The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Australian and New Zealand Hunting Hunt Report: New Zealand 2012Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Hunt Report: New Zealand 2012 | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
No you cant do that with Hunt Australia and we wont book you on a tahr hunt that does that either. All I am saying is that some (possibly a lot) of the hunters who front-up in New Zealand do not have ANY intention of being involved in that kind of a hunt. This has been admitted several times in this thread by these Kiwi guys, who are 'in the know'... Yes some hunters may ask for it but certainly not all. I mean the OP may not have been involved in that kind of a hunt either (and probably wasnt) - I dont think he mentioned anything about driving tahr?? All we saw was the shot of the helo lifting, off after it had moved his tahr for him. How the hunt actually went down is really between him and the other participants... they are the only ones who will ever know the truth. A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life Hunt Australia - Website Hunt Australia - Facebook Hunt Australia - TV | |||
|
One of Us |
I really wanted to bow out of this one as I thought it was going to go personal with insults being next. I really don't care to participate in those discussions as we so often see here on AR. But despite the discussion being heated, it has for the most part remained respectful with no personal insults. IMO, this thread is the best one on the forum at this point. Naki: You say I "don't get it". What are you talking about. Did I not say I supported your cause? Did I not say I am only using the chopper for access on my upcoming hunt? Are you saying I don't get the point on the money issue? Yep, I get it. Some have more than others which allows them to do more things. I'm fortunate. I make good money now but it hasn't always been that way and who knows if it will remain that way? There are no guarantees. In my case, I identified some activities that I wanted to be able to do and things I wanted to provide for my family so I put myself on a path to higher earning potential. Trust me, it didn't come without a lot of work, effort, and uncertainty of success. Don't confuse this with simple hard work. Hard work is certainly required but many folks work hard and only just get by. It's about identifying what activities actually pay well and working hard at those activities. However, no matter how much money a person makes or has, there are always going to be people who have more!! I've said this before and I'll say it again. I can afford Zimbabwe Safaris. I cannot afford Tanzania Safaris. If I get to the point that a Tanzania Safari is important to me, I'll look for a way to change my income model to make it happen. But until that time, and this is the entire point of my discussion, I will not begrudge the fellows who can afford Tanzania. The fact that they can afford it and I can't does not matter to me one tiny bit. Restricting them from going to Tanzania because they have more money than me will in no way improve my lot in life! Sorry, don't mean to preach. I just don't see the point in the class warfare stuff. And as much as you Kiwi's here deny that this about class warfare, you bring it up in EVERY point you make. I think what is happening here is that you guys are not seeing the forrest for the trees to quote an old saying. I haven't seen a single foreign hunter here take a position of supporting heli-hunting! Every one of us have supported your position of stopping it with the exception of the OP. We (the non Kiwi's) have tried to point out the problems with your (Kiwis) message that may or may not be part of the reason you can't get the DOC to take you seriously. That being that you don't stay on topic with logical, rational, linear points. You keep inserting emotional statements that undermine the credibility such as the "rich overseas hunters are to blame". An outsider to the discussion reads that and says to himself, this is about jealousy, not conservation. Sorry guys, that's the way someone who is not caught up in the issue views it. And you must admit to yourselves that the people you are lobbying to change the laws, are not caught up in the issue. They are outsiders to the issue so you must persuade them with logic in order to get them to take you serious. When they hear the emotional pleas, I'm sure they turn their attention elsewhere. That's what I do at least. Just to give an example, I would approach it from this standpoint: Culling operations from a helicopter are detrimental to the herds. This culling must stop, regardless of who is doing it. (This is the missing link IMO.) If culling is allowed and necessary, who cares if it is a guy hired by the goverment or a foreign hunter pulling the trigger? It shouldn't matter unless you want to do it yourself for the excitement but can't afford it and then we are back to the money issue. If you are only offended when it's done by a foreign hunter because it isn't your idea of ethics, but is ok by the government hired guy because he isn't calling it hunting, well, that argument doesn't hold water. If culling from the chopper is ok under one premise, why not the other? Who cares WHAT the foreign hunter thinks about the animal he shot. Let him think he has a trophy. His false pride in the animal does not affect you in any way. It doesn't diminish the effort you put into your foot hunted, hard earned trophy in the least. Again, if the activity is the same with a foreign hunter or government hired culler, why do you care who pulls the trigger. If the ACTIVITY is truly what offends you, shut the ACTIVITY down completely. Don't allow it under one circumstance and not under the other. The point of the above paragraph is: Pick a logical but simple conservation position and stick to it without deviation or exception. If culling is detrimental to the herd, stop it entirely. If it isn't detrimental, or is in fact necessary, as some have stated here, objecting to certain people participating in it simply because they have more money than you, is about as weak of an argument as I've ever heard! Here are some more examples of not sticking with a logical, unified, conservation minded argument in regards to getting your law changed. Provided this time by Eagle27. Sorry Eagle, not throwing you under the bus.
