Thread: mallard releases

Permits to release captive-reared waterfowl are the responsibility of the Department of Conservation, and thus there is no statutory requirement for Fish & Game to be involved with or even notified of any such releases. 8.1 Future management options for Fish & Game 1 Fish & Game should support the banding of captive reared birds by offering to band all captive reared ducks at no cost. In future year’s survival and harvest rates information can be used to draw sound conclusions surrounding the effectiveness of such programmes which can help determine future management actions. At this juncture large scale releases of captive-reared mallards into the wild do not appear to be a cost effective tool for increasing hunter harvest. 
Issue - Rearing and releasing programmes


8.1 Introduction aw f and g
Rearing and releasing programmes are often viewed as a quick fix solution to creating more ducks.
To date, both internationally and in the Waikato results have been mixed. In general harvest rates
are low for captive-reared ducks released into the wild. In the Waikato results have varied from less
than 1% in a wetland area to 22% on Matingarahi Station where a concerted effort was made to
feed the birds and control predators. In addition, captive-reared mallards have typically been shot
on the property where they were released, and thus the returns are highly localised.
Releasing programmes have been controversial in North America and the latest review conducted by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advocates for a tightening of conditions around the release of captive
reared mallards in the U.S. The major concerns in the review relates to the potential for disease
transmission, genetic introgression and compliance with harvest regulations. However, the wider
issues pertaining to the release of captive-reared mallards are beyond the scope of this discussion
paper

One-hundred-and-seventeenth meeting of the
New Zealand Fish and Game Council
CQ Hotel, Wellington
Friday 25 & Saturday 26 September 2015
Commencing 9.45 am
Andy Garrick (Eastern) has met with Hamilton DOC about irregularities with permits for releasing mallards. The DOC permitting committee see no reason for permitting not to be given to Fish and Game. Discussion remains ongoing]

eastern and hawkes bay this is getting all a bit incestuos given the stock birds originate in hb.
nz gamebirds hb is the only one licenced to do so according to doc.
supply mallards that is with the oversight of f&g
presumembly hb f&g ??seems a bit convenient.

Ross Atkinson <ratkinson@doc.govt.nz> Jan 15 at 2:48 PM
To
Kevin Brown
Message body
Hello Kevin,

NZ Game Birds Ltd are currently authorised by the Department of Conservation to catch, hold, breed, to release or transfer ring necked pheasant, and mallard duck. They also hold an authority to hold, breed and transfer red legged partridge, and California quail.

These authorisations have also been approved by NZ Fish & Game who manage the game bird resource in New Zealand under delegation from the Department of Conservation.

Most transfers should be of birds to other authorised permit holders , e.g. Fish & Game councils for the purpose of liberation and population enhancement, and perhaps licensed game preserves. It is noted on the authorisations that all birds, eggs and progeny remain the property of the Crown.

so what ?? your unaware of transfers for private releases or just unwilling to spill the beans??you must have provided the permits for them?

]NZ Game Birds Ltd are currently authorised by the Department of Conservation to catch, hold, breed, to release or transfer ring necked pheasant, and[U] mallard duck[U] .

nary a conflict of interest registered in supplying f&g or anyone else or a questioning of thier monopoly on it ??:

From: Andrew Grant <agrant@doc.govt.nz>
To: Kevin Brown <kw.brown15@yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: duck shooting on preserves

Hi Kevin
I am not at liberty to provide you with list of names and addresses but I can check details where you provided specific information.

In general then I will provide you with some answers to your original questions.

Yes DOC does issue permits to hold mallards. Fish and Game also have delegated authority from the Minister to manage mallards and issue authorities to kill. I can assure you that whenever the Department receives an application to hold or kill mallards the relevant Fish and Game Office is consulted on that application.

I don’t know what F&Gs specific policy on holding mallards for release is but I do know F&G have supported hunting preserves in their application to hold, raise and release pheasants for hunting.

I can categorically assure you that: anything involving holding, hunting and raising in captivity of any species of game bird (as listed in schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act 1953), is done with F&Gs full knowledge and after consultation. So your concern with the Department facilitating a situation which is detrimental to duck shooting in general and against any F&G wishes just does not occur.]

One-hundred-and-seventeenth meeting of the
New Zealand Fish and Game Council
CQ Hotel, Wellington
Friday 25 & Saturday 26 September 2015
Commencing 9.45 am
Andy Garrick (Eastern) has met with Hamilton DOC about irregularities with permits for releasing mallards. The DOC permitting committee see no reason for permitting not to be given to Fish and Game. Discussion remains ongoing]

apparently not

Now I really am confused...

me to EeBees
but thats thier plan they cant dazzle with thier brilliance so they baffle with bullshit

Originally Posted by EeeBees

Now I really am confused...

