Mr Leupold has very similar quote.
Printable View
Mr Leupold has very similar quote.
No surprise, But I agree with David Benefall.
But yeah lets face it, NZ hunting community as a whole has no ethics or morals. Id go further and state there is also a lack of common sense that permits such.
Im not so lacking in independence and judgement that I will allow my hunting ethical decisions to be led by a collection of edicts from people I neither know or who's judgement I might not respect. Your friend Duxbury would have agreed with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Duxbury
The NZAHAA are invited to attend the FCAF meetings as they represent a part of the nz firearms community, and usually provide an email update to the NZAHAA members of all items discussed at the meetings. Thermals were one of many items raised at the meeting that they reported back on. To be clear, the NZAHAA did not raise the issue of thermals, just advised their members of it.
That seems like an unusually libertarian-esque opinion from you Mr TahrQuote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
You're learning!
Sorry, just being cheeky
I guess if social media was around when rifle scopes first arrived on the hunting scene there would have been a similar discussion about the ethical use of scopes?Quote:
Originally Posted by woods223
Thermals, just another tool that can be used to great effect or missued depending on the context and operator.
From seeing videos captured from mates thermal scope used for culling it's pretty easy to identify a deer at 400 yards.
The same people who spotlight on doc land will thermal on doc land, a small portion of the hunting community giving everyone a bad name, same across any hobby.
And yet, if everyone did that in society, we end up living in a Mad Max movie. We elders must lead by example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
I assume you aware just how long ago rifle scopes came into being??? Before our grandparents were born....Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnwolf
I recently took borrowed a friend's monocular to hunt on the public land. Aside from the safety and ethics debate, I found the act of looking through a little electric screen horrible compared with the meditative hours you can spend behind glass. Binoculars connect you more intimately with the landscape; the thermal separates you from the landscape.
Also, I didn't see any animals.
Yes there was: In the first part of the 20th century, it was considered by many English stalkers that using a scope was not sporting. A chap just wouldn't. That changed over time, but was in complete contrast to the United States where hunters who could afford them embraced them immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnwolf
@Trout, If the reason and goal is simply pest reduction by any means. Then why not just use 1080 and be done with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trout
While we're at it, we should debate the use of anything bigger than 308, suppressors, binoculars and spotting scopes, dogs, quads, compound bows, topo maps and smokeless powder. Hell, why do we even need black powder? :ORLY:
The constant march of innovation can't be stopped, so we shouldn't be having this debate. What we should debate is how to ensure that the technology is used in a way that the resource (in this case, public hunting land) is maintained and people are kept safe. Unfortunately the loose cannons will provide all the ammunition necessary to have thermals banned or at least controlled.
And anyone who believes Pandora's box can't be closed need just look at semi-auto centrefire rifles and see what can be done by an overzealous government.
1080 just hasn't been enough to bring down the pest numbers.Pest numbers increasing over the yrs has proven that.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
I’m over the tyranny of the collective trying to control my recreation. They can but out. If something is legal then it falls to my individual choices on how I proceed.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Duxbury
And I will worry about what elders do when I become one.
The collective conscience of society doesn’t seem to be doing too well at present.
I’m going to advance into the future taking advantage of what ever technology I choose to use. Including if required, a pace maker.
But its not used to target deer. So if the reason for allowing thermal use is deer are a pest, then should the 1080 rules be changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trout
So I see a theme developing. Ive seen it before too. It never happens in time though. Should we not be able to come up with sensible limitations on new tech if we can foreshadow its Mis-use and know that such will lead to an impingement of freedoms on us all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin
10 shot mag anyone?
That’s a rhetoric question. You know the answer to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
I want people to give the real reason they want to use thermals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
I want to use a thermal because I'm a shit hunter who hasn't shot a deer in his last 5 outings. They are great for giving you a direction to point your binos and give you an idea if it is worth moving on from a spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
The freezer is empty all too often and I enjoy playing around making small goods and sharing them with friends family and workmates.
I can't afford one yet but when I can I'll get one and use it every time I really want to get something to butcher.
Yep there an aspect of "disconnect" about thermals v binos, the difference is spending hours looking through binos to see nothing & 5 minutes through a thermal to see nothing and knowing it's time to move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucko
Or as i found out as a new thermal handheld owner, seeing deer through the thermal and not being able to find them through the binos even when i knew exactly where to look!
I suspect your opinion would change had you spotted one through the thermal.
If you believe it hasn't been used to target deer you need to look a bit harder. It has been. This is just another "balancing act" in the constant juggle of animal numbers,human wants for sport,recreation and food Vs what's deemed best for the land and vegetation. Tahr is onto it. If it's legal it's legal,entirely up to you if you use it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
So you would say Its not about pest control, you want to use a thermal because it makes it easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quicknock
any of you others agree with that?
Currently does using a thermal do any harm to hunting?
