Gentlemen,

I just read the whole thread, and I am afraid I have to disagree with some ofmy friends from New Zealand on some aspects.

AIU has not done anything wrong. He went to New Zealand and hunted with a licensed PH. Nothing illegal was done.

Some of you might not like this method of hunting, and it seems there are a number of PHs who are conducting these hunts - the number 16 was mentioned.

Would it not be better for the rules to be changed rather than blame a visiting hunter?

A couple of points Saeed. PH's aren't licensed in NZ. Anyone can claim to be such. There is no standard to hold them to.
AIU did nothing illegal, correct, but he helped put that hunting at risk by participating in this activity.
We are trying to get the rules changed on what is a loophole thats being exploited, and are slowly gaining ground. In the mean time we are using every avenue available to us to put pressure on this activity, including informing visiting hunters that the method is unacceptable.
If they choose to take this on board, then all good, but if they come back with a tone of contempt, disrespect and such, then they will get it in return.
We are not trying to prevent overseas hunters from coming here, but we want them to value our resource and treat it with respect.
Why don't you ask what you can do to help?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Gentlemen,

I just read the whole thread, and I am afraid I have to disagree with some of my friends from New Zealand on some aspects.

AIU has not done anything wrong. He went to New Zealand and hunted with a licensed PH. Nothing illegal was done.

Some of you might not like this method of hunting, and it seems there are a number of PHs who are conducting these hunts - the number 16 was mentioned.

Would it not be better for the rules to be changed rather than blame a visiting hunter?

I am pleased this has got your attention and welcome your thoughts.

This hunting technique meets widespread resistence, it does us no justice to say only a few New Zealanders oppose it, helihunting or AATH as it is now called is universally condemned by New Zealanders why is it still here? that is a tough one, read the articles. I have quoted the third article down because no-one seems to have read that

A contentious trophy hunting proposal, where the Department of Conservation is considering issuing 10-year permits to heli-hunting operations, appears set to be shelved. In the short term, a major confrontation will be avoided between the groups and associations representing thousands of ground-based recreational hunters and 16 heli-hunting, mainly southern-based, operators, who host foreign hunters on conservation land shooting prized tahr and deer. However, if due process and consideration for the 16 applicants under the law is not followed, legal counsel for the operators have threatened to seek a judicial review under the Bill of Rights.

Helihunters advance their case

Reply to helihunters

The outcome and where its leading


This is a hunting forum hunting techniques and ethics are valid subjects for discussion are they not?

Helihunting attacks the core values of hunting and wilderness experience. If you value hunting in the wilderness why sit in a helicopter to remove yourself from that wilderness you claim to seek. What is the value of the wilderness now, what value in the hunt for those that follow you.


Ethics and good character are cornerstones of valued hunters in any country. Just because you can does not mean you should.
AIU allowed his own actions to be manipulated by a poor law exploited by guides who place high value on outcome and nothing else. Helihunting is a mechanical harvest that destroys any definition of hunt in classical terms. I asked him why he chose this.

One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job .
Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting.

" A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact. "
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

Shankspony, Weathered,

May I suggest that both of you might visit the African Hunting Forum, and read some of the subjects that are discussed there regarding what one likes and deslikes?

Also, may I suggest that you try to change what you do not like in the hunting industry in your country, without putting the blame on either AUI and his PH?

"...Helihunting is a mechanical harvest that destroys any definition of hunt in classical terms..."

Very true statement, and not very different from shooting from the back of a truck in South Africa. Some would do it, others might not.

BUT, it is a practice that is in use in the country where the visiting hunter is hunting. And he chose to participate in it.

Where is the problem?

I know, neither of you gentlemen like this sort of a hunt, so why don't you try to change it?

Personally, I would not participate in this sort of hunt, just like I would not shoot a farm bred lion in South Africa.

It is MY choice, no one els's.

And I do believe in that old saying "when in Rome do as the Roman's do" if you heart so desires.

If your Department of Conservation has not done anything about it, your argument holds very little water.

Each of us has his own idea of what a hunt should be - just look at the diferent States in the US. One encounters things athat are practiced in one state, legally, while in tghe next they are outlawed.

Who is right?

And please don't even get close to the discussion of "ethics".

Each of us has his own ethics, and no argument on an Internet forum is going to change that.

Just bear in mind that this is exactly what the antis are using against us.

Every time you read one of their media spreads, you will always see the terms "killing with high powered rifle" as if we are required to wrestle the animal to the ground by hand and clobber it with a stone hammer.

Bow hunters sometimes snear at rifle shooters, rifle hunters sometimes snear at trappers.

Who is right?

Saeed

The issue in NZ is very differnt to shooting from a truck in Africa.

The BIG issue here is that the heli shooting group do so in public land where ground hunters also hunt after walking for miles. One of the posts above mentioned how one chopper tried to land a shooter among trophy animals that a ground hunter was stalking on foot after walking in.

Shooting from a truck does not disrupt other hunters or their rights BUT heli shooting is a disruption to land based hunters and violates their rights on public land.

The second issue is that AIU's NZ guide and the group (16 operaters) are also commercial culling / meat recovery operators. That is a conservation program and a commercial one. To combine that with rights to heli "hunt" is an unfair elitist advantage to chopper operators with the big money - ON PUBLIC LAND is the key phrase.

The legal process is going on and consultation is in progress. The government could not stop it earlier because these 16 operators used an expensive lawyer to challenge the decision. Now that wide ranging discussion, consultation and expert evaluation has been done, I hope that the law will be passed banning heli "hunting".

The problem with AIU's post was that he was not fully aware of the local issues and was completely brain washed by his guide who no doubt would have treated him very well and given him great service. What the guide failed to do was tell AIU the full truth including all the elitist manipulations going on to take control of PUBLIC LAND as heli "hunting" concessions.

