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

Originally Posted by gimp

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 agree its limiting take no argument there. I'm just not completely sold that limiting take on males which have a significantly higher perceived hunting value (especially with age) is that significant. The key to this is that stags very rarely get to maturity. When you consider the amount of time spent hunting red deer vs other species compared to the amount of mature males harvested I think that due to the fact males are more susceptible/targeted by WARO in summer, more desired by rec hunters, and more vulnerable during the roar means they don't get old. It's relatively common to see Tahr getting into the 7 plus year age bracket I think due to less pressure and harder terrain. Will be interesting the effects of the cull on this in future though as recruitment drops.

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?

Realistically people apply for the Wanaka and haast ballots every year for an opportunity to hunt areas of historical significance with zero management or protections. Also the amount of people up the Rakaia just before Easter weekend was huge. All of those people were chasing stags not hinds anyway. The chances are the ones chasing stags are chasing stags and will apply or go elsewhere and those that are there for meat will hunt there regardless. So if there is a significantly increased chance of a mature stags being about then I'd say that increased demand will insue

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.

This is one of the problems I've pondered and don't have a good option. It's one of the reasons why I'm not sold on the tag system. I think it could have its place but there's plenty fo issues to solve. I do wonder though what percentage of animals taken from. The rakaia are hinds? I have only ever seen stags leaving on the back of 4wheelers and utes. I feel someone meat hunting is more likely to shoot the hind knowing theirs no option to shoot a stag. I know I'm guilty of turning down easy hinds so as not to disturb areas incase there's a stag nearby. 90% of my hinds shot outside the period stags are growing antlers are shot on the way out right near where I'm going to drop into the bush. I'd love a good study that actually broke down the split in harvest rate for the different sexes in areas as we are all working on ideas based on personal experience not fact.

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.

I agree this is a hard challenge. But I think starting in by I acting it for foreigners first would give incentive as then its not really doing anything significant to minimise harvest as internationals aren't here for meat but creates a start for revinue. And for sure anti hunting has destroyed the term trophy hunting there's no saving it now.

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?

I'd say somewhere down otago. Although waro would have to be restricted or subsidised. Yes the standard Rakaia catchments maybe even just the head waters etc where typically only trophy hunters visit anyway. Potentially that's a good way to help decide on areas least effected by limiting take. Ie if its somewhere to far for the standard meath unter and those venturing in are there for a mature animal. Id not rush into creating them rather pick some potential areas do some research on actual numbers carrying capacities etc and see where is going to be most favourable.



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.

Yes the common modern problem of people unable to come to a compromise or discuss meaningfully are what makes working within DOC difficult. I do see the benefits of working through them though and realistically solving this relationship will have many more benefits for both sides considering the usefullness of hunters being one of the prominent users of off track public land access. It's funny when you think how few hikers etc actually see things we consider standard like kea or game.

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.

Agreed I think we should be making every effort for things to not be getting worse and where possible to improve things it's more I don't think that necessitates removal on all nong natives which while not possible with current and likely future technologies seems the goal of many.

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.

Agreed hunters are keen to do there bit but don't want to help F&B or DOC often due feeling persecuted at times but looking at things like the FWF pest control work and that of the Sika foundation shows hunters if not put off by other actions can be helpful to the cause I don't know many hunters anti native wildlife.

.

One thing I find funny bot all this tag bull shit tag talk is over in USA the elk & deer have natural predators they will get down on a lot of the new born animals a year i betvthe bear dosnt go oo i cant eat you your a male in New Zealanders the only predator is us if you guys want a trophy park form your on syndicate & buy your owne land & do what you want course most of the hunters ant going pay for tags & will go shoot what they want when they want stop trying to turn the public land into the hunting ground for the rich I know I couldn't afford to buy tags & we live on venison I shoot bot 15 -20 deer & pigs of doc land a year

Originally Posted by hunt08

One thing I find funny bot all this tag bull shit tag talk is over in USA the elk & deer have natural predators they will get down on a lot of the new born animals a year i betvthe bear dosnt go oo i cant eat you your a male in New Zealanders the only predator is us if you guys want a trophy park form your on syndicate & buy your owne land & do what you want course most of the hunters ant going pay for tags & will go shoot what they want when they want stop trying to turn the public land into the hunting ground for the rich I know I couldn't afford to buy tags & we live on venison I shoot bot 15 -20 deer & pigs of doc land a year

Or you could have had the basic education to 1. Put to get a coherent comment and 2. be able to have basic discussion without being offended and 3. Actually read the thread and not just blow up when you don't like one bit.

A saying I like from a good friend is "you can't start a conversation with Fuck you" meaning no ones going to listen to you if you come in and just abuse them because you don't agree with something they said.

Secondly we are only talking specific areas of high significance which already kind of exists as seen by the Wapiti Foundation and in a way the Ballot blocks throughout nz.

