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 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 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 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

If the numbers are too high, cull them I’m not hung up about that. But if DOC is once again ignoring a recreational stakeholder they are charged with actually fostering - rec hunters, as they did on WARO and AATH, then they should be called out on it.

Originally Posted by ethos

If the numbers are too high, cull them I’m not hung up about that. But if DOC is once again ignoring a recreational stakeholder they are charged with actually fostering - rec hunters, as they did on WARO and AATH, then they should be called out on it.

I absolutely agree that rec hunters can make a partial contribution to reducing tahr numbers and should be being encouraged to do so. I am not involved with the Tahr Interest Group or a representative of DOC so I can't comment on what is or isn't happening at all in that space - are you involved and can you comment? I'd go on more foot culls. I've been signed up for the TIG culls for the last 3 years but this year and last year it didn't happen for whatever reasons.

Originally Posted by gimp

I absolutely agree that rec hunters can make a partial contribution to reducing tahr numbers and should be being encouraged to do so. I am not involved with the Tahr Interest Group or a representative of DOC so I can't comment on what is or isn't happening at all in that space - are you involved and can you comment? I'd go on more foot culls. I've been signed up for the TIG culls for the last 3 years but this year and last year it didn't happen for whatever reasons.

No not involved which was why the question, did DOC consult or even mention before culling?

Originally Posted by gimp

........... I've been signed up for the TIG culls for the last 3 years but this year and last year it didn't happen for whatever reasons.

Do you have any idea why 'it didn't happen'? Lack of interest from the TIG guys, or DoC?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

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.

Yep where as me on th coast would not go into tahr country for a meat animal due to the mission to get in there, and any tahr hunting I do over here is looking for a decent bull


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 ).

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

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 ).

It's not unusual for clubs to charge a higher fee to new members - it covers the cost of existing infrastructure: think gyms.... NZDA has an infrastructure footprint, and indeed some very wealthy clubs based on owning ranges/properties withing certain clubs.

HOWEVER: I agree that it is very shortsighted to cut off new members - irrespective of any sunk cost or history; if clubs do not continue to pull in new members our future interests are going to be significantly curtailed for the sake of maintaining an old boys club...

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

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.

Each branch sets their fees independently. As far as I know, the Christchurch branch is the only branch to have the absurd rule of charging a higher-than-usual fee to new members.


Try contacting head office, and asking to join the 'direct branch' instead.

Today I went for a walk in the bush, a warm puffy wind from all directions and no good for hunting but that didn't matter. I thought about this thread while I explored a new place. What marvelous forest, big Matai, Rimus, Kahikatea even tree pungas in the creeks in a predominantly Black Beech, Canterbury Forest. We are all conservationists and lovers of the wild and unspoilt places far more than we are killers of game animals and yet we criticise DOC and, I am not without guilt. Is this a wise and constructive attitude ?. Would we prefer, all the Doc estate cleared and converted to farmland, to play devils advocate ? There have been some very good balanced comments to this thread today, is it a fair summary to state that we can all see a need for change to better representation for Big Game Hunters and a change in how the authorities view the hunting community.

I am still of the opinion that to do this we need a compulsory licence system for public land. What I thought today was that it might be a 'Hunting and Conservation Licence' with a split of licence revenue going to DOC.
My 2c