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"?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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???????

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")

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)