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

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

This is what you need @Stocky, a Graf Boys carry frame https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgAhw2Uwhas
I made my one for under ten bucks in materials ( it is in the photo with the stag and rifle above). You are welcome to borrow it for a try, doesnt make the deer any lighter but lowers the COG so that sidling is easy and there is no fighting for balance

Not sold, my qualms aren't with comfort they are with load through joints etc. I don't see it working well with bone removed. Sure it's fine for mellow semi open bush stuff but there's no way I'm putting a deer across sideways like that coming down a bush spur with no track that often are steep enough I'm already getting hung up by my pack. My pack carry weight well with the load shelf. I do enough dumb shit I don't need to be crippled by the time I'm 60. My father did stuff like this now there's not a hope in hell he'd hunt anywhere I do and he's still got 5 years to 60.

Soon as you go to a management system for stags or tag system there will be a cost, It will become a rich man sport.
We are all protective about our big game animal but they are a pest

Originally Posted by gimp

The economic aspect of hunting unfortunately isn't a winner in the legislative framework of managing wild animals in New Zealand, where economic aspects take 2nd tier position behind maintaining ecological integrity. WARO exists and is legally permitted as it is free management of wild animals, not due to economic benefits it generates.

I'd argue WARO is potentially detrimental to population management. They target low impact animals population wise (stags) that then conversely discourages recreational hunters to go to these areas. If they however had to shoot 10 hinds for every stag then they might be more effective. They often leave Valleys to repopulate to them hit them again to increase return on invest and tend to target the same known spots that produce stags. Ie a number of lovely faces on the coast I know were shot relegiously in summer for velvet stags. It can be used more effectively ie wapiti were the population is dropping yearly IIRK.

Originally Posted by bigbear

Up here on the east coast the problem is there is so much forestry that has no public access and and some have got no hind policy.
a guy a know had hundred hinds coming out in to his locked up calving paddocks last year, i talked to another guy couple weeks a go they counted 80 hinds and two piece of shit stags in there back paddocks.
I know of a farm that sold in the last 12months, they shot over 300 deer of it with a chopper (anything that moved fallow and reds)
The raukumara's is not far away from getting 1080 its a big block with no real public access and helicopter access is costly. Getting done for possums and deer. Doc have already had guys on foot culling deer in there and goats.
Also goats are another animal out of control up here the only difference is they are worth money dead and alive so that gets more people interested.

Are they actually saying they are targetting deer with 1080? I'm pretty sure it's illegal.

And yes the mindset that more is better is set in some of the population

Originally Posted by gimp

The management agency needs to investigate novel techniques to incentivise hunters to target more management-effective individuals, whether goats, nanny tahr, hinds, etc.

I estimate a forum member and I killed $700+ worth of goats at management cost incidentally in one day walking out from a block this week. Imagine the conservation economic benefits if all hunters were incentivised to do the same.

I called Wayne Costello to tell him an area with a mob of 50 plus goats in the tops. I only had 10 rounds and was still hunting so didnt take any until I was on my way out. Made a point of shooting goat in a mob of 7 starting with the nannies. I checked and the main mob was completely undisturbed. I didn't get a call back or anything. Shit a heli to drop 2 guys in with rifles accurate to 4-500 yards and you would shoot damn near everyone of them if you made a point of targetting the lead animal (used to do this culling in taranaki and could shoot out entire basins of 100 plus goats with 3 shooters.

Originally Posted by bigbear

Soon as you go to a management system for stags or tag system there will be a cost, It will become a rich man sport.
We are all protective about our big game animal but they are a pest

I don't nessatily agree. If we want to keep deer we need them removed from the pest mantra to one of a resource. As for tags it's not a rich man's game in the states if your a resident. It's definitely less money than what the meat would cost you. Also I'm saying for just a few areas like say one for the rakaia reds and area of otago. Etc. Anyone can get out an hunt hinds in those areas etc. By doing that you provide some areas those wanting a mature trophy can wait a few years to draw while meaning the rest can be left under the judgement of each individual hunters ethics like it is now.

I'm not sold on the idea to be honest but it's worth a thought.

Originally Posted by bigbear

Soon as you go to a management system for stags or tag system there will be a cost, It will become a rich man sport.
We are all protective about our big game animal but they are a pest

Ungulates in NZ require management of some kind under current legislation to minimise impacts on native biodiversity. To maintain the social license for preserving a huntable population of any ungulates in the future, it seems likely that hunters need to be able to demonstrate value in some way commensurate to cover the costs to manage the population.

Essentially: User pays in the end.

Originally Posted by Stocky

I'd argue WARO is potentially detrimental to population management. They target low impact animals population wise (stags) that then conversely discourages recreational hunters to go to these areas. If they however had to shoot 10 hinds for every stag then they might be more effective. They often leave Valleys to repopulate to them hit them again to increase return on invest and tend to target the same known spots that produce stags. Ie a number of lovely faces on the coast I know were shot relegiously in summer for velvet stags. It can be used more effectively ie wapiti were the population is dropping yearly IIRK.

