Thread: How many Bull Tahr do you need?

I think the values part of that on public land should be taken with the same degree of salt as hunters Values Ive said this on multiple occasions, But I struggle with the Zero animals goal for national parks, which is a values based position.

I cross the border between national park and public land often and I can't see a change in worth of a native, or non native, species as I cross. The tahr range on public land at least should be taken as a whole.

10,000 is an acceptable starting point, but if Im correct? it was based on Zero Tahr in national parks. Which is a joke and a poor management goal. Im not saying it should be more, or less. just that the plan was very flawed in many ways.

This is what I feel is part of the attraction of a HOSI. The removal of that Zero animal stipulation.

Another flaw is its lack of ability to deal with hunter group conflicts. Which is what a lot of any successful MP will have to consider. Which if those proposing a HOSI, dont get real and deal with in a satisfactory manor, will be the end of that idea.

Seems they are far eaiser to find now than they were in the 70's!

35days of effort in 1976/77 for one Tahr kill This from Ken Tustin's book Mountain Monarchs !







Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by kukuwai

Seems they are far eaiser to find now than they were in the 70's!

Good find. Can be hard to explain what it was like to those used to seeing 100+ for a weekend nowadays

To go all 'back in my day' on this thread ... my first ever tahr hunt was with my Dad, Queen's Birthday Weekend 1981. It was a Nth Otago Branch NZDA trip into the Dobson. Probably 15-20 hunters, in huts the whole length of the valley. 3 days hunting for a grand total of 3 tahr seen and 1 young bull shot.

Yet only 5-6 years later and they were restarting foot culls in the National Park.

The last decade or so has been the golden years of tahr hunting in NZ. The trophy records show that. But the gold rush is coming to an end.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

I think the values part of that on public land should be taken with the same degree of salt as hunters Values Ive said this on multiple occasions, But I struggle with the Zero animals goal for national parks, which is a values based position.

What if that is the compromise hunting needs to make to get an updated HTCP or a HOSI?

Originally Posted by whanahuia

I think the values part of that on public land should be taken with the same degree of salt as hunters Values Ive said this on multiple occasions, But I struggle with the Zero animals goal for national parks, which is a values based position.

I cross the border between national park and public land often and I can't see a change in worth of a native, or non native, species as I cross. The tahr range on public land at least should be taken as a whole.

10,000 is an acceptable starting point, but if Im correct? it was based on Zero Tahr in national parks. Which is a joke and a poor management goal. Im not saying it should be more, or less. just that the plan was very flawed in many ways.

This is what I feel is part of the attraction of a HOSI. The removal of that Zero animal stipulation.

Another flaw is its lack of ability to deal with hunter group conflicts. Which is what a lot of any successful MP will have to consider. Which if those proposing a HOSI, dont get real and deal with in a satisfactory manor, will be the end of that idea.

The HTCP was a good document for its time, it has been re-interpreted or ignored in the interim. There was vegetative monitoring required in 60 plots in the MUZ's but for various reasons this was discontinued. The priority of access clearly stated in the HTCP was corrupted by commercial interests. Similarly the population densities in the MUZ's and intervention densities are a best guess and not realistic. Similarly tahr appearing on tenure land were not controlled even when the land bordered the NP's as the plan set for 10,000 total regardless of where they were. But the HTCP provided a genetic lifeboat for tahr at that time they were VU2A class in their own native range due to grazing and hunting. NZ had more tahr than the Himalaya. 10,000 was not a biodiversity disaster by any means. Tahr numbers from 2000 to 2021 increased to levels probably, exceeding the 50's and 60's before commercial helicopter control. HOSI needs to ask the question you're asking in your poll. But it's a tough one. If rec hunter aerial access was improved to the level enjoyed by commercial interests and limited to ground hunting you'd get a hell of a lot more NZ hunters who would want to shoot a tahr at least once in their life. Most of the tahr intervention densities in the HTCP are extremely low and don't account for the behaviour of tahr. It's unlikely and unrealistic for a HOSI to set for zero tahr everywhere in the NP's but hunters need to accept there will be large areas that will require zero. And if it's a smaller population footprint due to biodiversity KPI's than current tahr population then HOSI will have to accept that. HOSI is just not for hunters it won't give the parks over to tahr and it shouldn't either. Keep in mind a healthy ungulant population on good forage can sustain 20% predation annually and you'll get your 260 odd 12" bulls (Forsyth Tustin paper) give or take every season. Is that enough? Probably not for commercial interests and thats the crux. Is HOSI going to manage for NZ rec hunters and biodiversity values. Or will it advocate for higher densities for commercial interests who need a large population of tahr on public land for their business model.

