Thread: Thar extermination

Its been stopped for now!
https://www.facebook.com/HamishWalke...830087?__xts__

https://www.national.org.nz/minister..._her_tahr_hunt

Good start

Excellent news. I'd like to say common sense has won but clearly thats not the case.

Now the onus is on those holding all our donations to:
1. Consult with us, the recreational and professional hunters who have deep feelings on the subject, and;
2. Take our voice to government, then;
3. Provide clear feedback to the hunting community on what they have achieved with our money.

It's not over yet. We need to keep the pressure on and make sure she our anybody else can't come creeping back in at a latter date to try the same thing.

Yes she bloody well knows she hasn’t consulted properly and wouldn’t have faired to well in court, now we need to make sure there is proper consultation not a quick slap hazard one lime they did with the Waro.

Anyone else notice the distinct lack of outrage from the #vegan #animalrightsforgaywhales #animalstoo crowd? I'd have thought organisations like Safe would be harping on about the welfare of the animals and that they should have the same rights as humans etc. etc. just shows how political and sincere those stupid little activists are.

Originally Posted by indigo1

Anyone else notice the distinct lack of outrage from the #vegan #animalrightsforgaywhales #animalstoo crowd? I'd have thought organisations like Safe would be harping on about the welfare of the animals and that they should have the same rights as humans etc. etc. just shows how political and sincere those stupid little activists are.

I noticed it but it might be a good thing.
If they were jumping up and down about DOC shooting tahr, they would probably jump and down about us hunters doing pretty much exactly the same thing.

24-9-2018 Letter from Hon Eugenie Sage regarding Himalayan tahr.pdf Recieved this from her ladyship

oldboy.....on the face of it that ALMOST reads as being reasonable...and note it says to cull 10,000 NOT cull down to 10,000......interesting difference,it also DOESNT take animals on leasehold or private land into the total figure...again most interesting......

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

oldboy.....on the face of it that ALMOST reads as being reasonable...and note it says to cull 10,000 NOT cull down to 10,000......interesting difference,it also DOESNT take animals on leasehold or private land into the total figure...again most interesting......

Notice she doesn't mention the "additional Figure to be culled " . I think it equated to 7.5k

Originally Posted by JoshC

The 25 year old management plan needs updating with sound science backing.

Definitely. I haven't heard anything much about scientific backing for the cull, just sweeping general comments like 'tahr damage vegetation' and 'too many tahr'.

I was also thinking, DOC have acquired (through purchase and tenure review etc) a heap more high country land since that time - has anyone estimated what the population density of the 10,000 tahr in the old plan was, and how many more tahr would fit the same density over the increased land area?

@GravelBen @JoshC - I couldn't agree more, I hope the Tahr Foundation will apply our donations to just this.

Before it got going I compared the kill figures (nearly 3000 Tahr in 6 flying days) for the June flights DOC posted on their website - its obvious there are likely very large variations in Tahr density. I've OIA'd them to find out the actual flying hours and costs, and will extend my request to find out the area of land added to the Conservation estate within the Tahr range

https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-ti...ahr-cull-start

I've donated and signed the petition but feel it is only a stop gap measure. I can't lobby my local mp as he was the minister of conservation and supported 1080 and I believe he's passed his use by date. If you read what I earlier posted that was told to me by a non hunter you would think it's totally extreme and really not in any way a good idea. But if you look at the under lying message it has more meaning. It took me a while to work it out but this is my take on what was trying to be said. You can petition , protest , go to court but you will never win. You are fighting a battle where the enemy has set the rules. Doc put a stop to removing bird carcasses as no body no evidence. They openly admit to killing protected species but are never prosecuted. Their scientists agree with what they are doing but independent ones find very different results. In essence the rules and laws were written to protect themselves and give them the right to do what they want without accountability from the general public first and foremost. Just because they have to consult doesn't mean they have to listen or take on board anyone's opinions or concerns. It just draws the process out a little. We are trying to beat them on their ground by their rules and wonder why it doesn't work. We need to to find another way to fight on our terms and remove their home ground advantage. I'm not sure how to do this but we really need a few politicians(one isn't enough) form a major party on our side and some how make them commit very publicly often and loud ( and us to them) so they can't wiggle out when the push comes to shove and they need to step up. Then get the rules changed to a level playing field for the future. Just my 2 cents worth

Yes but this issue I feel is giving us a foot in the door.
We need to lobby National as they have taken up the batten. So nat mp you say you support us?
Ok then if we vote for you what are you going to do when/if you get in power.....how about take our game animals of the pest list!
There wording 20000 of us hunt. You what our votes. Then let's see some election promises and that needs to be number one!
Once you remove that pest word from our big game animals we can start to move forward and manage our resources more effectively.
Till then we're just pawns in the big game.
But if we can remove that word pest... we will have a foot in the door, you will have Mrs Sag to thank for it