Again Kiwis, I support your efforts to end heli-hunting. Please don't mistake that. As I said early on, I'm trying to learn your issue. In order to get past the platitudes and really get to the bottom of it, hard questions must be asked. I'm simply asking the hard questions here. So far, I'm not convinced this is a conservation issue. I'm not even convinced it's an ethical issue. It seems to be more about money to me. There was a statement a few posts back about "the $20,000 stag is the real issue" that draws the foreign hunters. Listen, no one who is accustomed to free activities is in favor of loosing that. Back when I grew up in East Texas in the 70's, one could often hunt private property simply by asking the landowner for permission. The same applies today but you will almost always be asked to sign a lease and pay substantially for the permission. The same has happened in the American West where there is a lot of public land. In the past, many ranches could be hunted by asking permission. Now days, outfitters have leased hunting rights on those ranches so if you want to hunt there, you book a hunt with the outfitter. As a result, hunting public property is now exceptionally crowded with hunters who cannot or will not pay to hunt. Painful for sure to see the world going this way. But who can object to a landowner exercising his property rights to do what he wants with his land? It's his. If he wants to raise stags to make money, and only allow paying hunters on his property, that is his decision. Here in Texas, we have similar issues going on. No longer does the landowner simply charge to hunt his property, some have high fenced their land and purchase genetically altered deer to stock the property so that they can charge higher and higher fees. It isn't for me even though I can afford to do it if I so desired. I don't. But the landowner has the right to conduct this type of operation on his own land and charge what ever the market will bare. There is no conservation issue here. There is NO way hunters at large would be able to go to the State Capital and lobby the legislature to outlaw high fence, genetically altered, high price Whitetail Deer hunting on the basis of some being able to afford it and others not. I know I'm mixing the Stag and Tahr issue now but they are intertwined when it comes to the foreign hunter on your soil. A monetary argument is never going to be successful in changing your laws because monetary arguments are about jealousy. IMO, an ethical argument is not going to get the attention you desire to change your laws because ethics are subjective and personal (remember that many folks hold ethics that killing any animal is wrong, no matter the method). Only a logical, conservation focused argument will do the trick. And I'm sorry but I don't see this conservation focused argument being championed. | |||
|
One of Us |
Shanks is correct he has quoted almost exactly the breakdown of hunters for a 2005 survey I can supply you 80% of clients are north american and australian. James Guild (NZ game estates rep) and Roger Duxfiled along with Adrian Moody (NZPHGA pres)agreed that game parks account for approx 25 million in turnover with 1 to 1.2 million on helihunts. refute that fact or apologise | |||
|
| One of Us |
IHH is the helicopter rego in the photo Harvey Hutton only helihunts, it was his lawyer that reinstated the herding and hazing clause. Harvey maintains he cannot carry out his guiding business unless he herds animals (thats public record in front of over 50 peeople at a stakeholders meeting) | |||
|
Moderator |
I agree Todd, its been a good discussion. It is a touchy subject (5 pages worth) but everyone is keeping it clean. ------------------------------ A mate of mine has just told me he's shagging his girlfriend and her twin. I said "How can you tell them apart?" He said "Her brother's got a moustache!" | |||
|
| One of Us |
Are the Mesopotamia Station group doing heli-hunts? I saw some pictures. That chopper sure looked familiar. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Todd, you ask a good question. Its important to understand that there is a major difference between helihunting and chopper culling. They are different beast's for a number of reasons. First herd dynamics. Already there is a disproportionate lack of bulls due to trophy hunting of all sorts.In the region of 70/30 to nannys. The herd needs to be controlled and the government culls specify that identifiable bulls not be shot. The culls have a purpose and that is herd management for conservation benefits aimed at reducing the breeding potential and growth of the herd. Second heli-use difference's. In a helihunt there is a massive time spent in harassment of a single animal from a herd for very little benefit. the taking of