Thread: the OFF TOPIC to Stags shot 21 (discussion of wild animal management)

Originally Posted by bigbear

I don't disagree Micky and am all for shooting hinds but like any animal the longer its on mum the better for it just gives it that better start to life. If mums shot to early the fawn with starve death.
For me november to march is yearlings or a poor genetic stag and rest of the year is hinds

Agree totally however I've shot q few pregnant hinds into January without issue. It's also seems to be more common to find barron hinds in some of the areas I hunt. Which I don't know if it age or feed related or both. They do tend to be big grey animals.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Agree totally however I've shot q few pregnant hinds into January without issue. It's also seems to be more common to find barron hinds in some of the areas I hunt. Which I don't know if it age or feed related or both. They do tend to be big grey animals.

there could and would be some very very old Hinds living in close proximitey to Farm land and Doc land in a secluded corner! possibly more than we think.
an more odds of that happening than having many more than the odd Exceptional Old stag in the bushes on Doc up the major valley ends.


the hinds wise up due to the old bugger whos been passed up an wat not... which is good for the herd in busy areas- makes it hard for the private hunter dealing wih the educated him,

I still think going ahead we need all big game animals to be put under one foundation deer tahr and chamoas.
Sorry @Tahr i was still typing when you put the link above. But you hardly here anything from the GAC.
I here more from the sika foundation and wapiti foundation and i have no ties to both

Originally Posted by bigbear

I still think going ahead we need all big game animals to be put under one foundation deer tahr and chamoas.
Sorry @Tahr i was still typing when you put the link above. But you hardly here anything from the GAC.
I here more from the sika foundation and wapiti foundation and i have no ties to both

Agreee, but at least the GAC was formed through legislation and the HOSI are part of that legislation. Tat ought to mean something (or nothing).

Originally Posted by Tahr

Agreee, but at least the GAC was formed through legislation and the HOSI are part of that legislation. Tat ought to mean something (or nothing).

Yeh very true. They kind of got setup a bit as usually groups like this are started by putting professional politicians in the council to get them started with things like organising funding, etc. But they chucked a bunch of well meaning representatives from a range of hunting interests (waro operators, guides, recreational hunters, etc) that don't necessarily agree on anything and haven't done this. They are starting to get the hang of things after being thrown in the deep end. There's plenty to approve on but to do so we need to keep up support where possible. I'd like to see foreign hunters paying for this in the way of export permits to remove trophies from NZ (its a bit hard as we would have to distinguish from game park animals as they aren't really related to public land hunting.

Originally Posted by bigbear

I still think going ahead we need all big game animals to be put under one foundation deer tahr and chamoas.
Sorry @Tahr i was still typing when you put the link above. But you hardly here anything from the GAC.
I here more from the sika foundation and wapiti foundation and i have no ties to both

I think the GAC is the way forward especially considering they are the official representation in law and Parliament. I do think they should be released so not controlled by DOC but able to work in parallel with DOC.

The thing is if they are official legally they can't make any partisan remarks. The have to remain unbiased politically. We definitely need the support of all the other groups such as the FWF, Sika Foundation, Nzda, etc but they serve a different function and are more free in what they can legally come out and put stances on.