Because it's plurry easy to find animals on a scrubby hillside or in tussock country using one. Saves a shit load of leg work. But until finances allow it won't be a tool in my box of tricks.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
That misses the point. Its not legal to target deer or other large mammals with it. You can beleive its been used in that way, sure. But if you beleive our game animals are pests, do you want to see the illegality removed so they can be directly targeted with, say, Higher dose and more attractive to deer, baits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Thank you micky. So its not because they are a pest?
As to harm .... It's similar,actually very similar to spotlighting. Makes it easier to find an animal..but just like spotlight or indeed a helicopter,animals learn to hide.in last two years my favourite bush hunting spot has changed,animals stay deeper in the bush MOST of the time. But I'm still able to tip one over if try hard enough.its still shit loads easier than during the late 80s early 90s.had add up last night.3 pigs,5 chammy and 33 deer have come to my freezer in last 30 years of hunting it.
No not a pest a resource that needs managed.now wallabies different story. Lots of fun but if not kept at them they just keep making more little hoppers
My mate has thermal. Hard core pighunter in open country.first thing in morning will be spotting hillsides in the dark from truck for pigs... Cocky wants numbers kept down so it's a tool to help do that. A deer within driving distance gets shot too.he won't shoot one if can't drive to it!!!! But if he doesn't keep on top of numbers,someone else will get in the gate and he be hunting groundless. Balancing act.
Greenstone valley in????60s,70s got done. Stewart island was done,hand applied to broadleaf in 90s. I hate the stuff,it's indiscriminate and fucking terrible way to die,dogs extremely vulnerable to it... So to stop the need for poison we SHOULD be able to use safe legal means of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
If you know someone near Wellington requiring some pest control that is willing to sponsor me a thermal, let me know :)Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
[QUOTE]Inadvertently pest control by DOC's definition is taking place any time someone shoots a wild deer, pig, possum, goat etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quicknock
/QUOTE]
Do we as a group wish to agree with docs definition of pest for the sake of thermal? Or is it better to agree with the Game animal councils opinion?
[QUOTE]What harm are you suggesting it does? Allowing the use of thermals may increase the number of animals taken> But if the decent hunters here are to be believed there are too many animals around now and if we as hunters don't drop the "pest" numbers professionals will be paid to cull or poison them/QUOTE]
See its about excuses.
Id wager that very few hunters who contributes too this thread heads out hunting, saying, I must shoot hinds instead of stags this roar.
Look Im not wholly against thermals. They are a tool that has potential to be used for game animal management and true pest control. But the harm is that as soon as these threads come out, the excuses that undermine hunter efforts to create game management get used.
And what happens when acceptable control is achieved? will any one of you go, Ok enough now? No you will go " Its harder to find an animal now so I need the tool more!
This is my point. There is very little in the way of self analysis and control or conversation about how this tool should be used and how the avoidance of misuse could be achieved.
Heres a parallel example. For most of the time from 1900 too 1990 ish, it was banned to use more than 2 shots for ducks or feed ponds. Duck numbers increased and regulations were relaxed to make hunter harvest more effective to achieve management goals. Then the duck population in some areas collapsed. But the efforts to convince hunters to give up those easier conditions has proved hard. Guess what word was very often used........."pest."
I almost always target hinds or yearlings, they're tastier
If I were to buy a thermal, it would be to make the most of the very limited time I have to get into the hunting grounds, and maximize my opportunity to spot a deer, giving me the opportunity to shoot it. While hunting is always a pleasure, sometimes i actually would like to take home a deer. I'm not excellent at stalking, so I need all the help I can get!
Re ducks...if stick to limits AND UTILIZE them...what difference does it make how they shot?? None so water swatting isn't bad lol if you want your limit of seven for one shot.so be it.your day is over.
Are you a Wellington NZDA member?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin
Kind of my point Micky. Limits are designed knowing not everyone will achieve them often. If you make it easy to get the limit, the limit might be 2 per day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Wil hunters be happy and accept that?
Blinds under 600mm above ground were not allowed, mechanised decoys is another that shows some potential to harm populations. But we have sen the push back if mention of those being removed is brought up.
But regions are different...same as deer,very very few places around here have issues with deer. Quite a few have hundreds of not thousands of ducks... If limits are enforced and people behave it can work. No different to fish numbers n limits. Catch n release has been proven to be double edged sword. Here in central South island I allowed to shoot 50 mallards a day,hundy for weekend. Thirty odd is best we have managed and that doesn't change if two people or four are there,we still don't shoot over fourty for weekend. Deer I shoot one dress it out and go home.very seldom shoot two at once.
Whats your point? how does it relate too what Im saying?
One part of what Im saying is that in the regions where duck population has suffered from a collapse, the goal is no longer to maximise kill rate. But that when pushed, hunters did not want the toys that helped maximise kill rate taken away. Despite thier ability to use such having been a relatively short term event.
My point is this. If properly managed it doesn't matter what you use to kill your bag limit.once it's reached its reached. We have far too many ducks n geese down here in places. Up north not so much. So we have bugger bag limits. Bruce n Brian shoot lots of deer and give meat away ,flyblow. Shots to waste after filling freezer...down here I put every bit of venison I shoot in freezer,I have no surplus.. taking toys away is irrelevant.your bag limit is your limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia