Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

NZGR Terminator


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: Tahr control update from NZDA

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by ethos View Post
    No they can fuck off.
    Paid canned hunts and trophy hunts are “ethically challenged” and create extremely bad press for all hunters.
    Secondly as Smiddy says, non deserving shits and giggles cowboys actually get preferential access to tax paying kiwis to our wilderness blocks at present so pull the other one. ��
    Lastly tourist trophy hunters “getting the job done” on lowering animal numbers?
    Yeah nah.
    The herd obviously needs ongoing targeted control and that will involve bombing some nannies and not being precious about just shooting trophy bulls eh.
    As unpalatable as guided trophy hunting may seem if we look past that initial reaction and 'think' we will see it is our salvation.
    Inspite of the best efforts of both domestic and tourist hunters the numbers have gotten out of control.
    Unchecked, animals that bare a single young double their populations every three years. So without control there will be 100,000 by 2021

    What is a paid canned hunt ? Is that where an animal is shot in a pen ??
    Re the comments on preferential access, perhaps not ideal but if you pay you will always be treated preferentially that is the reality of life. Doc will want to focus recreational hunter efforts in areas that need control - at a guess. That is what I would do.
    Tahr here are not on their native range. They were introduced for hunting from England where they were kept on a fenced trophy park. In my view if someone is concerned about ethics then that person should consider hunting Thar in the Himalayas and not hunt the animals here in NZ that were introduced from trophy park stock.
    Unless there is a value placed on Tahr they are always going to be subject to eradication plans. Foot hunters cannot control them. I know this from a culler who shot 6000 with a 222 and a few thousand more with a 7 mil. I think that qualifies as experience.
    The trophy fee was NZD $1000 to DOC - Don't know the current rate.
    Where did I state of tourist hunters "getting the job done" ???? I actually typed 'let them have a crack' as it seems we have plenty to spare
    What a great thing if 5000 overseas hunters rocked up and shot a bull and nanny each. $30,000000

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Moa Hunter View Post
    As unpalatable as guided trophy hunting may seem if we look past that initial reaction and 'think' we will see it is our salvation.
    Inspite of the best efforts of both domestic and tourist hunters the numbers have gotten out of control.
    Unchecked, animals that bare a single young double their populations every three years. So without control there will be 100,000 by 2021

    What is a paid canned hunt ? Is that where an animal is shot in a pen ??
    Re the comments on preferential access, perhaps not ideal but if you pay you will always be treated preferentially that is the reality of life. Doc will want to focus recreational hunter efforts in areas that need control - at a guess. That is what I would do.
    Tahr here are not on their native range. They were introduced for hunting from England where they were kept on a fenced trophy park. In my view if someone is concerned about ethics then that person should consider hunting Thar in the Himalayas and not hunt the animals here in NZ that were introduced from trophy park stock.
    Unless there is a value placed on Tahr they are always going to be subject to eradication plans. Foot hunters cannot control them. I know this from a culler who shot 6000 with a 222 and a few thousand more with a 7 mil. I think that qualifies as experience.
    The trophy fee was NZD $1000 to DOC - Don't know the current rate.
    Where did I state of tourist hunters "getting the job done" ???? I actually typed 'let them have a crack' as it seems we have plenty to spare
    What a great thing if 5000 overseas hunters rocked up and shot a bull and nanny each. $30,000000
    You smoking the Jazz tobacco? Tahr not in there native range? You don’t say. Paying gets you preferential treatment is the reality?wasnt meant to be like that on public land until the Nats conservation for profit. Lets get 5000 tourists to make it worse? Even if the nanny’s and bulls went for $1000 too, that’s 10 mill not 30 and it’s fantasy. Your appreciation of reality is a tad off.

    Plus , they can still fuck off id rather have an animal free wilderness hunt than invest time and money getting in to the wilds and be buzzed by fuckwits with no appreciation of where they are.
    rewd and Steve123 like this.

