THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM DOWN UNDER FORUM

Page 1 2 

Moderators: Bakes
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
The Tahr are done for
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
Sad news from NZ for those who have not seen it yet.

The minister of conservations agenda re Tahr has finally shown out and after the massive cull last year, she has now come out and quadrupled the cull for this winter, with the new policy to destroy every Tahr in our national parks, bulls and all. There is to be a zero population density target.
NZ hunters are going to court to try stop it on scientific grounds. With the DOC saying they will just wait till they win the case and then continue with their program.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Kiwi hunters are certainly taking a hammering under our obsessed "greenie" Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage. This overwhelming obsession sees her ignoring proper consultation and consciously employing shady practises to launch her personal vendetta against Tahr at all costs. I am not even sure her current office permits wielding this level of authority. The hunting fraternity here has always regarded Eugenie with deep suspicion and this current anti - Tahr agenda just reinforces this. I really think we will see no moderation of her's and DOC attitude until she is gone.
A sad day for NZ and our democracy. Eugenie is willfully blind to consultation, inclusion and a scientific approach to Tahr management that would achieve a great win / win for all who hold NZ conservation dear.


Hunting.... it's not everything, it's the only thing.
 
Posts: 996 | Location: New Zealand's North Island | Registered: 13 November 2014Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
My bet is stage 3 of this will be to remove tahr from private land once they have the public land Tahr gone.
Im a bit iffy on whether they will manage to get them all out of the west coast bush, but do remember that that area became the final strong hold in the 80s, who they managed to get the population down to 1500-2500 animals.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I remember that low point of the '80's. Guys were happy to just see Tahr on a hunt.
How can DOC start culling private land without landowner / land manager permission ? I remember the Lilybank days when Gary Joll and Ron Spanton had the lease. They managed to largely keep official Tahr culling at bay.
An aspect of the current cull that pisses me off is the complicity of helicopter operators in this deal. Are those involved just happy to take the money and dam the consequences ? A contemptible attitude if that's the case.


Hunting.... it's not everything, it's the only thing.
 
Posts: 996 | Location: New Zealand's North Island | Registered: 13 November 2014Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
My fear is that some of those helicopter operators may become targets for really disgruntled hunters. I hope not , but serious times produce serious actions .


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Charlie64
posted Hide Post
.

Greets all! Do I understand right that this is ALL TAHR whether on private or public land?? Surely DOC cannot March onto private land and cull or can they ?

Have booked and deposited on a hunt May 2021 South Island.....


Charlie

.


"Up the ladders and down the snakes!"
 
Posts: 1484 | Location: South Africa & Europe | Registered: 10 February 2014Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of 505 gibbs
posted Hide Post
Does anyone have a link or information on what their "issue" is? trying to gain some perspective....
 
Posts: 4948 | Registered: 30 July 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Dogma is the simple answer.
The environmentalists in NZ have an attitude that all introduced animals need removing. The Tahr has been at the fore front of that for a long time probably mostly because it is seen as achievable. The Forest and bird organisation which is an environmental lobby group has been particularly incensed by Tahr for decades, and our current minister of conservation has on one hand a history of having worked for that organisation, and on the other a partner who works for DOC.
Section 49 of the wildlife act, I think it is, allows DOC to carry out pest control on private land with a ministerial warrant. I once had Doc try and serve me with a section 49 many years ago and it allows them to do whatever it takes and you can not interfere. In their words- "once this is surved, you are fucked! w can build tracks, instal huts, cut fences, and have you removed if you get in our way.
I managed to get it stopped because It was an election year and I asked them to prove their were animals on my land- which they had not bothered to do. But what it came down too was it was a relatively small matter and was not worth their while unless I backed down due to bullying.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of jdollar
posted Hide Post
So this is the land of milk and honey that Nakihunter thinks is nirvana? coffee
 
Posts: 8557 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 28 October 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
unfortunately it is fast becoming the marxist capital of the South Seas. Actively a Police State at present , an avowed communist as prime minister and a rag-tag government cobbled together from an assortment of rabid greenies and social misfits.

NZ is not the place it was five years ago and its going down hill very fast. Naki will likely disagree


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Its frighting how quickly it has changed. We are now run by watermelons and left wing fascists.

