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

Originally Posted by bigbear

I Like the idea of a tag system not only on deer but tahr as well to but the fee might start at $25 but whats it going to end at? $1000 ?10000?
We have to think of the future game management as well as the future hunters, i want my son to be able to hunt and his kids. Once we put a price on it it never going to be the same and can you trust all the government's just like your life time firearms license.
What about the treaty of waitangi? will there be a loop hole for different rules different people?

Nz hunter done a story when Emil went home Denmark and hunted with his dad am pretty sure on there they had to log where they shoot there stag. gps mark it tag etc and maybe aloud one meat animal as well (long time ago)

I agree. Should be area based though not everywhere ie some of the areas like the Rakaia catchments otago and greenstone fallow etc then other areas can stay open so there is a combination of both opportunitie to hunt and areas for higher trophy quality with lower opportunity. It might encourage hunting hinds in the trophy areas as if you want to scout the area without a tag stags aren't an option. Tags can fund helicopters to control populations as required.

I see the risk of tag price increases but they usually only climb due to extreme demand to availability ratios and usually increase most for non residents. So make it 25 for a kiwi 500 for a non kiwi. If the quality is there foreigners will pay. We should also limit total tags to foreigners to somewhere in the they have an equal chance as anyone else but they can only have a maximum of 5-10% of tags allocated.

As for Emil visiting they owned the hunting lease so while it didn't cost per stag it's effectively shared private land. Had quite a few German and Austrians come hunt with us in BC and there system is far more expensive elite than here with little to no public land hunting.

I completely disagree with any differing sets of rules for differing people with a few smal exemptions. One of the risks of limited entry are point creep etc so id like to see it as a completely random draw. We could/should start the idea by applying it to overseas hunters first on all public land hunting where a kiwi guide is not employed.

You will never see tags cost that much even in the states bighorn tags don't get over a few grand. They are just hard to draw. The expense comes in the fact you have to apply lots to draw or pay a guide in Canada etc to hunt them but that's not tag cost.

Originally Posted by Tahr

The herds of special interest thing through the GAC? Anything come of that?

https://nzgameanimalcouncil.org.nz/h...cial-interest/

There was a big resistance to this by Sage as it is a good step for us. Hopefully we can have a few others added in future. I think Cham will be very hard to do as they are so spread out.

Originally Posted by bigbear

I still think going ahead we need all big game animals to be put under one foundation deer tahr and chamoas.
Sorry @Tahr i was still typing when you put the link above. But you hardly here anything from the GAC.
I here more from the sika foundation and wapiti foundation and i have no ties to both

I think the GAC is the way forward especially considering they are the official representation in law and Parliament. I do think they should be released so not controlled by DOC but able to work in parallel with DOC.

The thing is if they are official legally they can't make any partisan remarks. The have to remain unbiased politically. We definitely need the support of all the other groups such as the FWF, Sika Foundation, Nzda, etc but they serve a different function and are more free in what they can legally come out and put stances on.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Agreee, but at least the GAC was formed through legislation and the HOSI are part of that legislation. Tat ought to mean something (or nothing).

Yeh very true. They kind of got setup a bit as usually groups like this are started by putting professional politicians in the council to get them started with things like organising funding, etc. But they chucked a bunch of well meaning representatives from a range of hunting interests (waro operators, guides, recreational hunters, etc) that don't necessarily agree on anything and haven't done this. They are starting to get the hang of things after being thrown in the deep end. There's plenty to approve on but to do so we need to keep up support where possible. I'd like to see foreign hunters paying for this in the way of export permits to remove trophies from NZ (its a bit hard as we would have to distinguish from game park animals as they aren't really related to public land hunting.

Playing devils advocate here...
Where would tag fees go to?
And why introduce another barrier to foot hunters when the general consensus is that deer numbers and hind numbers are too high in places?
And lastly the big classic shape trophies in this country on public land I find to be well earned trophies given the stag has lived through so many roars. If the deer herds here were managed to an extent that 12s and 14s were the norm then how special would they be then?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Ned

Playing devils advocate here...
Where would tag fees go to?
And why introduce another barrier to foot hunters when the general consensus is that deer numbers and hind numbers are too high in places?
And lastly the big classic shape trophies in this country on public land I find to be well earned trophies given the stag has lived through so many roars. If the deer herds here were managed to an extent that 12s and 14s were the norm then how special would they be then?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

Tag fees would go into management and the fee would be set to balance that cost.
Is a Duck Licence 'another barrier' or does having a season and bag limits (management) mean that there are always birds to be hunted ?
Protecting the herds of special interest would protect them from Waro and there would be better trophies. Antler genetics have a very high heritability (40%) and so rapid improvement is possible. What this means is that the trophies would always be getting better and hunters would always have something to strive for, the chance of finding a better PB. What if instead of a big twelve there was a huge eighteen on the wall ?

