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

Originally Posted by hunt08

I 100% agree with you that's what would happen or the other thing that would be a high chance of happening is the animal groups will stop hunting couse they against hunting for trophyies & your saving the doc land for trophy hunting & they will work away at the government & public here & oversees & that's probably where the big push would come from ie if you want us to keep buying your meat you have to stop hunting for trophies & hunting will come to an end look at the live shipping ban but when hunting for meat it has a better understanding with the rest of the public

I disagree it would end up just foreigners shooting the mature animals as its an easy solve by limiting % of foreign hunters and by making them pay more so less foreigners apply. Keep local prices low and subsidised. Just like how the NZ university system works. A 25k degree for a kiwi is a 100K degree for a foreigner. The foreigners money subsidies the degree for kiwis along with taxes. While I think unis are a disgrace in terms of being a left wing idealogical brainwashing camp but that irrelevant. (funny that off topic in the off topic thread.)

That is a good point about anti hunter groups but what stops them making the same claim about Fiordland or The ballot blocks?

Something I've come to realise is its not the Hunters of the anti hunters that are important. It's the majority that aren't either as they make up 90% of the population. We are only allowed to continue hunting as long as on a whole the non hunters agree with what we are doing. We can try convince them hunting a good thing and the antis obviously do the opposite. I think if the system was instituted similarly with improvements on the FWF we could show the benefits of hunting on conservation. And as long as the focus is put on mature animals not just points and antlers then it's a feasible option. But it's a great point to add to the discussion as it definitely needs considering.

[QUOTE=Stocky;1148666]I disagree it would end up just foreigners shooting the mature animals as its an easy solve by limiting % of foreign hunters and by making them pay more so less foreigners apply. Keep local prices low and subsidised. Just like how the NZ university system works. A 25k degree for a kiwi is a 100K degree for a foreigner. The foreigners money subsidies the degree for kiwis along with taxes. While I think unis are a disgrace in terms of being a left wing idealogical brainwashing camp but that irrelevant. (funny that off topic in the off topic thread.)

That is a good point about anti hunter groups but what stops them making the same claim about Fiordland or The ballot blocks?

Something I've come to realise is its not the Hunters of the anti hunters that are important. It's the majority that aren't either as they make up 90% of the population. We are only allowed to continue hunting as long as on a whole the non hunters agree with what we are doing. We can try convince them hunting a good thing and the antis obviously do the opposite. I think if the system was instituted similarly with improvements on the FWF we could show the benefits of hunting on conservation. And as long as the focus is put on mature animals not just points and antlers then it's a feasible option. But it's a great point to add to the discussion as it definitely needs considering.[/QU


Ok with your way you paying to hunt heads in some doc land & turns out to work how long before the government charges every hunter to pay before hunting on doc land couse they need $ for a cycle way or some shit

[QUOTE=hunt08;1148984]

Originally Posted by Stocky

I disagree it would end up just foreigners shooting the mature animals as its an easy solve by limiting % of foreign hunters and by making them pay more so less foreigners apply. Keep local prices low and subsidised. Just like how the NZ university system works. A 25k degree for a kiwi is a 100K degree for a foreigner. The foreigners money subsidies the degree for kiwis along with taxes. While I think unis are a disgrace in terms of being a left wing idealogical brainwashing camp but that irrelevant. (funny that off topic in the off topic thread.)

That is a good point about anti hunter groups but what stops them making the same claim about Fiordland or The ballot blocks?

