Just wondered what you guys think about this.
Whether or not its ethical or whatever to bomb up on groups of nannys and juveniles, without any intention to retrieve any meat.
Personally for every bull I shoot, I knock over 3-4 nannies. I generally dont bother to retrieve them unless they are real handy.
Some of this is down to "well if I dont, DOC will shoot alot more than 3 or 4" mentality
What do u think?
Right now, as long as you GPS location and fill in the new DOC form, I think its ok.
Otherwise they will simply do the same as you anyway.
I guess it really comes down to the individual.
If you put it into context along with culling goats (stinkies) and rabbits and you're asked to cull some "while you're in there", and remember that is what has been asked of us, then no I dont see it as an issue but that is only my opinion. I am but one man.
I dont think the "DOC will shoot alot more than 3 or 4 mentality" is a fair statement.
It has been spelled out clearly to all hunters. DOC WILL shoot many more Tahr and that is a Fact. Like it or not.
The Tahr Foundation has also called on hunters to "do their part" in reducing numbers and as responsible members of the hunting community I will do my part.
BTW that doesnt mean Im going to blaze up a mob. I dont think thats in any way Game Animal Management. Take out some older Nannies, some shitty looking animals what most of us would do? am I wrong?
For the most part I will carry what I can but you can only carry so much. Who wants to eat a shitty old toothless nanny anyway?
Attachment 107862
Either you do it or the professional shooters will.... Personally I'd get as much meat I can carry, then start walking out and knock over anything else that pops up.
In the current context i think it does us well to help reduce the numbers, as long as they are reported as above to demonstrate "contribution to cause". I always try to retrieve meat from animals shot but can only carry so much and there are areas where the numbers need to come down a bit (also areas I think could be left alone in terms of cull but that's another issue)
@Tribrit
Good stuff. It’s a shame a few more hunters are not like you. We probably might have been able to do a bit more about keeping the numbers down if everyone had your attitude.
Back of an envelope maths, but for the current take of Mature trophy bulls to be maintained there needs to be 10,000 bulls. To maintain the breeding base of nannys and supply yearling replacement bulls requires a nanny mob of around 1700 - so that gives an estimate of the ratios to maintain a stable herd population. 17 % nannys.
I was only following orders...
+1 to these commentsQuote:
Originally Posted by craigc
Personally I like to go out and pretend DOC does not exist. I treat the animals with respect and try and achieve a mind set where they are a treasured resource and I am harvesting something of extreme value.
If an organization determined to stop evolution come along and execute them afterwards, that is nothing to do with me.
Easy thing to say. Look what happens when not enough people are doing it. I regularly see 50-150 Thar on a 2 day trip. And I dont even go very far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
If we dont get on top of the numbers DOC will continue to shoot thousands of them
I'd say doc will continue to shoot them regardless of what we do, their estimates would say they don't have much idea of how much there actually are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribrit
I think all hunters in those tahr areas need to take some nannies out and as said above target older or sick looking animals. The main worry is when will we know when the target number reduced be announced. DOC could just keep killing them and before we know it numbers would have been taken to low levels.
Well this is a foray into ethics, not politics.
First, the population needs to be stable.
A reduction of 10% year on year over a decade or two will result in the situation where recreational hunters lose interest, it is more and more expensive to maintain or reduce numbers and we don’t know if that would be enough to meet goals for preserving natural native plant communities. A consensus goal would be preventing colonisation of new territory by designating “exclusion zones” for affordable intensive control. So much for the low end.
An increase of 10% year on year will eventually result in large numbers, ecological damage and expanding range. Eventually there has to be a limit and it should not be by tahr eating all the food and starving, not by disease. it sounds as if we are now in a “high population” situation. While we all feel it undesirable to kill more than we can eat, this is not an absolute ethical imperative. We accept weeding vegetable gardens, swatting flies (don’t like doing it myself), poisoning mice, and trapping stoats. I’d better not go on. So, almost every person accepts that some form of population control is ethically OK.
What is the valid goal and what is the best way to do it ? The size of the population is most effectively controlled by limiting the number of breeding females. Males eat their share of food of course but don’t contribute much to pressure increasing population size. Just a few are enough. Meanwhile hunters prefer to shoot older more prestigious males ( same for deer pigs and goats). Hunters are also an resource which contributes to the consumer economy rather than a drain on tax, so are economically preferable to government culling. Commercial recovery would be similar and arguably efficient in some terrains.
Finally, it is no justification to say “If I don’t someone else will.”
