This is just a question - I dont mean to start any arguments or even debate...

NZ residents - what do you think the mjority of NZ 'hunters' (of all persuasions) - think about the animals of New Zealand. I am talking about the really valued ones like Red Deer, Tahr, Chamois, Sika, Whitetail, etc (not small game and pests). What percentage of them see them as valuable resources and how many of them see them as introduced pests that they should try and exterminate?

If you get what I mean??

Thanks...

My thoughts are that the hunting fraternity see the animals as a national asset .

The Government sees the animals as pests , specifically so our Dept Of Conservation who have been infiltrated with over-qualified greenies who can't see past native species.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
My thoughts are that the hunting fraternity see the animals as a national asset .

The Government sees the animals as pests , specifically so our Dept Of Conservation who have been infiltrated with over-qualified greenies who can't see past native species.

muzza has it spot on with his answer.

Von Gruff.

I am sure there are a very small number of people who go out to kill every Deer,Tahr etc they see,good one is a dead one.
The mind set here to return New Zealand to pre British/European times.

Yep Muzza has it right. Last time a poll of the general public, including non hunters was done, 80% of the population tended to agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
This is just a question - I dont mean to start any arguments or even debate...

NZ residents - what do you think the mjority of NZ 'hunters' (of all persuasions) - think about the animals of New Zealand. I am talking about the really valued ones like Red Deer, Tahr, Chamois, Sika, Whitetail, etc (not small game and pests). What percentage of them see them as valuable resources and how many of them see them as introduced pests that they should try and exterminate?

If you get what I mean??

Thanks...

Matt,I would say the vast majority of resident NZ hunters see our game animals as a valuable resource. I doubt there are many who would wish to see them exterminated.
Officially deer are classed as pests,and DoC are charged with the responsibility of controlling numbers.The Government line has been control ever since the Wild Animal Act replaced the Noxious Animals Act of 1956. As Muzza said there are hardliners in various Govt departments who push the extermination barrow.And pressure groups such as Forest and Bird have always been anti introduced species. The boom years of the venison recovery industry 1966 through to about 1980 failed to finish off red deer and the only other method that might have a show ,1080 poison,is not registered for use on deer.
DoC surveyed visitors,of all types, to the backcountry and of those surveyed 80% said their experience would be enhanced if they saw a deer.
I don't believe the NZ public would favour extermination,we tried once,and failed.

They're a resource we're very lucky to have.

quote:

Originally posted by Bon Ton:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
This is just a question - I dont mean to start any arguments or even debate...

NZ residents - what do you think the mjority of NZ 'hunters' (of all persuasions) - think about the animals of New Zealand. I am talking about the really valued ones like Red Deer, Tahr, Chamois, Sika, Whitetail, etc (not small game and pests). What percentage of them see them as valuable resources and how many of them see them as introduced pests that they should try and exterminate?

If you get what I mean??

Thanks...

Matt,I would say the vast majority of resident NZ hunters see our game animals as a valuable resource. I doubt there are many who would wish to see them exterminated.
Officially deer are classed as pests,and DoC are charged with the responsibility of controlling numbers.The Government line has been control ever since the Wild Animal Act replaced the Noxious Animals Act of 1956. As Muzza said there are hardliners in various Govt departments who push the extermination barrow.And pressure groups such as Forest and Bird have always been anti introduced species. The boom years of the venison recovery industry 1966 through to about 1980 failed to finish off red deer and the only other method that might have a show ,1080 poison,is not registered for use on deer.
DoC surveyed visitors,of all types, to the backcountry and of those surveyed 80% said their experience would be enhanced if they saw a deer.
I don't believe the NZ public would favour extermination,we tried once,and failed.

How did (and does) the hunting fraternity and the wider community put up with the govt abusing this national asset in such a way. I understand the environmental imperative at the time but it does seem like it was carried out poorly and must have been encouraged by a chink of the population?? Why did they stand for this waste and lack of management and vision.

Same thing happened here too with the buffalo but that was largely out of sight.

I agree that most kiwis see deer, tahr etc. as a national asset / resource that need to be managed and not exterminated.

I think the feelings are so widespread that the government is actually changing the act & the status of deer is moving from pest to game. The government agencies have already agreed to spare the trophy bull tahr during their culling operations.

All kiwi hunters are very privilaged in that the deer and other game in the public land are a free resource & they do not have to pay to hunt them. This is a BIG part of our heritage and our right to hunt.

