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

Originally Posted by gimp

It could work, and is actually probably technically possible under current legislation, if:

You included an evidence based management plan to improve ecological outcomes over the current management, and it passed scrutiny by DOCs technical advisors, it would likely need to include detail of management tools, expected results supported by evidence, monitoring to determine outcomes, contingencies if management tools failed to meet outcomes, etc

The legal aspects of the plan passed scrutiny (And probably legal challenge from Green Groups) under variously the Wild Animal Control Act, the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, various Conservation Management strategies, etc.

Due process was followed in implementing it allowing consolation with the correct parties, and there was adequate social license to manage an area with the word "trophy" within a city block of the name

You could get buy in from the right people of influence to actually agree to implement it

It could generate enough revenue to cover the cost of administering, ensuring compliance, etc

There weren't any risks to DOC legally, ecologically, financially, or in terms of losing control of management if it failed

Commercial interests (WARO) weren't influential enough to shut it down




I still think that starting from a trophy based perspective is putting the cart before the horse.

Agree with this however I think again the issue of enforcement rises it's head once again as well as the dirty word trophy. But I think its another idea to add to the piles of potentials if we can solve some problems.

Originally Posted by Maxx

Some really good posts in the last few pages (the only ones I've read) .....and a number of represent quite a bit of effort, too.

FWIW, I'd add that not only does DoC have an institutional antipathy towards introduced animals, they have one towards hunters too. Of course there are exceptions, but broadly speaking I think that's correct. So that's a further obstacle to meaningful engagement.

I had hoped that Kiri Allan might have taken a broader view than the previous Minister, but now she's on sick leave (and best wishes to her) I don't hold the same hopes with Ayesha Verrall.......

I agree and think that was a significant loss to hunters chances of meaningful change. The institutional (hate that word) distrust between DOC upper management and hunters is a serious issue. However its more of an issue than it needs to be due to today's tendency to just adopt the I disagree with you on something now I refuse to talk to you politely and I now hate everything you do. Thing is hunters and doc are not that dissimilar in terms of values. We just differ on a few key issues. If we could get over our selves a bit and the other side too atleast we could progress on the bits we agree on. It's seen in thing like gun laws where most LFOs agree that penalties for violent gun crime should be more but everytime anything is tried to be implemented they try slip in a heap of other bullshit laws so we no longer support them but if we pushed forward the things we agreed on some useful change could happen.

Originally Posted by Stocky

I agree and think that was a significant loss to hunters chances of meaningful change. The institutional (hate that word) distrust between DOC upper management and hunters is a serious issue. However its more of an issue than it needs to be due to today's tendency to just adopt the I disagree with you on something now I refuse to talk to you politely and I now hate everything you do. Thing is hunters and doc are not that dissimilar in terms of values. We just differ on a few key issues. If we could get over our selves a bit and the other side too atleast we could progress on the bits we agree on. It's seen in thing like gun laws where most LFOs agree that penalties for violent gun crime should be more but everytime anything is tried to be implemented they try slip in a heap of other bullshit laws so we no longer support them but if we pushed forward the things we agreed on some useful change could happen.

Of course too, DOC are constrained by the their legislative framework (and their ministers's directions). As it is, some things are simply impossible.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Of course too, DOC are constrained by the their legislative framework (and their ministers's directions). As it is, some things are simply impossible.

Yes for sure and I understand that and hence why this is all discussion of ideas and potential solutions to the problems that arise.

Hunters however are often very hard to get that point across to. I'd never be mad at doc for not doing something they can't do legally even if I'd like to see it happen. But for example a heap of hunters go on and bag the GAC and call them shit as they aren't publicly anti 1080 and they didn't condemn Eugenie Sage for the Tahr Cull. When you tell them that they legally can't make partisan comments and that while they are the only legal representation we have they are limited in some ways. That's why we need free organisations such as the NZDA and Tahr Foundation to make statements and actions like that and the GAC to actually act as a part of Government to enact the things we want as hunters.

More

Originally Posted by Tahr

I think that the concept of HOSI under the Game Council is an excellent concept. Because it starts from ground zero by firstly just simply identifying herds (or sub populations) that ought to have some sort of wrap around protective status, and then through consultation, data and science gathering develop a strategy to protect and grow the herd giving regards to a broad spectrum of recreational users and the environment. Or at least that's how I hope it works.

Beginning from a highly defined end game based purely on the needs of trophy hunters (an example of being too heavenly to be of any earthly use) and then working backwards to put it in place is a recipe for both resentment and disaster.