Something I've come to realise is its not the Hunters of the anti hunters that are important. It's the majority that aren't either as they make up 90% of the population. We are only allowed to continue hunting as long as on a whole the non hunters agree with what we are doing. We can try convince them hunting a good thing and the antis obviously do the opposite. I think if the system was instituted similarly with improvements on the FWF we could show the benefits of hunting on conservation. And as long as the focus is put on mature animals not just points and antlers then it's a feasible option. But it's a great point to add to the discussion as it definitely needs considering.[/QU


Ok with your way you paying to hunt heads in some doc land & turns out to work how long before the government charges every hunter to pay before hunting on doc land couse they need $ for a cycle way or some shit

Its not just about heads its also about forcing take to be focused on Hinds because stags aren't an option unless you have a tag/license. I think we as hunters should be paying for a license (Cheap $20-30 for the 3 month permit) to hunt so that we can fund a management system focused on us rather than just letting DOC manage it where 90% of the time hunting is being managed by some anti hunting forest and bird Alumni. If we had a hunter based management system we would have a more stable set of guidelines and not this mess where every few years we get someone like Sage coming in an doing there best to get her goals sorted with no concern for hunters. I get the fear for it but seriously its not hard (relatively) to target funding in legislation so it can only be used for a certain purpose.

Plus a point that i thinks being missed is that what percentage of hunters that re in the headwaters of areas like the whitcombe, wilberforce, rakaia are doing anything other than trophy hunting. The only difference is on a whole they are panicked that someone else will get it that they shoot animals they know are young anyway. This cycle leads to them walking past hinds and removing the future mature stags. Its clearly counter intuitive. We are not talking the front country with easy access we are talking the hard to reach remote areas that meat hunting isn't feasible.

We already pay for Ballots and DOC dont make money on it every year after administration costs etc.

We arent suggesting just making people pay first its been suggested

First we establish the GAC to legally manage Wild game populations with a determined set of objectives (even if at the start those objectives are just to gain information on populations and effects on the environment). Determine what is possible under the legal framework and what things are potentially able to be changed to allow the most effective management.

Then we establish a source of funding to pay for this (partially DOC funding, potentially from charging international hunters license fees and trophy export fees, then potentially by charging nz hunters a much lower license fee.) Any funding coming directly from hunters to be legally bound to be spent on hunting related management and conservation projects as overseen by the GAC.

Down the line see where any herds of special interest can be established and potentially managed by a hunter based organization. Ie Wapiti by the FWF, Tahr by the Tahr Foundation, Potentially a Rakaia or Otago Red Deer Foundation could be formed, etc to cover a few niche groups. We are on a whole talking areas that are limited access that could be set aside for management for mature stags adding value to charge hunters that want to hunt those areas more. Using that money we can run more conservation projects such as those being run by the FWF in Fiordland.

The reason Fiordland is getting more popular is the fact you actually have a fairly good chance of finding a mature bull comparatively to most other areas even though populations are being reduced selectively each year. The blocks are hard to access and remote meaning minimized effects of rec hunters losing hunting area.

Originally Posted by Stocky

We already pay for Ballots and DOC dont make money on it every year after administration costs etc.

Is there any reason to suspect that DOC makes any profit on any ballot in any year?

Originally Posted by gimp

Is there any reason to suspect that DOC makes any profit on any ballot in any year?

Pardon I'm a bit confused by the question? I'm saying the don't make profit and talking to a few people they usually lose money. It was mentioned that if we paid for hunting that they would see it being used for revenue gathering for footpaths etc which I was suggesting wouldn't happen otherwise they would atleast be trying to profit from existing pay to hunt situations on public land.

We do pay for hunting nw it in out tax we should not be paying for any thing else to hunt doc hunt couse it starts out small then it will go up & up till it a rich man's sport my family couldn't afford to pay the the $30 for 3 months there me & my wife has her on rifle & hunts by herself & 2 kids coming along yes it would start of small then on 10years it be $500 like everything it just keeps going up until it unaffordable then the deer numbers will rise & it would get dump & go back to what it is now to get people in the bush hunting what we have nw works well but yes people need shoot more hinds & the chopper guys shouldn't be shooting stags & we need more access points into doc land so it easy for people to get in & bring meat out but I think that's all that needs to change

Originally Posted by hunt08

We do pay for hunting nw it in out tax we should not be paying for any thing else to hunt doc hunt couse it starts out small then it will go up & up till it a rich man's sport my family couldn't afford to pay the the $30 for 3 months there me & my wife has her on rifle & hunts by herself & 2 kids coming along yes it would start of small then on 10years it be $500 like everything it just keeps going up until it unaffordable then the deer numbers will rise & it would get dump & go back to what it is now to get people in the bush hunting what we have nw works well but yes people need shoot more hinds & the chopper guys shouldn't be shooting stags & we need more access points into doc land so it easy for people to get in & bring meat out but I think that's all that needs to change

I said we (hunters) pay for Ballots (which are popular) not to pay to hunt but it's not a far stretch that paying for ballots is paying for a better hunting experience which is what is suggested here. Taxes don't cover everything. And it's better they don't. If people are really so broke you can't afford a total of $100-$120 for hunting permits allowing you as much meat as you can hunt if suggest do you really pay that much tax? With a few exceptions most people can make things happen. For example anyone that smokes could save significantly more if they valued hunting more than smoking etc. I for example chose to not drink apart from very occasionally as I saw it was a was of money for little benefit. Compared to old mate that buys a box a week I save $1000 a year on beer. I do all my own work on vehicles and vary rarely pay for people to do things for me rather I learn how from the Internet and if its affordable to by the tools I do it myself.

But anyway I suggested rough prices a fishing license costs more than the prices I suggested it was just a ballpark figure. You do raise a good point about families costing a lot. A suggestion would be to just make it free for under 18s etc to help families recruit new hunters or family licenses for when your partner come along just like fishing licenses for a discounted rate for the whole family ie $150(ballpark shit it could be $50) for everyone in the family for a year. Deer number rise partially because people target stags and not hinds and while I lived up north there was a huge "don't shoot the breeders" sentiment from back in the days when deer numbers where low. That sentiment is less common I've found down south but the terrain often means different issues in actually being able to recover meat from some areas.

I don't think we are to dissimilar on the issue except for the paying to hunt. Hell I'm open to the idea in areas where deer numbers are high or a problem that hunting is free and remains as such. I'm not suggesting that we make it require tags for all the North island bush. Im suggesting the more remote places that are only hunted by WARO and trophy hunters are given an improved system that could balance conservation and hunting experience.

I appreciate your contribution even if we don't agree on everything. Prices are just a suggestion even if say all 100k (ballpark guess) hunters paid $50 a year thats $5 million a year that could be sent towards trying to both improve knowledge of the effects of hunting, publicly campaign in a pro hunting matter such as the donated meat from FWF etc.

Originally Posted by Stocky

If people are really so broke you can't afford a total of $100-$120 for hunting permits allowing you as much meat as you can hunt if suggest do you really pay that much tax?

This isn't really fair on my behalf. I was in a bad mood at the time due to unrelated events. It doesn't add to the discussion and isn't helpful at all. I don't really think it matters how much we all pay in tax as to our input on issues (most people pay too much as far as I'm concerned anyway when you see how it's spent). Your point is a valid one however I do think most people can make this work considering the other related costs to hunting such as travel, ammunition, gear etc and the fact we can always work out what is affordable to most before implementing anything. But the above comment was not called for as such Im sorry for being snarky it and unfair.

Originally Posted by hunt08

We do pay for hunting nw it in out tax we should not be paying for any thing else to hunt doc hunt couse it starts out small then it will go up & up till it a rich man's sport my family couldn't afford to pay the the $30 for 3 months there me & my wife has her on rifle & hunts by herself & 2 kids coming along yes it would start of small then on 10years it be $500 like everything it just keeps going up until it unaffordable then the deer numbers will rise & it would get dump & go back to what it is now to get people in the bush hunting what we have nw works well but yes people need shoot more hinds & the chopper guys shouldn't be shooting stags & we need more access points into doc land so it easy for people to get in & bring meat out but I think that's all that needs to change

I dont foresee a cost being applied to meat hunting in ordinary RHA's. Only for Main Divide Trophy producing areas. These areas cost a lot in time and finances to access relative to close at hand areas where we would meat hunt anyway, so paying a fee of some sort to have the assurance that the stags weren't bombed up in late Jan by Waro seems like no contest to me.