This takes us to the touchy topic of private game ranches and shooting blocks. I believe that they also have a place in the hunting commnity and provide a valuable service and attract revenue from overseas hunters. I sometimes take my family to a farm stay and pay them for the accomodations and enjoy the privilage of taking a fallow for the freezer.

The BIG problem I have is some of the BIG game ranches who own properties that have pockets of public land within their territory / lease holdings and they do not allow us access to hunt these public spots and control them for their own commericial purpose. When money making commercial interests clash with public interests it really sucks.

It is worth pointing out that ALL ferral game is owned by the Crown, even if they are on private property.

I dont get that - if feral deer (not that they are feral) are notcurrently a game species and are the responsibility of the crown...even on private land... wouldnt the crown also be responsible for controlling them on private land too???

yes they will step in if they consider populations are too high

quote:

Originally posted by wazza56:
yes they will step in if they consider populations are too high

Except that DoC,fortunately,are so underfunded that they currently struggle to control numbers on their own patch.They have some permanent hunters still, mainly for goat control,but otherwise rely on helicopter hunting and recreational hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by wazza56:
yes they will step in if they consider populations are too high

Would they send the landowner the account??

They would in Australia as the landowner alone is responsible for the 'pests' on his property.

Not sure of the current legislation as it stands.But I feel there are some important changes in the wind.
For instance should the status of introduced games animals change from that of pests to game,the rule book will have to be rewritten.

You'd think so!!

I does impress me that Kiwi hunters have such an affinity with the 'game' - here in AU I am guessing that such a poll will yield less than 50% in favour of 'some' protection and staus or certain animals. Possibly way less than 50%.

There are so many other differences too....

Changing the status of the animal doesn't necessarily change the attitude of the bureaucracy.

NSW has managed to change the legislative status of Rusa from 'vermin' to game animal.

The vast majority of vistiors to the Royal National Park have an expectation of seeing a deer with much more interest than a rock wallaby, but that has not changed the attitude of the park bureaucrats from trying to eradicate every single last one of them.
(fortunately they are not very successful).

Heck , if they succeed I will have to start mowing the grass around the cabin, but I wouldn't mind the local herd to stop wandering 3' past my front door & climbing up the adjacent 6' embankment that I have to keep repairing every year after the rut.
( its only an issue when the local big boy rounds up his concubines & hanger-ons).

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by wazza56:
yes they will step in if they consider populations are too high

Would they send the landowner the account??

They would in Australia as the landowner alone is responsible for the 'pests' on his property.

Usualy notify the owner and give them the opertunity to control first,as with funding not sure if they would then do it DOC is a strange animal

A landcare research paper written in 1999 surveyed a large number of New Zealanders, over 60% valued our game animals, this was the general public.
Hunters are a different bunch all value game animals to a degree, some value them as target practise others the real hunters are passionate about them.
NZ hunter attitudes are to an extent governed by the influence of the government "they are all pests and must be killed" approach.
Large game animals such as red deer are often shot by rec hunters because their attitude is why leave it for the helicopters or 1080. The vast majority of hunters who mature come to respect the animals and no longer look at them as something to shoot.
Depending on who you listen to there are between 10,000 and 150,000 active recreational hunters in NZ.
12,000 to 18,000 red deer are shot by helicopters for commercial recovery a year but a further 45,000 are shot by recreational hunters.
Overwhelmingly NZ hunters who continue hunting beyond 2-5 years value them and wish for management.
The next few days in NZ will be interesting

Weathered and theothers have said it: NZ hunters do not consider these animals to be a pest.
I do not believe I have met a hunter in NZ who hunted BECAUSE the animals were a pest and needed to be removed. (Other than one self motivated DOC employee who considered himself a self appointed deer culler)

I have made the observation that hunters, whoever they are, only hunt animals that they like. The notion that the animals are a noxious pest does not fit with this.

For example, I consider stoats to be a noxious pest and a real danger to native birdlife, but I have never considered hunting them.

That fits-in with what I was guessing and have observed.

Would you consider a rabbit a game animal or a pest?? Game only if you shoot them to eat??

It is a shame Australia is not this way in general, although it is slowly changing it will always be different. Attitudes do change, even in a single generation!! I think that the cross-polination of ideas across the Tasman will be very good for both sides in the future though... dealing with (actual) pests, proper management of game, hunter management where needed (ballots, etc)... lots to be learnt from both sides of the ditch!!