Originally Posted by Oscar

What if that is the compromise hunting needs to make to get an updated HTCP or a HOSI?

Then by my reading of the new act changes, it won't be a HOSI. I think its unrealistic anyhow and will be a failed management plan if thats a criteria, as dollars and resources get used up trying to achieve that goal while Tahr continue to move in from outside the national parks. Better to set herd densities across the entire range and manage the whole herd for conservation and animal management goals.
Wed also lose some of the important hunting country thats of significant importance to us, culturally and heritage wise.

I mean it's dumb! Tahr south of MT cook and Tai Poutini national parks. which effectively cut right through the alps out too the coast. Tahr to the north. How the hell do you manage it to exclude them, as well as the North and south exclusion zones?

They would be counted towards the herd total, and at the same time excluded as they are flagged for destruction.

Tahr, or nanny tahr at least, tend to be density-dependent migrators. That's why they spread so slowly after introduction compared to chamois which tend to just migrate further each year irrespective. So, the re-invasion of the Parks would be less if the densities in the surrounding areas are back to say the HTCP levels. I don't think its the best approach, certainly not economically, but non-hunters get a vote too.

What compromises are we willing to make?

(And the herd total isn't really all that important given its just an artefact of the key bits - densities for each individual MU).

There are a lot of problems with and for a HOSI for tahr. I wonder if they are surmountable.

There are 3 core reasons for a HOSI or management plan.

Animal management for conservation purposes, animal management for herd health, and hunter management. I certainly see no difference between the wapiti situation in Fiordland national park, and the Tahr. The forest and bird legal case is why the act was changed so quickly. and In my opinion, legitimising Tahr in national parks within their core range, given the geography of the herd and the impacts to herd dynamics a zero density policy would entail, IS one of the biggest non environmental reasons for a HOSI

Values built on ideological/arbitrary grounds have no place in such a plan. Im yet to be given a valid reason for conservation objectives around the National park boundaries.

What am I willing to concede? Herd reduction, female group reduction, limits to my opportunities to hunt Tahr, User pays contribution to management costs.

Females groups dont migrate, But bulls do. They regularly form up groups outside the nanny range. Thats probably why the Otoko is worthwhile to hunt during summer but why its ballot returns are so poor historically.
A zero animal goal for Tahr would likely impact bulls most, and they are not the problem a management plan needs to deal with. in fact its the opposite of it.

Just for reference. Roughly the area we are talking about.




The yellow is national parks. My question is how do you effectively create a form of management plan that will work when they are not allowed in that area? It's a full third of their range and without it, the herd is reduced to two isolated herds of 5000 animals each. Much on non publicly accessible land. Either through tenure or remoteness/access restrictions such as wilderness areas.
Those parks include some of the most accessible hunting we have.

We forget/overlook how much of a impact lilybank had on keeping them here in viable numbers.ive been down here 35 years and back when I got here that place was still being a nursery that seeded animals out to public land... Safari blocks aren't all bad in that they keep breeding populations... Sort of like we need to realise is the only way our rare flaura and fauna are going to survive and spread..through lots of small safe places,they can be safe in there and venture out when they feel brave to hopefully learn to survive...

Originally Posted by whanahuia

My question is how do you effectively create a form of management plan that will work when they are not allowed in that area? It's a full third of their range and without it, the herd is reduced to two isolated herds of 5000 animals each.

Yep when you put it like that it does seem crazy. Two isolated herds make no sense !



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk