is it legal to use a thermal spotter on public land?

Have the 'Murupara Moonbeam' guys upgraded?

It's a grey area.....permit states thermal and NV not allowed to be used for hunting so definitely not on the rifle but could be argued the hand held is ok?
That doesn't bother lots of guys tho....who's going to see them?

Originally Posted by gimp

While we work on things like access, we'd have a better supporting argument if we shot more hinds (or nannies) in the places we CAN access easily or are going already.

I agree Gimp, I have a dumb question but my question is how do we get solid data that other agencies can see and recognise our contribution. Kill returns aren’t required on 99 percent of hunting permits. Eg how can we as a hunting community provide clear numbers on amount of animals removed from an area? F and B have data to support their argument, how do we get data to show that hunters are committing to removing more hinds.

At the moment we can say this stuff until we’re blue in the face but there seems to be a lack of trust between all parties involved. The likes of f and b can only take it at face value that rec hunters are committing to remove more hinds as theres no requirement for us to take down data a lot of the time.

Plus theres also a lack of trust in DOC etc from some hunters and probably for valid reasons so it’s tough to get everyone on the same page?

Just spitballing here.

Originally Posted by Andygr

I may be a little naive here but someone a little while back, on a different thread, suggested that if a significant number of us joined Forest and Bird then we would have voting rights and therefore a say in how things transpire. It doesn't have to be an "us and them" situation so that we can save the trees and still hunt. I stand to be corrected on this but to me it seems logical. It does however require a large number of deerstalkers joining F and B. Change things from the inside !! The $57 annual membership is a small price to pay.

Union makes strength. You can break a match with your fingers... never a hundred matches together.

There are thousands of hunters like myself, eager to help farmers bring down the animal numbers if we can only get access. Maybe I’m to thick to work it out but why is there private land with exploding numbers then? That’s a genuine question, by the way.

Originally Posted by thatguy

There are thousands of hunters like myself, eager to help farmers bring down the animal numbers if we can only get access. Maybe I’m to thick to work it out but why is there private land with exploding numbers then? That’s a genuine question, by the way.

Public land in alot of areas are bursting at the seams also

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Is it possible for NZDA to compile a database of the number of deer taken by recreational hunters reporting their harvest directly. A liaison between NZDA and Forest and Bird could then establish "problem areas" that could be targeted either by DOC, recreational hunters or cullers depending on the locality of said areas.

How many deer would you say each hunter would have to shoot a year to keep numbers down and do their bit?

Nothing will change unless they are treated as a resource and managed as such

I have no idea @7mm Rem Mag, that is a question for those who are more informed than me. There are so many variables: the number of deer in a given area, the number of capable hunters in that area, the remoteness, the habitat and whether it is harbours plants of significance etc. I do believe however, that communication and co-ordination is part of the process of managing the deer population rather than one group calling for eradication and the other group fighting against it.

Originally Posted by Gibo

Nothing will change unless they are treated as a resource and managed as such

Can you clarify on that Gibo...how is changing from pest to managed resource will change the volume shot? Assuming that's what you mean

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

The problem is there is a fundamental difference in approach between pest control and hunting. Hunters are you classic sustainable meat harvestors, always in the back of the mind os the need to preserve a sustainable resource. Pest control for something like protecting a threatened conservation area requires total eradication or as close to this as possible. Hunters and conservationists have completely different mindset and priorities. Trophy hunting is worse again, some guys will leave a huge number of animals to try for that one perfect specimen. Reconciling these competing agendas is the issue here. It's much easier for us farmer pest controllers, if it moves, shoot it.