Re: hind breeding age - it varies with habitat quality; lower populations and better habitat = higher fecundity. I don't think it's well understood in a quantitative sense for density dependent effects in wild NZ red deer. If anyone has a good source I'd like to read it.


I don't think a tag system is at all the way forward for wild game animal management in NZ. A tag system is a way of limiting take to maintain a population at or above a certain level; it sets a maximum harvest. In more or less any area of NZ it is difficult to find a data-driven example of an area where recreational hunter take is high enough that we need to limit take of animals, rather we need to incentivise higher take of the correct animal demographics to keep populations low enough to a) satisfy the legal obligations of DOC (manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, essentially) and b) maintain habitat in good condition for the health of the herd. A tag system also requires compliance to be effective - and that is expensive.

We're not at risk of running out of deer through hunting pressure. We are at risk of losing the social license to maintain viable, huntable deer or other ungulate herds if the public perception is that they are doing huge irreversible ecological damage. To some degree this perception is already the case due to 90 years of cultural reinforcement that introduced mammals are pests post the 1931 declaration to that effect. To some degree this perception is also reality in some areas; due to DOC mismanagement of the tahr herd for example tahr numbers are very high in some areas with significant localised impacts.

One possible solution for providing some funding to manage wild ungulates in NZ might be something like the Pittman-Robertson act in the US; where an 11% excise tax is levied on specific Hunting items sold and directly used for funding wildlife conservation; hunters very much have paid for rebuilding and conserving huntable populations of wildlife. Here in NZ that money could be used - and specifically ringfenced - for wild ungulate management in a different sense, paying for research into what are acceptable densities, and managing monitoring of densities to inform where to direct recreational hunter effort to reduce densities if necessary, and paying for control (i.e. subsidised WARO of hinds) to reduce densities where recreational hunters aren't able to.

This would require a trusting, collaborative relationship between hunters and the management agency, with a clear and transparent management strategy by the agency, and hunter buy-in and willingness to follow the system. The past 90 years of conflict and current adversarial relationship between hunters and the various agencies mis-managing wild animals doesn't currently engender this at all.

It is critical to understand that
1) Under the current legal framework, DOC, the agency with the legal mandate to manage wild animals, has a legal responsibility first and foremost to manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, and there is huge pressure from green advocacy groups to do this.
2) Introduced wild animals do have impacts on native biodiversity and do change structure and composition of native vegetation over time, often in ways that are detrimental to the ecosystem and the animals themselves. Density dependent effects are not well understood and it is unclear in many ecosystems "how many is too many" however there is definitely such a thing as "too many". Change takes place over time, is ongoing, and may not be apparent to us as individuals. There is also no objective right answer to "how many is too many" as it is contingent on the level of ecosystem modification we're prepared to accept, which is highly place- and perspective- dependant

These are the reality we live with and solutions for wild animal management need to acknowledge this reality. A good management system would maintain numbers at a low(ish) level, with a female focussed take. This would by default result in better trophy management. In the reality that no-one is doing it for us, we need to start trying to do it for ourselves.

@gimp
https://link.springer.com/article/10...344-018-1251-5

Originally Posted by Tahr

@gimp
https://link.springer.com/article/10...344-018-1251-5

Thanks, I've actually read that one already! It does however support with data the idea that a lower population doesn't necessarily result in significantly less deer for hunters to take, as a higher breeding rate may result in hunters being able to take a good number of animals, from a lower, healthier population in better habitat. I don't believe this has really been quantified at all, particularly in an NZ wild deer context.

Originally Posted by gimp

Thanks, I've actually read that one already! It does however support with data the idea that a lower population doesn't necessarily result in significantly less deer for hunters to take, as a higher breeding rate may result in hunters being able to take a good number of animals, from a lower, healthier population in better habitat. I don't believe this has really been quantified at all, particularly in an NZ wild deer context.

