Thread: Advocacy Alert: MPI's New Deer & Pig Programme

Originally Posted by gimp

Rec hunters haven't failed to control anything - we weren't trying to, and no-one has told us we're supposed to be, or supported us to do it.

What about the Tahr landing sites ballot?

Originally Posted by Oscar

What about the Tahr landing sites ballot?

Certainly they were initially set up with that intent. How well do you think it's been maintained and managed as an intentional tahr management approach?

Originally Posted by whanahuia

With all the .22 calibre centerfires around now, Im surprised theres a deer problem at all..

Simple explanation to that.
The guys that use them spend most of their time on the Internet congratulating themselves on how they killed a deer with a "squirrel gun".

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Simple explanation to that.
The guys that use them spend most of their time on the Internet congratulating themselves on how they killed a deer with a "squirrel gun".

When it comes to animal control by rec hunters I tend to wonder how much intent/commitment there is by some individuals. On a recent deer control hunt in NLNP it was a condition off applying that individuals could commit to being available to participate for a five day period over a four week window dependant on weather conditions/forecast. Hunt was initially postponed due to weather conditions. Alternative dates were set, still within original time frame, but out of original 32 participants only 16 ended up taking part. Excuses given were couldn’t get leave, needed to be back home, couldn’t go unless guaranteed to be picked up on specific day. WTF ? People knew the conditions/expectations when they applied. There’s no guarantee about weather or flying conditions in an alpine environment. In the end the hunt went ahead, all be it a shortened one, reasonably successfully. How often do you get to do a fly in/out hunt in a National park, or anywhere for that matter, for $550 per person. All it takes is commitment.

Originally Posted by gimp

Certainly they were initially set up with that intent. How well do you think it's been maintained and managed as an intentional tahr management approach?

Definitely what it says on the label https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...s-tahr-ballot/ so it's one example. Good initiative, good opportunity, poor implementation and hunters only paid it lip service.

Hopefully it serves as a lesson, not a template.

Originally Posted by Oscar

Definitely what it says on the label https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...s-tahr-ballot/ so it's one example. Good initiative, good opportunity, poor implementation and hunters only paid it lip service.

Hopefully it serves as a lesson, not a template.

I view the tahr ballots as a failure between both DOC and hunters - hunters didn't follow the intent, and DOC never really meaningfully supported or encouraged the intent.

Originally Posted by woods223

When it comes to animal control by rec hunters I tend to wonder how much intent/commitment there is by some individuals. On a recent deer control hunt in NLNP it was a condition off applying that individuals could commit to being available to participate for a five day period over a four week window dependant on weather conditions/forecast. Hunt was initially postponed due to weather conditions. Alternative dates were set, still within original time frame, but out of original 32 participants only 16 ended up taking part. Excuses given were couldn’t get leave, needed to be back home, couldn’t go unless guaranteed to be picked up on specific day. WTF ? People knew the conditions/expectations when they applied. There’s no guarantee about weather or flying conditions in an alpine environment. In the end the hunt went ahead, all be it a shortened one, reasonably successfully. How often do you get to do a fly in/out hunt in a National park, or anywhere for that matter, for $550 per person. All it takes is commitment.

Why should there be commitment? Paying $550 per person for what?
If contractors were undertaking the culling the heli would be covered and they would get paid an hourly rate. Even if the rec hunters got a certain percentage of what the commercial cullers would get then it would likely still be cheaper for DoC to cover the heli than to get commercial guys in. Plenty of rec hunters out there that could get similar tallys to some commercial guys.
Ammunition isn't cheap, neither is taking time off work.
It isn't commitment, it is undertaking volunteer work out of your own good will and out of your own pocket that would otherwise be undertaken by tax payer funded operators.

Not only that, it is thankless volunteer work where people point the finger and say "recreational hunting isn't good enough."

TLB. Commitment. As in this particular instance, putting in the effort to achieve the aims/outcomes agreed to between DOC and in this case NZDA local branches. Volunteers get the opportunity to access by helicopter, at reasonable cost, an area not usually open to helicopters. As already stated there were conditions laid out as part of application process regarding ability to be available for any four day period within a 17 day period. Another commitment was agreeing to cull as many animals ( deer, pigs and goats ) as possible, not just to shoot enough meat animals required to meet your own requirements. Sure, there is a personal financial cost to take part in these control hunts but you knowingly take that on as a volunteer. I still see it as a win/win situation for myself and DOC, NZDA. If recreational hunters can contribute to controlling animal numbers in a meaningful way then it lessens the prospect of such areas being subjected to intensified WARO or government control operations which could possibly result in no meaningful game animal resource being left. If you don’t feel inclined to take part in such hunts that’s your choice. Just ensure you make an effort to help solve the problem of excessive animal numbers and not be one of many who do nothing in the way of meaningful animal control where necessary. I have to say that I don’t agree with everything that DOC does and believe that the organisation is over endowed with desk jockeys but acknowledge that the organisation is underfunded to carry out the duties they are tasked with these days. They need all the help they can get from recreational hunters and now openly acknowledge that. So if we can help, we should.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Attachment 289028

