Thread: Tahr cull doc betrayal

Originally Posted by Shearer

How did the population manage to get 3.5x greater than the management plan recommends if they are being "managed"?

Politics, lack of funding for control/monitoring, harvest (rec/commercial) lower than predicted, population increase rate greater than predicted, population initially higher than estimated, high numbers on pastoral land dispersing to public land, take your pick of any/all of the above maybe.

Originally Posted by gimp

Politics, funding, harvest (rec/commercial) lower than predicted, population increase rate greater than predicted, population initially higher than estimated, high numbers on pastoral land dispersing to public land, take your pick of any/all of the above maybe.

I like that one because it may well be the case now too.

I totally agree with having a management plan which reflects the wants/needs of all "stake holders". All of NZs game animals should be managed to some degree.
But a management plan that is not implemented is worth nothing and if the tahr population is 3.5x greater than it is supposed to be under the current plan (which has been in place for some time) I would suggest there is something wrong.

Originally Posted by Shearer

I totally agree with having a management plan which reflects the wants/needs of all "stake holders". All of NZs game animals should be managed to some degree.
But a management plan that is not implemented is worth nothing and if the tahr population is 3.5x greater than it is supposed to be under the current plan (which has been in place for some time) I would suggest there is something wrong.

The increase from 10,000est to 35000est over 25 years is actually not as terrible as it sounds, in terms of an annual population increase it's only around 5% per year - natural increase in absence of predation for tahr is more like 25-30%.

Originally Posted by gimp

The increase from 10,000est to 35000est over 25 years is actually not as terrible as it sounds, in terms of an annual population increase it's only around 5% per year - natural increase in absence of predation for tahr is more like 25-30%.

So why has nothing been done over the last 25 years to keep the population at the desired 10,000? Once again I would suggest lack of management.

Originally Posted by Shearer

So why has nothing been done over the last 25 years to keep the population at the desired 10,000? Once again I would suggest lack of management.

I thought Gimp had already answered this pretty well: Politics, lack of funding for control/monitoring, harvest (rec/commercial) lower than predicted, population increase rate greater than predicted, population initially higher than estimated, high numbers on pastoral land dispersing to public land, take your pick of any/all of the above maybe.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I thought Gimp had already answered this pretty well: Politics, lack of funding for control/monitoring, harvest (rec/commercial) lower than predicted, population increase rate greater than predicted, population initially higher than estimated, high numbers on pastoral land dispersing to public land, take your pick of any/all of the above maybe.

Yes, Thanks @Tahr. I can appreciate that these factors are things that can contributed to the current numbers not being in line with what they should be, but my point is (and I am assuming this as I have not read the tahr control pan) within the management plan it would have outlined how animal numbers would be monitored and controlled and what this would cost (probably on an annual basis). If it didn't it is not much of a plan. For the numbers to have become 3.5x what the plan requires at some stage (in the last 25 years) it has not been noticed that the process has fallen over. Or perhaps some of the groups involved have not really cared.
If it was because of lack of monitoring then why? Who is supposed to be monitoring the numbers and how often?
If it was lack of control why? How are they controlled and by who?
If it was no budget why? Does it need to be reassessed to meet the goal?
For it to get to this stage I would suggest the management plan has been more of a wish list than an implemented plan.

Originally Posted by Shearer

Yes, Thanks @Tahr. I can appreciate that these factors are things that can contributed to the current numbers not being in line with what they should be, but my point is (and I am assuming this as I have not read the tahr control pan) within the management plan it would have outlined how animal numbers would be monitored and controlled and what this would cost (probably on an annual basis). If it didn't it is not much of a plan. For the numbers to have become 3.5x what the plan requires at some stage (in the last 25 years) it has not been noticed that the process has fallen over. Or perhaps some of the groups involved have not really cared (ie run holders)
If it was because of lack of monitoring then why? Who is supposed to be monitoring the numbers and how often.
If it was lack of control why? How are they controlled and by who?
If it was no budget why? Does it need to be reassessed to meet the goal?
For it to get to this stage I would suggest the management plan has been more of a wish list than an implemented plan.

These are DOCs questions to answer and I imagine that now, with a minister that cares about (doesn’t like) tahr, they will be answering them