Thread: Tahr control update from NZDA

Thanks for the info @FRST

I think the old figure of 10,000 Tahr over the feral range is un realistic now days. In areas where the populations have increased to unacceptable levels they need to be reduced by reducing the female population and leave the Older and young bulls for the trophy hunters. Culling should only be done in areas sustaining environmental damage. Vegetation monitoring would be the best way to get the information required so that the desired result can be obtained. To just go out there and destroy 20-30,000 tahr when it may not be needed is a huge waste to the economy.
Does it really matter if there are 30,000 tahr running around our mountains and not the old 10,000 figure that was once agreed on?
Such a majestic animal shouldn't be slaughtered for the sake of it unless there is no other option.

The tourist cowboys are allowed in our wilderness areas anytime, unlike myself.
So fuck the fat fucks and there guides


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Smiddy

The tourist cowboys are allowed in our wilderness areas anytime, unlike myself.
So fuck the fat fucks and there guides


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

how does.paying get you preferential treatment on DOC land?
or are you saying paying a guide to get local knowledge is unethical?
We're not talking about fenced private land hunts here.

I'm self employed and work for a living in the north island.
I don't get to spend time down south learning where animals are and on the rare occasion I do a hunt down south I sure don't plan on wasting 2 days walking in and out and them being too dam stuffed to climb another 2000 ft to hunt something. let alone carry a head, skin and meat out.
Sorry guys that an't a reality for me and many other hunters. 20-25 years back I would have run in with my gear. not today.

So no way do I have any time for guys who want to ban me from getting a ride up and down the hill at the end of my 3-5 days. And I have little more time for those of you who want to denigrate me or anyone else who wants to hire a local guide and put money into the local economy, guides, hotel, pilots etc.
I don't get down often so when I do what's wrong with employing local knowledge??? {a guide, professional or a local mate what's the difference}
Zq

It's in all our interests to maintain a quality herd across a range of country and access.

Originally Posted by ZQLewis

how does.paying get you preferential treatment on DOC land?
or are you saying paying a guide to get local knowledge is unethical?
We're not talking about fenced private land hunts here.

I'm self employed and work for a living in the north island.
I don't get to spend time down south learning where animals are and on the rare occasion I do a hunt down south I sure don't plan on wasting 2 days walking in and out and them being too dam stuffed to climb another 2000 ft to hunt something. let alone carry a head, skin and meat out.
Sorry guys that an't a reality for me and many other hunters. 20-25 years back I would have run in with my gear. not today.

So no way do I have any time for guys who want to ban me from getting a ride up and down the hill at the end of my 3-5 days. And I have little more time for those of you who want to denigrate me or anyone else who wants to hire a local guide and put money into the local economy, guides, hotel, pilots etc.
I don't get down often so when I do what's wrong with employing local knowledge??? {a guide, professional or a local mate what's the difference}
Zq

It's in all our interests to maintain a quality herd across a range of country and access.

AATH is allowed in wilderness areas but fly in fly out hunting by kiwis is not, outside of the ballot(also open to overseas hunters). That is the preferential access. Suggest you look up AATH/helihunting if you don’t know what it is.
Personally I don’t like the “i pay to trophy hunt because time, money” argument because that argument gives AATH, giraffe hunting etc etc” my money is good for the country so ethics don’t count”. But I accept that’s an ethical position and people differ.
It gets ugly when one camp gets preferential access over another though, when AATH detracts from every other backcountry user groups experience.
No one is talking a ban on all helicopter access, but I have precisely zero sympathy for the commercial operators screwing over ground hunters.
I’d also rather have lower tahr numbers, better environment and a more valuable experience than farming tahr on public land for the fat wallets to pick their trophy.

Originally Posted by ZQLewis

how does.paying get you preferential treatment on DOC land?
or are you saying paying a guide to get local knowledge is unethical?
We're not talking about fenced private land hunts here.

I'm self employed and work for a living in the north island.
I don't get to spend time down south learning where animals are and on the rare occasion I do a hunt down south I sure don't plan on wasting 2 days walking in and out and them being too dam stuffed to climb another 2000 ft to hunt something. let alone carry a head, skin and meat out.
Sorry guys that an't a reality for me and many other hunters. 20-25 years back I would have run in with my gear. not today.

