Thread: the OFF TOPIC to Stags shot 21 (discussion of wild animal management)

One important observation relevant to this thread is this chart - ungulates are increasing in occupancy, i.e. are found in more places across public land (any individual site on the scale of the monitoring - 8km grid - has a higher probability of having ungulates present).

In the areas where they are found they are not necessarily increasing in abundance (as a national average) but there is higher occupancy. This is objective fact supported by data collected through a scientifically robust monitoring system.

This increase in occupancy may contribute to the perception amongst managers/green groups that "deer are out of control" which is the greatest threat to hunting in New Zealand in my opinion - if it is more widely perceived amongst the public in general that deer are a huge acute ecological threat, the social license to maintain viable populations for hunting will dwindle and hunters will be viewed as anti-environment reactionaries.

An interesting question relating to wild animal management for hunters is "what do you think should be done regarding tahr outside the feral range specified by the HTCP" ?

I.e. the introductions, migrations or escapees that are present in the Eyre Mtns, Oteake, Mt Hutt, Waikite, Hunter Hills, Arawhata, Waianakarua etc.



It's easy to think that these populations are a good thing, as it provides more opportunities for hunters. However recreational hunters under the present set of incentives and conditions haven't met the objectives of the HTCP within the feral range (acknowledging of course all the failings in management by DOC over the past 28 years) and the populations in most of the management units exceed intervention densities, so a requirement for more opportunities is difficult to justify.

Advocating for more populations or a greater tahr range also feeds the perception that hunters only care about maximum animal numbers rather than ecological values at all, which is an undesirable perception for managers and the public to hold, it's a mental model that is negative for the outcomes that hunters need.

Originally Posted by gimp

However recreational hunters under the present set of incentives and conditions haven't met the objectives of the HTCP within the feral range (acknowledging of course all the failings in management by DOC over the past 28 years) and the populations in most of the management units exceed intervention densities

It's more correct and fair actually to say that DOC has failed to utilise recreational hunters as a management tool to meet these objectives, rather than blaming recreational hunters who have no official agency - however we can take the initiative ourselves as I suggest repeatedly throughout the thread.

Originally Posted by gimp

It's also horrifically complicated to find, but there is an interactive map generated that plots all the FPI data as heat maps, either plot level/park level so you can visually see where ungulate relative abundance is higher or lower nationally. https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/mon...tes-2019-2020/

You can see that most of Kahurangi National Park for example has low densities of ungulates, but Marlborough is much higher.

It seems the maps are slower than a wet week to load at least for me they are

Originally Posted by gimp

I don't think the statement that is commonly made that recreational hunters can't manage deer numbers is necessarily accurate; a more accurate way to describe the situation in the Sumner RHA or Ruahines for example might be that hunters haven't been incentivised to try to manage deer numbers. Hunters as a group don't have the specific goal of managing numbers to a target in any area, so of course they haven't - but these targets don't exist for deer, neither does any monitoring to determine populations at a park level like this in most places.

You could say the same about tahr as well, although target intervention densities do exist there, the system has not worked well in terms of ongoing monitoring informing direction of recreational hunter effort, and then that effort actually being applied.

There are plenty of places particularly in the South Island where deer numbers remain low (based on my anecdotal experience rather than formal data) since they were reduced or eliminated by WARO in the 70s, and one could safely say that some of this is due to recreational hunter effects as there really isn't any data to support any other assumption over that.

Clearly the difficulty of managing deer numbers will vary significantly with different landscapes. Fiordland much more difficult than the Two Thumb Range.

But problems with the ruhnies on the western side is that there isn't a lot of access points & 3 have close in the last few years & a lot of the acces points are through farm land so in the winter time it gets closed depending on there farm operation at the time so it hard to keep numbers under control when you can't get in there

[QUOTE=Stocky;1148666]I disagree it would end up just foreigners shooting the mature animals as its an easy solve by limiting % of foreign hunters and by making them pay more so less foreigners apply. Keep local prices low and subsidised. Just like how the NZ university system works. A 25k degree for a kiwi is a 100K degree for a foreigner. The foreigners money subsidies the degree for kiwis along with taxes. While I think unis are a disgrace in terms of being a left wing idealogical brainwashing camp but that irrelevant. (funny that off topic in the off topic thread.)

That is a good point about anti hunter groups but what stops them making the same claim about Fiordland or The ballot blocks?

Something I've come to realise is its not the Hunters of the anti hunters that are important. It's the majority that aren't either as they make up 90% of the population. We are only allowed to continue hunting as long as on a whole the non hunters agree with what we are doing. We can try convince them hunting a good thing and the antis obviously do the opposite. I think if the system was instituted similarly with improvements on the FWF we could show the benefits of hunting on conservation. And as long as the focus is put on mature animals not just points and antlers then it's a feasible option. But it's a great point to add to the discussion as it definitely needs considering.[/QU


Ok with your way you paying to hunt heads in some doc land & turns out to work how long before the government charges every hunter to pay before hunting on doc land couse they need $ for a cycle way or some shit

[QUOTE=hunt08;1148984]

Originally Posted by Stocky

I disagree it would end up just foreigners shooting the mature animals as its an easy solve by limiting % of foreign hunters and by making them pay more so less foreigners apply. Keep local prices low and subsidised. Just like how the NZ university system works. A 25k degree for a kiwi is a 100K degree for a foreigner. The foreigners money subsidies the degree for kiwis along with taxes. While I think unis are a disgrace in terms of being a left wing idealogical brainwashing camp but that irrelevant. (funny that off topic in the off topic thread.)