You might have read one of the links where an American client was killed when a heli operater dropped him off on snow grass and this client slipped & fell down a cliff. This was an illegal operation and they were doing trophy "hunting" without a permit in an area that was restricted from chopper hunting! They tried to argue that since they held meat recovery permit, it was legal but the coroner and the courts disagreed.

Another post above - an operator has been caught illegally guiding a client in a restricted area.

I was at the local NZ Deer Stalkers' association meeting on Wednesday and this isse is expected to be decided by the government within the next 6 months.

Another point to note - NZ has an ongoing history of SOME local outfitters treating Kiwi hunters like dirt. One example - The former Indonesian dictator Suharto's son Tommy (?) had a big station and lease of public high country where they used to hunt tahr, deer etc. They had a manager who used to intimidate the locals and refuse access to public land near that property. Conflict in that case raged for about 15 years until the Indonesian regime fell and the station was sold. Now the lease has lapsed and the high country area is once again available to the public for some great hunting. The old hunting lodge is now open to the public.

Americans might want to note that some of these heli "hunts" are a violation of the Lacey act.

Lets see if I understand this thread correctly. When I go to a foreign country to hunt, I should consult with the locals to see what is acceptable and follow that and not follow the local laws?
Here is an idea. Change your laws before you give a foreign hunter hell on the net.
Also, you should turn the guy into the FBI for violating the Lacey act, like you did with that other poor sucker.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Saeed

The issue in NZ is very differnt to shooting from a truck in Africa.

The BIG issue here is that the heli shooting group do so in public land where ground hunters also hunt after walking for miles. One of the posts above mentioned how one chopper tried to land a shooter among trophy animals that a ground hunter was stalking on foot after walking in.

Shooting from a truck does not disrupt other hunters or their rights BUT heli shooting is a disruption to land based hunters and violates their rights on public land.

The second issue is that AIU's NZ guide and the group (16 operaters) are also commercial culling / meat recovery operators. That is a conservation program and a commercial one. To combine that with rights to heli "hunt" is an unfair elitist advantage to chopper operators with the big money - ON PUBLIC LAND is the key phrase.

The legal process is going on and consultation is in progress. The government could not stop it earlier because these 16 operators used an expensive lawyer to challenge the decision. Now that wide ranging discussion, consultation and expert evaluation has been done, I hope that the law will be passed banning heli "hunting".

The problem with AIU's post was that he was not fully aware of the local issues and was completely brain washed by his guide who no doubt would have treated him very well and given him great service. What the guide failed to do was tell AIU the full truth including all the elitist manipulations going on to take control of PUBLIC LAND as heli "hunting" concessions.

You might have read one of the links where an American client was killed when a heli operater dropped him off on snow grass and this client slipped & fell down a cliff. This was an illegal operation and they were doing trophy "hunting" without a permit in an area that was restricted from chopper hunting! They tried to argue that since they held meat recovery permit, it was legal but the coroner and the courts disagreed.

Another post above - an operator has been caught illegally guiding a client in a restricted area.

I was at the local NZ Deer Stalkers' association meeting on Wednesday and this isse is expected to be decided by the government within the next 6 months.

Another point to note - NZ has an ongoing history of SOME local outfitters treating Kiwi hunters like dirt. One example - The former Indonesian dictator Suharto's son Tommy (?) had a big station and lease of public high country where they used to hunt tahr, deer etc. They had a manager who used to intimidate the locals and refuse access to public land near that property. Conflict in that case raged for about 15 years until the Indonesian regime fell and the station was sold. Now the lease has lapsed and the high country area is once again available to the public for some great hunting. The old hunting lodge is now open to the public.

Americans might want to note that some of these heli "hunts" are a violation of the Lacey act.

All this is really pointless, as the whole thread was turn against a visiting hunter who has done nothing wrong.

I would be mad if I have been stalking any game animal and suddenly someone is dropped from a helicopter to shoot it.

That is definitely wrong.

But, have the laws changed.

It really does not say much for your government when they are swayed by an expensive lawyer.

You fellows there in NZ certainly have the right to self determine what you do and do not want in your own country concerning methods of hunting. But if you would allow, I'd like to play devil's advocate here a bit based on what I see you guys posting about. Not trying to offend any of you guys, but from on outsider looking in, I see some issues with your arguments concerning helihunting.

Firstly, I see a recurring theme in your objections in that it is the "rich" tourist that is engaging in this type of hunting that you object to. Is this really a class warfare issue or do you object to the method of hunt? Is it about the fact that some with more money than others can afford to do something that you can't? Somehow, I don't really think this is the issue as I don't think you guys would participate in helihunting if you had the money. But repeatedly making note that the "rich" foreigners are the only reason this goes on smacks of sour grapes. Less of an issue with the helihunting but the objections to the estate hunting seems to be centered around the issue of money more than anything else.

A question that I have about NZ hunting on estates is, how does this compare to ranch hunting in RSA? I hear of this talk about the stags being tame and able to be called in with a pale of feed! Never having been to NZ and seen the operations for myself, is this an exaggeration? I've hunted behind the wire in South Africa on 4 occasions and I have yet to see an operation there where the animals were "tame". They may have been behind the fence but the enclosures were very large and the game extremely skittish of any sight of man. I've also hunted Zimbabwe 3 times where there were no fences at all. A different experience for sure and much more rewarding. But the ranch hunts in RSA were still fun and enjoyable. So are the estate stags "tame" or do you just object to estate hunting. Really, not trying to incite you guys. I'm asking because I know what the situation is in RSA and I'm wondering if it is similar on your game ranches.

I can understand the frustration on the part of the ground hunters who put in the time and effort climbing into position to take a Tahr only to have a chopper appear and mess up the efforts. However, I think this is a hazard of public land hunting, nothing more. As mentioned, I haven't hunted NZ so I don't know how it works in your country but I have hunted extensively on public land here in the USA. Specifically, Elk hunting on public land in the mountains of Colorado. Most of my hunts there have been backpack hunts where everything you have with you is carried in and out on your back. Very tough as the base of the mountains are about 9,000 feet with the animals found around 12,000. I don't know how many times I've slogged away for hours before daylight to get into position to overlook a likely meadow at daybreak. Within a few minutes of shooting light, an outfitter with paying clients will show up on a pack string of horses, tie off, and postion themselves overlooking the same meadow that I worked so hard to achieve. It's public land and anyone has the same right to be there. You would think that I had first rights since I was there first, but I run into other hunters that "ruin" my hunt all the time. As a result, I hunt private land when I can now. Yes, it's more expensive, but I think I get a more quality experience out of it.

Lastly, I understand the feeling one gets from a trophy hard won. The above mentioned Elk hunts are an example. However, I don't think every hunt has to be the back breaking, ball busting, give it everything you have physically and mentally prior to pulling the trigger ordeal for the hunt to be successful and enjoyable. I certainly enjoy those hard fought hunts, but I enjoy going to the local deer lease with my sons, sit in a heated shooting house waiting for deer to show up at a feeder, cook some burgers on the grill in the evening, watch the football game on the satellite TV in the camper at night, etc type of easy hunt as well. I enjoy all types of hunting from the easiest on the scale of effort to the hardest, from the least expensive to the most that I can afford, archery and rifle, etc. I like them all.

It seems you guys have a complicated issue going on there in NZ with both the helihunting and estate hunting. But for the life of me, I don't see why it makes a rats ass bit of difference to anybody what someone else pays to shoot whatever type of genetically mutated moster on an estate. Who cares if that hunter goes back and brags about his stag? He hunted what he wanted with his money. You hunt what you want with your resources. To each his own. On the helihunting, like I said, I don't know your issues but I'm trying to understand them. I understand the anger of a ground hunter being interrupted by the choppers but interruptions happen while hunting on public land all the time.

I think most of us who do not live in NZ and don't understand your issues fully, have a real hard time understanding how 16 operators and an expensive lawyer can hi-jack the entire country's desires to shut down helihunting if the vast majority is as opposed to it as you state. That one is a head scratcher to me, sorry. I may be completely wrong on how I understand this but it seems you guys are saying that the helihunting is actually being done as culling operations instead of hunting on awarded concessions? If that is the case, why do you care who pulls the trigger, a tourist or culling operator? I may not have that issue straight and if so, I apologize. But if I do have it straight, it seems similar to the greenies in RSA making the argument that all Problem Animal Control must be done by PH's and Game Rangers instead of tourist hunters. Who cares who pulls the trigger in that case?

Sorry if I've offended here. Really just trying to understand the objections you guys raise here.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Shankspony, Weathered,

May I suggest that both of you might visit the African Hunting Forum, and read some of the subjects that are discussed there regarding what one likes and deslikes?

Also, may I suggest that you try to change what you do not like in the hunting industry in your country, without putting the blame on either AUI and his PH?

I have no knowledge of Africa and dont care to hunt there or debate issues for other people countries. I live in New Zealand thats my area of concern.
Many of us are working very hard to change the culture of the guides who helihunt.
You will find every single point raised I have covered with facts and documents. Do you think I keep this information just for shits and giggles.
In the meantime none of us will sit back silently and allow someone to endorse a hunting practise like helihunting without asking questions. The last thing NZers want to see is more people especially tourists telling us helihunting is the way it is get used to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
"...Helihunting is a mechanical harvest that destroys any definition of hunt in classical terms..."

Very true statement, and not very different from shooting from the back of a truck in South Africa. Some would do it, others might not.

A poor analogy and not relevant unless
a) The truck is used to pursue and tire the game out
b) The truck is used to herd the game back to the hunter
c) The truck is hunting public land and not on land dedicated exclusively to a hunting concession
d) The guy who owns the truck is trying to exclude the people who dont want to hunt from trucks from public land
e) SCI have outlawed shooting from trucks ? because SCI have outlawed using the helicopter to herd game

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

BUT, it is a practice that is in use in the country where the visiting hunter is hunting. And he chose to participate in it.

Where is the problem?

Read a.b,c,d and e

He should have no problem answering a few questions then if legality was the only issue. I imagine the title sportsman or hunter is mentioned somewhere in the activity.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I know, neither of you gentlemen like this sort of a hunt, so why don't you try to change it?

Personally, I would not participate in this sort of hunt, just like I would not shoot a farm bred lion in South Africa.

It is MY choice, no one els's.

And I do believe in that old saying "when in Rome do as the Roman's do" if you heart so desires.

If your Department of Conservation has not done anything about it, your argument holds very little water.

We agree there the Department of Conservation is pretty useless, we will put it on the list of things to fix but for now we have this helihunting issue.

Excerpt from letter to the guides requesting they stop herding and hazing

DOCDM-533897 GPs tampering.doc
Herding There are essentially three different modes of heli-hunting – i.e. shooting from the helicopter, herding/driving and spot and drop. You will recall that in the letter of 9 December 2009 the department in General Condition 7 stated there would be no shooting from the helicopter. This meant that only the herding/driving and spot/drop modes were to be available on public conservation land. Herding, driving and hazing all describe the use of the helicopter to control the movement of the trophy animal. It may be done before or after the hunter and guide is landed. In my discussions with the industry I was informed that this use of the aircraft was an essential part of the way this type of hunting was undertaken. Since last year two new pieces of information have become relevant with regard to the herding/driving mode of operation. The first is the animal welfare issue. There is evidence that suggests tahr have been physically hurt or run to exhaustion before they have been shot by a hunter. This comes from video information, emails I have received and discussions I have had with a taxidermist. You will also be aware that the Government has recently committed to supporting a bill that addresses animal welfare issues; this may also be relevant to heli-hunting.

