Thread: Who the fuk is "Sam Gibson" ?

For those who want to see the article....

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-as-pests.html

Fuck Philips don’t hold back mate, say what you really mean

Hahaha no point being "willy nilly" aye

Lodge a formal written complaint. Might seem like a waste of time but it forces them to review & respond in writing. Might seem like a waste of time but it’s worth a go. A couple of years back I got so pissed off with one TV “presenter” who repeatedly demonstrated diabolically biased and openly hostile behaviour when interviewing one side of the political fence but would be kissing arse when the other side was interviewed. Got a 5 page response arguing the interviewer had done nothing wrong & justifying their position. But guess what - that particular interviewer has not done an interview on TV since that time !

The BSA is a sop that lows journalistc "opinions".

Fairly typical of all media these days to find someone with an opinion at odds to what most people would expect them to hold. You could call it cynical attempt to stir up debate (if so, @Philipo took the bait) or you could say they were trying to present an alternative to the unspoken but assumed viewpoint that most hunters would support the idea of a Minister.

It’s a fair point he makes - I fail to see the benefit of having a ministry, or even of changing the status of game animals. Whether we like it or not, hunting doesn’t make a dent in the population of introduced species that competes with natives.

I think the end result will just be a pile of regulation where none is required, and some degree of user-pays to fund it all.

Sam may not speak for all hunters (and the article does not imply that he does) but I, for one, agree with him. In the absence of any major ongoing issues to address or actual policy, it seems like a blatant grab for votes.

Originally Posted by mopheadrob

Fairly typical of all media these days to find someone with an opinion at odds to what most people would expect them to hold. You could call it cynical attempt to stir up debate (if so, @Philipo took the bait) or you could say they were trying to present an alternative to the unspoken but assumed viewpoint that most hunters would support the idea of a Minister.

It’s a fair point he makes - I fail to see the benefit of having a ministry, or even of changing the status of game animals. Whether we like it or not, hunting doesn’t make a dent in the population of introduced species that competes with natives.

I think the end result will just be a pile of regulation where none is required, and some degree of user-pays to fund it all.

Sam may not speak for all hunters (and the article does not imply that he does) but I, for one, agree with him. In the absence of any major ongoing issues to address or actual policy, it seems like a blatant grab for votes.

Yes, but ii is good to have our interests represented rather than being consulted with every now and then.

A lot of what is to be gained is about the future rather than the present. The idea of reclassifying and recognising the value of 'valued introduced species' is important when you consider the growing call for introduced species to be removed (eg Trout in some waterways) and with the potential for technology in the future to allow this (eg gene editing)

Sent to TV3 facebook --- Not happy about tonights News. Sam Gibson putting forth biased & political views while making out he represented, all peoples interests in outdoor activities. happy with TV 3 devisive jounalism, You put up a biased view on your News tonight. Sam Gibson pulling a bent & political view making out he represents all the interests of outdoors people.

Originally Posted by flock

Sent to TV3 facebook --- Not happy about tonights News. Sam Gibson putting forth biased & political views while making out he represented, all peoples interests in outdoor activities. happy with TV 3 devisive jounalism, You put up a biased view on your News tonight. Sam Gibson pulling a bent & political view making out he represents all the interests of outdoors people.

Standard approach for those with a "liberal" barrow to push. For "The People."

As soon as I saw ecologist tht was me switched off. He used to be a doc employee FFS. There is not going to be a balanced perspective here sorry.

was the problem the journalism or the content from Sam the Trapman?

Originally Posted by ANTSMAN

was the problem the journalism or the content from Sam the Trapman?

Or the journalist who chose Sam, knowing what would be said?

What did the guy say that wasn't actually true? Sage too for that matter. I thought they were good counter points. Good policy ought to be able to stand scrutiny.

You are turning into a cry-baby Philipo

I wonder what changing the classification of our big game species from the current "pests" would actually mean?

Originally Posted by Sika 8

I wonder what changing the classification of our big game species from the current "pests" would actually mean?

million dollar question - what we dont want is active game management over large areas - some of the early stuff from Game Council they proposed having uniformed Rangers who would advise hunters on what they could shoot - now I agree with some game management as at present with fiordland wapiti blocks - but having someone tell me I cant shoot young stags or whatever no - we have not had that and the whole idea is abhorrent - free and unrestricted access to all Public Conservation estate -thats what the Conservation act promises us and thats what we should get - and shoot any deer without some plonker sitting on his backside in Wellington calling himself a Game Council telling us what we can or cant do -we are not dealing with endemic animals as in other countrys - the Game Council should have no say on private land either - my rant for day