I agree, I should have stated that it is perceived to be free management of wild animals. It is unclear based on current evidence what impact WARO has on wild animal numbers on PCL c.f. recreational hunters, and even more unclear what those numbers actually signify in terms of ecological outcomes - i.e. the important part that the management agency has a legal mandate to consider primarily.

Subsidised WARO likely has a key place as an important management tool in a better management system for reducing populations where this achieves desired outcomes in areas where recreational hunters are unable to do so.

Recreational hunters are widely currently considered unable to manage ungulate numbers anywhere on PCL, but this assumption a) isn't particularly well supported by data although it may well be true for many areas, and b) ignores social factors - the very poor relationship and lack of trust in the management agency by hunters leading to reluctance to work towards management outcomes or share data; the lack of clearly defined and understood management targets and how to achieve them, etc.

Originally Posted by Stocky

I called Wayne Costello to tell him an area with a mob of 50 plus goats in the tops. I only had 10 rounds and was still hunting so didnt take any until I was on my way out. Made a point of shooting goat in a mob of 7 starting with the nannies. I checked and the main mob was completely undisturbed. I didn't get a call back or anything. Shit a heli to drop 2 guys in with rifles accurate to 4-500 yards and you would shoot damn near everyone of them if you made a point of targetting the lead animal (used to do this culling in taranaki and could shoot out entire basins of 100 plus goats with 3 shooters.

I don't doubt this. However look at it from the perspective of a land manager - there may be no budget for ungulate control in that area, there may be no skilled staff available to do that work, that area may not be a priority for ungulate control budget or staff that are available, or controlling ungulates in that area may not achieve any defined outcome goal. All of these reasons for inaction on a public report of high goat numbers are highly probable. Prioritisation of limited resources is the reality of a DOC manager, within the constraints of a prescriptive system.

I encourage shooting all goats however I recognise that in doing so it may be entirely futile in terms of achieving any actual measurable positive ecological outcome in the area. There are goat culling operations that have failed to achieve a measurable difference in vegetation structure/composition in forest compared to uncontrolled areas - i.e. the control effort is insufficient to achieve any measurable effect. This is wasted management money.

Incentivising hunters to do more for less public cost may be a win if outcomes are adequately monitored and data on hunter efforts is available and accurate (honest).

e: also where was it? I've got loads of .223

Originally Posted by Stocky

I think it's kind of assumed the many mentions of controlling populations is for habitat management you can't manage for habitat without managing for population. The discussion just has more than one focus.

Coming from a registered Angus background that focuses on breeding for better females I completely understand females carry half the genes. You cannot however assess antler quality genes by looking at a hind so no judgement can be made.

I thought earlier I had eluded to a feed pinch at which too many animals means they all suffer nutritionally ie meaning less healthy deer.

I don't agree with shooting everything even in high population areas. I think due to the fact that high pay a dividend of the equivalent population control as 5 stags and they have less effect on hunt quality for those that are looking for mature stags it makes far more sense to target hinds specifically leading to more competition between stags improving genes that carry on.

So in short I agree with all your points and thought they had been eluded to already earlier. I just disagree that targetting everything is a good way to do it as why kill 20 stags when you could much more easily just kill 4 extra hinds for the same population effect with less effect on hunt quality.

Yep we're on the same page I think. I'm more talking about areas that are already out of control numbers wise.
Shooting everything certainly isn't necessary in every scenario but in areas like Bigbear is talking about, where numbers are out of control, shooting 20 stags instead of 4 hinds is going to have a much higher impact on feed availability for the remaining animals with the effects being immediate instead of spread over a period of a few years. Ideally we wouldn't let animal numbers reach the level where this immediate solution is needed but unfortunately it is the case in some areas. I definitely agree shooting hinds IS the long term way to manage a population though.

Originally Posted by gimp

Can you expand on this? Do you mean the moratorium on WARO in the 1980s? My understanding was that was largely due to the NZDA but I obviously wasn't around at the time so am willing to be corrected.

Tahr were never really in danger of eradication realistically (witness DOC efforts to remove tahr from outside the feral range for 30+ years, unsuccessfully and at great expense per animal once populations get low e.g. Waikite, Arawhata, Thompson Mountains, etc) but may have been reduced to a level where they were not a viable hunting resource indefinitely.

What I was referring to was the most recent 'culls'. The international Trophy Hunting Industry is worth millions and millions of dollars, NZ's slice adds up to I think fifty million plus to overseas hunters, those hunters being the highest value tourists that this country attracts - hunters will spend 15 to 20 thousand US on a one week hunt. This has not gone un-noticed by Govt and there is potential to easily double that to a one hundred million dollar industry with little environmental impact.

Originally Posted by gimp

I don't doubt this. However look at it from the perspective of a land manager - there may be no budget for ungulate control in that area, there may be no skilled staff available to do that work, that area may not be a priority for ungulate control budget or staff that are available, or controlling ungulates in that area may not achieve any defined outcome goal. All of these reasons for inaction on a public report of high goat numbers are highly probable. Prioritisation of limited resources is the reality of a DOC manager, within the constraints of a prescriptive system.

