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

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.

.