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

Re: hind breeding age - it varies with habitat quality; lower populations and better habitat = higher fecundity. I don't think it's well understood in a quantitative sense for density dependent effects in wild NZ red deer. If anyone has a good source I'd like to read it.


I don't think a tag system is at all the way forward for wild game animal management in NZ. A tag system is a way of limiting take to maintain a population at or above a certain level; it sets a maximum harvest. In more or less any area of NZ it is difficult to find a data-driven example of an area where recreational hunter take is high enough that we need to limit take of animals, rather we need to incentivise higher take of the correct animal demographics to keep populations low enough to a) satisfy the legal obligations of DOC (manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, essentially) and b) maintain habitat in good condition for the health of the herd. A tag system also requires compliance to be effective - and that is expensive.

We're not at risk of running out of deer through hunting pressure. We are at risk of losing the social license to maintain viable, huntable deer or other ungulate herds if the public perception is that they are doing huge irreversible ecological damage. To some degree this perception is already the case due to 90 years of cultural reinforcement that introduced mammals are pests post the 1931 declaration to that effect. To some degree this perception is also reality in some areas; due to DOC mismanagement of the tahr herd for example tahr numbers are very high in some areas with significant localised impacts.

One possible solution for providing some funding to manage wild ungulates in NZ might be something like the Pittman-Robertson act in the US; where an 11% excise tax is levied on specific Hunting items sold and directly used for funding wildlife conservation; hunters very much have paid for rebuilding and conserving huntable populations of wildlife. Here in NZ that money could be used - and specifically ringfenced - for wild ungulate management in a different sense, paying for research into what are acceptable densities, and managing monitoring of densities to inform where to direct recreational hunter effort to reduce densities if necessary, and paying for control (i.e. subsidised WARO of hinds) to reduce densities where recreational hunters aren't able to.

This would require a trusting, collaborative relationship between hunters and the management agency, with a clear and transparent management strategy by the agency, and hunter buy-in and willingness to follow the system. The past 90 years of conflict and current adversarial relationship between hunters and the various agencies mis-managing wild animals doesn't currently engender this at all.

It is critical to understand that
1) Under the current legal framework, DOC, the agency with the legal mandate to manage wild animals, has a legal responsibility first and foremost to manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, and there is huge pressure from green advocacy groups to do this.
2) Introduced wild animals do have impacts on native biodiversity and do change structure and composition of native vegetation over time, often in ways that are detrimental to the ecosystem and the animals themselves. Density dependent effects are not well understood and it is unclear in many ecosystems "how many is too many" however there is definitely such a thing as "too many". Change takes place over time, is ongoing, and may not be apparent to us as individuals. There is also no objective right answer to "how many is too many" as it is contingent on the level of ecosystem modification we're prepared to accept, which is highly place- and perspective- dependant

These are the reality we live with and solutions for wild animal management need to acknowledge this reality. A good management system would maintain numbers at a low(ish) level, with a female focussed take. This would by default result in better trophy management. In the reality that no-one is doing it for us, we need to start trying to do it for ourselves.

Originally Posted by gimp

Re: hind breeding age - it varies with habitat quality; lower populations and better habitat = higher fecundity. I don't think it's well understood in a quantitative sense for density dependent effects in wild NZ red deer. If anyone has a good source I'd like to read it.


I don't think a tag system is at all the way forward for wild game animal management in NZ. A tag system is a way of limiting take to maintain a population at or above a certain level; it sets a maximum harvest. In more or less any area of NZ it is difficult to find a data-driven example of an area where recreational hunter take is high enough that we need to limit take of animals, rather we need to incentivise higher take of the correct animal demographics to keep populations low enough to a) satisfy the legal obligations of DOC (manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, essentially) and b) maintain habitat in good condition for the health of the herd. A tag system also requires compliance to be effective - and that is expensive.

That's not always true a tag system that limits targetting makes is often used to improve trophy quality and add value to areas in order to create demand and higher revenue. This is seen in a state such as Colorado that does both. Typically managing Mule Deer bucks for trophy quality by having less tags available and having people pay to apply year on year to get an attempt at these "higher value" animals. It's no guarantee but does significantly up your odds of finding a mature animal. In these same limited entry block a general doe tag is usually valid meaning that the areas population is managed by these hunters using doe tags which are generally over the counter and in areas needing control available as more than one. Colorado manages Elk for opportunities as they have bulk numbers so almost anyone including no resident can just show up and buy an over the counter bull elk tag. We don't need a tag for our areas like this although maybe make it a tag system for non residents for males of species.