Haha Tahr, it's a little bit like these new economic utes.
Little wee motors blowing a lot of air.
When asked to do too much there's tears.
Mean while my emmision belching V8's keep chugging on.

And just to clear something up, I've never put a Grandma to bed. The day is getting closer though.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Simple explanation to that.
The guys that use them spend most of their time on the Internet congratulating themselves on how they killed a deer with a "squirrel gun".

All the squirrels have been shot, so we've got to do something with the rifles.

Originally Posted by gimp

I view the tahr ballots as a failure between both DOC and hunters - hunters didn't follow the intent, and DOC never really meaningfully supported or encouraged the intent.

I view DOC as a failure

Originally Posted by TLB

Why should there be commitment? Paying $550 per person for what?
If contractors were undertaking the culling the heli would be covered and they would get paid an hourly rate. Even if the rec hunters got a certain percentage of what the commercial cullers would get then it would likely still be cheaper for DoC to cover the heli than to get commercial guys in. Plenty of rec hunters out there that could get similar tallys to some commercial guys.
Ammunition isn't cheap, neither is taking time off work.
It isn't commitment, it is undertaking volunteer work out of your own good will and out of your own pocket that would otherwise be undertaken by tax payer funded operators.

Not only that, it is thankless volunteer work where people point the finger and say "recreational hunting isn't good enough."

We're going to have to get involved in putting some effective management in place entirely out of self-interest.


In the short term, having un-managed wild animals sounds great for hunters in terms of having lots of animals. In the long term, there will be impacts on herd health and the social capital of hunters and wild animals will evaporate. We're already seeing this.


but to be effective, you really need a national level organisation with the resources and mandate to put effective management in place

Originally Posted by woods223

TLB. Commitment. As in this particular instance, putting in the effort to achieve the aims/outcomes agreed to between DOC and in this case NZDA local branches. Volunteers get the opportunity to access by helicopter, at reasonable cost, an area not usually open to helicopters. As already stated there were conditions laid out as part of application process regarding ability to be available for any four day period within a 17 day period. Another commitment was agreeing to cull as many animals ( deer, pigs and goats ) as possible, not just to shoot enough meat animals required to meet your own requirements. Sure, there is a personal financial cost to take part in these control hunts but you knowingly take that on as a volunteer. I still see it as a win/win situation for myself and DOC, NZDA. If recreational hunters can contribute to controlling animal numbers in a meaningful way then it lessens the prospect of such areas being subjected to intensified WARO or government control operations which could possibly result in no meaningful game animal resource being left. If you don’t feel inclined to take part in such hunts that’s your choice. Just ensure you make an effort to help solve the problem of excessive animal numbers and not be one of many who do nothing in the way of meaningful animal control where necessary. I have to say that I don’t agree with everything that DOC does and believe that the organisation is over endowed with desk jockeys but acknowledge that the organisation is underfunded to carry out the duties they are tasked with these days. They need all the help they can get from recreational hunters and now openly acknowledge that. So if we can help, we should.

Can you send me more info about this program? I might be interested.

Originally Posted by gimp

We're going to have to get involved in putting some effective management in place entirely out of self-interest.


In the short term, having un-managed wild animals sounds great for hunters in terms of having lots of animals. In the long term, there will be impacts on herd health and the social capital of hunters and wild animals will evaporate. We're already seeing this.


but to be effective, you really need a national level organisation with the resources and mandate to put effective management in place

And that national level org is going to have to make some unpopular decisions.

I get the feeling that those at the head of hunting right now are too scared to anger the hunting community and so are messing around the edges with, dont get me wrong, positive moves like the HOSI etc. But, not touching the issues such a s funding. which will be needed if management is going to happen.

Id personally like to see the GAC "Rip the plaster off fast." It has to happen and sooner the better. Yep it will be very unpopular, but given time it will become accepted.

An example from NZ was the move from lead to steel shot. Hardly hear a complaint now.