Thread: Thar extermination

Originally Posted by GravelBen

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?

There isn't any. It's an arbitrary number. In the 1996 study, I'll pull the excerpt later, it states there is no correlation between the population density indices set in the htcp and the health and recovery of the various tussocks.

The last study(that I can find) was completed in 2014 and show a very small decline in overall tussock health. This would logically conclude that we need to cull a small number of tahr in specific areas

There hasn't been any study done that I can see on the effect of that on any other species than tussock. It says as much in the 2014 study.

That's why her rhetoric is so vehemently set on the htcp number as she knows full well there isn't any scientific backing to support the large numbers proposed in the cull.
I'm not generally pre disposed to assuming conspiracy or deliberate malintent, but given the rhetoric and deliberate selection of language, it seems very much like it really is a case of personal agenda over science based conservation

True but I'd like to see a more robust form of commitment rather than an election promise as these are often broken and battens dropped. I would like to see a full independent inquiry into doc and it's practices. Like it's removal of huts, wire bridges , 1080.As some of those would be against the health and safety act which doesn't appear to apply to local and central government. Charges for huts and other activity's on our land. I pay tax each week and part of that goes to doc to up keep tracks and huts etc . Then when I want to use said huts I pay again.
Why not increase the price for tourists to fully subsidize our use of them? Bit like going out for dinner ordering your meal and paying for it and then getting charged again when you want to eat it. If doc is in inefficient thats not my problem and like a leaking bucket, water will keep running out the holes no matter how much you put in it until the leaks are fixed. Not saying doc don't do a lot of good but imo they are doing a lot of the opposite as well and this needs to be addressed. Trouble is they are the ones who advice the ministers and governments. Again their rules. You don't see the police let alleged criminals investigate themselves as everyone knows what the out come would be. Until heads roll high up in doc and there's some sort of outside independent review by experts we stay fighting with both arms tied behind our backs

Who every her 2IC is there doing a good job on the spin front.
Let's see how they answer those questions on Tuesday.

I have done my give a little $50 - hope they use it well

A Post from Facebook this morning

Originally Posted by NZ Tahr Foundation

Hunting lobby wins concessions over tahr cull.

This was the Radio NZ headline this morning. The minister seems to have announced the outcome of yesterday’s meeting, stating there will only be 6,000 tahr culled this year, plus up to another 4000 next year if needed. Basically DoC and the minster appear to have accepted the Game Animal Council’s well thought out and whole of hunting sector consulted tahr management plan. It was a very constructive meeting yesterday and common sense appears to have prevailed. Doc in particular were very constructive and appeared to only want a workable and sensible outcome.

We posted up the link to the GAC plan a couple of days ago, but here are the most important points, as agreed upon by all of the hunting sector:

Initial cull before mid-November kid drop of 6000 targeting the hard to get at and highest density areas and leaving the most accessible areas for recreational hunters.

Any remainder to make up the initial 6000 to be taken in April 2019 so as to not early-wean any kids and stunt their growth in that most important first year.

No bulls to be shot anywhere in aerial culls.

WARO to be used where possible to utilise the carcasses.

Maximise the effectiveness of ground hunters by allowing more access and targeting them to where they can be the most effective.

The commercial and recreational hunting sector to take trophy bulls as they do now, and tahr meat recovery of nannies only, and also establish an ethos of taking far more nannies by recreational hunters. This combined approach will for account for another 4000 tahr over the forth coming season.

Re-evaluate after a year and re-target as necessary – using adaptive management principles.

Even though its early days yet and we’ll wait until we’ve seen the proposal in writing, this result shows what we can achieve when the whole hunting sector is totally united under the GAC. While we have the application for the court injunction waiting with our lawyers at the moment in case its needed, hopefully the majority of the donations can now go towards constructively moving forward - gathering robust data and working towards establishing the tahr as herd of special interest under the GAC!

thanks for the update - damn good outcome given what Sage was intending to do. I guess we should keep the cork in the champagne bottle or cap on the rum until we see it in writing.
Creating a robust scientific data based approach is critical for all our game animals. The battle for the Tahr is a win & getting them to HOSI status would be brilliant. But same needs to happen for trophy red stag herds with top genetics, Wapiti, Whitetail, Sika, etc.
So if one proves to be an easy win then the "spare" funds donated need to flow to these other worthy causes.

For those that want to read all the comments flowing in

https://www.facebook.com/nztahrfound...2%3A%22O%22%7D

I suggest to keep in the back of our minds that if there is in-fact Ministerial sign off of a new Tahr management plan as we have read above, then we should each write to the Minister thanking her for showing wisdom and leadership in this matter. Nothing wrong with showing some appreciation to a Minister who has listened and wisely considered all sides and possibly set aside their own personal views. This bodes well for a sensible game hunting future.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I suggest to keep in the back of our minds that if there is in-fact Ministerial sign off of a new Tahr management plan as we have read above, then we should each write to the Minister thanking her for showing wisdom and leadership in this matter. Nothing wrong with showing some appreciation to a Minister who has listened and wisely considered all sides and possibly set aside their own personal views. This bodes well for a sensible game hunting future.

I agree and done, with a request that this be the beginning of DOC endeavouring to build a more mutually satisfying arrangement with hunters.

That has to be a great outcome at least they are listening and not just going ahead with no real direction. Well done to all the people backing this and hopefully we will have a new ,updated and workable management plan that will work for everyone.

We still need to get this in writing if it's not done already!
Also we need to plan so that this dose not sneak up on us again!
Last of all let's try and work this around onto other big game species. Then if we have all of this we can take this to parliament and get pest taken from the wording. Replaced by management and resource!

Oh and if this is the end result top one, to all involved

While on the face of it it looks like a good win.................................the cynical part of me would suggest this was the outcome that was desired all along

Ask for twice as much as you think you will get, get those common folks all riled up and then it looks like you caved in to thier pressure and you still get what you wanted or Win-Win as the politicians would say.

Originally Posted by mikee

While on the face of it it looks like a good win.................................the cynical part of me would suggest this was the outcome that was desired all along

Ask for twice as much as you think you will get, get those common folks all riled up and then it looks like you caved in to thier pressure and you still get what you wanted or Win-Win as the politicians would say.

With you on that. Also wondering what else they're slipping through while everyone's looking over this way. Mr Cahill's been quiet lately....

Good news alright but the guys that go hunt these better start shooting a few more for meat on the way out instead of just going for the Bulls or all this will be wasted if we can't keep nbs in check I'd love to come down to shot some but can't make it down