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

Originally Posted by gimp

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.

I agree but I think the same can be said about those in the headwaters of most Canterbury River catchments. There's much easier places to chase hinds. Ie any tops country near a road. I'm still skeptical atleast down south as to whether many foot hunters actually take many hinds obviously people are more likely to show pictures of stags giving a skewed perspective. I am going to start making a point of photographing shot hinds (in as tasteful a manner as possible when somethings dead) etc and posting them in appropriate places as Im bad about taking photos when out as I just want to get the butchery out of the way.

As for WARO I think in open areas they can seriously knock back populations but I think alot of the control in areas with bush is more perceived as there always seems to be good hind numbers about whereas stags are again the main target for WARO. I do think that while we shouldn't limit take by excluding stags from WARO are we able to shift the focus as even if we reduced the harvested amount by 25% assuming that waro take 50% stags and 50% hinds (which I think it's probably more stags than that due to grazing habits through summer and targetting heavier animals) meaning 75% of the original total worth of hinds is now harvested we could say that using the hind being equivalent to 5 stags, that we are more effectively controlling numbers.

0.5 × 1 (for stags) + 0.5 × 5 (for hinds) = 3 units

0.25 (reduced harvest portion × 0 (stags) + 0.75(25% extra harvest of hinds × 5 (for hinds) = 3.75 units

While the numbers are just numbers its shows potentially more effective control even with reduced harvest.

Obviously this doesn't allow for the fact hinds pay less than stags.

And I see a potential issue in that hinds may have fawns at foot during summer.


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.

That is true. I think the most detrimental is probably the idea not to shoot the breeders which Im hearing less these days but many still use it. I'd like to know the effects on Kea when leaving shot animals. The cham and goats I shot on the coast had Keas on them within 30 minutes. I wonder if its beneficial in that it's extra feed or whether it creates negative behaviours.

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.

All very good points. Out of interest have you seen the post by the Tahr Foundation Today? Sounds like an attempt at a FWF type situation is underway. Have a read and I'd love to get your opinion

Originally Posted by gimp

One note on the Pittman-Robertson act type revenue. Shooters who are not hunters may be upset at the idea of funding hunting management.

1: In the US, a reasonable percentage of this federal tax is specifically ring fenced for shooting ranges, this could be the case here also which benefits shooters as well as hunters.
2: Maintaining the social license for hunting goes the longest way possible to maintaining the social license for any firearms ownership and usage. It's the most widely recognised-as-legitimate reason for owning firearms by far in the public arena debate. Any other argument more or less can be as technically correct as we like, but is not as socially acceptable. See for reference: the shit legislation that confiscated all our semi-autos and various pump action .22s, etc. No technically correct argument against it mattered.

Exactly I think your point on maintaining social license to hunt is hugely important as it lies hand in hand with firearms. A good point that makes sense I hadn't thought of.