My take is that F&G are not only fully aware but quite involved with put and take mallard operations while trying to portray ignorance. The latest round of elections and the dishonesty displayed by the national office among others is a testament to the lengths F&G are prepared to go to keep actions and agendas hidden. Even politically based exclusions from other social network forums. Treating most license buyers like mushrooms- keeping them in the dark and feeding us bullshit.

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

My take is that F&G are not only fully aware but quite involved with put and take mallard operations while trying to portray ignorance. The latest round of elections and the dishonesty displayed by the national office among others is a testament to the lengths F&G are prepared to go to keep actions and agendas hidden. Even politically based exclusions from other social network forums. Treating most license buyers like mushrooms- keeping them in the dark and feeding us bullshit.

im inclined to agree tim.
the incongruity of a licencee funded organisation treating its shareholders like mushrooms is also not lost on me.
could it be they expect a far greater tourist based cash injection to out wiegh our meagre contributions
why when preserves in the aw region felt slighted by not bieng able to do what was already happening in other regions,did they mount a pr offensive via media including geoff thomas outdoors show??
but no one?them the most? wants to have a open disscussion on mallaRD releases private or preserve based??
why was eastern region able ,against a nationaly stated policy able to change the preserve rules on duckshooting with nary a cough or splutter at national level .
surely lindsey lyons cant claim ignorance of the policy as he,s national chairman aS WELL AS A EASTERN COUNCILLOR.
AS FOR the 2 day hen pheasant take the less said about that bit of short sighted stupidity the better..
perhaps theyre frightened of a uprising ?licencees seeing duck releases as the straw that broke the proverbial?
more likely theyre hoping thier releases will be seen as philanthropic gestures to the duck hunting public which clearly they arent as evidenced by aw draft report.
without predator control and follow up which f&g says they dont have the dough or the time for, mallard release would be useless so are they backing secretly or otherwise preserve/ private releases even knowing the limitations and possible detriments to the average gunner. ??.
preserves are businesses and will expect a return on those releases and if aw are correct most of those birds will never leave the preserves alive but how many wild birds will mobs of tame fed mallards draw.
as has been pointed out to me tourist operators touting shooting trips need guarenteed targets and hopefuly more than a 3 month window to target them.
hence maybe the move to delist parries along with geese i imagine that would make a hunters anytime shooting trip to nz worth the gamebird side hunt.
preserves already have longer seasons for the some of the gamebirds they provide imagine that extended to mallards they release.

Cock pheasant 2 May to 30 Aug 2015 5 All areas excluding
upland game properties
with special conditions
specified in clause 6 for
this Region
Hen pheasant 2 May to 3 May 2015 1 All areas excluding
upland game properties
with special conditions
specified in clause 6 for
this Region
Pheasant, both sexes 2 May to 30 Aug 2015 No limit Upland game properties
with special conditions
specified in clause 6 for
this Region
Cock pheasant 31 Aug to 20 Sep 2015 No limit Upland game properties
with special conditions
specified in clause 6 for
this Region (junior
hunters only)
Red-legged partridge 2 May to 30 Aug 2015 No limit Upland game properties
with special conditions
specified in clause 6 for
this Region
2. Definition of Areas
The following descriptions refer to Local Authori]

So if I was to save some ducklings from being destroyed on a farm, because they are a pest to the farmer, and then hand raise and repat them in a different district to bring up there numbers I would be breaking lots of laws DOC and F&G ?????

Originally Posted by Natatale

So if I was to save some ducklings from being destroyed on a farm, because they are a pest to the farmer, and then hand raise and repat them in a different district to bring up there numbers I would be breaking lots of laws DOC and F&G ?????

basicly yes tho your hypothetical case sounds a unlikely one as farmers are humans to and have access to reliable shooters and f&g help to alleviate pest problems.
you,d have to be some sort of a heartless bastard to kill ducklings
repatriating them somewghere else is not as easy as just finding a watery spot.
predators and human factors could undo in seconds what you,ve tried to achieve.
thier are outfits you can take ducklings injured birds to spca etc

And if it is private property ?????

private property matters not a toss
ducklings and all gamebirds species are protected by seasons as well as conditions and the way they can be killed.
wild mallard ducklings can legally be killed at anytime id posit

Originally Posted by Natatale

So if I was to save some ducklings from being destroyed on a farm, because they are a pest to the farmer, and then hand raise and repat them in a different district to bring up there numbers I would be breaking lots of laws DOC and F&G ?????

This is Wellington F&G policy on that matter dating to 2001

4a- The capture, keeping, and release of game birds for
i- bonafide scientific investigation bla bla
ii- live removal from a locality where they are damaging crops or causing other problems
iii- the rescue, rehabilitation and subsequent wild release of injured or orphaned birds
will be SUPPORTED

Aside from that few are going to object to the circumstances you describe nor is it worth keeping from public discussion. GSPFollower has raised the topic of commercially supplied birds for some form of syndicate or preserve style shooting.