a single bull has no benefit to conservation. Yet it makes the whole herd that animal is with, Heli-aware. Constant pressure is teaching these animals to move to cover at the noise of a chopper. Conversly the culls are and should be designed to operate after a period of quiet when the animals are in the open and for the same amount of flying time over the herd, 20fold nannys will be culled with little harassment, as there is no need to recover or position a hunter. Third conservation harm. the idea of culls is to reduce herds of females to less than 5 and keep them spread over their range to minimize grazing impact of an animal that can populate an ideal local in its range with herds of 30 or more. The way I understand it is that this is achieved by hitting the herds 2 or 3 times a year, targeting the big groups with culling and splitting and dispersing the remainder. The constant pressure of Helihunting is not achieving this, it is forcing the herds to congregate near cover and eat out food supplies in that area. Gryph saw this first hand on the trip he mentioned where the animals were kept so tight to cover that the alpine grass edge looked like a golf course and the animals were suffering close contact disease's. Its a complex issue. As a rule Kiwi hunters recognize the need for official culls, and participate ourselves for the health of the environment and the animals. If foreign hunters wished to come and shoot females under cull conditions there would not be an issue with us, except I then suspect that Doc would have an issue as they would claim that non professionals could not do it as efficiently as their staff. And there is an issue with determining non mature bulls. Todd, it was me that made the 20,000 dollar stag statement. I am struggling to explain that by and large we have no real issue with these places. we do look down on them and realize they have an effect on us, but we can live with them if thats what the visiting hunters deem important. There is enough room here for all and you are dead right that its a landowners right to make an income by which ever method he sees fit. I myself am a large acreage landowner with hunting potential and it is always a tempting option. Conversly, what you guys have to understand is the tie ups and what makes the Tahr issue connected to these others. There is no real issue with the stag, but tack a 1 day, cheap tahr hunt onto a stag hunt as a form of added value, when the Tahr hunt should be 3-4 days minimum and do it in this manor and a link is created that we find objectionable. | |||
|
One of Us |
I would think that the one day tahr hunt by chopper should be described more as a couple of hours Tahr 'shoot' .. there's no need for any 'day' in it or any pain in walking (hunting) either. Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Guys - This whole thing is totally foolish, but carry off if you wish. Regardless of "where" the hunters come from, who they are, or how much they spend - you are simply pitting hunters against hunters, with no good reason, other than selfish greed, and a poor me pity party! 1. There is NO sound game management necessity for the stoppage of heli-hunting, period! That meaning the Tahr/Chamois of NZ are in threat of serious decline or extinction, because of this practice - evident by continued govt culling, correct? 2. You guys claim its a moral/ethical issue, but apparently only your morals/ethics apply! Like I stated, but got no answer to is - what happens when the antis argue their moral/ethical position that ALL hunting should be closed period? What then, or do you guys get to pick/choose what morals/ethics should apply - never mind, the answer to that one is clear! 3. The "wealthy", the "rich", blah, blah, blah! Its always somebody's fault, and by god, they should have to stop, cause I can't do it myself! Honestly, it reminds me of a bunch of whining 12 yr old girls from middle school, and unless you Kiwis are blind - NO ONE ELSE but yourselves on this thread are supporting you, because of it. Not to mention, sounding like a bunch of "socialists", who all believe everyone should live life "equally in misery." I guarantee you, that will win no support amongst the mostly conservative/hunting crowd. But, we see it here too - all the time. The resident whiners who are always crying "poor me", every time someone is doing something they don't/can't, etc. Its so pathetic, I feel sad for them that the good lord actually made them a man, instead of a woman. Its just so un-becoming of a man to grovel, like a little kid.  4. I too have said I agree that same day flying/hunting should be banned. I would love to spend a few days on the mountain in NZ. But, like myself, I think you will find alot of the outside hunting community will NOT support your convictions, when you use the lame duck arguments we've seen on this thread! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hunters? In choppers? What hunters? Hunters actually do hunt and that is irrefutable! Lets get it right eh,there is NO hunting from choppers,its either shooting or slaughter take your pick. Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002 | |||
