Thread: Tahr cull doc betrayal

so 3000 per year is 30% of what is allowed..... we must be shooting some amount of animals.....if its not enough now and population IS dropped to the 10,000 the number we ARE shooting isnt sustainable..... still tying to get head around the numbers...
if 10,000 is allowed and we get 10,000
the natural increase in your above eg is 2500-3000 without predation...so we could keep numbers at 10,000 by allowing them to roll over population every 10 years so need 1,000 replacements bred (and left to live)each year so need to shoot 1500-2000

or are we missing mark by only 5% of what we should be shooting and have done so for 25 years...I would suggest there is a hell of a lot more being shot now than 25 years ago so we are possibly now already shooting more than that 5% over and above average figure????
or am I missing something

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so 3000 per year is 30% of what is allowed..... we must be shooting some amount of animals.....if its not enough now and population IS dropped to the 10,000 the number we ARE shooting isnt sustainable..... still tying to get head around the numbers...
if 10,000 is allowed and we get 10,000
the natural increase in your above eg is 2500-3000 without predation...so we could keep numbers at 10,000 by allowing them to roll over population every 10 years so need 1,000 replacements bred (and left to live)each year so need to shoot 1500-2000

3000 was a number I made up to make an example that I then didn't bother with posting. It has no bearing on anything. I believe the number specified for the required yearly harvest to keep numbers stable at 10000 in the Tahr control plan is 1900 but that's from memory. There are inherent difficulties and large error bars to any of these data though because wild animals in a wild landscape do not neatly fit into formulae

The long and short of it is that good ongoing monitoring is required to understand the trends in tahr population if it's to be effectively managed

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

or are we missing mark by only 5% of what we should be shooting and have done so for 25 years...I would suggest there is a hell of a lot more being shot now than 25 years ago so we are possibly now already shooting more than that 5% over and above average figure????
or am I missing something

Possibly that most who hunt them are hunting for a bull......but it is the nannys that increase population.

Originally Posted by gimp

3000 was a number I made up to make an example that I then didn't bother with posting. It has no bearing on anything. I believe the number specified for the required yearly harvest to keep numbers stable at 10000 in the Tahr control plan is 1900 but that's from memory. There are inherent difficulties and large error bars to any of these data though because wild animals in a wild landscape do not neatly fit into formulae

The long and short of it is that good ongoing monitoring is required to understand the trends in tahr population if it's to be effectively managed

Yes. That comment is sensible. However, The reliance of DoC on so-called "estimates" , which is / are what is apparently being used to justify this cull is in essence acting upon guesswork. This is not by any stretch of the imagination justifiable in the context of the meaning of Management.

if its not 3,000 shot per year we will go back to figures given/debated

35,000 yearly increase without predation at 25% (cause its easier)=8750 births over deaths

we average only a 5% increase so 1/5th of that=1750 births over deaths
so logic would SUGGEST the nuber of animals being shot is somewhere AROUND 7,000 per year OR 70% of the DOC allocated total population

Originally Posted by gimp

There's a lot of hatefulness and vitriol here, and perhaps a lack of understanding the situation. I am not and will not engage with the former, and am speaking strictly on the subject of tahr control as a hunter with, I'd like to think, a little knowledge of the issue

The Himalayan Thar Control Plan which is the guiding document that DOC works under to plan tahr control sets the population limit at 10,000 tahr across the feral range. This is not a policy of extermination, and allows for controlling the population at an estimated level where ecological values and recreational hunting are both preserved. It is effectively a pretty good basis for a progressive policy of managing a game animal sustainably with conservation and recreation values in mind - certainly better than we have for any other species in NZ in that regard.

It appears that based on monitoring, tahr numbers across their range are currently well in excess of this - see the original linked ODT article with a population estimate of 35,000. Recreational hunting simply has not prevented numbers increasing - we are not shooting enough tahr, even alongside ongoing DOC/AATH offset control and commercial recovery. The massive numbers of uncontrolled tahr on pastoral lease land - Safari operations etc - which move onto public land don't help the situation. Tahr control is nothing new, it has been happening forever and is public knowledge - both by DOC doing SAD and AATH (heli hunting) operators shooting nannies for offsets - and volunteer culls on the ground through the Tahr Interest Group e.g. in the Landsborough etc. There is a policy to not shoot identifiable bulls (over ~2 years) during control operations - mentioned a couple of times in this publicly available document for example
https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/co...nd-2015-16.pdf

While we may not be happy that tahr are being culled, it has been ongoing for a long time, is nothing new, and is simply meeting the conditions of a pretty reasonable piece of management policy as far as hunting and conservation going together in New Zealand. This culling will not ruin recreational tahr hunting, there are a LOT of tahr out there. If we don't want DOC culling tahr, and if we don't want AATH - we need to shoot more ourselves. If we shot more nannies, there would be less tahr and it would be less justifiable for AATH to occur (the 5:1 nanny:bull culling offset requirement is a lot of free tahr control that justifies the activity).