Montana is probably a better example to compare to for NZ as they have a general elk tag that allows you to hunt on probably 85% of public land to take any elk bull, cow, calf in some cases. A few areas have restrictions as to what type of elk. The other portion like the missouri breaks are limited entry in which you have to apply for and these are the areas guys will apply for years on end to get. And if you draw you have a very real chance of a 350-400 inch elk. These units add huge value as guys will apply for it every year with no desire to go to any other part of the state to hunt.

They do the same thing in the sapphire mountains for Mule deer as its a hot spot for big bucks so restricting male harvest adds value.

For NZ we would just leave most places open with maybe a general hunting license required ($20-$50 for the 3 month permit) and then a few high value areas limit male harvest by way of tags or a draw system. It would result in quicker improvements than FWF as they struggle to stop people going in and smashing young bulls as there's no legal ramifications.

We're not at risk of running out of deer through hunting pressure. We are at risk of losing the social license to maintain viable, huntable deer or other ungulate herds if the public perception is that they are doing huge irreversible ecological damage. To some degree this perception is already the case due to 90 years of cultural reinforcement that introduced mammals are pests post the 1931 declaration to that effect. To some degree this perception is also reality in some areas; due to DOC mismanagement of the tahr herd for example tahr numbers are very high in some areas with significant localised impacts.

I don't think any of us think we won't have any deer left. We often already have a very skewed scale in male to female ratios in herds though so that's a very real effect of current hunting practises. I'd argue that restricting the harvest of males could shift some of the focus onto females which would help improve control. But yes the term pest even used by hunters is hugely counter intuitive to what hunters would like to achieve which is a balanced healthy ecosystem able to maintain both hunting and a recreation and the natural flora and fauna.

One possible solution for providing some funding to manage wild ungulates in NZ might be something like the Pittman-Robertson act in the US; where an 11% excise tax is levied on specific Hunting items sold and directly used for funding wildlife conservation; hunters very much have paid for rebuilding and conserving huntable populations of wildlife. Here in NZ that money could be used - and specifically ringfenced - for wild ungulate management in a different sense, paying for research into what are acceptable densities, and managing monitoring of densities to inform where to direct recreational hunter effort to reduce densities if necessary, and paying for control (i.e. subsidised WARO of hinds) to reduce densities where recreational hunters aren't able to.

I like this alot except most of that funding actually ends up coming from shooters not hunters in the USA and we don't have the shooter numbers. But I completely agree I'd be happy to pay it especially if it went where your suggesting. But it would have to go through a specific hunter led group suchas the GAC not the DOC as unfortunately DOC has often proven to be filled by F&B loyalists etc at the very top end even if as a majority they are reasonable.

This would require a trusting, collaborative relationship between hunters and the management agency, with a clear and transparent management strategy by the agency, and hunter buy-in and willingness to follow the system. The past 90 years of conflict and current adversarial relationship between hunters and the various agencies mis-managing wild animals doesn't currently engender this at all.

It is critical to understand that
1) Under the current legal framework, DOC, the agency with the legal mandate to manage wild animals, has a legal responsibility first and foremost to manage wild animals so as to maintain and restore native biodiversity, and there is huge pressure from green advocacy groups to do this.
2) Introduced wild animals do have impacts on native biodiversity and do change structure and composition of native vegetation over time, often in ways that are detrimental to the ecosystem and the animals themselves. Density dependent effects are not well understood and it is unclear in many ecosystems "how many is too many" however there is definitely such a thing as "too many". Change takes place over time, is ongoing, and may not be apparent to us as individuals. There is also no objective right answer to "how many is too many" as it is contingent on the level of ecosystem modification we're prepared to accept, which is highly place- and perspective- dependant

These are the reality we live with and solutions for wild animal management need to acknowledge this reality. A good management system would maintain numbers at a low(ish) level, with a female focussed take. This would by default result in better trophy management. In the reality that no-one is doing it for us, we need to start trying to do it for ourselves.