|
| One of Us |
You've had it all explained to you Aaron, and I believe are purposely not listening or failing to understand. In fact your poor attempt at insults tend to point me towards someone who is saying one thing but believes another. You want to take your post and read it from a neutral standpoint, then tell me where the whining is coming from. If you come back and ask nicely, I will attempt to explain where you have it wrong. Right now I can't be bothered with putting in a decent reply to something of this quality. | |||
|
One of Us |
I think I have it figured out. Before helihunting, a segment of NZ hunters had access to the wild lands. It was several days hiking to get into these out of the way areas. Once there, one could expect to have the place all to himself and it was as if you owned the property. In short, the locals had the place all to themselves. Then, as NZ became an international hunting destination, some of the pioneering outfitter types had to figure out a way to get the paying customers to the alpine animals. For the most part, these hunters only had five days or a week to get their hunt done and there simply was no time for a prolonged wilderness foot hunt. Enter the helicopter. Now, you have choppers shuttling international hunters in and out of the wilderness areas that were previously unreachable. Outsiders now shoot the game animals that the locals enjoyed the exclusive use of for so many years previous. Local's toes were stepped on. Their feelings were hurt. These outsiders were shooting "their" animals. The door is now open wide. The news is out. The industry grows. Some folks dismount the chopper and hunt by foot. Some shoot from the open door of the aircraft. In either case, choppers whiz by every hour, many with dead tahr and chamois hanging from the undercarriage. The locals happy hunting grounds are spoiled. The good ole days are . . . well they're gone and very much a thing of the past. The locals are displaced from "their" property by this practice and some of them have hunts spoiled by helihunters, so they revert to attacks on the hunter who comes and takes a perfectly legal hunt with their countryman in NZ. They belittle the hunter and attack his memory of the hunt. Tell him he shot farm animals and that he paid way too much. That he is not a hunter and that he should be ashamed of what he did. They feel vindicated that the hunter will not return to NZ and will not participate in another helihunt. In reality, this is no accomplishment since most hunters go to NZ for a single hunt, never to return. What's the real issue? This whole story is as old as hunting. Every time an area becomes a destination for traveling hunters, the price goes up, access to good hunting is reduced, and the locals get their feelings hurt because they lose some portion of their interest in the hunting lands and the animals thereon. Rest assured, if guys were coming out of the woodwork to hunt tahr on foot, there would be an equally agitated group of locals decrying the evils of these hunters coming into their wilderness and shooting their animals. You will certainly tell me I am naive and this is about morals and fair chase and all that jazz, but this is just locals versus outsiders. Everything else is window dressing. And, for what it's worth. I've shot exactly one tahr in NZ and it was 100% on foot, free range. I've never even flown in a chopper, period. I have been invited to TX to shoot pigs from a chopper. I just might go and see what I'm missing out on. If I wanted to shoot from a chopper in NZ, I'd do that too. Will J. Parks, III | |||
|
| One of Us |
Not quite SL. 33% roughly of NZ is public land divided into state forests, national parks and wilderness areas. there is, depending on the purpose, a mix of land that has free ranging open access of most types including unrestricted helicopter landings, access restricted for helicopters to known spot's, usually at a hut, and no access by any form of motorized transport including choppers. There is also a massive amount of private land with no restriction other than what the owner sets. This gives pretty much everyone a place that can be accessed to their ability. No one has said we begrudge hunters coming here. In fact if you go over to the kiwi forum, you will see that visiting hunters are given a massive amount of help, advice and offers to go for a hunt. What we begrudge, for all the reasons