Thread: Thar extermination

I am sure Eugene called us Cunters this morning on breakfast, Freudian slip perhaps .

eugenie backing down will end up as famous as chamberlain holding up a letter signed by hitler saying everything is ok

Not sure this can be related to the Tahr issues - but interesting to see how 150 CEOs rate the performance of Cabinet Ministers on their ministerial portfolio performance over the past year on a 1-5 scale, where 1 = not
impressive and 5 = very impressive.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12135839

While Ministers outside Cabinet were not rated in this year's survey, a number of bosses had views. -Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage was slammed as a "real problem" — "Zero out of ten and only interested in a small minority of constituents.

Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage was slammed as a "real problem" — "Zero out of ten and only interested in a small minority of constituents.

"She will have a negative impact on this Govt long term," said a construction boss. "This was a very bad and naïve appointment — a life member of Forest and Bird as Minister of Conservation?"

I think I'm in love with her

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rc...C0IvBZdfZAnhIf
This is a link to a Ted Talk on desertification. Why has Moa posted that everyone thinks ?? Well I'll tell you, this talk shows how we can actually use wild animal grazing to repair the historical damage done to the South Island high country by sheep grazing. Because of the way in which Bull Tahr migrate they can work with nature to support revegetation of the denuded hills. Watch the video, go hunting and look at the ground under your feet - I mean the bare soil between the plants not the plants themselves and consider how animals are or are not affecting a given area. Looking into my crystal ball, this information will be very powerful to us in the future.

Originally Posted by hunt08

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

Shoot 7 nannies for each Bull

I would still like to know who eventually supplies the ammo and the helicopter operators involved, it will help to make informed decisions about who I support in the future.

Originally Posted by Divingmad

I would still like to know who eventually supplies the ammo and the helicopter operators involved, it will help to make informed decisions about who I support in the future.

Probably an overseas distributor.

I too would like to know about the chopper companies. I am planning a trip and I won't use anyone who does the cull.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

I was told they wont use local operators because they leave pockets of thar for their helihunting.
Doc shooters and a doc observer on board to make sure the lot get shot.
Tungstan 223 at $5 each so no ricochets to hit the rotors.

2 October 2018

Department of Conservation

Attention: Andy Roberts

By Email



New Zealand Deerstalkers Association

Attention Bill O’Leary

By Email

Dear Messrs Roberts and O’Leary

TAHR LIAISON MEETING

1.

We are writing following the Tahr Liaison Group meeting yesterday. We were troubled and concerned by media reports that an agreement had been reached on a draft operational plan.
In particular,Radio NZ reported that:
1
Former president of the Deerstalkers Association Bill O'Leary told RNZ that a draft operational plan was agreed on at the meeting which would reduce the number of tahr to be killed -but he did not give a number.
2.
This is inaccurate. Nothing that could be described as a draft operation plan was put to the meeting. The scribbled notes on the whiteboard could not properly be described a draft plan.
3.
In any event, we made it clear that Forest & Bird’s agreement to any draft operational plan is
conditional on a clear undertaking that the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan (the plan) plan would be implemented.
This was not present in the scribbled notes and Mr Roberts made it clear that Forest &Bird’s position
was understood and indicated that this would be the subject of consideration over the coming days, including discussions with us.
4.
It is also disappointing that such disinformation makes its way into the media. Many attendees at the meeting commented on the productive and positive nature of the discussions. This is
undermined when one of the participants seeks to “write into stone” preliminary views of the group which were the subject of serious reservations by one of the parties. This undermines any trust that might be built between participants.
5.
The only option we have is to publicly respond to such disinformation, which is likely to further undermine
the trust and confidence that has built up as the result of productive meetings like yesterday.
Royal Forest and Bird Protection
6.
In our view the legal position is clear and unambiguous. The plan is a wild animal control plan
under section 5(1)(d) of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. The Minister is required to manage tahr in accordance with this plan.
5B Management of wild animals
The Minister shall administer and manage wild animals in accordance with—(a) statements of general policy under section 5(1) (ca); and (b) wild animal control plans under section 5(1) (d) ; and (c) conservation management strategies.
7.
The reported outcome of 6,000 tahr being culled immediately with a “commitment” to further 10,000 by the end of July,does not implement the plan.
Tahr will not be being managed in accordance with the plan.
8.
The key elements of the plan from our perspective are: a.the 10,000 limit;
b.zero density in National Parks; and
c.the exclusion zones.
9.
For the avoidance of any doubt, we reiterate the view expressed at the meeting yesterday.
Nothing has been agreed by Forest & Bird. We do not necessarily oppose the 6,000/10,000 proposal reported in the media but any agreement is condition on: a. a clear undertaking by the Minister and Department that the plan will be implemented; and
b. detail of how this will be achieved.
10.
There has been a suggestion that the plan includes some form of adaptive management. This is not the case. If there is to be any change to the key matters set out in paragraph 8 above, this needs to be done by amending the plan.
At the current time there is not enough information available for proper decision to be made. Yours sincerely, Peter Anderson
Nicky Snoyink

General Counsel

Canterbury West Coast Regional Manager

Good luck getting forest and bird to agree to anything reasonable.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Brian

I was told they wont use local operators because they leave pockets of thar for their helihunting.
Doc shooters and a doc observer on board to make sure the lot get shot.
Tungstan 223 at $5 each so no ricochets to hit the rotors.

How does that work? I would have thought Tungsten being really quite hard would ricochet like a barstard! Also be not very humane if a non expanding bullet.

thanks @Boaraxa that quoted position of F&B spells out exactly where Sage is getting fed her "logic (& legal advice) from". It also shows F&B are hell bent on totally undermining any dialog & compromise .... or use of relevant current science or data.
They are clinging to this 25 year old outdated 1993 Tahr Plan. So as various others have stated above we need a clear and unequivocal statement from the minister as to exactly what/when/how the cull will proceed.
And even more importantly we need to insist on quality science and data (proving if Tahr above certain densities do actually cause any harm) as a PRE-CONDITION for any further cull beyond the 5- 6000 Sage talked about. At that data should then be used to scrap this farkn stupid 1993 piece of shit info that F&B are clinging on to.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

How does that work? I would have thought Tungsten being really quite hard would ricochet like a barstard! Also be not very humane if a non expanding bullet.

He said its supposed to shatter when it hits rock. Be hard on barrels but I guess it could be copper coated.
I'd never heard of them before.