  3. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    200
    how does.paying get you preferential treatment on DOC land?
    or are you saying paying a guide to get local knowledge is unethical?
    We're not talking about fenced private land hunts here.

    I'm self employed and work for a living in the north island.
    I don't get to spend time down south learning where animals are and on the rare occasion I do a hunt down south I sure don't plan on wasting 2 days walking in and out and them being too dam stuffed to climb another 2000 ft to hunt something. let alone carry a head, skin and meat out.
    Sorry guys that an't a reality for me and many other hunters. 20-25 years back I would have run in with my gear. not today.

    So no way do I have any time for guys who want to ban me from getting a ride up and down the hill at the end of my 3-5 days. And I have little more time for those of you who want to denigrate me or anyone else who wants to hire a local guide and put money into the local economy, guides, hotel, pilots etc.
    I don't get down often so when I do what's wrong with employing local knowledge??? {a guide, professional or a local mate what's the difference}
    Zq

    It's in all our interests to maintain a quality herd across a range of country and access.
    Last edited by ZQLewis; 15-09-2018 at 01:26 AM.
    chainsaw and Moa Hunter like this.

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by ZQLewis View Post
    how does.paying get you preferential treatment on DOC land?
    or are you saying paying a guide to get local knowledge is unethical?
    We're not talking about fenced private land hunts here.

    I'm self employed and work for a living in the north island.
    I don't get to spend time down south learning where animals are and on the rare occasion I do a hunt down south I sure don't plan on wasting 2 days walking in and out and them being too dam stuffed to climb another 2000 ft to hunt something. let alone carry a head, skin and meat out.
    Sorry guys that an't a reality for me and many other hunters. 20-25 years back I would have run in with my gear. not today.

    So no way do I have any time for guys who want to ban me from getting a ride up and down the hill at the end of my 3-5 days. And I have little more time for those of you who want to denigrate me or anyone else who wants to hire a local guide and put money into the local economy, guides, hotel, pilots etc.
    I don't get down often so when I do what's wrong with employing local knowledge??? {a guide, professional or a local mate what's the difference}
    Zq

    It's in all our interests to maintain a quality herd across a range of country and access.
    AATH is allowed in wilderness areas but fly in fly out hunting by kiwis is not, outside of the ballot(also open to overseas hunters). That is the preferential access. Suggest you look up AATH/helihunting if you don’t know what it is.
    Personally I don’t like the “i pay to trophy hunt because time, money” argument because that argument gives AATH, giraffe hunting etc etc” my money is good for the country so ethics don’t count”. But I accept that’s an ethical position and people differ.
    It gets ugly when one camp gets preferential access over another though, when AATH detracts from every other backcountry user groups experience.
    No one is talking a ban on all helicopter access, but I have precisely zero sympathy for the commercial operators screwing over ground hunters.
    I’d also rather have lower tahr numbers, better environment and a more valuable experience than farming tahr on public land for the fat wallets to pick their trophy.

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by ethos View Post
    You smoking the Jazz tobacco? Tahr not in there native range? You don’t say. Paying gets you preferential treatment is the reality?wasnt meant to be like that on public land until the Nats conservation for profit. Lets get 5000 tourists to make it worse? Even if the nanny’s and bulls went for $1000 too, that’s 10 mill not 30 and it’s fantasy. Your appreciation of reality is a tad off.