we've been over, is this one aspect called helihunting. If we point that out, and the op gets condescending , then he can expect some condescension back. The hunters who have come out of the woodwork and hunted to their abilities, either on foot, or with chopper or vehicle help of some non interfering sort, public land or private, have without exception been congratulated. The amount of time a visitor has is not our problem. Thats their choice. Neither is guaranteeing their success our problem. No other activity by visiting hunters affects kiwis in anywhere near the way this do's, and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, it also effect's the herd. You can keep on bringing it back to jealousy,us and them, Greed... whatever, but it doesn't change the core issues. | |||
|
| One of Us |
+1 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rest assured? They would be welcome to give it a damn good try on foot as those that have hunted bull Tahr in the rough mountain`s (not hills back of the farm as many do) know that the majority of the shooters that choose choppers are actually incapable of such hunting..its more likely not about time constraints at all really as this chopper shooting is more about a virtual guarantee of a hmmm trophy! The Kiwi boys dont want and i dont blame them chopper 'guides' encroaching on their turf where choppers are banned...like haven't these operators got enough space? No the greedy money hungry mongs want the lot! Safari-lawyer can you tell us where and when you shot your free range trophy Tahr on foot please,i would love to see a link to the hunt pics too.giving away the location wont be a problem as they are all well known and you wont be going back either by the sounds of it. Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002 | |||
|
| One of Us |
This entire discussion reminds me of being married.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
 At least you can walk away from this conversation without being harmed... | |||
|
| Administrator |
Very true. Rich foreign hunters are the husband. Poor local Kiwis are the wife  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shankspony, Your answers of 1) Herd dynamics, 2) Heli-use Differences, and 3) Conservation Harm make good logical arguments IMO. I'm just an outsider looking in and trying to understand an issue I had no idea even existed a month ago. I'm not an attorney so my opinion of sticking to the facts and leaving the emotional pleas out of the argument is just that, a layman's opinion. But it sure seems to me that if you guys would pick your 1,2,3 approach as you outlined in your response to my post, you would be much better positioned to get the support that is needed to change your laws. I do wish you guys well in that regard! | |||
|
| One of Us |
2007, somewhere three hours drive from Cardrona and six hours uphill climbing (my speed) and a lucky break when the tahr crested the mountain and entered the basin where we were having a drink of water and a short break. I shot uphill and he fell downhill. So, against my better judgment, there it is. Let the dissection begin.  Will J. Parks, III | |||
|
| One of Us |
In fact, the only thing turning me off of returning to NZ, having already been there twice, are the revelations in this thread about what I previously thought were the friendliest people in the world. Frankly, I am still flabbergasted at the attacks on the original poster who, by all accounts, is only guilty of participating in a completely legal hunt in NZ. Will J. Parks, III | |||
|
| One of Us |
No dissection required, a fine trophy taken the right way.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Very nice tahr Will! Too bad it was wet. Those manes are magnificent when dry. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Saeed: +1!!!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Very nice SL,as Johnfox said no dissection needed.Which outfitter do you use btw? Posts: 87 | Location: Victoria Australia | Registered: 07 September 2002 | |||
|
| One of Us |
I don't know how many times it has to be said that it's not about the have and the have nots, rich vs poor etc. The only correlation the argument has with the husband/wife comment is that when wives are talking to their husbands they may as well be talking to a post.. | |||
|
| new member |
No disrespect inferred  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Your figures do not correlate to what he was claiming was the breakdown of people heli-hunting. He made them up. Also the bit about the $20,000 stags.... just a furphy. A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life Hunt Australia - Website Hunt Australia - Facebook Hunt Australia - TV | |||
|
One of Us |
Well done Todd! "Good on ya mate" as we say here! 