We are not trying to make a game park we are trying both have mature males available to harvest and to try shift more focus onto targetting females to more effectively reduce populations. Most importantly we need data as to what levels of deer numbers are acceptable in different areas then we can work out how to achieve this. Tags are just one of the ways we have thought about doing this. A license fee is another that's been discussed as well as a tax on ammo.

It isn't for the rich... If you don't care about it don't hunt the areas that cost ie pretty much most of NZ public land... I also live on venison but I somehow manage to do that without shooting young stags...

I was appreciating somehow having a complex, relatively intelligent conversation about nuanced issues for more than 5 posts without someone being called a cunt but there it goes now

Originally Posted by Stocky

Realistically people apply for the Wanaka and haast ballots every year for an opportunity to hunt areas of historical significance with zero management or protections. Also the amount of people up the Rakaia just before Easter weekend was huge. All of those people were chasing stags not hinds anyway. The chances are the ones chasing stags are chasing stags and will apply or go elsewhere and those that are there for meat will hunt there regardless. So if there is a significantly increased chance of a mature stags being about then I'd say that increased demand will insue

Those people are probably largely not chasing hinds specifically, but for the last 10-20 years excluding some short intervals, there will have been some component of WARO take of hinds on top of rec hunter take to maintain population levels or slow increase. Whether we could continue that top up via rec hunter take only is an open question.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Agreed hunters are keen to do there bit but don't want to help F&B or DOC often due feeling persecuted at times but looking at things like the FWF pest control work and that of the Sika foundation shows hunters if not put off by other actions can be helpful to the cause I don't know many hunters anti native wildlife.

Hunters aren't anti-native-wildlife by and large specifically, however can end up holding opinions that by default if followed through may result in outcomes that are detrimental for native wildlife.



I see the realistic way forward to achieving some of the management strategies that I think are practical within the current legal framework surrounding wild animal and conservation management in NZ as:
- Hunting organisations to sponsor research (e.g. postgrad projects) into understanding density dependent effects of wild animals in NZ to have an evidence base to draw on for future management plans
- Hunters to wilfully seek education, and positions within the system in order to be able to counter the ideological anti-wild-animal bias that can be suggested exists within DOC. Very hard to change from the outside.

One note on the Pittman-Robertson act type revenue. Shooters who are not hunters may be upset at the idea of funding hunting management.

1: In the US, a reasonable percentage of this federal tax is specifically ring fenced for shooting ranges, this could be the case here also which benefits shooters as well as hunters.
2: Maintaining the social license for hunting goes the longest way possible to maintaining the social license for any firearms ownership and usage. It's the most widely recognised-as-legitimate reason for owning firearms by far in the public arena debate. Any other argument more or less can be as technically correct as we like, but is not as socially acceptable. See for reference: the shit legislation that confiscated all our semi-autos and various pump action .22s, etc. No technically correct argument against it mattered.

Originally Posted by gimp

I was appreciating somehow having a complex, relatively intelligent conversation about nuanced issues for more than 5 posts without someone being called a cunt but there it goes now

It was a nice change wasn't it. Itd be nice if it was the norm not the exception.

Originally Posted by gimp

Those people are probably largely not chasing hinds specifically, but for the last 10-20 years excluding some short intervals, there will have been some component of WARO take of hinds on top of rec hunter take to maintain population levels or slow increase. Whether we could continue that top up via rec hunter take only is an open question.

I agree but I think the same can be said about those in the headwaters of most Canterbury River catchments. There's much easier places to chase hinds. Ie any tops country near a road. I'm still skeptical atleast down south as to whether many foot hunters actually take many hinds obviously people are more likely to show pictures of stags giving a skewed perspective. I am going to start making a point of photographing shot hinds (in as tasteful a manner as possible when somethings dead) etc and posting them in appropriate places as Im bad about taking photos when out as I just want to get the butchery out of the way.

As for WARO I think in open areas they can seriously knock back populations but I think alot of the control in areas with bush is more perceived as there always seems to be good hind numbers about whereas stags are again the main target for WARO. I do think that while we shouldn't limit take by excluding stags from WARO are we able to shift the focus as even if we reduced the harvested amount by 25% assuming that waro take 50% stags and 50% hinds (which I think it's probably more stags than that due to grazing habits through summer and targetting heavier animals) meaning 75% of the original total worth of hinds is now harvested we could say that using the hind being equivalent to 5 stags, that we are more effectively controlling numbers.

0.5 × 1 (for stags) + 0.5 × 5 (for hinds) = 3 units

0.25 (reduced harvest portion × 0 (stags) + 0.75(25% extra harvest of hinds × 5 (for hinds) = 3.75 units

While the numbers are just numbers its shows potentially more effective control even with reduced harvest.

Obviously this doesn't allow for the fact hinds pay less than stags.

