Thread: Forest & Bird v The Wapiti Herd

Originally Posted by Average-Lad

I read this when it was published and thought it was quite a good write-up of both sides of the argument. Technically speaking Forest&Bird are correct, however that would immediately change if a Herd of Special Interest was designated formally. The minute that happens their legal challenge goes away. I think we've got a real opportunity right now with the Herd of Special Interest being closer than ever to formal recognition of the Wapiti herd.

I think where we do ourselves alot of harm with getting personal and nasty over our comments about F&B and their leadership. Ultimately they are an organisation pushing their agenda, exactly what NZDA and Game Animal Council are doing, and they all have an equal right to. Its good to see a few people making positive comments about the good people that do volunteer for F&B. This forum, NZDA, GMA, or anyone getting personal or petty about the situation keeps setting us back. We'd make more progress offering to help F&B initiatives we believe in like rodent trapping, and politely oppose their goals we don't agree with. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

The article - in the second half - talks alot about how we already have the support of Govt and DOC around Wapiti control and the Wapiti Foundation's work in general. So the way I see it, overall Hunters are 'winning' this debate and hopefully it sets a precedence for future herds of special interest and further conservation work.

Finally, F&B have alot of power because they have alot of members, who donate alot of money. Our NZDA numbers are nowhere in their ballpark last time I checked. I reckon my annual NZDA fee is peanuts to fund activists and conversation to protect hunting in a country where there is stacks of game and easy access (compared to a expensive ballot system like the US). If NZDA had members and funding in the ballpark of F&B it would be awesome to see how much our mutual interests and conservation work could be done.

Yep, thats all achingly reasonable, but I do wonder how that approach goes when dealing with a bad faith counterparty? The best use of the high ground is when you can machine-gun the attackers, surely?