So no way do I have any time for guys who want to ban me from getting a ride up and down the hill at the end of my 3-5 days. And I have little more time for those of you who want to denigrate me or anyone else who wants to hire a local guide and put money into the local economy, guides, hotel, pilots etc.
I don't get down often so when I do what's wrong with employing local knowledge??? {a guide, professional or a local mate what's the difference}
Zq

It's in all our interests to maintain a quality herd across a range of country and access.

..Never a truer word !!

Farming tourists or tahr on public land, upkept with taxpayer money, so someone can make a fast buck shouldnt be encouraged.
Interesting you bring up North America as an example. Don’t think you can spot and drop or helihunt there? Must utilise the whole animal?

Originally Posted by ethos

Farming tourists or tahr on public land, upkept with taxpayer money, so someone can make a fast buck shouldnt be encouraged.
Interesting you bring up North America as an example. Don’t think you can spot and drop or helihunt there? Must utilise the whole animal?

The point that you are struggling to digest here Ethos is that you are an ungrateful 'free-loader'!! didn't want to put it so bluntly but there it is now. Managing the Public Estate has costs, just the same as managing a farm. Your 'sport' on public land is being subsidised by the rest of the public who do not tramp, walk, or hunt. Tourists help offset that cost. If you want tourists gone then you pick up the tab for us.
No you can't spot and helihunt in North Am. But you can hunt Thar there in Texas and a friend in Idaho had some there too. The whole point in hunting them here is for the experience.
Perhaps if you had your own business you would see things in a different way and understand more of how finances work.
Regarding control,
You have two choices Ethos: 1) Regular Helicopter search and Destroy thar programs at the whim of Doc. 2) A managed trophy herd with tourist hunting as a component of the mix

Lol.
Either you failed to read what I wrote or you fail to understand and that’s ok.
FYI I’m self employed.
Freeloading is what the AATH parasites do on public land.
So as I’ve said, cull the tahr, helihunters can fuck off.
Commercial activity should not occur on public land to the detriment of the public.

Originally Posted by ethos

Lol.
Either you failed to read what I wrote or you fail to understand and that’s ok.
I understand what you wrote
FYI I’m self employed.
If so why don't you understand the differences between the domestic economy and foreign exchange income derived from export sales
Freeloading is what the AATH parasites do on public land.
Do you include guided hunting in this statement ? DOC would say that ATH was helping the taxpayer with free control and no risk.
So as I’ve said, cull the tahr, helihunters can fuck off.
Commercial activity should not occur on public land to the detriment of the public.

How is it detrimental to the public to have commercial hunting helping control Tahr which need their numbers reduced ?? Once a meat recovery industry starts up again it will run continuously and that Will be detrimental. Tahr are in a completely different situation to Trout with commercial guides making a living off the public estate to the detriment of local fishers

Well that reply is mixed up with the quoted piece ???

Self important skidbiters aside this is interesting, DoC failure to cull over years as was meant to occur in the plan.
https://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/tahr...eid=4c1b6e833f

“The Conservation Authority has labelled DOC’s management of tahr a total failure and says the government may be forced to invest millions to reduce numbers due to years of neglect.

Himalayan tahr are meant to be kept to less than 10,000 animals under a control plan designed to prevent environmental damage, but the population is estimated to have reached more than 35,000.

Tahr have also been spreading into areas where DOC was meant to prevent them from establishing.

The authority, which advices DOC on conservation matters, sent a letter to the conservation minister in July calling for urgent action. It said Westland Tai Poutini National Park had become ‘a tahr game park’, with large herds of tahr. Without control, it estimated the population could grow by 5000 a year.

It blamed the growth on budget cuts and apathy.

‘DOC’s staff charged with hunting tahr have had their efforts capped by budget constraints and it seems that politicians have simply ignored the problem, hoping that it will go away,’ the authority said.

DOC spends $288,000 a year on tahr control, killing about 2800 animals a year, but the authority said it will cost millions to get numbers below 10,000.

