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

Originally Posted by Maxx

Some really good posts in the last few pages (the only ones I've read) .....and a number of represent quite a bit of effort, too.

FWIW, I'd add that not only does DoC have an institutional antipathy towards introduced animals, they have one towards hunters too. Of course there are exceptions, but broadly speaking I think that's correct. So that's a further obstacle to meaningful engagement.

I had hoped that Kiri Allan might have taken a broader view than the previous Minister, but now she's on sick leave (and best wishes to her) I don't hold the same hopes with Ayesha Verrall.......

I agree and think that was a significant loss to hunters chances of meaningful change. The institutional (hate that word) distrust between DOC upper management and hunters is a serious issue. However its more of an issue than it needs to be due to today's tendency to just adopt the I disagree with you on something now I refuse to talk to you politely and I now hate everything you do. Thing is hunters and doc are not that dissimilar in terms of values. We just differ on a few key issues. If we could get over our selves a bit and the other side too atleast we could progress on the bits we agree on. It's seen in thing like gun laws where most LFOs agree that penalties for violent gun crime should be more but everytime anything is tried to be implemented they try slip in a heap of other bullshit laws so we no longer support them but if we pushed forward the things we agreed on some useful change could happen.

Originally Posted by Stocky

I agree and think that was a significant loss to hunters chances of meaningful change. The institutional (hate that word) distrust between DOC upper management and hunters is a serious issue. However its more of an issue than it needs to be due to today's tendency to just adopt the I disagree with you on something now I refuse to talk to you politely and I now hate everything you do. Thing is hunters and doc are not that dissimilar in terms of values. We just differ on a few key issues. If we could get over our selves a bit and the other side too atleast we could progress on the bits we agree on. It's seen in thing like gun laws where most LFOs agree that penalties for violent gun crime should be more but everytime anything is tried to be implemented they try slip in a heap of other bullshit laws so we no longer support them but if we pushed forward the things we agreed on some useful change could happen.

Of course too, DOC are constrained by the their legislative framework (and their ministers's directions). As it is, some things are simply impossible.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Of course too, DOC are constrained by the their legislative framework (and their ministers's directions). As it is, some things are simply impossible.

Yes for sure and I understand that and hence why this is all discussion of ideas and potential solutions to the problems that arise.

Hunters however are often very hard to get that point across to. I'd never be mad at doc for not doing something they can't do legally even if I'd like to see it happen. But for example a heap of hunters go on and bag the GAC and call them shit as they aren't publicly anti 1080 and they didn't condemn Eugenie Sage for the Tahr Cull. When you tell them that they legally can't make partisan comments and that while they are the only legal representation we have they are limited in some ways. That's why we need free organisations such as the NZDA and Tahr Foundation to make statements and actions like that and the GAC to actually act as a part of Government to enact the things we want as hunters.

More

Originally Posted by Tahr

Of course too, DOC are constrained by the their legislative framework (and their ministers's directions). As it is, some things are simply impossible.

Yes, but it seems that they manage to be more than a little selective about the application of that too......remember FMC bollocking DoC for allowing the number of landings on the Ngapunatoru plaueau, which was apparently in breach of their statutory plans?

Or the previous Ministers repeated assertions that the Tahr Plan allowed for a maximum population of 10 000.......that was correct, but that plan also required review's, but that wasn't going to happen.

I prefer the view that DoC will rely on the restrictions available in the legislation and their plans when it suits them, and when it doesn't they will try hard to find wriggle room.