The second issue is the hunter ethic and reputational issue. The majority of people who undertake helihunts are members of Safari Club International (SCI). SCI in their Code of Ethics, Measures Manual and in their 9 May 2009 Aircraft policy disbar their members from hunts which use aircraft to haze and herd game and from entering any trophy taken in this manner into their trophy book. The reputational issue arises from the negative portrayal of this herding/driving form of hunting through the use of visual images on international networking sites such as YouTube. This runs counter to the department’s objective of supporting tourism and ensuring that professional guided hunting using a helicopter is a “sustainable and reputable” tourism industry for New Zealand. For these reasons I am considering a change to the conditions for the interim period until the concessions are decided and this change would be the prohibition of herding/driving. The effect of this will be that the only mode of heli-hunting that is permitted for this interim period is that of spot and drop. If applicants wish to undertake herding/driving in the future then as part of their concession application they should consider what additional information will be needed to support this case. It is clear that there will be substantial public interest in this.

The helihunters challenged the request and had hazing and pursuit reinstated under legal threat

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Each of us has his own idea of what a hunt should be - just look at the diferent States in the US. One encounters things athat are practiced in one state, legally, while in the next they are outlawed.

Who is right?

Technically 16 businessmen with their helicopters and one lawyer, but we dont have to be told we should like it or that this is how its going to be because tourists like hunting this way.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
And please don't even get close to the discussion of "ethics".

Each of us has his own ethics, and no argument on an Internet forum is going to change that.

Its not even a debate on ethics or how to hunt though is it ? I would be happy to hold a reasoned debate with any helihunting advocate they dont come on here .... ever ... just these poor brainwashed guys like Ackley.

Have you ever wondered why you dont see them ? and it aint because they are intimidated by my arguments either.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Just bear in mind that this is exactly what the antis are using against us.

Every time you read one of their media spreads, you will always see the terms "killing with high powered rifle" as if we are required to wrestle the animal to the ground by hand and clobber it with a stone hammer.

Bow hunters sometimes snear at rifle shooters, rifle hunters sometimes snear at trappers.

Who is right?

If guides really cared about the points of image you have raised maybe they should not helihunt.
To hold NZ hunters to account for being devisive and not helihunters is a double standard.
SCI do not recognise trophies taken by using a helicopter to drive the animal. US game laws prohibit using helicopters in the same manner and thats not enough ? you still want to try and muddy this issue? why do you Saeed want to try and obscure obvious differences in this activity from accepted hunting practise ?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
You fellows there in NZ certainly have the right to self determine what you do and do not want in your own country concerning methods of hunting. But if you would allow, I'd like to play devil's advocate here a bit based on what I see you guys posting about. Not trying to offend any of you guys, but from on outsider looking in, I see some issues with your arguments concerning helihunting.

Firstly, I see a recurring theme in your objections in that it is the "rich" tourist that is engaging in this type of hunting that you object to. Is this really a class warfare issue or do you object to the method of hunt? Is it about the fact that some with more money than others can afford to do something that you can't? Somehow, I don't really think this is the issue as I don't think you guys would participate in helihunting if you had the money. But repeatedly making note that the "rich" foreigners are the only reason this goes on smacks of sour grapes. Less of an issue with the helihunting but the objections to the estate hunting seems to be centered around the issue of money more than anything else.

Its not so much the money thing for rec hunters there is an element of that but you get that everywhere. The guides emphasise the money angle in an attempt to validate the activity, they identify the activity as wealth driven. That overflows into how the general public see it but the wealth angle is pushed more by the guides. From there the issue becomes aligned that way. Read the first of the three articles I posted above its the guides putting wealthy people up on a pedastal. Of course a peasant is gonna throw a rotten tomato sooner or later. On the whole it is not a wealth divided issue, its an identity issue. We dont want to be known as the only country that legally allows game animals like tahr and chamois to be driven in a helicopter for sport.
We get told by the guides we should be grateful these rich guys are good for us and come here to helihunt. No-one asked us if they could do that though.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
A question that I have about NZ hunting on estates is, how does this compare to ranch hunting in RSA? I hear of this talk about the stags being tame and able to be called in with a pale of feed! Never having been to NZ and seen the operations for myself, is this an exaggeration? I've hunted behind the wire in South Africa on 4 occasions and I have yet to see an operation there where the animals were "tame". They may have been behind the fence but the enclosures were very large and the game extremely skittish of any sight of man. I've also hunted Zimbabwe 3 times where there were no fences at all. A different experience for sure and much more rewarding. But the ranch hunts in RSA were still fun and enjoyable. So are the estate stags "tame" or do you just object to estate hunting. Really, not trying to incite you guys. I'm asking because I know what the situation is in RSA and I'm wondering if it is similar on your game ranches.

