Thread: Maybe need to start shooting everything we see in some areas

Interesting thread. Lots of great opinions based on practical experience.
My opinion is that aerial shooting is the only answer. There are just too many deer for private hunters to deal with. We have some fantastic hunters in the country. But the shear size of NZ’s back country makes it , plus practical consideration like jobs, families and other commitments, near impossible to keep numbers down.
In terms of private land it isn’t the holy grail many dream of. Don’t get me wrong access to these places are gold. You get plenty of deer. But…here’s my experience for what it’s worth. I have access to a sheep and cattle station. It is over run with deer. Often mobs of 40-50 are seen. However they aren’t stupid. They bugger off the minute you accidentally spook a mob of sheep. If you do get on to them a couple of shots and they are back in the bush. Spotlighting is the same. See a dozen sets of eyes, shoot 2 and the rest are gone. The only way you will reduce numbers is through 1080 or aerial shooting. But there lies the issue. I spoke to the owner about it. He wants the deer gone but the expense of a chopper to basically search and destroy without the return of selling the deer is financially unviable. So the deer thrive. We shoot a few. Nothing changes.
Just my experiences. But multiply this by god knows how many farms (forgetting about public land) and there are significant issues.

Originally Posted by gilly

Interesting thread. Lots of great opinions based on practical experience.
My opinion is that aerial shooting is the only answer. There are just too many deer for private hunters to deal with. We have some fantastic hunters in the country. But the shear size of NZ’s back country makes it , plus practical consideration like jobs, families and other commitments, near impossible to keep numbers down.
In terms of private land it isn’t the holy grail many dream of. Don’t get me wrong access to these places are gold. You get plenty of deer. But…here’s my experience for what it’s worth. I have access to a sheep and cattle station. It is over run with deer. Often mobs of 40-50 are seen. However they aren’t stupid. They bugger off the minute you accidentally spook a mob of sheep. If you do get on to them a couple of shots and they are back in the bush. Spotlighting is the same. See a dozen sets of eyes, shoot 2 and the rest are gone. The only way you will reduce numbers is through 1080 or aerial shooting. But there lies the issue. I spoke to the owner about it. He wants the deer gone but the expense of a chopper to basically search and destroy without the return of selling the deer is financially unviable. So the deer thrive. We shoot a few. Nothing changes.
Just my experiences. But multiply this by god knows how many farms (forgetting about public land) and there are significant issues.

You are onto it.
Mate with a thermal sees dozens all over the place. Open up on them though, and you'll be lucky to get two-three of them. They are not silly.

Originally Posted by gilly

Interesting thread. Lots of great opinions based on practical experience.
My opinion is that aerial shooting is the only answer. There are just too many deer for private hunters to deal with. We have some fantastic hunters in the country. But the shear size of NZ’s back country makes it , plus practical consideration like jobs, families and other commitments, near impossible to keep numbers down.
In terms of private land it isn’t the holy grail many dream of. Don’t get me wrong access to these places are gold. You get plenty of deer. But…here’s my experience for what it’s worth. I have access to a sheep and cattle station. It is over run with deer. Often mobs of 40-50 are seen. However they aren’t stupid. They bugger off the minute you accidentally spook a mob of sheep. If you do get on to them a couple of shots and they are back in the bush. Spotlighting is the same. See a dozen sets of eyes, shoot 2 and the rest are gone. The only way you will reduce numbers is through 1080 or aerial shooting. But there lies the issue. I spoke to the owner about it. He wants the deer gone but the expense of a chopper to basically search and destroy without the return of selling the deer is financially unviable. So the deer thrive. We shoot a few. Nothing changes.
Just my experiences. But multiply this by god knows how many farms (forgetting about public land) and there are significant issues.

But how did that property that you hunt get to that point in the first place? Deer don't just explode overnight infact quite the contrary. Most of the time it is someone protecting them at some stage.
As for the owner wanting the deer gone but not being able to afford it. Well if you do the maths it doesn't take long to figure out roughly how much in savings they will make in regards to crop damage and hundreds of stock units worth of deer competing with farm animals for tucker they will save by removing some deer.
I do pest control professionally and I have yet to meet a landowner who was disappointed from spending money getting deer removed.

