Thread: How many Bull Tahr do you need?

Just a quick question.

If a HOSI style management plan was introduced that saw the herd stable around 10,000 animals with estimates of it producing 300 trophy grade bulls a year, say 12.5 inches minimum. what would you be happy knowing you could take?

Ill Frame this on a time scale.

Bloody computer spell check. Obviously that heading was meant to be Tahr.

Hope you've "done your research" on this, man!

What would also be interesting is how often, as in times a year or years per time people go Tahr hunting for a bull specifically.

And thanks @dannyb for fixing the title.

The 10,000-limit mentioned in the Tahr Management plan covers both public and private lands I believe. With 8000 nannies and young bulls shot on DOC-administered land over the last year, and no end in sight for Search and Destroy, once the remaining mature bulls are shot by hunters/die out in the next five or so years, will finding a trophy become way more difficult on public lands? Is it effectively privatising Tahr hunting, meaning you will soon have to pay to access private land for the chance of taking a trophy?

Where did you get the 8000 from? The totals on the Tahr Control page are about 6000 including AATH offsets, with National Park numbers including mature males. https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...g-maps-202526/

The 10,000 is just the sum of the densities/populations within each Management Unit, so its not like all 10,000 can simply be on private/leasehold land and the HTCP will be met. The way forward may also include targetting 'non-zero' densities in the Parks, but we shall see.

DOC's reluctance to apply the HTCP on 'non-public' land historically is something they will have to address.

What does it matter if the general hunter doesnt respect it? Do we think people will all of a sudden start to try only shoot mature bulls?

A HOSI can only be on PCL

If it included public AND private land in the tally,the likes of G.R. at stew point MUST be made to keep numbers low or could potentially have half the total population behind wire for safari on his land.....good luck enforcing that.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

If it included public AND private land in the tally,the likes of G.R. at stew point MUST be made to keep numbers low or could potentially have half the total population behind wire for safari on his land.....good luck enforcing that.

I’d like to see zero animal densities on private land unless they’re farming venison.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

If it included public AND private land in the tally,the likes of G.R. at stew point MUST be made to keep numbers low or could potentially have half the total population behind wire for safari on his land.....good luck enforcing that.

Animals in captivity behind wire are excluded.

The HTCP is for all wild tahr, no matter the land tenure. That is a very good approach but was pretty much ignored by DOC and LINZ (for pastoral leases). It's one of the weaknesses in a HOSI approach for tahr imo, because tahr on private land must be classified the same as tahr on public land, otherwise we are going back to the game laws of the Normans in 11th century England.

Originally Posted by Oscar

Animals in captivity behind wire are excluded.

The HTCP is for all wild tahr, no matter the land tenure. That is a very good approach but was pretty much ignored by DOC and LINZ (for pastoral leases). It's one of the weaknesses in a HOSI approach for tahr imo, because tahr on private land must be classified the same as tahr on public land, otherwise we are going back to the game laws of the Normans in 11th century England.

Does that mean they have to be managed the same? While I get your point, I think the reason private land Tahr have been ignored is the very different management principles between public and private land. Which makes a single management plan difficult.

Not necessarily, but that applies within public land as well, across each management unit (classic example is National Parks versus other public land). Depends on the densities and outcomes.

The essential principle is that any management plan(s) applies to wild animals irrespective of tenure.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Does that mean they have to be managed the same? While I get your point, I think the reason private land Tahr have been ignored is the very different management principles between public and private land. Which makes a single management plan difficult.

It's possible to have a plan with different management objectives for different places. The HTCP is flawed in many ways, but specifically here in that the plan focuses on the animals rather than the values being protected. It doesn't recognize different values on different land tenure. As a result there isn't buy-in from managers of land other than PCL to apply the plan, and DOC doesnt really have social license or a clear legal mandate to manage off PCL.

Yeah that’s my thoughts too.