Tahr cull doc betrayal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R93

The thing is, one major weather event or earthquake can change the landscape of our back country in seconds. Certainly more than 50 years worth of animal browsing or movement.

Greens are book educated idiots that prey on other concrete dwelling idiot (who will never venture further than their local manicured park) emotions in order to gain awareness for their fictional issues.
Doc is full of these clowns. In fact I am positive it is how they hire people for certain roles.

Job requirements:

1. A degree or masters in anything but reality would be benificial.

Translation :

Must be a, brainwashed fucktard that can count to 30,000 on one hand.





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

---

A bloody big plus one on that ^^^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R93

The thing is, one major weather event or earthquake can change the landscape of our back country in seconds. Certainly more than 50 years worth of animal browsing or movement.

Greens are book educated idiots that prey on other concrete dwelling idiot (who will never venture further than their local manicured park) emotions in order to gain awareness for their fictional issues.
Doc is full of these clowns. In fact I am positive it is how they hire people for certain roles.


Job requirements:

1. A degree or masters in anything but reality would be benificial.

Translation :

Must be a, brainwashed fucktard that can count to 30,000 on one hand.





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

---

I have a term called educated idiots for just these sort of people. They are like an apprentice that finishes their time and thinks they know everything but are really just good enough to start learning.
Only thing wrong is they are far more in control and far more destructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csmiffy

I have a term called educated idiots for just these sort of people. They are like an apprentice that finishes their time and thinks they know everything but are really just good enough to start learning.
Only thing wrong is they are far more in control and far more destructive.

---

Nicely put....I just call em "Cake eaters"! Because they sit on there ass all day and eat cake, and have very limited real world experience or bother to ask for any.

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).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shearer

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

---

Well when a girl tahr really really likes a boy tahr, sometimes they get together and have a special cuddle.... Or does a stork bring baby tahr to find new mummy's and daddy's? I forget?

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sideshow

Nicely put....I just call em "Cake eaters"! Because they sit on there ass all day and eat cake, and have very limited real world experience or bother to ask for any.

---

How do you know this?

I have a Masters degree, and don't eat cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shearer

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

---

Well quite simply they were not being managed and never have been, at least not in the sense that any other developed country in the world with game animals manages them.

Is there any other source for this? I can't find any corroboration to the story or direct quotes. Weak article.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

so if populations on pastural leases can move onto public land and then be a problem......MAYBE the protection offered by being on what is at end of day, public land is flawed and conditions need to be enforced eg animal numbers kept in check or land lease will be revoked so public can do the job needs to be looked at.....access to reach some of these places has been blocked for years to the benifit of a few at expence of many and has been allowed to continue this way through sucessive govts... open the areas up and allow 4wd access to get there in first place and the animal numbers will drop drastically........hang on a minute????isnt that what the track network built in 60s and 70s was put in for???? to allow greater access to areas for recreational users like hunters ,trampers and climbers.it almost seems we now have a reverse of policy where areas are being blocked off and tracks left to ruin.

Quote:

---

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%.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so if populations on pastural leases can move onto public land and then be a problem......MAYBE the protection offered by being on what is at end of day, public land is flawed and conditions need to be enforced eg animal numbers kept in check or land lease will be revoked so public can do the job needs to be looked at.....access to reach some of these places has been blocked for years to the benifit of a few at expence of many and has been allowed to continue this way through sucessive govts... open the areas up and allow 4wd access to get there in first place and the animal numbers will drop drastically........hang on a minute????isnt that what the track network built in 60s and 70s was put in for???? to allow greater access to areas for recreational users like hunters ,trampers and climbers.it almost seems we now have a reverse of policy where areas are being blocked off and tracks left to ruin.

---

It's part of the puzzle, not the whole picture. Numbers are still increasing in areas far from pastoral land, where there is access. We are not shooting enough tahr.

so if we flip that one around ...it means we have been controlling 20-25% of the population each and every year?????? 1/5th -1/4 that a hell of a lot of animals even at 10,000 its 2,500 if you go to higher figure its closer to 8,000 so we ARE now shooting 80% of the allowed population per year???????

Quote:

---

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.

Gimp Im not having a go...just trying to get my head around those numbers (maths is one of my "things")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so if we flip that one around ...it means we have been controlling 20-25% of the population each and every year?????? 1/5th -1/4 that a hell of a lot of animals even at 10,000 its 2,500 if you go to higher figure its closer to 8,000 so we ARE now shooting 80% of the allowed population per year???????

---

It won't be a constant percentage per year increase in population, just works out to about 5% average per year over the 25. There will be ecological variations - population increase will slow in areas with higher populations etc, and as the population increases the % increase per year will be higher when the absolute number harvested remains constant (e.g. 3000 shot per year)

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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" ? ! :ORLY:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody

DoC "monitoring" ? ! :ORLY:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Some communication with hunter groups is expected from DOC with the Tahr control plan if numbers are high to enable hunters to up their nanny cull. Did this happen?

Quote:

---

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

---

But if the population goes from 35000 to 10000 what will the animals shot the per year number be at? 2000? So sustainable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalkeye

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.

---

Fair enough comments Chalkeye regarding the staff. There does however seem to be an overriding and non neutral bias against all Big Game animals and has been for many decades.
With current official plans to rid NZ of introduced animal'pests' which presumably includes BG. Nearly all of this country will be 1080 poisoned on rotation with no deer repellant as an example

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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