    Plus , they can still fuck off id rather have an animal free wilderness hunt than invest time and money getting in to the wilds and be buzzed by fuckwits with no appreciation of where they are.
    Ethos, the reality of Tahr in NZ is that they are regarded as a pest. You may wish and desire wonderful wilderness hunting adventures with mature bulls looking down at you from every lofty crag... But when you wake up and open your eyes you will hopefully see that this dream is not reality, it may be your dream but it is not the dream or reality for the general public and DOC. They don't have a reason to want Tahr here. But if those Tahr are generating income for the country then that is a different story. I would like you to please read this next sentence properly and understand it ' Reality is DOC and the public don't want our great walks tracks and huts clogged with fee paying tourists and their walk guides either, but because they generate income they are welcomed.' Have you ever hunted overseas ? When you do you pay for a guide, this keeps the locals safe and the tourist safe. You might be interested to find out about hunting guide area concessions in North America.
    When I hunt on public land here I always think Wow this is fantastic, what a lucky guy I am. I am grateful for what we have, I don't consider it my right. There might be a group of trampers on the track singing the theme to 'The sound of Music' and ruining my wilderness experience, but as a hunter - a minority use group I have to accept this as my reality.
    I like to think my math is of at least an average standard. A bull Tahr is worth NZD$6000 as a trophy fee. Some operators will charge USD $6000. Throw the nanny in, a brace of Tahr for $6000 the DOC fee may be inclusive or added on.
    The overseas hunters who come here are no more 'f...w...ts' as you describe them than Kiwis. For the most part they are hard working tradies and self employed guys out of the US who save up for an overseas hunt. A big attraction is a mountain fly-in, in a helicopter. If you want them all gone that is fine, we take them away and there will be no economic reason to have Tahr here.
    ZQLewis likes this.

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by ZQLewis View Post
    how does.paying get you preferential treatment on DOC land?
    or are you saying paying a guide to get local knowledge is unethical?
    We're not talking about fenced private land hunts here.

    I'm self employed and work for a living in the north island.
    I don't get to spend time down south learning where animals are and on the rare occasion I do a hunt down south I sure don't plan on wasting 2 days walking in and out and them being too dam stuffed to climb another 2000 ft to hunt something. let alone carry a head, skin and meat out.
    Sorry guys that an't a reality for me and many other hunters. 20-25 years back I would have run in with my gear. not today.

    So no way do I have any time for guys who want to ban me from getting a ride up and down the hill at the end of my 3-5 days. And I have little more time for those of you who want to denigrate me or anyone else who wants to hire a local guide and put money into the local economy, guides, hotel, pilots etc.
    I don't get down often so when I do what's wrong with employing local knowledge??? {a guide, professional or a local mate what's the difference}
    Zq

    It's in all our interests to maintain a quality herd across a range of country and access.
    ..Never a truer word !!

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South
    Posts
    162
    Farming tourists or tahr on public land, upkept with taxpayer money, so someone can make a fast buck shouldnt be encouraged.
    Interesting you bring up North America as an example. Don’t think you can spot and drop or helihunt there? Must utilise the whole animal?

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by ethos View Post
    Farming tourists or tahr on public land, upkept with taxpayer money, so someone can make a fast buck shouldnt be encouraged.
    Interesting you bring up North America as an example. Don’t think you can spot and drop or helihunt there? Must utilise the whole animal?
    The point that you are struggling to digest here Ethos is that you are an ungrateful 'free-loader'!! didn't want to put it so bluntly but there it is now. Managing the Public Estate has costs, just the same as managing a farm. Your 'sport' on public land is being subsidised by the rest of the public who do not tramp, walk, or hunt. Tourists help offset that cost. If you want tourists gone then you pick up the tab for us.
    No you can't spot and helihunt in North Am. But you can hunt Thar there in Texas and a friend in Idaho had some there too. The whole point in hunting them here is for the experience.
    Perhaps if you had your own business you would see things in a different way and understand more of how finances work.
    Regarding control,
    You have two choices Ethos: 1) Regular Helicopter search and Destroy thar programs at the whim of Doc. 2) A managed trophy herd with tourist hunting as a component of the mix

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South
    Posts
    162
    Lol.
    Either you failed to read what I wrote or you fail to understand and that’s ok.
    FYI I’m self employed.
    Freeloading is what the AATH parasites do on public land.
    So as I’ve said, cull the tahr, helihunters can fuck off.
    Commercial activity should not occur on public land to the detriment of the public.

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South
    Posts
    162
    Self important skidbiters aside this is interesting, DoC failure to cull over years as was meant to occur in the plan.
    https://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/tahr...eid=4c1b6e833f

    “The Conservation Authority has labelled DOC’s management of tahr a total failure and says the government may be forced to invest millions to reduce numbers due to years of neglect.

