Thread: Thar extermination

Just as an "outside the square" input -

People bang on that tahr are bad and that we need to exterminate them in order to "protect the alpine environment" - as quoted from Winston Peters' reply to the recent barrage. But are they? Are they really bad for the alpine environment? I admit I'm not a scientist and, no, I've not studied in depth the upper reaches of the Mt. Cook National Park, but the walking I've done after tahr hasn't shown me an environment that's devastated by unwelcome pests.

What if we assume for a minute that the research carried out to date has been completed by scientists in the paid employ of the government. Surely a most significant portion of any research must have been completed in this way. Or if we assume that the research carried out by non-government funded people were doing so with their own predetermined bias? Some may think me just a cynical old bastard and have no doubt, I am, but I've heard stories over the years of researchers being told to rewrite their summaries in order to tone down certain points of view - because payment for the work done depended on obtaining a favourable outcome to the cause.

What if pro-hunting groups did their own research and released "clear proof" that the environment benefits from the animals that enhabit the area? Looking at my own back yard I see clear proof that the complete extermination of the wild goat herds that once roamed the area was foolhardy - the wilding pines and other invasive plants are taking over at an alarming rate. In 5 years we've gone from tussocks to 10 foot tall pines. My high school biology lessons taught me that animal numbers are directly proportional to food availability so if the numbers are high is that not a clear indication that the environment is healthy?

If their range is limited - and clearly it is limited not only geographically but also by the tahr's preferred altitude band - then would it not make sense to define their limit of migration, exterminate outside those borders and allow nature and hunters to look after the rest? By my observation the number of hunters chasing tahr has increased significantly in the last 25 years and the resource is becoming more and more valuable as time goes on. With the advent of extreme sports we see a crossover where adrenaline and technology empowers people to be more comfortable hunting in the harsh Southern Alps. The numbers are going to balance out one way or another.

Wholesale extermination to an idealistic value determined by biased reseach in an era of ignorance without reconsidering the possibility of new evidence can only lead to the fullfilment of an unbalanced argument. The dreamers win - those who believe in the fantasy that we can turn back time.

Now that fake news is a "thing", maybe its time to denounce previous reseach as "fake news" and go out and prove tahr are good for the environment.

Originally Posted by planenutz

What if pro-hunting groups did their own research and released "clear proof" that the environment benefits from the animals that enhabit the area?

Not exactly "clear proof", but this is perhaps a start - https://www.facebook.com/huntersclub...06267502/?t=69

Filmed in an area that had plenty of Tahr 12 months ago, probably not so many now though...