Great topic for your post graduate study

Originally Posted by Ned

Playing devils advocate here...
Where would tag fees go to?
And why introduce another barrier to foot hunters when the general consensus is that deer numbers and hind numbers are too high in places?
And lastly the big classic shape trophies in this country on public land I find to be well earned trophies given the stag has lived through so many roars. If the deer herds here were managed to an extent that 12s and 14s were the norm then how special would they be then?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

No ones ever suggested tags for hinds only stags in specific areas. And to the GAC although improvement of its jurisdiction would need to be made first obviously.

Originally Posted by Tahr

@gimp
https://link.springer.com/article/10...344-018-1251-5

Thanks that's a great read I hadn't seen it before

Interestingly reading the above study one might conclude that shooting high numbers of only stags may have a counterproductive effect on herd numbers, as acute reduction in immediate grazing competition may result in increased fecundity in the un-reduced hind population (although no longer term habitat improvement) resulting in a larger herd (and larger breeding herd) than if nothing at all had been shot.

Originally Posted by gimp

Re: hind breeding age - it varies with habitat quality; lower populations and better habitat = higher fecundity. I don't think it's well understood in a quantitative sense for density dependent effects in wild NZ red deer. If anyone has a good source I'd like to read it.


I don't think a tag system is at all the way forward for wild game animal management in NZ. A tag system is a way of limiting take to maintain a population at or above a certain level; it sets a maximum harvest. In more or less any area of NZ it is difficult to find a data-driven example of an area where recreational hunter take is high enough that we need to limit take of animals, rather we need to incentivise higher take of the correct animal demographics to keep populations low enough to a) satisfy the legal obligations of DOC (manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, essentially) and b) maintain habitat in good condition for the health of the herd. A tag system also requires compliance to be effective - and that is expensive.

That's not always true a tag system that limits targetting makes is often used to improve trophy quality and add value to areas in order to create demand and higher revenue. This is seen in a state such as Colorado that does both. Typically managing Mule Deer bucks for trophy quality by having less tags available and having people pay to apply year on year to get an attempt at these "higher value" animals. It's no guarantee but does significantly up your odds of finding a mature animal. In these same limited entry block a general doe tag is usually valid meaning that the areas population is managed by these hunters using doe tags which are generally over the counter and in areas needing control available as more than one. Colorado manages Elk for opportunities as they have bulk numbers so almost anyone including no resident can just show up and buy an over the counter bull elk tag. We don't need a tag for our areas like this although maybe make it a tag system for non residents for males of species.

Montana is probably a better example to compare to for NZ as they have a general elk tag that allows you to hunt on probably 85% of public land to take any elk bull, cow, calf in some cases. A few areas have restrictions as to what type of elk. The other portion like the missouri breaks are limited entry in which you have to apply for and these are the areas guys will apply for years on end to get. And if you draw you have a very real chance of a 350-400 inch elk. These units add huge value as guys will apply for it every year with no desire to go to any other part of the state to hunt.

They do the same thing in the sapphire mountains for Mule deer as its a hot spot for big bucks so restricting male harvest adds value.

For NZ we would just leave most places open with maybe a general hunting license required ($20-$50 for the 3 month permit) and then a few high value areas limit male harvest by way of tags or a draw system. It would result in quicker improvements than FWF as they struggle to stop people going in and smashing young bulls as there's no legal ramifications.

We're not at risk of running out of deer through hunting pressure. We are at risk of losing the social license to maintain viable, huntable deer or other ungulate herds if the public perception is that they are doing huge irreversible ecological damage. To some degree this perception is already the case due to 90 years of cultural reinforcement that introduced mammals are pests post the 1931 declaration to that effect. To some degree this perception is also reality in some areas; due to DOC mismanagement of the tahr herd for example tahr numbers are very high in some areas with significant localised impacts.

I don't think any of us think we won't have any deer left. We often already have a very skewed scale in male to female ratios in herds though so that's a very real effect of current hunting practises. I'd argue that restricting the harvest of males could shift some of the focus onto females which would help improve control. But yes the term pest even used by hunters is hugely counter intuitive to what hunters would like to achieve which is a balanced healthy ecosystem able to maintain both hunting and a recreation and the natural flora and fauna.