Your about right on, never having hunted africa but talking to people its very much similar a lot of the very big stags are bought from wholesalers they come to the ranch that they will be shot on from a farm where they are virtually hand fed others are very very wily and extremely hard to shoot, but they are never going to get away either. Stag wholesaler

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I can understand the frustration on the part of the ground hunters who put in the time and effort climbing into position to take a Tahr only to have a chopper appear and mess up the efforts. However, I think this is a hazard of public land hunting, nothing more. As mentioned, I haven't hunted NZ so I don't know how it works in your country but I have hunted extensively on public land here in the USA. Specifically, Elk hunting on public land in the mountains of Colorado. Most of my hunts there have been backpack hunts where everything you have with you is carried in and out on your back. Very tough as the base of the mountains are about 9,000 feet with the animals found around 12,000. I don't know how many times I've slogged away for hours before daylight to get into position to overlook a likely meadow at daybreak. Within a few minutes of shooting light, an outfitter with paying clients will show up on a pack string of horses, tie off, and postion themselves overlooking the same meadow that I worked so hard to achieve. It's public land and anyone has the same right to be there. You would think that I had first rights since I was there first, but I run into other hunters that "ruin" my hunt all the time. As a result, I hunt private land when I can now. Yes, it's more expensive, but I think I get a more quality experience out of it.

More than happy to share the mountian with someone on foot, your right thems the breaks its the helicopters and guides plus the attempts to prevent us from using ground camps that has raised hackles
This is an excerpt from Ackleys guide Gary Herbert in a submission on his concession complaining about enhanced ground hunter camps
(ref applicant comments appendix 10 “ more recreational hunter campsites means more opportunities for conflict, once you bring in concessionaires own mitigation procedures then much of the landscape is ruled out, effectively excluding industry”)

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Lastly, I understand the feeling one gets from a trophy hard won. The above mentioned Elk hunts are an example. However, I don't think every hunt has to be the back breaking, ball busting, give it everything you have physically and mentally prior to pulling the trigger ordeal for the hunt to be successful and enjoyable. I certainly enjoy those hard fought hunts, but I enjoy going to the local deer lease with my sons, sit in a heated shooting house waiting for deer to show up at a feeder, cook some burgers on the grill in the evening, watch the football game on the satellite TV in the camper at night, etc type of easy hunt as well. I enjoy all types of hunting from the easiest on the scale of effort to the hardest, from the least expensive to the most that I can afford, archery and rifle, etc. I like them all.

We dont have a problem with what you have described above, at least the majority of us. Its unreasonable to get antsy about public land hunting then start in on private land as well. Its a public land issue, from a paper in 2005 about 80% of $25 million dollars of tourist hunting money is turned over on private land hunts. Some much like you have described and thats fine. I was having a dig at AIU earlier after the moron comment. I admire the animals on estates they are grand examples not my cup of tea but awesome anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
It seems you guys have a complicated issue going on there in NZ with both the helihunting and estate hunting. But for the life of me, I don't see why it makes a rats ass bit of difference to anybody what someone else pays to shoot whatever type of genetically mutated moster on an estate. Who cares if that hunter goes back and brags about his stag? He hunted what he wanted with his money. You hunt what you want with your resources. To each his own.

Yep

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
On the helihunting, like I said, I don't know your issues but I'm trying to understand them. I understand the anger of a ground hunter being interrupted by the choppers but interruptions happen while hunting on public land all the time.

I think most of us who do not live in NZ and don't understand your issues fully, have a real hard time understanding how 16 operators and an expensive lawyer can hi-jack the entire country's desires to shut down helihunting if the vast majority is as opposed to it as you state. That one is a head scratcher to me, sorry. I may be completely wrong on how I understand this but it seems you guys are saying that the helihunting is actually being done as culling operations instead of hunting on awarded concessions?

You have got it right helihunting is a guided hunting activity for recreational hunters currently carried out incorrectly under a culling (accurately termed a "Wild Animal recovery Permit") permit. A guiding access permit normally has very limited conditional aerial access. The access is virtually the same as granted to recreational private hunters. A culling permit as the helihunters operate under now lets you go anywhere anytime. It is an important point because an activity like this would normally require a public input process, we get to comment and the activity is declined or approved. The helihunters have applied for a guided hunting permit and got turned down three seperate times. They use a culling permit This is the first guided helicopter hunting concession on public land that has avoided public input, we got no say about this howler!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
If that is the case, why do you care who pulls the trigger, a tourist or culling operator? I may not have that issue straight and if so, I apologize. But if I do have it straight, it seems similar to the greenies in RSA making the argument that all Problem Animal Control must be done by PH's and Game Rangers instead of tourist hunters. Who cares who pulls the trigger in that case?

Sorry if I've offended here. Really just trying to understand the objections you guys raise here.

We care because
a) Activities conducted on public land should reflect our values and aspirations, helihunting is an unworthy activity.
b) Wilderness is for wilderness activity the helihunter guy is in a helicopter because he does not want to be in the wilderness, there are other places such as private land where he can go helihunt if thats his thing.
c) There is even less peace and quiet available in national parks if we let this business get going.
d)We only have 10,000 to 15,000 tahr the herd will only produce a certain percentage of bulls of trophy standard, about 256 over 12 inches per annum, (forsyth tustin NZ journal of ecology) helihunters have requested to take 900 bulls each season.
e) Its a crap hunting technique I dont like it and neither does the rest of the country
f) I could go on but you get the picture.

Thanks for the entirely reasonable questions I hope this clears a few points up.

e) Its a crap hunting technique I dont like it and neither does the rest of the country


Why are you and the rest of the country allowing it then?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Why are you and the rest of the country allowing it then?

Uhh are we ? read my post to Todd Williams, No-one asked us if we wanted it and if you read the link to the new minister of conservations comments I put up he is required to follow due process.
What would you prefer we do in the meantime short of civil unrest ?


