Thread: Central otago venison recovery

Originally Posted by Moutere

No one is supportive, just looking at it objectively.
If any operator remains within the bounds of their concession then there is essentially no problem.
Lobby DOC If you want to see changes of commercial access to public land.
DOC are the ones getting something for nothing here, they're quids in.

I'm all for looking at these things objectively.......and it may well be that DoC are not in fact 'quids-in', and the only party getting something for nothing here are in fact the WARO operators. Seems to me this example potentially exemplifies a lot of what is wrong with the current WARO regime.

I don't know the area, but do note that a post above observed that there were no special conservation values at risk.....if correct, where is the downside in having a high deer population for trampers to look at and hunters to shoot? The notion that a high population anywhere is bad simply can't be supported from a conservation perspective....surely its all about the values at risk, and the underlying carrying capacity?

And wouldn't it be better for conservation to force the WARO guys (and then maybe find out their economic tipping point) to go somewhere 'harder', more remote and with some real conservation values at stake? We keep hearing these days how the WARO guys work to orders ? Show me the conservation gains by filling your order from the closest animals!

Seems to me this is a classic case of the WARO getting the easy ones 'cos they can'?

At the risk of being labelled a middle-aged opinionated curmudgeon, its gotta be said that some of you (younger?) guys dunno you're alive.......

Objectivity has nothing to do with conservation values.
Posts #25 and #26 sum the situation up perfectly.
WARO operators aren't getting anything handed to them for nothing. Sure, both the operators and DOC mutually benefit from culling animals, but the operator wears 100% of the risk and costs in doing so. A parallel could be drawn with the fishing industry where private companies profit from harvesting a publicly owned resource.

Your second to last line about them getting the easy ones because they can, is exactly my point.

You've completely lost me on the last line though.

Originally Posted by Maxx

I'm all for looking at these things objectively.......and it may well be that DoC are not in fact 'quids-in', and the only party getting something for nothing here are in fact the WARO operators. Seems to me this example potentially exemplifies a lot of what is wrong with the current WARO regime.

I don't know the area, but do note that a post above observed that there were no special conservation values at risk.....if correct, where is the downside in having a high deer population for trampers to look at and hunters to shoot? The notion that a high population anywhere is bad simply can't be supported from a conservation perspective....surely its all about the values at risk, and the underlying carrying capacity?

And wouldn't it be better for conservation to force the WARO guys (and then maybe find out their economic tipping point) to go somewhere 'harder', more remote and with some real conservation values at stake? We keep hearing these days how the WARO guys work to orders ? Show me the conservation gains by filling your order from the closest animals!

Seems to me this is a classic case of the WARO getting the easy ones 'cos they can'?

At the risk of being labelled a middle-aged opinionated curmudgeon, its gotta be said that some of you (younger?) guys dunno you're alive.......

Originally Posted by Moutere

Objectivity has nothing to do with conservation values.
Posts #25 and #26 sum the situation up perfectly.
WARO operators aren't getting anything handed to them for nothing. Sure, both the operators and DOC mutually benefit from culling animals, but the operator wears 100% of the risk and costs in doing so. A parallel could be drawn with the fishing industry where private companies profit from harvesting a publicly owned resource.

Your second to last line about them getting the easy ones because they can, is exactly my point.

You've completely lost me on the last line though.

I guess we could argue this back and forth endlessly......one of my points was that if the deer are getting mopped up in an area with low conservation values then contrary to your point DoC are not winning, and in fact it could be argued they are potentially losing 'cos if there was a more managed regime the WARO operators could be pushed to places where conservation values are at risk.....

I can't concur with the fishing analogy.......that industry is targeting a naturally occurring species (as opposed to an 'introduced pest') so by definition the marine biodiversity suffers when fish are removed by fishing, so the public's resource is being exploited by private interests.

And it seems we have both managed to lose one another on at least one point......the assertion that objectivity has nothing to do with conservation values is lost on me, too!