    Himalayan tahr are meant to be kept to less than 10,000 animals under a control plan designed to prevent environmental damage, but the population is estimated to have reached more than 35,000.

    Tahr have also been spreading into areas where DOC was meant to prevent them from establishing.

    The authority, which advices DOC on conservation matters, sent a letter to the conservation minister in July calling for urgent action. It said Westland Tai Poutini National Park had become ‘a tahr game park’, with large herds of tahr. Without control, it estimated the population could grow by 5000 a year.

    It blamed the growth on budget cuts and apathy.

    ‘DOC’s staff charged with hunting tahr have had their efforts capped by budget constraints and it seems that politicians have simply ignored the problem, hoping that it will go away,’ the authority said.

    DOC spends $288,000 a year on tahr control, killing about 2800 animals a year, but the authority said it will cost millions to get numbers below 10,000.

    DOC said it expected to make an announcement on tahr management next week and would not answer questions from Wilderness until then.

    Game Animal Council councillor and Lincoln University environmental economics professor Geoffrey Kerr agreed that a lack of funding was the issue.

    “The expectation was always that DOC would put money in to keep numbers down, but they didn’t put the resources in,” Kerr said. “DOC didn’t implement the plan.”

    He said tahr hunting is still popular and hunters kill about 2000-3000 tahr a year, while more than 1000 were killed on guided trophy hunts – which was a $15m industry.

    Kerr said New Zealand is the only country where tahr are found in significant numbers and are legal to hunt. International hunters pay $14,000 per trophy bull.

    But tahr can be in very hard to access alpine areas, and DOC culls were required to control the population.

    Kerr said estimating tahr numbers is notoriously difficult, and monitoring had found numbers could be as low as 17,000, or as high as 52,000.

    Forest and Bird chief conservation advisor Kevin Hackwell said tahr are altering the ecology of alpine areas and DOC needs to put significant funds into bringing the numbers below 10,000.

    “It’s clear that hunting by itself is not doing the job,” Hackwell said. “We need to see concerted management going on.”

    Hackwell is hopeful DOC’s budget boost this year will mean more resources will be able to be put into tahr control.

    Tahr are an introduced feral goat found in alpine areas of the Southern Alps and can devastate alpine plants, but they are a popular game animal with both local and international hunters.

    Ironically, the tahr control plan was developed in 1993 due to fears tahr would be wiped out, as the species were hunted by helicopter for their meat for high-end restaurants. In the 1980s, the government put a 10 year moratorium on commercial tahr hunting, and developed the management plan in an attempt to balance hunting interest with conservation. Under the plan, tahr numbers were to be limited to 10,000 animals, above which it states they may cause significant environmental damage. If commercial and recreational hunting failed to control tahr numbers, DOC was meant to pay to cull animals.

    The plan said tahr numbers ‘would not be permitted’ to increase beyond the limits set in the plan and this would help avoid ‘boom-bust fluctuations’ which are ‘intrinsically more difficult to manage’. But tahr numbers have increased and DOC has failed to control their expansion.

    The Conservation Authority has suggested reviving the tahr meat market may be one way to boost control efforts.

    ‘Unless this occurs, the control of tahr will remain an ongoing drain on taxpayer funds. One danger of a restaurant trade is that it could encourage the retention of large accessible herds of tahr rather than their elimination.’

    The authority has called for an immediate review of the Tahr Management Plan ‘to determine why the plan has been such a total failure’.”


    shame about the commercial spiel from the GAC but they are guide heavy. Rec hunters biggest contributor to animal control. No mention of rec hunters economic contribution.
    Wait and see how popular guides and AATH will be with a population under 10k ��

  11. #26
    Member chainsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Moa Hunter View Post
    Overseas hunters are charged a trophy fee by DOC collected by the Safari Park / Hunting guide.
    How cool if Prince Harry was taken Tahr hunting when he and Megan are here, that would lift the image.
    There are 30,000 spare so if the kiwis can't get the job done let the tourists hunters have a crack
    I believe Harry has his trophy.....and by now I’d think mounted.