Edit to add: Yes that was a brisk answer, you must be the 100th guy on this forum to challenge us with the "why are you allowing it, what are you doing about it" sentence.
Its an ongoing battle the helihunters are trying to install themselves permanently on public land, they have resources rec hunters can only dream of. Hell one of their supporters is a industry leader and a knight of the realm who can pick up the phone and call the prime minister.
To retain a Queens Council Barrister as they have runs out at $1250 USD per hour.
Every step on this path is hard fought.
People who helihunt in New Zealand then post about it are going to get drawn into this issue. As long as the law is manipulated to allow helihunting and deny the public wish that it cease this issue will not go away on internet forums.

Let me see, tahr in NZ, stone sheep in BC and elk all over the Western US as well as many other animals/locations all over the world with what seems like the few "healthy, strong and young locals" seeking to "herd" the trophy animals for themselves! I think I see a trend here! Why not if you can get er dun!

quote:

Let me see, tahr in NZ, stone sheep in BC and elk all over the Western US as well as many other animals/locations all over the world with what seems like the few "healthy, strong and young locals" seeking to "herd" the trophy animals for themselves! I think I see a trend here! Why not if you can get er dun!

Muygrande nothing could be further from the truth and I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion if you've read the thread right through, both Weathered and shankspony have offered assistance to visiting hunters from overseas and other parts of New Zealand.

As you can see from this post on the Australian and New Zealand forum some years ago our own shankspony offered a free tahr trip for any American hunter who wanted to take up the offer.

Free Tahr hunt

On another post he offered advice to overseas hunters wanting to visit, who could hunt like us kiwis and the only cost entailed would be food and transport.

Thar hunting the Karangarua

While I appreciate this style of tahr hunt isn't for everyone, there are plenty of other options for visiting hunters, as I pointed out on my previous post where you can use a good guide and hunt on private land or public land for about the same cost of a heli hunt.
You don't need to be young and fit to hunt our alpine animals fairchase (just determined) and at 56 years (57 in a couple of months) I'd probably be heading into the Karangarua valley shortly if I hadn't broken my ankle just prior to Christmas.

I think you will find many kiwi hunters willing to help overseas visitors wanting to hunt in New Zealand - after all we're the nicest people in the world. I've even taken an Aussie on a sika and tahr hunt I arranged and an American from Virginia on a sika hunt for a share of the expenses.

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:
Let me see, tahr in NZ, stone sheep in BC and elk all over the Western US as well as many other animals/locations all over the world with what seems like the few "healthy, strong and young locals" seeking to "herd" the trophy animals for themselves! I think I see a trend here! Why not if you can get er dun!

Muygrande Did you know about the irregular helicopter aerial access concessions before you posted that comment. Irregular aerial access concessions permit the hunter to be dropped and picked up the same day. This concession is available to anyone, the hunter seldom has to walk more than 1 kilometer during the days hunting. These access concessions are not under threat do not allow herding or hazing and are approved. They provide good access to excellent hunting country for the less hard core hunters.
These spot and drop areas cover approx 35% of the tahr herds current range with another 30% of their range tied up on private access land.
Do you think we are still asking for too much of the remaining 35% in the wilderness areas and parks. Muy Grande ?
I am 51 years old I will surrender to the limitations of my age gracefully the young fellas deserve those places

Fellow hunters I have no reason to take exception to (1) locals wanting "fair" access; (2) locals not wanting to pay the high cost associated with "non-locals" hunting on "their" land; (3) locals wanting to dictate the "method" of all hunter access, and on and on and on. Problem I have is "locals" feeling they "own" the right to all animals "within their hunting territory", and to be hunted in "their" preferred way. How about a "lifetime limit" for ALL hunters on "trophy quality animals" - say two or less?? Would that make everyone a happy camper? For instance, I, living in S. Texas have "many" trophy whitetail deer, should I only have two? I am guessing that those "locals" in NZ, W.United States, BC have "several" trophy tahr, elk and stone sheep, respectively and WE all want more??? How many is enough?

This whole sad situation is created by the inaction of the New Zealand authorities.


Hunting on public land should be regulated, so that everyone should be able to enjoy it.

I would certainly object to helihunting - it does not appeal to me anyway.

But, as long as the authorities bury their heads in teh sand and do nothing, no one is going to pay attention to all the complaints against visiting hunters participating in the practice.

Blame the authorities, not the clients.

Sorry Saeed, some of the blame has to be carried by the clients. they are the ones keeping this grubby little industry alive. The price they may have to pay for that is an amount of criticism should we find out about their hunt.
As has been pointed out time and again, there is every opportunity available to take a tahr to an individuals level of skill and fitness without the need for heilihunting. Its just laziness and a lack of thought that makes people participate.

Saeed, you are right. If you did some research you will find that the authorities have traditionally been indiffernt to hunting deer & tahr etc because they were treated as vermin and not as game. At the moment there is an effort to class them as game and with some parametrs for management. In the past they were just poisoned or shot from helicopters and will be done in the future. There is Chemical import company lobbying with the governement to keep importing 1080 poison from the US. They use 99% of the 1080 made by this factory in the US (after it was banned in US after World war 2) for aerial poisoning of possum & deer. Heli hunting just another major obstacle facing land based hunters.

Let us hope the game management law is passed in parliament and that heli hunting is banned.

Muygrane, we Kiwis do not want to keep our anumals to ourselves. I have openly posted on various threads that i am happy to take someone with me at cost - just be prepared for am hard hunt and shooting females for meat.

The shooting of farm raised giant Hungarian stags behind wire does not reallyu bother me. That is done on private land and it is a differnt market. It does not interfere with my rights to hunt PUBLIC LAND. Heli hunting is a violation of my rights as a hunter.

The reason I retorted to AIU was that he did not appreciate that my rights were being violated by the "get rich quick" chopper operaters and guides. It has NOTHING to do with rich foriegners.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Sorry Saeed, some of the blame has to be carried by the clients. they are the ones keeping this grubby little industry alive. The price they may have to pay for that is an amount of criticism should we find out about their hunt.
As has been pointed out time and again, there is every opportunity available to take a tahr to an individuals level of skill and fitness without the need for heilihunting. Its just laziness and a lack of thought that makes people participate.