One possible solution for providing some funding to manage wild ungulates in NZ might be something like the Pittman-Robertson act in the US; where an 11% excise tax is levied on specific Hunting items sold and directly used for funding wildlife conservation; hunters very much have paid for rebuilding and conserving huntable populations of wildlife. Here in NZ that money could be used - and specifically ringfenced - for wild ungulate management in a different sense, paying for research into what are acceptable densities, and managing monitoring of densities to inform where to direct recreational hunter effort to reduce densities if necessary, and paying for control (i.e. subsidised WARO of hinds) to reduce densities where recreational hunters aren't able to.

I like this alot except most of that funding actually ends up coming from shooters not hunters in the USA and we don't have the shooter numbers. But I completely agree I'd be happy to pay it especially if it went where your suggesting. But it would have to go through a specific hunter led group suchas the GAC not the DOC as unfortunately DOC has often proven to be filled by F&B loyalists etc at the very top end even if as a majority they are reasonable.

This would require a trusting, collaborative relationship between hunters and the management agency, with a clear and transparent management strategy by the agency, and hunter buy-in and willingness to follow the system. The past 90 years of conflict and current adversarial relationship between hunters and the various agencies mis-managing wild animals doesn't currently engender this at all.

It is critical to understand that
1) Under the current legal framework, DOC, the agency with the legal mandate to manage wild animals, has a legal responsibility first and foremost to manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, and there is huge pressure from green advocacy groups to do this.
2) Introduced wild animals do have impacts on native biodiversity and do change structure and composition of native vegetation over time, often in ways that are detrimental to the ecosystem and the animals themselves. Density dependent effects are not well understood and it is unclear in many ecosystems "how many is too many" however there is definitely such a thing as "too many". Change takes place over time, is ongoing, and may not be apparent to us as individuals. There is also no objective right answer to "how many is too many" as it is contingent on the level of ecosystem modification we're prepared to accept, which is highly place- and perspective- dependant

These are the reality we live with and solutions for wild animal management need to acknowledge this reality. A good management system would maintain numbers at a low(ish) level, with a female focussed take. This would by default result in better trophy management. In the reality that no-one is doing it for us, we need to start trying to do it for ourselves.


That is true however I have always struggled how one determines the exact point in time at which an environment was at its perfect point as ecosystems are constantly evolving. Ie pre European settlement is often used worldwide. But here for example significant damage had been done prior to that to our birdlife etc. So why not make it pre human arrival etc. Look at the USA in terms of the many waves of different species that have inhabited it throughout history. Ecosystems are always changing and while we have a pronounced effect on nature we are also a part of it (as much as people seem to deny it nowadays). I think one thing NZ seems to have quite warped is often using preservationist ideas conveyed as conservation which are not the same thing. One allows for use of a resource in a sustainable way while one seeks to preserve and have no interaction or involvement with. Not saying either is right or wrong.

.

Originally Posted by Stocky

That's not always true a tag system that limits targeting males is often used to improve trophy quality and add value to areas in order to create demand and higher revenue. This is seen in a state such as Colorado that does both. Typically managing Mule Deer bucks for trophy quality by having less tags available and having people pay to apply year on year to get an attempt at these "higher value" animals. It's no guarantee but does significantly up your odds of finding a mature animal. In these same limited entry block a general doe tag is usually valid meaning that the areas population is managed by these hunters using doe tags which are generally over the counter and in areas needing control available as more than one. Colorado manages Elk for opportunities as they have bulk numbers so almost anyone including non-resident can just show up and buy an over the counter bull elk tag. We don't need a tag for our areas like this although maybe make it a tag system for non residents for males of species.

Montana is probably a better example to compare to for NZ as they have a general elk tag that allows you to hunt on probably 85% of public land to take any elk bull, cow, calf in some cases. A few areas have restrictions as to what type of elk. The other portion like the missouri breaks are limited entry in which you have to apply for and these are the areas guys will apply for years on end to get. And if you draw you have a very real chance of a 350-400 inch elk. These units add huge value as guys will apply for it every year with no desire to go to any other part of the state to hunt.

They do the same thing in the sapphire mountains for Mule deer as its a hot spot for big bucks so restricting male harvest adds value.

For NZ we would just leave most places open with maybe a general hunting license required ($20-$50 for the 3 month permit) and then a few high value areas limit male harvest by way of tags or a draw system. It would result in quicker improvements than FWF as they struggle to stop people going in and smashing young bulls as there's no legal ramifications.

