Thread: Thar extermination

Originally Posted by Mooseman

E-Mail sent, ground hunters have never had it easy in terms of access, take for example the wilderness areas which are only open to helicopter access for a few months of the year. Surly if they wanted to have recreational hunters do more then the access should be opened up. DOC if they were serious about reducing numbers in areas of high populations could fly hunters in for culling operations at a reduced cost.

I agree @Mooseman
I reckon run a summer ballot.
Dec-Jan 8 periods summer tahr hunt.
I would be all over that.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

For what it is worth here they are get them while you can , with co-ordinates as well .

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...ng-operations/

Sums it up pretty much

Yes tahr need managed. I hate the word culled. Their numbers are too high in some areas.

On my last trip we saw about 150 over a two and a half day trip, in three catchments and we walked over 75kms. There were five of us and we shot 18 tahr and took meat off them all.

Management involves liaising and listening to interested parties, our values and opinions as recreational hunters are being ignored.

Their estimated tahr population range following the latest survey is 17,500 to 53,000.

The numbers they are talking of culling will exceed the lower population estimate, so these operations will essentially eradicate the tahr from some ranges. That is the scary part.

No, they won't get all the tahr, particularly in South Westland, the bush will protect a few, but the East Coast blocks will easily be cleaned out.

Sage has made it clear that under her office, recreational hunting will have no purpose on the public estate. She is outright anti hunting.

Yes we've had it good, but that is about to change. No question.

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

Attachment 95356

Sums it up pretty much

This sort of rubbish does more damage than good.

Originally Posted by JoshC

Yes tahr need managed. I hate the word culled. Their numbers are too high in some areas.

On my last trip we saw about 150 over a two and a half day trip, in three catchments and we walked over 75kms. There were five of us and we shot 18 tahr and took meat off them all.

Management involves liaising and listening to interested parties, our values and opinions as recreational hunters are being ignored.

Their estimated tahr population range following the latest survey is 17,500 to 53,000.

The numbers they are talking of culling will exceed the lower population estimate, so these operations will essentially eradicate the tahr from some ranges. That is the scary part.

No, they won't get all the tahr, particularly in South Westland, the bush will protect a few, but the East Coast blocks will easily be cleaned out.

Sage has made it clear that under her office, recreational hunting will have no purpose on the public estate. She is outright anti hunting.

Yes we've had it good, but that is about to change. No question.

I wish there was an "agreed" button. Fully get where your your coming from and agree totally but don't like what the closet commie's up to. Soon our wilderness area's will be full of freedom campers shitting all over the fuckin place as they do there great walks.

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

Attachment 95356

Sums it up pretty much

Lol Godwin, punishing

Yea fair point but it's making a bold statement though

Someone said to me a while ago why don't you hunters fight fire with fire? I said what do you mean? Their reply was aren't they trying to save the forests and animals. I said yes but in a deluded way with no accountability. They said what would happen if there was nothing to protect? What do you mean I enquired. Well say if the forest was say to have a fire or animals removed they would have no reason to protect anything. I said that's a bit extreme and unlikely to happen. They pointed out that perhaps since they take no consideration for our sport or interests you could do the same to them. Or at least point out to them that there is direct measures. They also pointed out that doc has admitted to knowingly causing the death of birds etc with 1080. Why has there been no convictions as isn't it against the law? This was from some non hunting people. I guess at the end of the day you can only reason with reasonable people. History is litered with those that needed other means to stop them. Are we heading down the same road?

Originally Posted by gimp

Lol Godwin, punishing

For those who didn't understand this (like me).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Originally Posted by r87mm

Someone said to me a while ago why don't you hunters fight fire with fire? I said what do you mean? Their reply was aren't they trying to save the forests and animals. I said yes but in a deluded way with no accountability. They said what would happen if there was nothing to protect? What do you mean I enquired. Well say if the forest was say to have a fire or animals removed they would have no reason to protect anything. I said that's a bit extreme and unlikely to happen. They pointed out that perhaps since they take no consideration for our sport or interests you could do the same to them. Or at least point out to them that there is direct measures. They also pointed out that doc has admitted to knowingly causing the death of birds etc with 1080. Why has there been no convictions as isn't it against the law? This was from some non hunting people. I guess at the end of the day you can only reason with reasonable people. History is litered with those that needed other means to stop them. Are we heading down the same road?

No

Originally Posted by Tahr

For those who didn't understand this (like me).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Thanks for enlightening us, I was pondering it

Originally Posted by Tahr

For those who didn't understand this (like me).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Gas The Tahr !!!

Be interesting to know how many of those "outraged" on here have actually hunted Tahr regularly, or are they just bleating.

Hunters need to start and engage a bit, firstly with other hunters through NZDA or other organisations and then through those with Politicians and DOC. Until the people making the decisions have a clear understanding of how many people and to what extent they "value" game animals through formal processes, moaning and yelling on forums is just wasted hot air.

For what its worth, be assured that East Coast Tahr will not be wiped out by even a concerted DOC effort - considerably reduced maybe. From my observations their natural behavior when hammered is to disperse into smaller (ones and twos) and smaller groups, and the older nannies will get down into the scrubby gullies - and from there are probably harder to hunt than a deer from the air.

I haven't hunted thar. I would love the opportunity to though. I think the issue is the immediate and mass numbers being spoken. You are talking about eradicating a total 2/3 of the herd. Its a pretty extreme approach

Conservation is important, but following recommendations from a study/strategy that is 25 years old isn't good science. With-out good science you don't have good conservation. I wish they would be more transparent with study and information. I feel that if more actual information was offered on the effects and impact of thar in the alpine ecosystems, with actual consultation of the various interest groups we could move forward with less trepidation.

This sort of axe to grind, militant approach just widens the void, encourages discontent and may well hurt the conservation cause as this mistrust manifests into action later down the line.