That is a good point about anti hunter groups but what stops them making the same claim about Fiordland or The ballot blocks?

Something I've come to realise is its not the Hunters of the anti hunters that are important. It's the majority that aren't either as they make up 90% of the population. We are only allowed to continue hunting as long as on a whole the non hunters agree with what we are doing. We can try convince them hunting a good thing and the antis obviously do the opposite. I think if the system was instituted similarly with improvements on the FWF we could show the benefits of hunting on conservation. And as long as the focus is put on mature animals not just points and antlers then it's a feasible option. But it's a great point to add to the discussion as it definitely needs considering.[/QU


Ok with your way you paying to hunt heads in some doc land & turns out to work how long before the government charges every hunter to pay before hunting on doc land couse they need $ for a cycle way or some shit

Its not just about heads its also about forcing take to be focused on Hinds because stags aren't an option unless you have a tag/license. I think we as hunters should be paying for a license (Cheap $20-30 for the 3 month permit) to hunt so that we can fund a management system focused on us rather than just letting DOC manage it where 90% of the time hunting is being managed by some anti hunting forest and bird Alumni. If we had a hunter based management system we would have a more stable set of guidelines and not this mess where every few years we get someone like Sage coming in an doing there best to get her goals sorted with no concern for hunters. I get the fear for it but seriously its not hard (relatively) to target funding in legislation so it can only be used for a certain purpose.

Plus a point that i thinks being missed is that what percentage of hunters that re in the headwaters of areas like the whitcombe, wilberforce, rakaia are doing anything other than trophy hunting. The only difference is on a whole they are panicked that someone else will get it that they shoot animals they know are young anyway. This cycle leads to them walking past hinds and removing the future mature stags. Its clearly counter intuitive. We are not talking the front country with easy access we are talking the hard to reach remote areas that meat hunting isn't feasible.

We already pay for Ballots and DOC dont make money on it every year after administration costs etc.

We arent suggesting just making people pay first its been suggested

First we establish the GAC to legally manage Wild game populations with a determined set of objectives (even if at the start those objectives are just to gain information on populations and effects on the environment). Determine what is possible under the legal framework and what things are potentially able to be changed to allow the most effective management.

Then we establish a source of funding to pay for this (partially DOC funding, potentially from charging international hunters license fees and trophy export fees, then potentially by charging nz hunters a much lower license fee.) Any funding coming directly from hunters to be legally bound to be spent on hunting related management and conservation projects as overseen by the GAC.

Down the line see where any herds of special interest can be established and potentially managed by a hunter based organization. Ie Wapiti by the FWF, Tahr by the Tahr Foundation, Potentially a Rakaia or Otago Red Deer Foundation could be formed, etc to cover a few niche groups. We are on a whole talking areas that are limited access that could be set aside for management for mature stags adding value to charge hunters that want to hunt those areas more. Using that money we can run more conservation projects such as those being run by the FWF in Fiordland.

The reason Fiordland is getting more popular is the fact you actually have a fairly good chance of finding a mature bull comparatively to most other areas even though populations are being reduced selectively each year. The blocks are hard to access and remote meaning minimized effects of rec hunters losing hunting area.

Originally Posted by Stocky

We already pay for Ballots and DOC dont make money on it every year after administration costs etc.

Is there any reason to suspect that DOC makes any profit on any ballot in any year?

We do pay for hunting nw it in out tax we should not be paying for any thing else to hunt doc hunt couse it starts out small then it will go up & up till it a rich man's sport my family couldn't afford to pay the the $30 for 3 months there me & my wife has her on rifle & hunts by herself & 2 kids coming along yes it would start of small then on 10years it be $500 like everything it just keeps going up until it unaffordable then the deer numbers will rise & it would get dump & go back to what it is now to get people in the bush hunting what we have nw works well but yes people need shoot more hinds & the chopper guys shouldn't be shooting stags & we need more access points into doc land so it easy for people to get in & bring meat out but I think that's all that needs to change

@Stocky have you hunted the north island? while the east coast in know for hunting, have you ever been in the Waioeka Gorge or the Motu Doc land?

Here stocky. "Australian hunters are expected in their droves" it might pay to go your blocks and put up a sign telling them hinds only and don't shoot anything with potential.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...ocid=ACERDHP15

Originally Posted by gimp

Is there any reason to suspect that DOC makes any profit on any ballot in any year?

Pardon I'm a bit confused by the question? I'm saying the don't make profit and talking to a few people they usually lose money. It was mentioned that if we paid for hunting that they would see it being used for revenue gathering for footpaths etc which I was suggesting wouldn't happen otherwise they would atleast be trying to profit from existing pay to hunt situations on public land.