And I see a potential issue in that hinds may have fawns at foot during summer.


Hunters aren't anti-native-wildlife by and large specifically, however can end up holding opinions that by default if followed through may result in outcomes that are detrimental for native wildlife.

That is true. I think the most detrimental is probably the idea not to shoot the breeders which Im hearing less these days but many still use it. I'd like to know the effects on Kea when leaving shot animals. The cham and goats I shot on the coast had Keas on them within 30 minutes. I wonder if its beneficial in that it's extra feed or whether it creates negative behaviours.

I see the realistic way forward to achieving some of the management strategies that I think are practical within the current legal framework surrounding wild animal and conservation management in NZ as:
- Hunting organisations to sponsor research (e.g. postgrad projects) into understanding density dependent effects of wild animals in NZ to have an evidence base to draw on for future management plans
- Hunters to wilfully seek education, and positions within the system in order to be able to counter the ideological anti-wild-animal bias that can be suggested exists within DOC. Very hard to change from the outside.

All very good points. Out of interest have you seen the post by the Tahr Foundation Today? Sounds like an attempt at a FWF type situation is underway. Have a read and I'd love to get your opinion

Originally Posted by gimp

One note on the Pittman-Robertson act type revenue. Shooters who are not hunters may be upset at the idea of funding hunting management.

1: In the US, a reasonable percentage of this federal tax is specifically ring fenced for shooting ranges, this could be the case here also which benefits shooters as well as hunters.
2: Maintaining the social license for hunting goes the longest way possible to maintaining the social license for any firearms ownership and usage. It's the most widely recognised-as-legitimate reason for owning firearms by far in the public arena debate. Any other argument more or less can be as technically correct as we like, but is not as socially acceptable. See for reference: the shit legislation that confiscated all our semi-autos and various pump action .22s, etc. No technically correct argument against it mattered.

Exactly I think your point on maintaining social license to hunt is hugely important as it lies hand in hand with firearms. A good point that makes sense I hadn't thought of.

Originally Posted by Stocky

I agree but I think the same can be said about those in the headwaters of most Canterbury River catchments. There's much easier places to chase hinds. Ie any tops country near a road. I'm still skeptical atleast down south as to whether many foot hunters actually take many hinds obviously people are more likely to show pictures of stags giving a skewed perspective. I am going to start making a point of photographing shot hinds (in as tasteful a manner as possible when somethings dead) etc and posting them in appropriate places as Im bad about taking photos when out as I just want to get the butchery out of the way.

I personally shot 5 deer on public land in 2020, and they were 2 male 3 female, so I am probably not quite practicing what I preach yet!

Originally Posted by Stocky

As for WARO I think in open areas they can seriously knock back populations but I think alot of the control in areas with bush is more perceived as there always seems to be good hind numbers about whereas stags are again the main target for WARO. I do think that while we shouldn't limit take by excluding stags from WARO are we able to shift the focus as even if we reduced the harvested amount by 25% assuming that waro take 50% stags and 50% hinds (which I think it's probably more stags than that due to grazing habits through summer and targetting heavier animals) meaning 75% of the original total worth of hinds is now harvested we could say that using the hind being equivalent to 5 stags, that we are more effectively controlling numbers.

0.5 × 1 (for stags) + 0.5 × 5 (for hinds) = 3 units

0.25 (reduced harvest portion × 0 (stags) + 0.75(25% extra harvest of hinds × 5 (for hinds) = 3.75 units

While the numbers are just numbers its shows potentially more effective control even with reduced harvest.

Obviously this doesn't allow for the fact hinds pay less than stags.

And I see a potential issue in that hinds may have fawns at foot during summer.

There isn't good understanding of impacts of WARO or recreational hunters on population trends anywhere on public land currently - except maybe the Wapiti area. But the number of deer taken nationally by WARO from public land has floated around 20,000 for the last few years though, even if recreational hunters shoot 5 times this (possible best estimate) then it's still a contribution to population management as some of those 20,000 are female.

Unrestrained WARO of any kind (without a lot of compliance work) and good management can't go alongside each other. Incentives would always lead operators to take stags preferentially over hinds and situationally they're likely to find more stags in the easy tussock country in summer. In a potential future with better management, WARO would have to be directed and subsidised by the management agency for a female-focussed take.

the idea of a subsidised flight if targeting hinds sounds AWESOME.....
the idea of being able to fly in to areas of high population needing more deer taken sounds AWESOME
being able to know WHERE these areas needing attention ACTUALLY ARE is long overdue.....
way back in 1900 and nuts n bolts..the NZFS built loads of tracks into the back country to encourage folks to get out and use it....... in out time poor modern world,knowledge is king.

Originally Posted by gimp

I personally shot 5 deer on public land in 2020, and they were 2 male 3 female, so I am probably not quite practicing what I preach yet!