DOC said it expected to make an announcement on tahr management next week and would not answer questions from Wilderness until then.

Game Animal Council councillor and Lincoln University environmental economics professor Geoffrey Kerr agreed that a lack of funding was the issue.

“The expectation was always that DOC would put money in to keep numbers down, but they didn’t put the resources in,” Kerr said. “DOC didn’t implement the plan.”

He said tahr hunting is still popular and hunters kill about 2000-3000 tahr a year, while more than 1000 were killed on guided trophy hunts – which was a $15m industry.

Kerr said New Zealand is the only country where tahr are found in significant numbers and are legal to hunt. International hunters pay $14,000 per trophy bull.

But tahr can be in very hard to access alpine areas, and DOC culls were required to control the population.

Kerr said estimating tahr numbers is notoriously difficult, and monitoring had found numbers could be as low as 17,000, or as high as 52,000.

Forest and Bird chief conservation advisor Kevin Hackwell said tahr are altering the ecology of alpine areas and DOC needs to put significant funds into bringing the numbers below 10,000.

“It’s clear that hunting by itself is not doing the job,” Hackwell said. “We need to see concerted management going on.”

Hackwell is hopeful DOC’s budget boost this year will mean more resources will be able to be put into tahr control.

Tahr are an introduced feral goat found in alpine areas of the Southern Alps and can devastate alpine plants, but they are a popular game animal with both local and international hunters.

Ironically, the tahr control plan was developed in 1993 due to fears tahr would be wiped out, as the species were hunted by helicopter for their meat for high-end restaurants. In the 1980s, the government put a 10 year moratorium on commercial tahr hunting, and developed the management plan in an attempt to balance hunting interest with conservation. Under the plan, tahr numbers were to be limited to 10,000 animals, above which it states they may cause significant environmental damage. If commercial and recreational hunting failed to control tahr numbers, DOC was meant to pay to cull animals.

The plan said tahr numbers ‘would not be permitted’ to increase beyond the limits set in the plan and this would help avoid ‘boom-bust fluctuations’ which are ‘intrinsically more difficult to manage’. But tahr numbers have increased and DOC has failed to control their expansion.

The Conservation Authority has suggested reviving the tahr meat market may be one way to boost control efforts.

‘Unless this occurs, the control of tahr will remain an ongoing drain on taxpayer funds. One danger of a restaurant trade is that it could encourage the retention of large accessible herds of tahr rather than their elimination.’

The authority has called for an immediate review of the Tahr Management Plan ‘to determine why the plan has been such a total failure’.”


shame about the commercial spiel from the GAC but they are guide heavy. Rec hunters biggest contributor to animal control. No mention of rec hunters economic contribution.
Wait and see how popular guides and AATH will be with a population under 10k ��

Originally Posted by ethos

Self important skidbiters aside this is interesting, DoC failure to cull over years as was meant to occur in the plan.
https://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/tahr...eid=4c1b6e833f

“The Conservation Authority has labelled DOC’s management of tahr a total failure and says the government may be forced to invest millions to reduce numbers due to years of neglect.

Himalayan tahr are meant to be kept to less than 10,000 animals under a control plan designed to prevent environmental damage, but the population is estimated to have reached more than 35,000.

Tahr have also been spreading into areas where DOC was meant to prevent them from establishing.

The authority, which advices DOC on conservation matters, sent a letter to the conservation minister in July calling for urgent action. It said Westland Tai Poutini National Park had become ‘a tahr game park’, with large herds of tahr. Without control, it estimated the population could grow by 5000 a year.

It blamed the growth on budget cuts and apathy.

‘DOC’s staff charged with hunting tahr have had their efforts capped by budget constraints and it seems that politicians have simply ignored the problem, hoping that it will go away,’ the authority said.

DOC spends $288,000 a year on tahr control, killing about 2800 animals a year, but the authority said it will cost millions to get numbers below 10,000.

DOC said it expected to make an announcement on tahr management next week and would not answer questions from Wilderness until then.

Game Animal Council councillor and Lincoln University environmental economics professor Geoffrey Kerr agreed that a lack of funding was the issue.