    On a more serious note I don’t like the way DOC in their “wisdom” arbitrarily chop off large chunks of PUBLIC land under the no fly, wilderness area designation which vastly restricts the access for foot hunters - most of us don’t have the time or physical attributes for a 2-3 day walk in. A ride into the back country is a great experience. I had it explained to me that DOC did not choppers flying parties in/out because it disturbs the pristine environment. Then they complain that animal (“pest”) numbers are too high, and fly around in choppers on SAD missions. Or allow selected access for AATH. Wtf ?
    Btw I’m all for tourist hunters paying a decent fee to access our herds ...and that money should go back into maintaining the herds & the environment
    Moa Hunter likes this.

  12. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    South
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
    I believe Harry has his trophy.....and by now I’d think mounted.

    On a more serious note I don’t like the way DOC in their “wisdom” arbitrarily chop off large chunks of PUBLIC land under the no fly, wilderness area designation which vastly restricts the access for foot hunters - most of us don’t have the time or physical attributes for a 2-3 day walk in. A ride into the back country is a great experience. I had it explained to me that DOC did not choppers flying parties in/out because it disturbs the pristine environment. Then they complain that animal (“pest”) numbers are too high, and fly around in choppers on SAD missions. Or allow selected access for AATH. Wtf ?
    Btw I’m all for tourist hunters paying a decent fee to access our herds ...and that money should go back into maintaining the herds & the environment
    Might be nice if a bigger proportion of that $14k trophy went in to management of public resource instead of someone’s back pocket eh, while taxpayers pick up the tab for extra animal control (freeloading)
    I’m not sure where AATH nanny culls feature in the above stats - part of the DoC cull stats or the 1000 guided animals taken.

  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
    I believe Harry has his trophy.....and by now I’d think mounted.

    On a more serious note I don’t like the way DOC in their “wisdom” arbitrarily chop off large chunks of PUBLIC land under the no fly, wilderness area designation which vastly restricts the access for foot hunters - most of us don’t have the time or physical attributes for a 2-3 day walk in. A ride into the back country is a great experience. I had it explained to me that DOC did not choppers flying parties in/out because it disturbs the pristine environment. Then they complain that animal (“pest”) numbers are too high, and fly around in choppers on SAD missions. Or allow selected access for AATH. Wtf ?
    Btw I’m all for tourist hunters paying a decent fee to access our herds ...and that money should go back into maintaining the herds & the environment
    Yes a 'full body mount' so I've heard.

  14. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by ethos View Post
    Might be nice if a bigger proportion of that $14k trophy went in to management of public resource instead of someone’s back pocket eh, while taxpayers pick up the tab for extra animal control (freeloading)
    I’m not sure where AATH nanny culls feature in the above stats - part of the DoC cull stats or the 1000 guided animals taken.
    Don't worry its not NZD$14,000 for a trophy bull these days. If it was imagine the gold rush. In the 90's it was $10,000 but trophy prices have come down and flying machine rates have gone up.

  15. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    North Canterbury
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by ethos View Post
    Self important skidbiters aside this is interesting, DoC failure to cull over years as was meant to occur in the plan.
    https://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/tahr...eid=4c1b6e833f

    “The Conservation Authority has labelled DOC’s management of tahr a total failure and says the government may be forced to invest millions to reduce numbers due to years of neglect.

    Himalayan tahr are meant to be kept to less than 10,000 animals under a control plan designed to prevent environmental damage, but the population is estimated to have reached more than 35,000.

    Tahr have also been spreading into areas where DOC was meant to prevent them from establishing.

    The authority, which advices DOC on conservation matters, sent a letter to the conservation minister in July calling for urgent action. It said Westland Tai Poutini National Park had become ‘a tahr game park’, with large herds of tahr. Without control, it estimated the population could grow by 5000 a year.