As for places like the Ruahines. Well the Battle for Our Birds has significantly reduced the numbers in 30000 odd hectares of the northern end. Throughout some of it the numbers now are rather low. With the pattern of an aerial drop approximately every two years for potentially a very long time, the numbers are always going to be low.
So you have the rest of the Ruahines. Throughout some of it the numbers are moderate and in other spots the numbers are far too high. But, when, not if, when the venison prices go back up they will get absolutely slaughtered. As it stood before the prices dropped some of the operators were getting 90% of the deer they saw at the start of the 6 month season. So no matter what at some point recreational hunters will lose out again.
But there are no fly zones in the Ruahines and I do agree with the likes of BRADS there, recreational hunters should be taking lead and removing as many hinds as they can.

You'll be surprised to know that sometimes the professional ground cullers are getting more than the choppers in some instances too in regards to price per head

Originally Posted by TLB

But how did that property that you hunt get to that point in the first place? Deer don't just explode overnight infact quite the contrary. Most of the time it is someone protecting them at some stage.
As for the owner wanting the deer gone but not being able to afford it. Well if you do the maths it doesn't take long to figure out roughly how much in savings they will make in regards to crop damage and hundreds of stock units worth of deer competing with farm animals for tucker they will save by removing some deer.
I do pest control professionally and I have yet to meet a landowner who was disappointed from spending money getting deer removed.

As for places like the Ruahines. Well the Battle for Our Birds has significantly reduced the numbers in 30000 odd hectares of the northern end. Throughout some of it the numbers now are rather low. With the pattern of an aerial drop approximately every two years for potentially a very long time, the numbers are always going to be low.
So you have the rest of the Ruahines. Throughout some of it the numbers are moderate and in other spots the numbers are far too high. But, when, not if, when the venison prices go back up they will get absolutely slaughtered. As it stood before the prices dropped some of the operators were getting 90% of the deer they saw at the start of the 6 month season. So no matter what at some point recreational hunters will lose out again.
But there are no fly zones in the Ruahines and I do agree with the likes of BRADS there, recreational hunters should be taking lead and removing as many hinds as they can.

You'll be surprised to know that sometimes the professional ground cullers are getting more than the choppers in some instances too in regards to price per head

I respect your views as a professional hunter. You know what you are talking about.
You’ve raised some good points here. From what I can gather the deer moved in from an adjoining station and huge private forestry that had a no shooting policy. As the tucker ran out the deer moved. Apparently it happened pretty quickly according to the owner.
In terms of the cost in terms of eating crops and grass. Yes huge. They have deer fenced a significant part of the property to keep deer out.

How many deer would you say each hunter would have to shoot a year to keep numbers down and do their bit?

I have no idea @7mm Rem Mag, that is a question for those who are more informed than me. There are so many variables: the number of deer in a given area, the number of capable hunters in that area, the remoteness, the habitat and whether it is harbours plants of significance etc. I do believe however, that communication and co-ordination is part of the process of managing the deer population rather than one group calling for eradication and the other group fighting against it.

Nothing will change unless they are treated as a resource and managed as such

Originally Posted by Gibo

Nothing will change unless they are treated as a resource and managed as such

Can you clarify on that Gibo...how is changing from pest to managed resource will change the volume shot? Assuming that's what you mean

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Can you clarify on that Gibo...how is changing from pest to managed resource will change the volume shot? Assuming that's what you mean

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

I mean if they are treated as a resource then revenue can be gained from that resource. That money can then go towards the management and sustainability of that resource. I think a tag system would be sweet and charge foreigners more for the privilege's

Originally Posted by Gibo

I mean if they are treated as a resource then revenue can be gained from that resource. That money can then go towards the management and sustainability of that resource. I think a tag system would be sweet and charge foreigners more for the privilege's

I like it but have a couple of questions

1. Would the population be reduced?, one assumes yes with money from the tags etc but then still no control over how deep the cull/manage

2. Would you expect us as NZ hunters to buy a tag to hunt a deer....

H

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

I like it but have a couple of questions

1. Would the population be reduced?, one assumes yes with money from the tags etc but then still no control over how deep the cull/manage. Yeah I guess thats part of the manage piece, get the numbers right and then adjust the tag system as needed

2. Would you expect us as NZ hunters to buy a tag to hunt a deer....Yip I guess so once its balanced out. No doubt this is a pipe dream but I wouldnt scoff at 10-20 bucks a tag

H

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

In red bro

The problem is there is a fundamental difference in approach between pest control and hunting. Hunters are you classic sustainable meat harvestors, always in the back of the mind os the need to preserve a sustainable resource. Pest control for something like protecting a threatened conservation area requires total eradication or as close to this as possible. Hunters and conservationists have completely different mindset and priorities. Trophy hunting is worse again, some guys will leave a huge number of animals to try for that one perfect specimen. Reconciling these competing agendas is the issue here. It's much easier for us farmer pest controllers, if it moves, shoot it.