I encourage shooting all goats however I recognise that in doing so it may be entirely futile in terms of achieving any actual measurable positive ecological outcome in the area. There are goat culling operations that have failed to achieve a measurable difference in vegetation structure/composition in forest compared to uncontrolled areas - i.e. the control effort is insufficient to achieve any measurable effect. This is wasted management money.

Incentivising hunters to do more for less public cost may be a win if outcomes are adequately monitored and data on hunter efforts is available and accurate (honest).

e: also where was it? I've got loads of .223

Pm me I'll let you know its not nice access. I know they have hired hunters specifically to cull goats in the area as i talked to him about the job before deciding it was asking a bit much my partner to work away 10 days at a time and then go over to Canada to Guide 3 months a year. That how I knew who to call. I'm not doubting they are stuck for resources which is 95% of the reason why I think adding value by having areas by improving trophy quality allows for the money to be used to fund other conservation work. In North America hunting/shooting funds the majority of conservation efforts and while alot are focused on hunted species its also used on not target species.

And yeh I agree for eradication you really need to be picking areas with the lowest chances of reinvasion and really target them. It would also be nice to see science as to sustainable carrying capacity and hunter consultation. For example certain species are higher risk such as goats due to breeding rates and browsing habits so it's likely they will need to be kept as low as possible otherwise they will need constant control. They also dont have significant hunting demand due to poorer meat quality and I guess ease of hunting.

I also forgot to mention before that I think the issue with the Tahr App was partially the paranoid fuck doc brigade and partially its the lest user friendly app I've used in some time its clunky and convoluted. It really should be a standalone app. If one was created for all species hopefully a specific app could be developed that's more streamlined. I do use the Tahr App but in fairness Its an afterthought and I backlog when I think what's this survey123 thing on my phone.

Just watched the local WARO land in next doors paddock, couldn't see what he was doing but I know he has done no WARO work since April last year as his overseas buyer shut up shop.

He has been busy all roar flying hunters in and out sometimes up to 5 times a day.

Weird he landed in the neighbours paddock since his own is only 3 paddocks away.

Originally Posted by kbrebs

Yep we're on the same page I think. I'm more talking about areas that are already out of control numbers wise.
Shooting everything certainly isn't necessary in every scenario but in areas like Bigbear is talking about, where numbers are out of control, shooting 20 stags instead of 4 hinds is going to have a much higher impact on feed availability for the remaining animals with the effects being immediate instead of spread over a period of a few years. Ideally we wouldn't let animal numbers reach the level where this immediate solution is needed but unfortunately it is the case in some areas. I definitely agree shooting hinds IS the long term way to manage a population though.

I agree completely and had that same thought. Why I changed my veiw was that while that it true even in hugely populated areas stags still make up a minority of the population but make up a majority of animals taken (atleast where I hunt) also when hunting solo or even in groups of two or three if a stag is shot chances are there's not enough space in packs to brings anymore animals out maybe 1 more (which is often another stag). So unless you are shooting and leaving most of the animal every time a stag is shot is one less hind that can be shot in that trip ie sat a guy go's hunting 12 times a year down here there every chance that you can kill a deer everytime (not saying that's the case everywhere). Everytime you shoot a stag then you don't shoot a hind and now as a hunter you had the ability to knock out 12 animals with a maximum equivalent of 60 by shooting all hinds. If say 4 of those trips fall in the summer and roar as many do. Just seems a waste of resources. If I was paying someone to cull by foot in open ish areas where glassing is an option I would expect them to try wherever possible to shoot hinds to make the best use of money spent. In bush hunting obviously this changes significantly and a take what you see approach begins to apply however on the herd management approach side of things I just see it as a bit of a shame but I understand it. There just less of a detriment leaving stags as leaving one stag means next year its still just one stag and the year after its still just one whereas leaving a hind is a 2 deer the next year and 3 the next and 5 the next and so on and so on. It's just a scale and everyone dall on a different balance.

I think we agree completely and it's just different hunting areas that lead to different veiw points. Also if I'm hunting say the Kaimais like when I was young I'm pretty I'd struggle to warrant turning down any stag unless I had a really good chance of getting a hind instead which is alway a gamble and leads back to the age old gambit of a bird in the hand in worth two in the bush or in that case 5.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

What I was referring to was the most recent 'culls'. The international Trophy Hunting Industry is worth millions and millions of dollars, NZ's slice adds up to I think fifty million plus to overseas hunters, those hunters being the highest value tourists that this country attracts - hunters will spend 15 to 20 thousand US on a one week hunt. This has not gone un-noticed by Govt and there is potential to easily double that to a one hundred million dollar industry with little environmental impact.

I'm not sure I believe that, the culls went ahead pretty much exactly as planned I don't think anything we did stopped anything this cull. The biggest saving grace being an election that removed an antihunting agenda driven minister of conservation and that unfortunate helicopter accident. Maybe you could say that them targetting nannies was a win but realistically I think alot of bulls were still shot as seen by the high number of dead heads being turned up by hunters.