Then I am afraid you will find that you are not helping your cause.

This is the sort of hunting I personally would not like to participate in.

Just as I would not participate in a "canned" hunt in Africa, despite having been hunting there for 30 years.

I don't like canned hunting, and I don't think I like helihunting.

Neither appeals to me.

BUT, I would not criticise those who wish to participate in then, as long as they are not breaking any game laws in that country.

I would try and persuade the authirities to understand my point of view, and change the laws if necessary.

all is fair in war.
what we are seeing here is 2nd phase economics warfare.
If the administration of the activity is problematic then you attempt to influence the customer.
WWF & every second ecofreak NGO organisation does this on public TV
- don't buy ivory products
- dont buy pashmina products
- dont buy bear gall products
- Don't buy powdered Rhino horn products.
The view is presented that anyone buying these products or seen using these products is a Clutz.
- IF the trade stops the activity does too.

same approach by committed opponents of helihunting.
If the trade in helihunts is reduced then the helihunting is further marginalised in both its economics & its chances of onging approval.

If its good enough for WWF & other NGO's to use the tactic why not the NZ fairchase hunters ???????...........they are not doing anything illegal in their activity.

The language used by some in defense of their actions or support of other's actions appears to need some restraint.

The issue & angst is not going to go away until the administrative management of helihunting activity is changed.

In the meantime it leaves a vexing issue for site administrators.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Sorry Saeed, some of the blame has to be carried by the clients. they are the ones keeping this grubby little industry alive. The price they may have to pay for that is an amount of criticism should we find out about their hunt.
As has been pointed out time and again, there is every opportunity available to take a tahr to an individuals level of skill and fitness without the need for heilihunting. Its just laziness and a lack of thought that makes people participate.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


Then I am afraid you will find that you are not helping your cause.

This is the sort of hunting I personally would not like to participate in.

Just as I would not participate in a "canned" hunt in Africa, despite having been hunting there for 30 years.

I don't like canned hunting, and I don't think I like helihunting.

Neither appeals to me.

BUT, I would not criticise those who wish to participate in then, as long as they are not breaking any game laws in that country.

I would try and persuade the authirities to understand my point of view, and change the laws if necessary.

You think thats not happening ? we are working on that right now in the meantime what else is there,
You talk about african hunting or NZ hunting who are you ? merely a third party talking about somewhere else.
This is my country and if someone helihunts here I would like to know their attraction to that activity.
Is it okay to discuss it with them find out if they know whats really going on.
You talk about helihunting as if its some local idea to oppose it, its not.
Using helicopters to herd and haze game is banned in any civilised country.
You can be relaxed about it you have a choice because you dont have to deal with it in your own country, we do.
Think about that Saeed, you have a choice, most of us NZ hunters will probably only ever hunt in our own country.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Sorry Saeed, some of the blame has to be carried by the clients. they are the ones keeping this grubby little industry alive. The price they may have to pay for that is an amount of criticism should we find out about their hunt.
As has been pointed out time and again, there is every opportunity available to take a tahr to an individuals level of skill and fitness without the need for heilihunting. Its just laziness and a lack of thought that makes people participate.

Then I am afraid you will find that you are not helping your cause.

This is the sort of hunting I personally would not like to participate in.

Just as I would not participate in a "canned" hunt in Africa, despite having been hunting there for 30 years.

I don't like canned hunting, and I don't think I like helihunting.

Neither appeals to me.

BUT, I would not criticise those who wish to participate in then, as long as they are not breaking any game laws in that country.

I would try and persuade the authirities to understand my point of view, and change the laws if necessary.

I'd respectfully disagree. More and more people are understanding that this activity is unacceptable. We do nothing in regards to the clients, and the guides keep all their business. Even if we manage to convince 10% of perspective clients to consider another method or guiding company, its a win. From this forum alone I have had contact with members who have chosen to take more ethical hunt's and there are post's in which people ask for more information on who to use.
By targeting every aspect, NZ hunters are slowly winning, and its by endlessly putting across this view point to those who will listen, as well as those who don't wish to, that we are doing so.

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:
Fellow hunters I have no reason to take exception to (1) locals wanting "fair" access; (2) locals not wanting to pay the high cost associated with "non-locals" hunting on "their" land; (3) locals wanting to dictate the "method" of all hunter access, and on and on and on. Problem I have is "locals" feeling they "own" the right to all animals "within their hunting territory", and to be hunted in "their" preferred way.

I wish we did get a say on how hunting is conducted on public land, technically speaking under NZ law we do own all wild animals. Currently these animals are not hunted under majority guidance. Do you think asking people to get out out of their helicopters and ground hunt is too much to ask ?

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:
How about a "lifetime limit" for ALL hunters on "trophy quality animals" - say two or less?? Would that make everyone a happy camper? For instance, I, living in S. Texas have "many" trophy whitetail deer, should I only have two? I am guessing that those "locals" in NZ, W.United States, BC have "several" trophy tahr, elk and stone sheep, respectively and WE all want more??? How many is enough?

Thats a pretty evolved variety of game management, discussing something like that in NZ at our current level of game management would be akin to explaining a waltz to a cage full of chimpanzees.

quote:

Thats a pretty evolved variety of game management, discussing something like that in NZ at our current level of game management would be akin to explaining a waltz to a cage full of chimpanzees.

You mean just like trying to explain to some people in New Zealand that visiting hunters who participate in a legal hunt should be chastise?