“The expectation was always that DOC would put money in to keep numbers down, but they didn’t put the resources in,” Kerr said. “DOC didn’t implement the plan.”

He said tahr hunting is still popular and hunters kill about 2000-3000 tahr a year, while more than 1000 were killed on guided trophy hunts – which was a $15m industry.

Kerr said New Zealand is the only country where tahr are found in significant numbers and are legal to hunt. International hunters pay $14,000 per trophy bull.

But tahr can be in very hard to access alpine areas, and DOC culls were required to control the population.

Kerr said estimating tahr numbers is notoriously difficult, and monitoring had found numbers could be as low as 17,000, or as high as 52,000.

Forest and Bird chief conservation advisor Kevin Hackwell said tahr are altering the ecology of alpine areas and DOC needs to put significant funds into bringing the numbers below 10,000.

“It’s clear that hunting by itself is not doing the job,” Hackwell said. “We need to see concerted management going on.”

Hackwell is hopeful DOC’s budget boost this year will mean more resources will be able to be put into tahr control.

Tahr are an introduced feral goat found in alpine areas of the Southern Alps and can devastate alpine plants, but they are a popular game animal with both local and international hunters.

Ironically, the tahr control plan was developed in 1993 due to fears tahr would be wiped out, as the species were hunted by helicopter for their meat for high-end restaurants. In the 1980s, the government put a 10 year moratorium on commercial tahr hunting, and developed the management plan in an attempt to balance hunting interest with conservation. Under the plan, tahr numbers were to be limited to 10,000 animals, above which it states they may cause significant environmental damage. If commercial and recreational hunting failed to control tahr numbers, DOC was meant to pay to cull animals.

The plan said tahr numbers ‘would not be permitted’ to increase beyond the limits set in the plan and this would help avoid ‘boom-bust fluctuations’ which are ‘intrinsically more difficult to manage’. But tahr numbers have increased and DOC has failed to control their expansion.

The Conservation Authority has suggested reviving the tahr meat market may be one way to boost control efforts.

‘Unless this occurs, the control of tahr will remain an ongoing drain on taxpayer funds. One danger of a restaurant trade is that it could encourage the retention of large accessible herds of tahr rather than their elimination.’

The authority has called for an immediate review of the Tahr Management Plan ‘to determine why the plan has been such a total failure’.”


shame about the commercial spiel from the GAC but they are guide heavy. Rec hunters biggest contributor to animal control. No mention of rec hunters economic contribution.
Wait and see how popular guides and AATH will be with a population under 10k ��

guides will just shift to using the private land 'hunt parks' inside the Tahr zone and commercial hunting will carry on, whereas it is the recreational hunter who will suffer. Just drive up the Rangitata and look on the faces on 'Stew Point' above the road - counted 100 in half an hour there without binos last time I went past. So no shortage on the Hunt Parks.
I concede that there needs to be more balance. But nothing in life is ever fair to everyone.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

guides will just shift to using the private land 'hunt parks' inside the Tahr zone and commercial hunting will carry on, whereas it is the recreational hunter who will suffer. Just drive up the Rangitata and look on the faces on 'Stew Point' above the road - counted 100 in half an hour there without binos last time I went past. So no shortage on the Hunt Parks.
I concede that there needs to be more balance. But nothing in life is ever fair to everyone.

It’s amusing how the story changes.
This thread started with the NZDA quoting AATH as crying they would go broke if numbers were culled.
Sounds like we both know know that’s complete bullshit

Originally Posted by ethos

It’s amusing how the story changes.
This thread started with the NZDA quoting AATH as crying they would go broke if numbers were culled.
Sounds like we both know know that’s complete bullshit

The professional guides who hunt on public land and provide 'fair chase' hunts will be gone but the guides from the hunt parks outside of the Tahr zone, for example the Nth Island parks will just use the other hunt parks inside the tahr zone or they might stop offering Thar hunts. So 'Stew Point' and 'Dry Creek' will do more business and Ethos will see machines carrying Tahr off the hills every time he goes hunting and will be very unhappy and will cry out to the Lord and ask why he is being punished so when before he was so blessed.