That is true however I have always struggled how one determines the exact point in time at which an environment was at its perfect point as ecosystems are constantly evolving. Ie pre European settlement is often used worldwide. But here for example significant damage had been done prior to that to our birdlife etc. So why not make it pre human arrival etc. Look at the USA in terms of the many waves of different species that have inhabited it throughout history. Ecosystems are always changing and while we have a pronounced effect on nature we are also a part of it (as much as people seem to deny it nowadays). I think one thing NZ seems to have quite warped is often using preservationist ideas conveyed as conservation which are not the same thing. One allows for use of a resource in a sustainable way while one seeks to preserve and have no interaction or involvement with. Not saying either is right or wrong.

.

Originally Posted by Stocky

That's not always true a tag system that limits targeting males is often used to improve trophy quality and add value to areas in order to create demand and higher revenue. This is seen in a state such as Colorado that does both. Typically managing Mule Deer bucks for trophy quality by having less tags available and having people pay to apply year on year to get an attempt at these "higher value" animals. It's no guarantee but does significantly up your odds of finding a mature animal. In these same limited entry block a general doe tag is usually valid meaning that the areas population is managed by these hunters using doe tags which are generally over the counter and in areas needing control available as more than one. Colorado manages Elk for opportunities as they have bulk numbers so almost anyone including non-resident can just show up and buy an over the counter bull elk tag. We don't need a tag for our areas like this although maybe make it a tag system for non residents for males of species.

Montana is probably a better example to compare to for NZ as they have a general elk tag that allows you to hunt on probably 85% of public land to take any elk bull, cow, calf in some cases. A few areas have restrictions as to what type of elk. The other portion like the missouri breaks are limited entry in which you have to apply for and these are the areas guys will apply for years on end to get. And if you draw you have a very real chance of a 350-400 inch elk. These units add huge value as guys will apply for it every year with no desire to go to any other part of the state to hunt.

They do the same thing in the sapphire mountains for Mule deer as its a hot spot for big bucks so restricting male harvest adds value.

For NZ we would just leave most places open with maybe a general hunting license required ($20-$50 for the 3 month permit) and then a few high value areas limit male harvest by way of tags or a draw system. It would result in quicker improvements than FWF as they struggle to stop people going in and smashing young bulls as there's no legal ramifications.

In all these examples the tag system purpose is still to limit take in some way. We fundamentally don't need to limit take to meet the realistic legal and ecological goals that are the real issue for hunting in NZ. Limiting take and creating demand on a limited high quality resource is still limiting take. A tag system also requires someone to do compliance work to prevent poaching. It's hard to overstate how expensive this is. It could work to generate revenue in some areas as you note, specifically for deer - Rakaia or similar - as species other than deer don't rely as heavily on genetics; you can shoot a big bull tahr anywhere if they're allowed to grow old enough. There's no demand to a specific area.

I don't know if the numbers would stack up. How many opportunities could be generated up the Rakaia/Wilberforce for e.g. for a Red stag tag; how many people would enter the draw when there's plenty of opportunity elsewhere, and would the costs cover the administrative, compliance and management costs?

We have the fundamentally different issue to the Missouri Breaks - we need people to shoot lots of hinds up the Rakaia to keep the population down to whatever level is required for habitat quality maintenance at least and improvement ideally. It's likely that with the opportunities available elsewhere recreational hunting would not control numbers enough, and management control would be required; this is an additional cost over the US model (This is an assumption drawn from the wider experience of wild animals in NZ historically and currently and it may not be true, but it's difficult to disprove). This additional cost would have to be borne solely by the revenue generated from the small tagged area rather than the much larger overall system as in a US state.

Remember there's also no incentive at all for the management agency in NZ to improve trophy quality as a primary goal unless it can be strongly and unequivocally shown to result in the ecological outcomes that DOC is required by law to pursue. Restricting take at all specifically for trophy quality doesn't help DOC comply with it's legal mandate. Not to mention that the social license for anything labelled Trophy Hunting is extremely limited outside of hunting circles, and hunters make up maybe 5% of NZ at most.