You are totally right in your sentiments Gimp. Further should extensive game animal culls come as any surprise with the Greens in charge of the Conservation portfolio to any thinking person alive ?. I would like to ask a question and propose a possible solution with regards to the lack of consultation and impact hunters have in the decision making process. Trout are an introduced organism. They predate on indigenous species and have driven some to complete or localised extinction. My question is 'why are they afforded protected status when other introduced species, (being easily controlled big game animals) are not' ? My possible solution is - Money via licence fees. This enables Fish and Game to fight Dams and Farming alongside the Greens, Forest and Bird etc. I have served as a F&G Councillor and the staff are really only interested in their own salaries to the extent that the whole outfit is corrupt, and yet because of the numbers of people it represents it garners support and an ear in high places and protection for sports fish. Is it time that we started paying for Big Game hunting licences ? Fish and Game can justifiably say that it represents the interests of x thousands of members, even though those people have been forced to buy a licence. I would happily pay for a 'National Public Land Hunting Licence' if it gave us a similar united front and voice.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

if its not 3,000 shot per year we will go back to figures given/debated

35,000 yearly increase without predation at 25% (cause its easier)=8750 births over deaths

we average only a 5% increase so 1/5th of that=1750 births over deaths
so logic would SUGGEST the nuber of animals being shot is somewhere AROUND 7,000 per year OR 70% of the DOC allocated total population

I imagine it's a mild exponential curve % increase every year due to this yes. I don't have any data to say what the population was doing year-to-year between 1993 and now and the population estimate in 1993 of 10000 was, as I understand it, just an estimate. Today's estimates are based on monitoring data and are statistically more robust.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

You are totally right in your sentiments Gimp. Further should extensive game animal culls come as any surprise with the Greens in charge of the Conservation portfolio to any thinking person alive ?. I would like to ask a question and propose a possible solution with regards to the lack of consultation and impact hunters have in the decision making process. Trout are an introduced organism. They predate on indigenous species and have driven some to complete or localised extinction. My question is 'why are they afforded protected status when other introduced species, (being easily controlled big game animals) are not' ? My possible solution is - Money via licence fees. This enables Fish and Game to fight Dams and Farming alongside the Greens, Forest and Bird etc. I have served as a F&G Councillor and the staff are really only interested in their own salaries to the extent that the whole outfit is corrupt, and yet because of the numbers of people it represents it garners support and an ear in high places and protection for sports fish. Is it time that we started paying for Big Game hunting licences ? Fish and Game can justifiably say that it represents the interests of x thousands of members, even though those people have been forced to buy a licence. I would happily pay for a 'National Public Land Hunting Licence' if it gave us a similar united front and voice.

I'd pay. And remember that paid, licensed hunting was the original intent with the acclimatisation societies, and the norm until 1931.

DoC "monitoring" ? !

Originally Posted by Woody

DoC "monitoring" ? !

Do you know something about it that I don't?

Originally Posted by gimp

There's a lot of hatefulness and vitriol here, and perhaps a lack of understanding the situation. I am not and will not engage with the former, and am speaking strictly on the subject of tahr control as a hunter with, I'd like to think, a little knowledge of the issue

The Himalayan Thar Control Plan which is the guiding document that DOC works under to plan tahr control sets the population limit at 10,000 tahr across the feral range. This is not a policy of extermination, and allows for controlling the population at an estimated level where ecological values and recreational hunting are both preserved. It is effectively a pretty good basis for a progressive policy of managing a game animal sustainably with conservation and recreation values in mind - certainly better than we have for any other species in NZ in that regard.

It appears that based on monitoring, tahr numbers across their range are currently well in excess of this - see the original linked ODT article with a population estimate of 35,000. Recreational hunting simply has not prevented numbers increasing - we are not shooting enough tahr, even alongside ongoing DOC/AATH offset control and commercial recovery. The massive numbers of uncontrolled tahr on pastoral lease land - Safari operations etc - which move onto public land don't help the situation. Tahr control is nothing new, it has been happening forever and is public knowledge - both by DOC doing SAD and AATH (heli hunting) operators shooting nannies for offsets - and volunteer culls on the ground through the Tahr Interest Group e.g. in the Landsborough etc. There is a policy to not shoot identifiable bulls (over ~2 years) during control operations - mentioned a couple of times in this publicly available document for example
https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/co...nd-2015-16.pdf

While we may not be happy that tahr are being culled, it has been ongoing for a long time, is nothing new, and is simply meeting the conditions of a pretty reasonable piece of management policy as far as hunting and conservation going together in New Zealand. This culling will not ruin recreational tahr hunting, there are a LOT of tahr out there. If we don't want DOC culling tahr, and if we don't want AATH - we need to shoot more ourselves. If we shot more nannies, there would be less tahr and it would be less justifiable for AATH to occur (the 5:1 nanny:bull culling offset requirement is a lot of free tahr control that justifies the activity).

@gimp
That's a pretty fair response to most of us out there. I will say I am a bit of a hater of govt departments, especially DOC. Far to much twig and twitter and eco nazi movement for me but from all the comments against, you have a very compelling argument to back them up.

I have a question for anyone who went in the ballot blocks this year.

Did you see bulls holding large groups of nannies or several bulls to very few nannies?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I'd gladly pay more for the privilege of hunting, to contribute more to effective management and advocacy for hunters and access. To be honest, it's bananas that we don't pay for it currently.

Anecdotally, the people I know that work for MPI and DOC try their hardest to provide results based on the best science they can get, with the limited budgets they have. Blaming "corrupt government" might make you feel better, but my bet is that most folks working in these groups are trying to their best.

Personally I wish there were more opportunities to collaborate alongside DOC - I think that would be a far more constructive approach.

@gimp. I will try to find the Kim Hill program from this morning, listen to it properly and get back to you; re, science.