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

The problem is there is a fundamental difference in approach between pest control and hunting. Hunters are you classic sustainable meat harvestors, always in the back of the mind os the need to preserve a sustainable resource. Pest control for something like protecting a threatened conservation area requires total eradication or as close to this as possible. Hunters and conservationists have completely different mindset and priorities. Trophy hunting is worse again, some guys will leave a huge number of animals to try for that one perfect specimen. Reconciling these competing agendas is the issue here. It's much easier for us farmer pest controllers, if it moves, shoot it.

I disagree with one aspect of your statement.
Hunters can be conservationists too. I work in biosecurity, have worked for DoC for a few years as well, and regularly volunteer trapping in the Northern Ruahines and Kawekas. To draw a line in the sand saying you’re a hunter not a conservationist ignores a lot of nuance around why people do the things they do. Some guys shoot whatever they see, others shoot bugger all. But the net effect is on the whole, positive for biodiversity. But only in the fact that a deer is dead.

But I may also be misinterpreting your statement as well.

Determining carrying capacity of an area requires informed data specific to local ecosystem type and maybe indeed by catchment. Figure out the numbers of deer currently in there the best way you can and then aim for having a lower density herd. @Gibo is right in saying that they need to be managed as a resource, but who pays and who says.

Originally Posted by hebe

I disagree with one aspect of your statement.
Hunters can be conservationists too. I work in biosecurity, have worked for DoC for a few years as well, and regularly volunteer trapping in the Northern Ruahines and Kawekas. To draw a line in the sand saying you’re a hunter not a conservationist ignores a lot of nuance around why people do the things they do. Some guys shoot whatever they see, others shoot bugger all. But the net effect is on the whole, positive for biodiversity. But only in the fact that a deer is dead.

But I may also be misinterpreting your statement as well.

Determining carrying capacity of an area requires informed data specific to local ecosystem type and maybe indeed by catchment. Figure out the numbers of deer currently in there the best way you can and then aim for having a lower density herd. @Gibo is right in saying that they need to be managed as a resource, but who pays and who says.

@hebe the fundamental difference in what we are saying is I was speaking in the most basic generalities and you used nuance! Perhaps a better way of looking at it is a modern affluent culture might see 'pest' animals destroying an ecosystem and be prepared to expend the time and effort into attempting to eradicate the damaging species to preserve the whole. By contrast others (for example people in desperate poverty trying to keep their family alive by hunting meat) have a huge vested interest in harvesting this meat in a long term sustainable way, or even letting the game numbers build up to provide plenty for the future. In many respects these two approaches are incompatible, which I think is why this whole discussion will always be difficult to resolve.

As an example I hand sowed 100,000 nikau seeds in a bush remnant gully about 15 or 20 years ago and had masses of palms up to about 1m high, now they are almost all gone due to the deer. Preserving long term access to venison in this gully is a very low priority for me. But at the same time a bloke on a lifestyle block down the road has allegedly been actively releasing fallow deer so he can hunt them, and has zero interest in preserving natural biodiversity. Can't keep everyone happy.

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

@hebe the fundamental difference in what we are saying is I was speaking in the most basic generalities and you used nuance! Perhaps a better way of looking at it is a modern affluent culture might see 'pest' animals destroying an ecosystem and be prepared to expend the time and effort into attempting to eradicate the damaging species to preserve the whole. By contrast others (for example people in desperate poverty trying to keep their family alive by hunting meat) have a huge vested interest in harvesting this meat in a long term sustainable way, or even letting the game numbers build up to provide plenty for the future. In many respects these two approaches are incompatible, which I think is why this whole discussion will always be difficult to resolve.

As an example I hand sowed 100,000 nikau seeds in a bush remnant gully about 15 or 20 years ago and had masses of palms up to about 1m high, now they are almost all gone due to the deer. Preserving long term access to venison in this gully is a very low priority for me. But at the same time a bloke on a lifestyle block down the road has allegedly been actively releasing fallow deer so he can hunt them, and has zero interest in preserving natural biodiversity. Can't keep everyone happy.

Fair enough, that makes more sense. Did misinterpret you after all.
No offence meant in the least