However it would be interesting to look at and run some numbers for the idea, there may be merit in it for revenue generation. If it generated far in excess of what it cost to manage it may be a good idea. What areas would you propose for a limited male tag system? Rakaia/Whitcombe obviously. Poulter is out without changing the National Parks Act, which would politically never fly. Lewis Pass?

Originally Posted by Stocky

I like this alot except most of that funding actually ends up coming from shooters not hunters in the USA and we don't have the shooter numbers. But I completely agree I'd be happy to pay it especially if it went where your suggesting. But it would have to go through a specific hunter led group suchas the GAC not the DOC as unfortunately DOC has often proven to be filled by F&B loyalists etc at the very top end even if as a majority they are reasonable.

I think it's unlikely to generate enough revenue to be a full funding source for managing wild animals in NZ. In the US in 2017(?) the Pittman-Robertson act tax generated 780 million. Scale that to NZ with no control for demographics etc, simply ratio by population and you get maybe 13 million. This would not cover the requirements for monitoring, administration, compliance if a tag system was implemented, and management control where needed. Bias in DOC could be a problem but the legal framework we currently have would actually allow DOC to write a management plan that I would consider sensible; there would need to be legislative change to levy such a tax as this. One large advantage of using DOC as a management agency would be economy of scale and interconnectedness with existing programmes of monitoring etc. Setting up an entire structure to administer wild animals outside DOC would cost more than doing it as part of DOC. A wholesale mindset change of both hunters and more typical conservation groups would be required for any sensible management of wild animals regardless of agency responsible.

Originally Posted by Stocky

That is true however I have always struggled how one determines the exact point in time at which an environment was at its perfect point as ecosystems are constantly evolving. Ie pre European settlement is often used worldwide. But here for example significant damage had been done prior to that to our birdlife etc. So why not make it pre human arrival etc. Look at the USA in terms of the many waves of different species that have inhabited it throughout history. Ecosystems are always changing and while we have a pronounced effect on nature we are also a part of it (as much as people seem to deny it nowadays). I think one thing NZ seems to have quite warped is often using preservationist ideas conveyed as conservation which are not the same thing. One allows for use of a resource in a sustainable way while one seeks to preserve and have no interaction or involvement with. Not saying either is right or wrong.

From a hunting perspective you could draw the line as "no permanent changes to the vegetation composition and structure that result in the loss of native palatable plant species over time". This would be a highly practical and useful habitat goal to target as a hunter as it means that the habitat is going to continue to be suitable for wild animal populations in good health.

There are many other goals that could be targeted that would be similar in nature and equally practical without being unreasonable reversionist Forest and Bird nonsense.

Originally Posted by gimp

In all these examples the tag system purpose is still to limit take in some way. We fundamentally don't need to limit take to meet the realistic legal and ecological goals that are the real issue for hunting in NZ. Limiting take and creating demand on a limited high quality resource is still limiting take. A tag system also requires someone to do compliance work to prevent poaching. It's hard to overstate how expensive this is. It could work to generate revenue in some areas as you note, specifically for deer - Rakaia or similar - as species other than deer don't rely as heavily on genetics; you can shoot a big bull tahr anywhere if they're allowed to grow old enough. There's no demand to a specific area.

I agree its limiting take no argument there. I'm just not completely sold that limiting take on males which have a significantly higher perceived hunting value (especially with age) is that significant. The key to this is that stags very rarely get to maturity. When you consider the amount of time spent hunting red deer vs other species compared to the amount of mature males harvested I think that due to the fact males are more susceptible/targeted by WARO in summer, more desired by rec hunters, and more vulnerable during the roar means they don't get old. It's relatively common to see Tahr getting into the 7 plus year age bracket I think due to less pressure and harder terrain. Will be interesting the effects of the cull on this in future though as recruitment drops.

I don't know if the numbers would stack up. How many opportunities could be generated up the Rakaia/Wilberforce for e.g. for a Red stag tag; how many people would enter the draw when there's plenty of opportunity elsewhere, and would the costs cover the administrative, compliance and management costs?