Originally Posted by hunt08

We do pay for hunting nw it in out tax we should not be paying for any thing else to hunt doc hunt couse it starts out small then it will go up & up till it a rich man's sport my family couldn't afford to pay the the $30 for 3 months there me & my wife has her on rifle & hunts by herself & 2 kids coming along yes it would start of small then on 10years it be $500 like everything it just keeps going up until it unaffordable then the deer numbers will rise & it would get dump & go back to what it is now to get people in the bush hunting what we have nw works well but yes people need shoot more hinds & the chopper guys shouldn't be shooting stags & we need more access points into doc land so it easy for people to get in & bring meat out but I think that's all that needs to change

I said we (hunters) pay for Ballots (which are popular) not to pay to hunt but it's not a far stretch that paying for ballots is paying for a better hunting experience which is what is suggested here. Taxes don't cover everything. And it's better they don't. If people are really so broke you can't afford a total of $100-$120 for hunting permits allowing you as much meat as you can hunt if suggest do you really pay that much tax? With a few exceptions most people can make things happen. For example anyone that smokes could save significantly more if they valued hunting more than smoking etc. I for example chose to not drink apart from very occasionally as I saw it was a was of money for little benefit. Compared to old mate that buys a box a week I save $1000 a year on beer. I do all my own work on vehicles and vary rarely pay for people to do things for me rather I learn how from the Internet and if its affordable to by the tools I do it myself.

But anyway I suggested rough prices a fishing license costs more than the prices I suggested it was just a ballpark figure. You do raise a good point about families costing a lot. A suggestion would be to just make it free for under 18s etc to help families recruit new hunters or family licenses for when your partner come along just like fishing licenses for a discounted rate for the whole family ie $150(ballpark shit it could be $50) for everyone in the family for a year. Deer number rise partially because people target stags and not hinds and while I lived up north there was a huge "don't shoot the breeders" sentiment from back in the days when deer numbers where low. That sentiment is less common I've found down south but the terrain often means different issues in actually being able to recover meat from some areas.

I don't think we are to dissimilar on the issue except for the paying to hunt. Hell I'm open to the idea in areas where deer numbers are high or a problem that hunting is free and remains as such. I'm not suggesting that we make it require tags for all the North island bush. Im suggesting the more remote places that are only hunted by WARO and trophy hunters are given an improved system that could balance conservation and hunting experience.

I appreciate your contribution even if we don't agree on everything. Prices are just a suggestion even if say all 100k (ballpark guess) hunters paid $50 a year thats $5 million a year that could be sent towards trying to both improve knowledge of the effects of hunting, publicly campaign in a pro hunting matter such as the donated meat from FWF etc.

Originally Posted by bigbear

@Stocky have you hunted the north island? while the east coast in know for hunting, have you ever been in the Waioeka Gorge or the Motu Doc land?

Yes grew up in the Bay of Plenty. Hunted the Kaimais, Kaimanawas and Pureoras primarily. Did venture out towards waikaremoana a few times otherwise no have never hunted Waioeka Gorge or Motu Doc land and its been probably 6 years since I hunted any of the other places I mentioned except the Kaimanawas which I chase winter Sika yearly and get the odd summer trip in.

Originally Posted by bigbear

Here stocky. "Australian hunters are expected in their droves" it might pay to go your blocks and put up a sign telling them hinds only and don't shoot anything with potential.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...ocid=ACERDHP15

Newshub not prone to exaggeration?

They come in their droves every normal year anyway. I judge them by a stricter set of rules as to be fair they can't take the meat home so realistically they are trophy hunting. I do think its a bit shit to fly to NZ smack over a bunch of young animals and fly home without meaningfully contributing. They would be oissed if kiwis did it but very few of us do as its not easy to do the other way around. Something about shitting in your neighbours lawn comes to mind. I do think BEFORE we start having kiwis pay we should definitely be introducing a international hunting license in the realm of $200 plus. It means that people won't just come to bomb up stags and cham and bull Tahr. And those that do come can mean I fully contribute to funding hunters in NZ. Introduce a $50-100 fee per trophy to leave the country to reduce them flying in and shooting stuff for the sake of it of because they paid $1000 for a chopper so they think the deserve it. This would hardly reduce the effect on population growth as these types of hunters specifically target males anyways. They typically come down south and if it not just super cheap to do some may decide its better to just go chase animals on gameparks which adds more to our economy than currently where they usually just by plane tickets, maybe some ammo and a rental car, and food and they head off the mountains. Maybe throw in a heli ride for good measure.

I've said I don't judge what kiwis shoot typically unless they are claiming something that's untrue like calling a 3 year old stag mature, or claiming a 2 year old stags a scruby 12 when it's a ripper 2 year old. And even then I won't do any thing except ask them how they came to that conclusion and if its a genuine mistake who cares shit happens and if they are just bullshittibg then maybe the don't do it next time but again who really cares. I see heaps of young animals shot but I don't know the circumstances behind them so unless your making a BS claim I wont comment as it not helpful. If you posted up got this young 12 pointer I wouldn't say anything as atleast you aren't lying about what you shot to validate it and your happy to say you shot a young 12. Everyone makes up there own morals but you can't make up your own facts.