I was the same and seriously upped my hind harvest last year once I had a chest freezer a prior to this I was always limited for space. Not the best excuse as its easy to give away but I dont like butchering that much and most people I would butcher it for are hunters themselves.

There isn't good understanding of impacts of WARO or recreational hunters on population trends anywhere on public land currently - except maybe the Wapiti area. But the number of deer taken nationally by WARO from public land has floated around 20,000 for the last few years though, even if recreational hunters shoot 5 times this (possible best estimate) then it's still a contribution to population management as some of those 20,000 are female.

For sure a real study would be great. Actually something as simple as compulsory reporting of sex etc would help (may already be the case if so it would be interesting to see). Its not that hard considering they are already supposed to be GPS logged in I remember rightly.

Unrestrained WARO of any kind (without a lot of compliance work) and good management can't go alongside each other. Incentives would always lead operators to take stags preferentially over hinds and situationally they're likely to find more stags in the easy tussock country in summer. In a potential future with better management, WARO would have to be directed and subsidised by the management agency for a female-focussed take.

I think incentives are the best option as its the only possible way to get the WARO operators on board. To be fair I still think that it may have to be more of a subsidization to make up for stopping stag harvest as realistically they are still going to target everything unless the subsidy pays better than the difference weight and antlers make to there payday.

Did you see the Tahr Foundation post?

once upon a time when you got your 2 week permit to hunt an area you turned it over and filled in a kill return....BUT folks didnt trust DOC so they wouldnt fill them in....we had nice chap from DOC at a NZDA meeting in Timaru...I looked at figures for previous year from my favourite hunting block and informed him...I have shot half the deer and ALL the chammy from that block according to your figures...and Im not that good of hunter...soon afterwards the permit system changed.

my point is people tell lies because of lack of trust....
the fear the cullers or WARO will be sent in if numbers look too high mean they will under report kills..lots of kills must mean lots of animals....
how you combat this Im not sure.MAYBE a token $10 for left jawbone????? with 2-3 random higher prize draws yearly....might get buy in....

Originally Posted by Stocky

Did you see the Tahr Foundation post?

I did, I will reserve judgement until I see what their actual proposal was and talk to some people.



Commercial interests are unfortunately highly over-represented in the tahr foundation.


In tahr management we actually have a good statutory management plan in the HTCP, it has just never been enacted as intended. Some of the finer details require tweaking (IDs, monitoring, fleshing out some definitions) but the general overview is a great example of a sensible management plan, it's just unfortunate that DOC, green groups, and hunters never managed to work together to realise it.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

the idea of a subsidised flight if targeting hinds sounds AWESOME.....
the idea of being able to fly in to areas of high population needing more deer taken sounds AWESOME
being able to know WHERE these areas needing attention ACTUALLY ARE is long overdue.....
way back in 1900 and nuts n bolts..the NZFS built loads of tracks into the back country to encourage folks to get out and use it....... in out time poor modern world,knowledge is king.

I think people are pretty open about these areas ie pretty much everywhere near the divide in Canterbury, but the tendency still seems to be to target stags. Subsidized flights are hard as the extra money has to come from somewhere. So subsidizing WARO is way easier than flights for hunters as the sale of recovered meat partially covers the cost of helicopter hours whereas there is no kickback from flying in rec hunters. Heli operators aren't charity's. The best bet currently for subsidized flight are through the likes of the Sika Foundation who already do these up north.

I dont know if you saw my post about Amuri trying to do a trip for 4 groups of four all leaving from windy point to save them traveling back to base on each trip saving a bunch of flight time. I think they could get prices down to about 4-500 per person for each of the 16 people including flying out 2 deer per person for a total of 32 deer. NZDA North Canty I believe were going to subsidize half bringing the price down to 2-250 per person which is bloody good. It fell apart though I think due to not being able to organise 16 people.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

once upon a time when you got your 2 week permit to hunt an area you turned it over and filled in a kill return....BUT folks didnt trust DOC so they wouldnt fill them in....we had nice chap from DOC at a NZDA meeting in Timaru...I looked at figures for previous year from my favourite hunting block and informed him...I have shot half the deer and ALL the chammy from that block according to your figures...and Im not that good of hunter...soon afterwards the permit system changed.

my point is people tell lies because of lack of trust....
the fear the cullers or WARO will be sent in if numbers look too high mean they will under report kills..lots of kills must mean lots of animals....
how you combat this Im not sure.MAYBE a token $10 for left jawbone????? with 2-3 random higher prize draws yearly....might get buy in....

It's difficult to overcome 90 years of distrust and poor relationships between hunters and the various agencies culminating in DOC that have been charged with managing wild animals. Hunter led groups e.g. GAC and NZDA advocating in favour of good data collection is one way forward. Simply DOC needs to understand land use in order to manage the land well, this includes hunter effort and take.