Realistically people apply for the Wanaka and haast ballots every year for an opportunity to hunt areas of historical significance with zero management or protections. Also the amount of people up the Rakaia just before Easter weekend was huge. All of those people were chasing stags not hinds anyway. The chances are the ones chasing stags are chasing stags and will apply or go elsewhere and those that are there for meat will hunt there regardless. So if there is a significantly increased chance of a mature stags being about then I'd say that increased demand will insue

We have the fundamentally different issue to the Missouri Breaks - we need people to shoot lots of hinds up the Rakaia to keep the population down to whatever level is required for habitat quality maintenance at least and improvement ideally. It's likely that with the opportunities available elsewhere recreational hunting would not control numbers enough, and management control would be required; this is an additional cost over the US model (This is an assumption drawn from the wider experience of wild animals in NZ historically and currently and it may not be true, but it's difficult to disprove). This additional cost would have to be borne solely by the revenue generated from the small tagged area rather than the much larger overall system as in a US state.

This is one of the problems I've pondered and don't have a good option. It's one of the reasons why I'm not sold on the tag system. I think it could have its place but there's plenty fo issues to solve. I do wonder though what percentage of animals taken from. The rakaia are hinds? I have only ever seen stags leaving on the back of 4wheelers and utes. I feel someone meat hunting is more likely to shoot the hind knowing theirs no option to shoot a stag. I know I'm guilty of turning down easy hinds so as not to disturb areas incase there's a stag nearby. 90% of my hinds shot outside the period stags are growing antlers are shot on the way out right near where I'm going to drop into the bush. I'd love a good study that actually broke down the split in harvest rate for the different sexes in areas as we are all working on ideas based on personal experience not fact.

Remember there's also no incentive at all for the management agency in NZ to improve trophy quality as a primary goal unless it can be strongly and unequivocally shown to result in the ecological outcomes that DOC is required by law to pursue. Restricting take at all specifically for trophy quality doesn't help DOC comply with it's legal mandate. Not to mention that the social license for anything labelled Trophy Hunting is extremely limited outside of hunting circles, and hunters make up maybe 5% of NZ at most.

I agree this is a hard challenge. But I think starting in by I acting it for foreigners first would give incentive as then its not really doing anything significant to minimise harvest as internationals aren't here for meat but creates a start for revinue. And for sure anti hunting has destroyed the term trophy hunting there's no saving it now.

However it would be interesting to look at and run some numbers for the idea, there may be merit in it for revenue generation. If it generated far in excess of what it cost to manage it may be a good idea. What areas would you propose for a limited male tag system? Rakaia/Whitcombe obviously. Poulter is out without changing the National Parks Act, which would politically never fly. Lewis Pass?

I'd say somewhere down otago. Although waro would have to be restricted or subsidised. Yes the standard Rakaia catchments maybe even just the head waters etc where typically only trophy hunters visit anyway. Potentially that's a good way to help decide on areas least effected by limiting take. Ie if its somewhere to far for the standard meath unter and those venturing in are there for a mature animal. Id not rush into creating them rather pick some potential areas do some research on actual numbers carrying capacities etc and see where is going to be most favourable.



I think it's unlikely to generate enough revenue to be a full funding source for managing wild animals in NZ. In the US in 2017(?) the Pittman-Robertson act tax generated 780 million. Scale that to NZ with no control for demographics etc, simply ratio by population and you get maybe 13 million. This would not cover the requirements for monitoring, administration, compliance if a tag system was implemented, and management control where needed. Bias in DOC could be a problem but the legal framework we currently have would actually allow DOC to write a management plan that I would consider sensible; there would need to be legislative change to levy such a tax as this. One large advantage of using DOC as a management agency would be economy of scale and interconnectedness with existing programmes of monitoring etc. Setting up an entire structure to administer wild animals outside DOC would cost more than doing it as part of DOC. A wholesale mindset change of both hunters and more typical conservation groups would be required for any sensible management of wild animals regardless of agency responsible.

Yes the common modern problem of people unable to come to a compromise or discuss meaningfully are what makes working within DOC difficult. I do see the benefits of working through them though and realistically solving this relationship will have many more benefits for both sides considering the usefullness of hunters being one of the prominent users of off track public land access. It's funny when you think how few hikers etc actually see things we consider standard like kea or game.

From a hunting perspective you could draw the line as "no permanent changes to the vegetation composition and structure that result in the loss of native palatable plant species over time". This would be a highly practical and useful habitat goal to target as a hunter as it means that the habitat is going to continue to be suitable for wild animal populations in good health.