My concerns lay primarily with the monitoring and item 3d of the same policy- The release of game birds will not compromise the circumstances of the locally resident wild game bird populations.

Ducks are extremely gregarious and mobile. Using substantial numbers of put and take mallards with good game keeping practice has the potential to cause disproportionate harvest- mostly for financial gain while the recreational hunter pays but sucks a kumara potentially. Flat lining, the regions with the most apparent population stress or hunter dissatisfaction are A/W, Eastern, HB.

Last point for readers to ponder- Population Decline. A good business plan requires increasing a customer base or creating a need for a certain product or service.

private property matters not a toss
ducklings and all gamebirds species are protected by seasons as well as conditions and the way they can be killed.
wild mallard ducklings can legally be killed at anytime id posit

sorry that should read cant be legally killed at anytime.
also my point about delisting parries should have included that with 2 year round huntable ex gamebird waterfowl species[geese and parries].
guides would then have a longer and thicker string to thier bird hunting guide bows.
read incresed income and tourist dollars for the country
as if we aint .slaves to the overseas enough already but if you believe that line of horseshit ive got some swampland you can buy.
id hate ducks to be another step in the sorry waste and misuse of species that were gifted to the poorest and richest kiwi sportsman a like.

Last point for readers to ponder- Population Decline. A good business plan requires increasing a customer base or creating a need for a certain product or service.

but by pissing on your investors to do it and telling them its raining??
spose that is todays business method tho.
the end justifys the means and the investors are just suckers anyway.
anyway how much advertising do the suckers buy??
nothing compared to chain stores and guides id guess.
when you,ve screwed nz,squota over theres always the rest of the worlds sportsman suckers next

Originally Posted by gsp follower

as has been pointed out to me tourist operators touting shooting trips need guarenteed targets and hopefuly more than a 3 month window to target them.
hence maybe the move to delist parries along with geese i imagine that would make a hunters anytime shooting trip to nz worth the gamebird side hunt.
preserves already have longer seasons for the some of the gamebirds they provide imagine that extended to mallards they release.

You're a very perceptive fellow. I doubt there has been any real move to move Parries to schedule 5- Unprotected, or if being a native it would even be possible but it is interesting that Nth Canty F&G are cashing in on permits some of which will be genuine disturbance work some on demand?

Originally Posted by Tim Allen

You're a very perceptive fellow. I doubt there has been any real move to move Parries to schedule 5- Unprotected, or if being a native it would even be possible but it is interesting that Nth Canty F&G are cashing in on permits some of which will be genuine disturbance work some on demand?

yes 90 odd bucks i believe there are farms near the lake who have yearly parrie and or swan problems.
since no one seems inclined to take thier swan limits a few times a season this is no surprise but instead of investigating spurious use of permits they slap a fee on everyone.
the incident that caused this fee was in april a year or 3 back and the most dodgy of crop protection claims imaginable.
but even so the opening of the summer parrie season to the lake as well seems a good move for the usually affected farmers and gunners anyway.
maybe some jigging of the swan season to bring it in line with the new parrie season could be in order to to save those that they know have yearly ongoing swan problems could get both dealt with sans a fee.
i think f&g could have figured out which properties have on going annual summer bird problems and exempted these.
issueing others on a ''look at the situation'' and act accordingly would be better than a taR with the same brush approach to all farmers.
anyway back to the subject.
im firmly convinced mallard releases on preserves and private syndicate land are the thin edge of a tourism inspired and rich sportsman wedge.
they will disadvantage any gunner within a 5 mile radius maybe greater and as auckland waikato has hinted are a selfish localised fix for the releasers.
how many wild duck will be taken instead of thier tame live decoys that have been payed for.
will there be a different charge for wild birds banded or otherwise?? will the paying customers be restricted to banded put and take mallards and told wild birds are off limits ??[not fn likely]no more than private syndicates will only shoot thier released birds.
will the preserves go the whole hog and become licence agents for f&g??im pickin eastern to take up that bit of brilliance first.
are these release,ees bieng banded and who,s monitoring the releases ?.

The gamekeepers on the preserves would monitor the releases, yes?????? I mean, who else would!!! As I have been told from sources in the UK, the mallard shoots off ponds with fat lazy fed to the gunnels mallards is nothing more than paid carnage...one source who has shot more waterfowl than most people, stated that he walked away from the mallard shoot as it was not in the least bit sporting...he said that some birds were so overfed that they could barely circle the pond...

I am trying to get the picture and for a back country peasant hick it is a bit tricky ...why cannot the preserves and wild game hunting maintain a status quo...ay???? silly me, sorry, there I was thinking that it is not all about money!! It is about preserving our RIGHT to gain a permit to shoot in the wild...as per the mandate...