How bad is it? I think trump is a terrible president. yet given the choice between him and Jacinda I would vote for him with no second thought.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of gryphon1
posted Hide Post
Once the Tahr are gone then the Chamois then the deer wars again.
I`d like to think that they wont get all the Tahr unless it is a super concerted effort many times a year for many years running.
Tahr cant hide from thermal gear these days unless they are in a cave.
We hunters collectively have allowed the greens to erode our lives.
When are we going to band together and sue the greens for mentally harming us?



Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002
 
Posts: 2408 | Registered: 15 March 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of jdollar
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by shankspony:
Its frighting how quickly it has changed. We are now run by watermelons and left wing fascists.

How bad is it? I think trump is a terrible president. yet given the choice between him and Jacinda I would vote for him with no second thought.


Now you see how Trump got elected. I held my nose and voted for him and will again. Hillary and slow Joe are no choice at all....
 
Posts: 8557 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 28 October 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jdollar:
So this is the land of milk and honey that Nakihunter thinks is nirvana? coffee


Reckon it probably is compared to India.

Your own optics can shift what you think of as happy.

I have lived in Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Australia. Spent multiple months in Canada, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Djibouti. Also travelled a bit to a further 30 countries.

In my mind California sucks rabid donkey dicks. But, compared to Greece, Turkey, Vietnam, or Djibouti it is perfect.

Spain was different before the French decided to surrender to the Islamic fundamentalist, and some of that has walked across the border.

I lived in Sicily, and it is totally different (like Wyoming is different than Florida) than Tyrol. Sicily is an ok place to live if you are an American working on a military base there. The mafia won't touch an American. Italians in Sicily live under that drama or threat.

I didn't hate living in the Mojave Desert of California in Ridgecrest. Because of the base and the 8000 engineers that work on it, it has a nice quality of life. And awesome places to ride ATVS and shoot.

But 100 miles away is Lancaster, a big shit hole, and another 80 miles away is Las Angeles the biggest shit hole on the West Coast.

Location, location, location.

Germany was similar, I lived in Kaiserslautern far from a garden spot, but pretty nice. 120 miles away is Frankfurt. Shit falls apart there.
 
Posts: 6266 | Location: Southern New Mexico, land of Green Chilie  | Registered: 10 October 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jdollar:
quote:
Originally posted by shankspony:
Its frighting how quickly it has changed. We are now run by watermelons and left wing fascists.

How bad is it? I think trump is a terrible president. yet given the choice between him and Jacinda I would vote for him with no second thought.


Now you see how Trump got elected. I held my nose and voted for him and will again. Hillary and slow Joe are no choice at all....


Yeah have known that for a while. Its why I don't generally bag Other counties political decisions.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of sambarman338
posted Hide Post
There is a term for this new policy but we are not allowed to use it. If tahr are a threatening process (as they say in greeny land), so are sheep, cattle and humans - but I don't expect any NZ exterminations there.

Good luck with the legal challenge!
 
Posts: 4037 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of HendrikNZ
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jdollar:
Now you see how Trump got elected.


I agree 100%
 
Posts: 320 | Location: New Zealand | Registered: 11 April 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of 505 gibbs
posted Hide Post
quote:
The environmentalists in NZ have an attitude that all introduced animals need removing

If this was achieved, what species would be left for hunting in NZ?
 
Posts: 4948 | Registered: 30 July 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
quote:
If this was achieved, what species would be left for hunting in NZ?


Thats all part of the plan - get rid of huntable animals then no-one needs a gun. Its disarmament by stealth


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of 505 gibbs
posted Hide Post
archer
 
Posts: 4948 | Registered: 30 July 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I think Eugenie sage might be panicking. The greens are polling right on the point of no return considering they do not ever get electorate seats. To make it worse for her, she has been demoted to number 7 on their candidate list as the social justice side of the greens gains ascendancy.
I think she is out to do all the damage in the world she can now, in case she's not their in two months. I dearly hope thats the case.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Shanks. I agree with your analysis. I think Eugenie sees this as her last, best chance to destroy an animal she hates obsessively. In doing this she has crossed a threshold and now cannot possibly be considered a rational, balanced individual qualified to hold the office of Minister of Conservation. In attempting to ram this cull up us she willfully ignores adequate consulation with stakeholders and proper democratic principals. If the Greens do succeed in retaining any seats post the pending elections I think Eugenie will lose her portfolio. Just too much bad blood with her entrenched attitudes. She was a poor choice to begin with.


Hunting.... it's not everything, it's the only thing.
 
Posts: 996 | Location: New Zealand's North Island | Registered: 13 November 2014Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
Really - she is just continuing the current government policy of not using process and correct practices to ram through policy. The fact her partner is a high ranking official in the Dept of Conservation should have disqualified her from this role right from the star.


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
SO... after the tahr, deer, and other 'foreign' wildlife are gone, will they start on the trout and salmon? How about cats and dogs? Sheep?

I thought California was (is) crazy, but this tops it.
 
Posts: 463 | Location: S. E. Arizona | Registered: 01 February 2019Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
This mad woman is already planning eradication of introduced fish in some rivers.


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of bwanamrm
posted Hide Post
So sorry to hear this... I thought you gentlemen turned the tide months back in reducing the tahr cull. Now eradication? Sad. No doubt tourism will suffer some but obviously not enough to force large scale pushbacks?


On the plains of hesitation lie the bleached bones of ten thousand, who on the dawn of victory lay down their weary heads resting, and there resting, died.

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch...
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
- Rudyard Kipling

Life grows grim without senseless indulgence.
 
Posts: 6900 | Location: Victoria, Texas | Registered: 30 March 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of gryphon1
posted Hide Post
The average hunter couldnt care a toss about tourists, they care more for the removal of the Tahr herds.



Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002
 
Posts: 2408 | Registered: 15 March 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I have to give credit where credit is due, and the commercial guides have put in a big effort along side the contributions of the recreational guys to fight this.
Half a million dollars to fund a court case which the result being the judge ordering the DOC back to the table to talk with hunter groups and come up with a new plan and a halving of the flight hours for the cull choppers. Not a total win as they can still kill all Tahr from national parks, but definitely a win for the time being. We now need the election to swing to the right to give some breathing space and remove Sage from her office.... Fingers crossed.

And I will bring it back to this- for years- decades recreational hunters have been saying the Tahr has been under valued and poorly treated as a resource via the helihunting where a few operators have been doing cheap helihunts at 2 grand a pop. One of the big argument points in our favour was the value of Tahr to the local economy, at 12 million dollars. Imagine if they had have been valued properly at 10,000 dollars each and that value spread through the economy via more proper week long ground based alpine hunts!
How can we truely argue somethings value, when we value it so poorly?
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by muzza:
This mad woman is already planning eradication of introduced fish in some rivers.


Ahhhh! The virtue of purity... Is she planning on eradicating all the European (non-native) people as well?
 
Posts: 463 | Location: S. E. Arizona | Registered: 01 February 2019Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
Their mantra is to return the country to how it was pre-Europeans ,which is impossible to do.

Even the Maori people arrived here in canoes , starting in about 1100AD and onwards thereafter.And then set to eating their way through many of the flightless bird species to a point where eating each other was the easiest available source of meat. But you arent allowed to say that these days .


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Nakihunter
posted Hide Post
The problem I have with a lot of the argument is the practical reality.

I do not think a bull Tahr is worth $10,000 each. Yes there are people who pay such a price but how many? I know some outfitters here on AR who will do $2k or $3k for a good free range bull on private property. Not very long ago the rate was a lot less.

The other issue I have is that the common high $ hunting in NZ seems to be behind wire, like that guy who posted from Spain or South America. Such deals have nothing to do with government or DOC policy. That is like game farming in South Africa.

I remember 20+ years ago the big woooha about tahr being out of control at 12,000 animals and culled down to 6,000. I am not sure what the numbers are now.

The best I could do was shoot a few nannies on private land about 11 years ago. I am not fit enough for the real hard hunting required.


"When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick."
 
Posts: 10454 | Location: New Zealand | Registered: 02 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I think you have to look at the reason a tahr is being offered at 2000. Which comes back to the availability of low end quick helihunts. If you talk to the guys who guide on foot on public land, they mostly say they can not compete against that. I imagine the private land hunts are the same- brought down to lowest common denominator and forcing Tahr into the category of an add on incentive.
I know how hard it can be to guide to a proper trophy bull on public land, and in fairness its a weeks work. Even if a heli is used for access to hunting areas. If im doing a fly in trip for Tahr it will cost me approx 1500 alone in food, flights,sundries and accomodation the night before and after.
Put a reasonable wage on top of that for the guide and factor in the costs he has with client between hunts. Concession fees ect and you have to be getting up there. Then the real bug bear for me is because ofthe lack of value placed on these animals, we get the result we do now. If there was a herd management fee- a Tag - on Tahr with proceeds used to contribute to active herd management, we would not be in this position.