    It blamed the growth on budget cuts and apathy.

    ‘DOC’s staff charged with hunting tahr have had their efforts capped by budget constraints and it seems that politicians have simply ignored the problem, hoping that it will go away,’ the authority said.

    DOC spends $288,000 a year on tahr control, killing about 2800 animals a year, but the authority said it will cost millions to get numbers below 10,000.

    DOC said it expected to make an announcement on tahr management next week and would not answer questions from Wilderness until then.

    Game Animal Council councillor and Lincoln University environmental economics professor Geoffrey Kerr agreed that a lack of funding was the issue.

    “The expectation was always that DOC would put money in to keep numbers down, but they didn’t put the resources in,” Kerr said. “DOC didn’t implement the plan.”

    He said tahr hunting is still popular and hunters kill about 2000-3000 tahr a year, while more than 1000 were killed on guided trophy hunts – which was a $15m industry.

    Kerr said New Zealand is the only country where tahr are found in significant numbers and are legal to hunt. International hunters pay $14,000 per trophy bull.

    But tahr can be in very hard to access alpine areas, and DOC culls were required to control the population.

    Kerr said estimating tahr numbers is notoriously difficult, and monitoring had found numbers could be as low as 17,000, or as high as 52,000.

    Forest and Bird chief conservation advisor Kevin Hackwell said tahr are altering the ecology of alpine areas and DOC needs to put significant funds into bringing the numbers below 10,000.

    “It’s clear that hunting by itself is not doing the job,” Hackwell said. “We need to see concerted management going on.”

    Hackwell is hopeful DOC’s budget boost this year will mean more resources will be able to be put into tahr control.

    Tahr are an introduced feral goat found in alpine areas of the Southern Alps and can devastate alpine plants, but they are a popular game animal with both local and international hunters.

    Ironically, the tahr control plan was developed in 1993 due to fears tahr would be wiped out, as the species were hunted by helicopter for their meat for high-end restaurants. In the 1980s, the government put a 10 year moratorium on commercial tahr hunting, and developed the management plan in an attempt to balance hunting interest with conservation. Under the plan, tahr numbers were to be limited to 10,000 animals, above which it states they may cause significant environmental damage. If commercial and recreational hunting failed to control tahr numbers, DOC was meant to pay to cull animals.

    The plan said tahr numbers ‘would not be permitted’ to increase beyond the limits set in the plan and this would help avoid ‘boom-bust fluctuations’ which are ‘intrinsically more difficult to manage’. But tahr numbers have increased and DOC has failed to control their expansion.

    The Conservation Authority has suggested reviving the tahr meat market may be one way to boost control efforts.

    ‘Unless this occurs, the control of tahr will remain an ongoing drain on taxpayer funds. One danger of a restaurant trade is that it could encourage the retention of large accessible herds of tahr rather than their elimination.’

    The authority has called for an immediate review of the Tahr Management Plan ‘to determine why the plan has been such a total failure’.”


    shame about the commercial spiel from the GAC but they are guide heavy. Rec hunters biggest contributor to animal control. No mention of rec hunters economic contribution.
    Wait and see how popular guides and AATH will be with a population under 10k ��
    guides will just shift to using the private land 'hunt parks' inside the Tahr zone and commercial hunting will carry on, whereas it is the recreational hunter who will suffer. Just drive up the Rangitata and look on the faces on 'Stew Point' above the road - counted 100 in half an hour there without binos last time I went past. So no shortage on the Hunt Parks.
    I concede that there needs to be more balance. But nothing in life is ever fair to everyone.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. New video update
    By The Bloke in forum Off topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-04-2015, 12:14 PM
  2. pest control update
    By rogers.270 in forum Hunting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-11-2012, 11:05 AM
  3. Titanic Update
    By EeeBees in forum Off topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-05-2012, 09:58 PM
  4. Server Update - done
    By Spanners in forum Questions, Comments, Suggestions, Testing.
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-02-2012, 06:05 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!