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.......