The choices are evolution, revolution or planned incremental change. Evolution has got us to where we are so has little merit. Revolution is for the zelots and will leave the crowd behind. Im for the latter (planned incremental change) and taking as many hunters and users with it as possible. It will take patience because it won't happen over night.

I think this is also what I'm saying but much more wordily

Originally Posted by Maxx

FWIW, I'd add that not only does DoC have an institutional antipathy towards introduced animals, they have one towards hunters too. Of course there are exceptions, but broadly speaking I think that's correct.

The converse is also generally true which makes it a real challenge.

Originally Posted by gimp

I think this is also what I'm saying but much more wordily

Eloquently, I think is the term you were searching for.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Eloquently, I think is the term you were searching for.

It's very kind of you to refer to me as eloquent (I was inelegantly referring to myself as wordy, not you)

I've added an addendum to the thread title so it's more obvious what it's actually about, as I think there is value in having these discussions and all of us as hunters being involved

Originally Posted by gimp

It's very kind of you to refer to me as eloquent (I was inelegantly referring to myself as wordy, not you)

Understood, now. Carry on.

Years ago we used to knock every trout on the noggin and the limit was ten. Then there was this mad idea that spread from America of 'Catch and Release'. Everyone scoffed, but in time it has become mainstream. People change.
In my opinion deer shooting should have the same perception and status as freshwater angling. The only way I see for that to happen is for hunting here to be promoted internationally as a tourist activity in the same way as angling is. The tourism minister is looking for growth ideas for high value tourists ....

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Years ago we used to knock every trout on the noggin and the limit was ten. Then there was this mad idea that spread from America of 'Catch and Release'. Everyone scoffed, but in time it has become mainstream. People change.
In my opinion deer shooting should have the same perception and status as freshwater angling. The only way I see for that to happen is for hunting here to be promoted internationally as a tourist activity in the same way as angling is. The tourism minister is looking for growth ideas for high value tourists ....

Thing is we also need to encourage less release too in regards to hinds. I know I let many go I should maybe have shot it only considering the ecosystem.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Years ago we used to knock every trout on the noggin and the limit was ten. Then there was this mad idea that spread from America of 'Catch and Release'. Everyone scoffed, but in time it has become mainstream. People change.
In my opinion deer shooting should have the same perception and status as freshwater angling. The only way I see for that to happen is for hunting here to be promoted internationally as a tourist activity in the same way as angling is. The tourism minister is looking for growth ideas for high value tourists ....

There is some irony there. I recall that DOC changed the survey technique they used in lake Taupo and all of a sudden thought there were less trout. Hence the bag limit reduces from 8 to 3. Then the catch and release took hold. Then the quality of the trout slid as not enough food.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Years ago we used to knock every trout on the noggin and the limit was ten. Then there was this mad idea that spread from America of 'Catch and Release'. Everyone scoffed, but in time it has become mainstream. People change.
In my opinion deer shooting should have the same perception and status as freshwater angling. The only way I see for that to happen is for hunting here to be promoted internationally as a tourist activity in the same way as angling is. The tourism minister is looking for growth ideas for high value tourists ....

So hey kiwi hunter you shoot all the females but can you leave any heads/horns with potential for some foreign to come shoot, hold on wasn't it foreigners that all so pushed up house prices and fucked that for the average kiwis??
the average kiwi want be able to hunt in NZ on public land once a fee is involved.
Look at how many kiwi hunters miss out on ballots year after year to foreigners. If anything it should be draw to kiwis first and if there are any left over spots that's when they have the option of been given to a foreign hunter at a high cost
We also set up game parks for foreigners to come shoot animals in this country

Originally Posted by bigbear

So hey kiwi hunter you shoot all the females but can you leave any heads/horns with potential for some foreign to come shoot, hold on wasn't it foreigners that all so pushed up house prices and fucked that for the average kiwis??
the average kiwi want be able to hunt in NZ on public land once a fee is involved.
Look at how many kiwi hunters miss out on ballots year after year to foreigners. If anything it should be draw to kiwis first and if there are any left over spots that's when they have the option of been given to a foreign hunter at a high cost
We also set up game parks for foreigners to come shoot animals in this country

Nothing is perfect in life, but the point on this matter is that currently WARO shoots out the biggest stags every summer in the trophy producing areas. They shoot stags in preference to hinds. As a consequence there are very few really good stags in these areas for anyone. What is the best alternative to the status quo ??