"When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
You shouldn't base your opinion of an entire nation -or your future plans to travel there- on a discussion on an internet forum. I don't think we were overly harsh on the original poster. There were no personal insults or anything of the sort. We just let him know our opinion of his actions. If AIU wants to come back and see what hunting in NZ is really like, I'll endeavor to show him (if I'm in country), how New Zealanders hunt.I'll take him to the Kaimanawa mountains where he'll see real, wild sika deer on public land. That's a genuine offer. The reason the discussion can become emotive is because we live and hunt in a special place and we have a lot to lose. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Saeed, you are hillarious! Aaron, I suggest you read your post again after a drink. If I recall correctly, this is the first time I have seen a rude post on AR from you. I am surprised ... really. The "no hunting on same day as flying" rule will not work in NZ and will NOT be acceptable to Kiwis. We fly into blocks for Sika, reds, tahr, chammy & Wapiti all the time. Most fly in trips are just 3 to 4 nights max. 10 to 15 years ago when the kids were not around, I used to do 3 to 6 fly-in trips a year. Some flights were just 5 minutes - and it got us into a nice valley with the safety factor that no other hunter will be in the block except you and your friends. This saves us a full day of walking in & out - for $150 to $250 per hunter for a group of 3 or 4. The tahr & wapiti blocks would cost more. Flying into blocks is an essential part of much of hunting in NZ & that will not change. Not hunting on the same day will increase costs significantly and reduce weekend hunting by a HUGE margin as most people cannot take 2 extra days off to hunt for just 2 days - chopper fly-in hunts will become unviable & operators will be forced to shut down. "When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let us get our definitions right - Culling & meat recovery from a chopper are basically environmental management exercises with possible commercial spin off. They are a necessary part of NZ wildlife management. This has nothing to do with hunting. Heli hunting is the commercial operation by oufitter where they get a paying "hunter" (usually a wealthy foreigner) to shoot an animal from a chopper or to chase an animal and shoot it from a convenient ridge with little walking or climbing. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS CULLING FROM A CHOPPER OR MEAT RECOVERY. Nor is it the same as a fly-in huntiong trip What we are against (Heli hunting) is the commercial marketing & profiteering by shooting animals supposedly for sport from a chopper or after chasing them with a chopper. This is neither hunting nor is it a conservation exercise. "When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yeah, i've been back through the thread, and I actually see very little more than controlled disagreement from the majority of the kiwis. I see more straight out put downs and passive aggressive behavior from some of those responding. maybe its just pricked a nerve or they just have no better way to respond. Safari Lawyer; Nice bull, I've seen your pics before somewhere. Did you post a report? You look like you spent some effort into achieving him in poor to average conditions. Whats more important though (To Me), is that you achieved it without causing any of the negatives we've all been over. It's your business if you decide to come back to NZ, I couldn't care either way, but at least you'll have some information to base any decision on. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It could work but it would actually impinge greatest on visiting hunters. I tend to agree with Larry shores view posted earlier.
We don't need the AK law, just a stop to one little activity. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There's a historical context which is lacking in this discussion. When early colonials came out to New Zealand in the 19th and early 20th centuries there was a movement away from the Monarchy and feudal class systems which were prominent in England. Hunting was a sport for royalty and Lords in the mother country and those with the balls to move to the other side of the world didn't want it to be that way in their new home. So public lands were set aside as a place where the only barrier to the hunter was their stamina and guts. Class didn't matter. There were still vast areas of private land where wealthy people could pay to hunt, but public land was set aside, and it is this land that is now threatened. Note that no one ever had a problem with the private land which makes up a huge area of the huntable land in NZ. It's the encroachment onto public land which causes problems. As I've noted above, I'm the polar opposite of a socialist (politically, I'm about in line with your Ron Paul). I'll say again, this isn't about rich vs poor, it's about defending hunting rights on public lands. By the way, calling us 12 year old girls is pretty bloody infantile in itself Aaron. You really reckon no one else supports us in being against helihunting? I'd say you're wrong. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It has been said many times here before that kiwi hunters are pissed-off about being 'locked-out' of private land too!!! A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life Hunt Australia - Website Hunt Australia - Facebook Hunt Australia - TV | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let me explain that situation to you. This has nothing to do with the estates and areas where the vast majority of overseas hunters hunt on private land. The complaints here which you refer to are mainly due to farm owners who, in the past, have granted access to areas which border national parks and public land. Often now, as a result of heli-hunting, these farmers are being told to grant no access to people other than the clients of outfitters. Now that's the farmers prerogative, but it's another negative effect of heli-hunting. | |||
|
| One of Us |
what a load of bunk.... first there is no issue with private land and now there is.... so which one is it?? So where exactly are these areas "where the vast majority of overseas hunters hunt on private land"?? A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life Hunt Australia - Website Hunt Australia - Facebook Hunt Australia - TV | |||
|
| One of Us |
How do you know the other guys tahr was chased by a helicopter???  A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life Hunt Australia - Website Hunt Australia - Facebook Hunt Australia - TV | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Australian and New Zealand Hunting Hunt Report: New Zealand 2012
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia