Hunters can refuse to buy from companies that wont join in protesting this disgrace.
Where does Davey boy stand on this matter?

Gryph,
Davey boy via Swazi donated $10,000.00 to the Tahr Foundation supporting opposition to the cull.
Hopefully this means a reversal of what his attitude seemed to be last time. And maybe his customer base voiced their dissatisfaction and forced his rethink.

quote:

Originally posted by 30.06king:
Gryph,
Davey boy via Swazi donated $10,000.00 to the Tahr Foundation supporting opposition to the cull.
Hopefully this means a reversal of what his attitude seemed to be last time. And maybe his customer base voiced their dissatisfaction and forced his rethink.

Yes and at the time i had my say on that. IE 10 grand? out of how many millions has he made from hunters,especially Tahr hunters. IMO he is not doing enough.He needs to stand up and help being a voice,if he doesnt there will be a backlash for his company.

Davey made the big donation a full PR exercise too. I don't blame him for that as he is a business man after all. Yes, he has built a successful and rewarding business supplying several outdoors sectors, not only hunting. For sure he has the resources to do more if he desires but he already contributes and continues to do so. I think he has recognition as a positive, reasoned spokeperson on hunting affairs. Media often seek his insights when some hunting related debate or controversy crops up.
I actually think all Kiwi hunters should be more proactive representing, protecting and lobbying for our chosen sport. Unfortunately we don't do nearly enough of this currently but I think this is changing, although at glacial pace. However when the motivation is strong enough hunters here can combine as a powerful and focussed force for change. I remember the street late '70s marches by hunters that won us the moratorium against the commercial Tahr slaughter that really saved our Tahr hunting then.

A good interview in the issue on National radio.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast...iy2vucOnEe3m__0dMz6M

Sounds kind of like Feral Horses here, an invasive species that is destroying the environment, at the detriment of other species, but ignorant people insist they be allowed to continue. Nuke Em.

Grizz

Except that historically the Tahr population has been higher- up to 80,000, and no native species has ever become threatened by them.
And a statement like that ignores facts such as there was science that set a population and was due to be revisited except the dept ignored it.
Then there are other factors such as there being more chamois than Thar, yet because they are most likely impossible to remove, they are being ignored.
There is massive hypocrisy and bias in this issue and its standing in the way of a suitable outcome for hunters and the environment.

I'm glad you brought that up Shanks.
It occurred to me a couple of days ago that the Mt Cook Lily, as one example that is trotted out regularly, is still with us and has not been made extinct even with the thar population pressures of the 60s and early 70s.
If the fragile plants could survive the thar population over that period, they can can certainly flourish with a much reduced and properly managed population of thar.

Someone in NZ needs to be getting this fact some exposure, if they haven't done so already.

So you can see Grizz, that although the excessive thar numbers of the past can cause damage, they are not "destroying" the environment; not even the Mt Cook Lily.