In all these examples the tag system purpose is still to limit take in some way. We fundamentally don't need to limit take to meet the realistic legal and ecological goals that are the real issue for hunting in NZ. Limiting take and creating demand on a limited high quality resource is still limiting take. A tag system also requires someone to do compliance work to prevent poaching. It's hard to overstate how expensive this is. It could work to generate revenue in some areas as you note, specifically for deer - Rakaia or similar - as species other than deer don't rely as heavily on genetics; you can shoot a big bull tahr anywhere if they're allowed to grow old enough. There's no demand to a specific area.

I don't know if the numbers would stack up. How many opportunities could be generated up the Rakaia/Wilberforce for e.g. for a Red stag tag; how many people would enter the draw when there's plenty of opportunity elsewhere, and would the costs cover the administrative, compliance and management costs?

We have the fundamentally different issue to the Missouri Breaks - we need people to shoot lots of hinds up the Rakaia to keep the population down to whatever level is required for habitat quality maintenance at least and improvement ideally. It's likely that with the opportunities available elsewhere recreational hunting would not control numbers enough, and management control would be required; this is an additional cost over the US model (This is an assumption drawn from the wider experience of wild animals in NZ historically and currently and it may not be true, but it's difficult to disprove). This additional cost would have to be borne solely by the revenue generated from the small tagged area rather than the much larger overall system as in a US state.

Remember there's also no incentive at all for the management agency in NZ to improve trophy quality as a primary goal unless it can be strongly and unequivocally shown to result in the ecological outcomes that DOC is required by law to pursue. Restricting take at all specifically for trophy quality doesn't help DOC comply with it's legal mandate. Not to mention that the social license for anything labelled Trophy Hunting is extremely limited outside of hunting circles, and hunters make up maybe 5% of NZ at most.

However it would be interesting to look at and run some numbers for the idea, there may be merit in it for revenue generation. If it generated far in excess of what it cost to manage it may be a good idea. What areas would you propose for a limited male tag system? Rakaia/Whitcombe obviously. Poulter is out without changing the National Parks Act, which would politically never fly. Lewis Pass?

Originally Posted by Stocky

I like this alot except most of that funding actually ends up coming from shooters not hunters in the USA and we don't have the shooter numbers. But I completely agree I'd be happy to pay it especially if it went where your suggesting. But it would have to go through a specific hunter led group suchas the GAC not the DOC as unfortunately DOC has often proven to be filled by F&B loyalists etc at the very top end even if as a majority they are reasonable.

I think it's unlikely to generate enough revenue to be a full funding source for managing wild animals in NZ. In the US in 2017(?) the Pittman-Robertson act tax generated 780 million. Scale that to NZ with no control for demographics etc, simply ratio by population and you get maybe 13 million. This would not cover the requirements for monitoring, administration, compliance if a tag system was implemented, and management control where needed. Bias in DOC could be a problem but the legal framework we currently have would actually allow DOC to write a management plan that I would consider sensible; there would need to be legislative change to levy such a tax as this. One large advantage of using DOC as a management agency would be economy of scale and interconnectedness with existing programmes of monitoring etc. Setting up an entire structure to administer wild animals outside DOC would cost more than doing it as part of DOC. A wholesale mindset change of both hunters and more typical conservation groups would be required for any sensible management of wild animals regardless of agency responsible.

Originally Posted by Stocky

That is true however I have always struggled how one determines the exact point in time at which an environment was at its perfect point as ecosystems are constantly evolving. Ie pre European settlement is often used worldwide. But here for example significant damage had been done prior to that to our birdlife etc. So why not make it pre human arrival etc. Look at the USA in terms of the many waves of different species that have inhabited it throughout history. Ecosystems are always changing and while we have a pronounced effect on nature we are also a part of it (as much as people seem to deny it nowadays). I think one thing NZ seems to have quite warped is often using preservationist ideas conveyed as conservation which are not the same thing. One allows for use of a resource in a sustainable way while one seeks to preserve and have no interaction or involvement with. Not saying either is right or wrong.

From a hunting perspective you could draw the line as "no permanent changes to the vegetation composition and structure that result in the loss of native palatable plant species over time". This would be a highly practical and useful habitat goal to target as a hunter as it means that the habitat is going to continue to be suitable for wild animal populations in good health.

There are many other goals that could be targeted that would be similar in nature and equally practical without being unreasonable reversionist Forest and Bird nonsense.