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

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.

.