But you watch what will happen. as the govt starts shooting herd bulls, we will see competition over what remains from the Helihunters, and the unscrupulous members of the guiding community. We will see more and more 2 and 3 year old bu11s (9-10 inch ) turning up in photos as guides convince hunters this is a trophy.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of gryphon1
posted Hide Post
QU: "If there was a herd management fee- a Tag - on Tahr with proceeds used to contribute to active herd management, we would not be in this position." EQ:

Never mention "fees" mate..ever!
Once a fee is initiated then it becomes another tax that always goes up..and up!



Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002
 
Posts: 2408 | Registered: 15 March 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Yes I know. The truth is we are in a pickle. Our animals have no recognised value. And no one on their side who can contribute the expense of science to back up our claims. This is why DOC got rid of the compulsory hunter kill returns. It was another way to minimise the value of hunters and their game animals.
On the reverse side we have Permits for ducks, pheasant, quail etc as well as trout and salmon. All introduced and the licence gives us the ability to provide robust data and do management work that improves the habitat of not just those species, but also native flora and fauna. Those species are seen as valued and are protected by law under the jurisdiction of hunters and fishers. While I understand the risk, for me its a no brainer.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
We have free ranging Tahr in California, New Mexico and high fence Tahr in Texas, Nebraska and I think Kansas. I think the Canadians also have some tahr in Saskatchewan or Alberta on high fence places.

The Tahr in California are locked behind ranch fences owned by billionaires. In the area between Monterrey and Morro Bay. No one is currently guiding for them.

The Tahr in New Mexico are owned by a native tribe, and there are not that many of them. Every couple of years someone shoots a 14 inch bull, but they are rare. This is near Mt. Taylor. You just go to the tribal fish and game and buy a tag.

I probably wouldn't pay $10,000 for a Tahr in New Zealand. I for sure wouldn't pay $10,000 for a public land tahr. A guy can hunt tahr in Nepal for $15,000.

If I was doing a ranch stag hunt and could shoot a tahr as an add-on on private property I would be into that. Knowing it was a high fence situation, but I wouldn't pay more than $3000-4000 for one.

There are also Tahr in Europe, they used to be on Count Bucher's place in Austria. But now they are in Macedonia. They are about $13,000 there.
 
Posts: 6266 | Location: Southern New Mexico, land of Green Chilie  | Registered: 10 October 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
BWW, are you talking USD? In your quoted prices. Just to be clear im thinking in NZD, which would still be higher than you would pay at around 6000usd.

But yeah that shows the issue, we undervalue them, guys charging 15 and 13000, yet considered too expensive here at 6 or 10. We have been selling too many too cheaply.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
A small win today. One of the helicopter companies has pulled out of the cull citing extermination as not the way forward. And stating there is a place for deer and Tahr in NZ
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of muzza
posted Hide Post
Sadly , I think that heli company have probably done their flying time and are now in full-on damage control amongst its hunter customer base.

I am pretty surprised there have been no reports of helicopters being shot at during this operation, its a very tense time and many of the operators involved are known to be lacking in ethics in general life - let alone exterminating their own livelihoods


________________________

Old enough to know better
 
Posts: 4270 | Location: Eltham , New Zealand | Registered: 13 May 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of gryphon1
posted Hide Post
" let alone exterminating their own livelihoods"

There will be chopper sales happening when the Tahr are gone.



Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002
 
Posts: 2408 | Registered: 15 March 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by muzza:
Sadly , I think that heli company have probably done their flying time and are now in full-on damage control amongst its hunter customer base.

I am pretty surprised there have been no reports of helicopters being shot at during this operation, its a very tense time and many of the operators involved are known to be lacking in ethics in general life - let alone exterminating their own livelihoods


Yes there is probably some truth in that. However it is still a public slap in face for DOC and I doubt they will enter next round of culling. It also tells me that the hunter discontent is having an effect on companies as obviously one has publicly addressed the issue in this way, then in the background there must be more discussion going on.
 
Posts: 1078 | Location: North Island NZ | Registered: 21 July 2008Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 


Copyright December 1997-2020 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia