Thread: Tahr cull doc betrayal

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?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by R93

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

We were hunting up in the adams wilderness area and had good weather to look over most of the area very well.
We thought the tahr population was definitely lower than previous visits to the same block.
There were no large group sizes with 6-8 tahr being the largest groups encountered.

Have also hunted the Ben Ohau range recently and have seen no evidence of excessive numbers in that area.
This was a very accessible area where i took my kids for a tahr hunt but have heard it was heavily culled to the point where the locals cant even find a tahr.

Originally Posted by ethos

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?

I have to imagine those discussions are happening, but historically volunteer foot culls achieve relatively minor number reductions. It’s not like DOC has gone and shot all of the tahr, and numbers are back to 10k already. There has been an ordinary culling operation combined with a media release (?) from the minister referencing new monitoring numbers, there’s still opportunity for hunting groups to go volunteer to shoot a bucketload if tahr if we want to

Originally Posted by yogi

We were hunting up in the adams wilderness area and had good weather to look over most of the area very well.
We thought the tahr population was definitely lower than previous visits to the same block.
There were no large group sizes with 6-8 tahr being the largest groups encountered.

Have also hunted the Ben Ohau range recently and have seen no evidence of excessive numbers in that area.
This was a very accessible area where i took my kids for a tahr hunt but have heard it was heavily culled to the point where the locals cant even find a tahr.

Thanks mate.

I can't speak for the east coast but it is my experience on the west coast as well.
Fuck all nannies and groups of bulls competing for bugger all. Brooming and smashing their head gear up on rocks etc.
There is an umbalance imo due to AATH and Doc culling. We have noticed it getting worse since AATH become legal

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by gimp

I have to imagine those discussions are happening, but historically volunteer foot culls achieve relatively minor number reductions. It’s not like DOC has gone and shot all of the tahr, and numbers are back to 10k already. There has been an ordinary culling operation combined with a media release (?) from the minister referencing new monitoring numbers, there’s still opportunity for hunting groups to go volunteer to shoot a bucketload if tahr if we want to

My problem with this cull is the total lack of consultation with recreational hunters for a recreational and commercial resource.
We have been down this path before with these culls and have the associated outrage that follows so why does the department want to create such conflict again?
I thought those days of Doc's ignorant attitude towards game animals had changed but we now have an extremist conservationist in charge.

In my opinion Doc should have approached Nzda, Game animal council and recreational hunters regarding possible breaches of the population to give us some notice and a chance to get out there and lower the population before this cull.

Originally Posted by yogi

My problem with this cull is the total lack of consultation with recreational hunters for a recreational and commercial resource.
We have been down this path before with these culls and have the associated outrage that follows so why does the department want to create such conflict again?
I thought those days of Doc's ignorant attitude towards game animals had changed but we now have an extremist conservationist in charge.

In my opinion Doc should have approached Nzda, Game animal council and recreational hunters regarding possible breaches of the population to give us some notice and a chance to get out there and lower the population before this cull.

This is the biggest problem of all. DOC will NEVER approach or consult hunters in this current format. And why would they? who do they approach the NZDA? The local hunters at the Twizel pub? The NZDA make up less than 5% of NZ hunters why would they even bother. This is the underlying problem to all the major issues we face right now. We have NO representation for the majority of kiwi hunters. In a survey done approximately 150,000 adults participated in hunting during a 12 month period, yet NZDA numbers are at a guess 5,000?

As for the GAC I honestly have no idea who they are or what they do.

This highlights the biggest problem of all we have at the moment. And that is we DO NOT have that representation for hunters that we need. And we don't have respect from DOC to be consulted because we aren't organised enough to have one voice.

The NZDA is the obvious choice to do this but they have a hell of a job in front of them to re-brand and inspire kiwis to WANT to be a member. We need a group of leaders to inspire hunters to band together and work together for a few common goals. The NZDA should have adds on social media, they should have adds in every magazine in the country and Australia promoting what it stands for, what its goals are, what is plan is. There magazine should be the best in the country yet members would rather send they stories to a competitors magazine. That says it all really.

I hate to be harsh on the NZDA there is some individuals doing amazing work. But it really needs a massive over haul or make over its clearly not working at the moment. If not the NZDA another group needs to be formed and start a fresh and go on a numbers building mission. Theres a lot of truth in theres power in numbers just look at Forest and Bird for a success story on a community banding together to get what it wants.

Until we are successful in creating a large self sufficient hunting community that has money and staff. That has a plan and has goals we will ALWAYS be at the mercy of DOC. So rather than whinging and carrying on we need to start DOING rather than talking.

So the big question how do we create a group that demands to be heard? IMO we all need to understand we are ALL hunters, whether we hunt with a bow, hunt with a pigs with dogs, hunt the bush with a 30/30, or hunt the tops with a 7mm RM at the end of the day we are ALL "hunters" all the big issues we face, face EVERY type of hunter. Im sick of seeing hunters complaining about Jim shooting a 10 point stag that could of been a trophy or Barry shooting a 11 inch bull tahr that could of been a 14 inch one day. We need to wake the F*&k up. DOC and WARO shoot 1000s of these animals yearly we have bigger issues right now than what a foot hunter gets up to on the weekend.

WARO, AATH, 1080, DOC & HUNTERS working together and Non resident hunters taking ballots off kiwis. Those a 5 key issues that unite the majority of hunters regardless of the way you hunt and what you shoot. This is where the focus should be. Using these issues to grow the likes of the NZDA or a new group. They should be advertising there stance on these issues and promoting what they want to achieve with these issues. I would give me money back to them in a heart beat if I knew they wanted to address these 5 key issues. Then once we are united we have power in numbers, DOC will have to listen to us whether they like it or not.

Ben

By the way I hunted a well known valley in Mt Cook NP this rut, I saw 200 tahr from my tent. There was clearly a need to have a cull particularly on the nannie front. BUT it should be hunters doing those culls, it should be hunters organising those culls, and it should be hunters paying for the resources to do those culls.

my 2c

Originally Posted by Smiddy

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

yes its sustainable but if we are currently shooting MORE THAN 2000 then a lot of guys who currently shoot wont have anything to shoot,or if we continue to shoot at current levels we will more than half population in one year..... that the issue NO ONE HAS A CLUE HOW MANY ARE BEING SHOT...we dont have kill returns on permits because people dont trust doc enough to fill them in...eg back when we had them a nice man from doc came to a deerstalkers meeting in Timaru...I looked at the kill return figures for my local block for previous year and I personally had shot 3/4 of the deer and ALL the chammy for that year....yeah right...pointed that fact out and next year no more kill returns on permits,its now electronic so no effort made at all to gather info.

NZHunter puts it so well. Unfortunately, the hunter/shooter culture reflects and is a microcosm of our general population, such that, 'divide and rule' is the pattern of our lives.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

yes its sustainable but if we are currently shooting MORE THAN 2000 then a lot of guys who currently shoot wont have anything to shoot,or if we continue to shoot at current levels we will more than half population in one year..... that the issue NO ONE HAS A CLUE HOW MANY ARE BEING SHOT...we dont have kill returns on permits because people dont trust doc enough to fill them in...eg back when we had them a nice man from doc came to a deerstalkers meeting in Timaru...I looked at the kill return figures for my local block for previous year and I personally had shot 3/4 of the deer and ALL the chammy for that year....yeah right...pointed that fact out and next year no more kill returns on permits,its now electronic so no effort made at all to gather info.

I agree with what your saying, who knows where they get the numbers from, educated idiots making un educated decisions

I havnt really been hard into tahr hunting for the last 3 years but the numbers I was seeing back then were big, and that last 2 trips I've done in the last 2 years seen big numbers also. I don't have a problem with the numbers being thinned out, I don't even have a problem with the bulls being shot to be honest, when you see a mob of 12 bulls in the rutt you know something isn't right.
Thin the lot out to 10,000 providing there numbers are right.
It will be far from th end of tahr hunting, instead of seeing over 100 for a week we will be seeing 20 or 30, still plenty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

its a funny thing,big numbers...a guy like myself even if I loved eating them would never control population as I will shoot the first couple then bonem out and go home.... would never get to areas with big mobs. normally the first deer I see cops a lead disprin and comes home for dinner.its only on a week long trip or where distance is great that I will leave them and keep looking for Mr Big.

If NZDA want to increase it's membership base and have more leverage to get a say or influence policy, maybe they should try changing the joining fee structure to encourage new members to join in the first place - looked at joining myself, Christchurch branch, but why the fuck should I when they have an INCREASED fee over the regular annual membership fee. Only place I have ever struck that charge you more to join.

We do need one representative organisation that can manipulate the one thing that whoever would be in government, craves about all other things: election day votes.

Right and wrong, fair or unjust, moral or corrupt, sensible or blind stupid, is all completely irrelevant - the only way to force those with private agendas (or simply brainless) to act for the greater good, is to be able to exert political pressure. One organisation accurately representing it's members could do this. Join one and get vocal. Find out who your local Mp is, and get in their face, most of them have no idea ( this type of situation even exists in the first place ).