Some of those chimps sometimes you think they might actually just be pretending not to understand you, maybe so no-one tries to make them wear funny clothes and dance to someone else's tune

Weathered,

Are you an outfitter in New Zealnd?

No I am freelance oilfield worker who works 6 months of the year and hunts 4-5 months of the year in our alps if I can. I run a small farm with a few deer on it

Weathered, I would have guessed that you had plenty of time to spend in the lovely Alps from your posts and I am truly jealous! Food for thought, how many of those rich non-residents have 4=5 months to spend in your lovely countryside! Makes it much easier to "have the time" to slowly take ones time in hiking up the mountain! Enjoy.

Last weekends photos I have taken only 3 animals from this area in three years. On this overnighter we saw 21 chamois 5 red deer and 1 bull tahr, who walked into the middle of the chamois hunt. It was very exciting.

We walked and climbed for the afternoon and slept in the tussock under the stars
Why would you not want to keep these places for your children and theirs too.







How long will they last when people in helicopters exploit these places for shallow business whats left ? not very much

For those wondering, all concerned Hunters in this country are vexed by the willingness of our conservation dept, and its Minister, to trample all over the recreational values that have long been taken for granted by the public of New Zealand. Many are fighting the good fight, its a work in progress. Hopefully soon, some good sense will prevail, and the open wound that is helihunting, now coined Aerially Assisted Trophy Hunting will be finally made redundant. Its a blight and a plague to the real recreational hunters of New Zealand, all for a handful of silver.

You are always going to be pushing shit up hill to get the govt to come on board - game or no game you are dealing with an introduced animal, regarded as a pest in some quarters! I dont like that fact but it is sad and true...

However - You'll change the attitude of the govt before you change the attitude of the numerous guides involved. The reality is though that you will have to show that the money and conservation benefits come from many difverent sources and inbound safari hunting will be one of those sources. You guys NEED the value that these hunters bring in order to protect this resource. Their utilisation is ultimately their only saviour! That is all just my opinion though...

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You are always going to be pushing shit up hill to get the govt to come on board - game or no game you are dealing with an introduced animal, regarded as a pest in some quarters! I dont like that fact but it is sad and true...

However - You'll change the attitude of the govt before you change the attitude of the numerous guides involved. The reality is though that you will have to show that the money and conservation benefits come from many difverent sources and inbound safari hunting will be one of those sources. You guys NEED the value that these hunters bring in order to protect this resource. Their utilisation is ultimately their only saviour! That is all just my opinion though...

Numerous guides? what a load of rot! its 16 of them.
The last paper I read on guide activity from 2005 showed that 80% of these high rollers conduct their hunts on private land. Helihunting is just a side show to them.
The head of the Game parks assocaition placed the value in terms of turnover at games parks around 25 million and helihunts 1 to 1.3 million.

quote:

Originally posted by Weathered:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You are always going to be pushing shit up hill to get the govt to come on board - game or no game you are dealing with an introduced animal, regarded as a pest in some quarters! I dont like that fact but it is sad and true...

However - You'll change the attitude of the govt before you change the attitude of the numerous guides involved. The reality is though that you will have to show that the money and conservation benefits come from many difverent sources and inbound safari hunting will be one of those sources. You guys NEED the value that these hunters bring in order to protect this resource. Their utilisation is ultimately their only saviour! That is all just my opinion though...

Numerous guides? what a load of rot! its 16 of them.
The last paper I read on guide activity from 2005 showed that 80% of these high rollers conduct their hunts on private land. Helihunting is just a side show to them.
The head of the Game parks assocaition placed the value in terms of turnover at games parks around 25 million and helihunts 1 to 1.3 million.

16 guides or 16 outfitting companies?

What is considered a heli-hunt? Certainly shooting out of a helicopter would be; as would herding game with a helicopter.

What about using a helicopter to drop you off in camp and for game recovery? Is it heli-hunting if you spot an animal from a helicopter, get dropped off hundreds of yards away and stalk on foot?

Shooting from the chopper isn't allowed, unless its the guide who is finishing off a wounded animal that has escaped the hunter.Though to be fair, I have personally witnessed shooting from the machine at an unwounded animal on more than one occasion. Its the herding of the animal for two purposes that is the problem. Purpose one; to tire the animal sufficiently that it will stay in a shootable position for the client, or to drive it to a position that it may be recovered.
And purpose two, to drive the animal to a waiting shooter who has been dropped off.
As Weathered has stated. There is a large amount of public land where you are allowed to be dropped off and picked up, either to camp, day hunt, or recover a shot animal and plenty of guides use that option to find an animal then get landed somewhere that won't disturb it and stalk in. Thats not the problem.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by SBT:
What is considered a heli-hunt? Certainly shooting out of a helicopter would be; as would herding game with a helicopter.

What about using a helicopter to drop you off in camp and for game recovery? Is it heli-hunting if you spot an animal from a helicopter, get dropped off hundreds of yards away and stalk on foot?

I would imagine herding or spotting the animal, as well as shooting from the helicopter should be outlawed.

Being trasported to camp in a helicopter should not.

Just as a side thought, can I ask some of you guys who would consider coming to NZ for a Tahr hunt and be in a position to use a chopper by any of the methods.
What would be your complaint if the minimum standard was that you were allowed to spot an animal from the air, But had to utilize 24 hrs between drop off and pick up?
After all you've travelled half way around the world for an alpine hunting experience, and that way you get a relatively high chance of success, whilst not impinging on the animals chance of escape. You get an awesome mountain hunting experience, the guide is more than capable of carrying tent, equipment and food for two on an overnight hunt. It gives any other hunter in the area equal chance, and doesn't cause the potential injury and exhaustion to the animal that HH does.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Alaska prohibit flying and hunting on the same day?