Agreed I think we should be making every effort for things to not be getting worse and where possible to improve things it's more I don't think that necessitates removal on all nong natives which while not possible with current and likely future technologies seems the goal of many.

There are many other goals that could be targeted that would be similar in nature and equally practical without being unreasonable reversionist Forest and Bird nonsense.

Agreed hunters are keen to do there bit but don't want to help F&B or DOC often due feeling persecuted at times but looking at things like the FWF pest control work and that of the Sika foundation shows hunters if not put off by other actions can be helpful to the cause I don't know many hunters anti native wildlife.

.

One thing I find funny bot all this tag bull shit tag talk is over in USA the elk & deer have natural predators they will get down on a lot of the new born animals a year i betvthe bear dosnt go oo i cant eat you your a male in New Zealanders the only predator is us if you guys want a trophy park form your on syndicate & buy your owne land & do what you want course most of the hunters ant going pay for tags & will go shoot what they want when they want stop trying to turn the public land into the hunting ground for the rich I know I couldn't afford to buy tags & we live on venison I shoot bot 15 -20 deer & pigs of doc land a year

Originally Posted by hunt08

One thing I find funny bot all this tag bull shit tag talk is over in USA the elk & deer have natural predators they will get down on a lot of the new born animals a year i betvthe bear dosnt go oo i cant eat you your a male in New Zealanders the only predator is us if you guys want a trophy park form your on syndicate & buy your owne land & do what you want course most of the hunters ant going pay for tags & will go shoot what they want when they want stop trying to turn the public land into the hunting ground for the rich I know I couldn't afford to buy tags & we live on venison I shoot bot 15 -20 deer & pigs of doc land a year

Or you could have had the basic education to 1. Put to get a coherent comment and 2. be able to have basic discussion without being offended and 3. Actually read the thread and not just blow up when you don't like one bit.

A saying I like from a good friend is "you can't start a conversation with Fuck you" meaning no ones going to listen to you if you come in and just abuse them because you don't agree with something they said.

Secondly we are only talking specific areas of high significance which already kind of exists as seen by the Wapiti Foundation and in a way the Ballot blocks throughout nz.

We are not trying to make a game park we are trying both have mature males available to harvest and to try shift more focus onto targetting females to more effectively reduce populations. Most importantly we need data as to what levels of deer numbers are acceptable in different areas then we can work out how to achieve this. Tags are just one of the ways we have thought about doing this. A license fee is another that's been discussed as well as a tax on ammo.

It isn't for the rich... If you don't care about it don't hunt the areas that cost ie pretty much most of NZ public land... I also live on venison but I somehow manage to do that without shooting young stags...

Originally Posted by Stocky

Realistically people apply for the Wanaka and haast ballots every year for an opportunity to hunt areas of historical significance with zero management or protections. Also the amount of people up the Rakaia just before Easter weekend was huge. All of those people were chasing stags not hinds anyway. The chances are the ones chasing stags are chasing stags and will apply or go elsewhere and those that are there for meat will hunt there regardless. So if there is a significantly increased chance of a mature stags being about then I'd say that increased demand will insue

Those people are probably largely not chasing hinds specifically, but for the last 10-20 years excluding some short intervals, there will have been some component of WARO take of hinds on top of rec hunter take to maintain population levels or slow increase. Whether we could continue that top up via rec hunter take only is an open question.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Agreed hunters are keen to do there bit but don't want to help F&B or DOC often due feeling persecuted at times but looking at things like the FWF pest control work and that of the Sika foundation shows hunters if not put off by other actions can be helpful to the cause I don't know many hunters anti native wildlife.

Hunters aren't anti-native-wildlife by and large specifically, however can end up holding opinions that by default if followed through may result in outcomes that are detrimental for native wildlife.



I see the realistic way forward to achieving some of the management strategies that I think are practical within the current legal framework surrounding wild animal and conservation management in NZ as:
- Hunting organisations to sponsor research (e.g. postgrad projects) into understanding density dependent effects of wild animals in NZ to have an evidence base to draw on for future management plans
- Hunters to wilfully seek education, and positions within the system in order to be able to counter the ideological anti-wild-animal bias that can be suggested exists within DOC. Very hard to change from the outside.