No ... NZPHGA's nationwide concession is for client access to the national parks and allows their non NZ clients to hunt on public land without a permit under the guides supervision.
The permits issued to NZers or anyone else that walks into the department office and asks for are free, on demand, valid for 12 months and may include your vehicle and firearms permit details.
The permits allow you to hunt a park they do not confer any rights of aerial access.
Aerial access is granted under helicopter operator concessions. Each operators concession will have nominated landing areas, landing wherever you want to shoot at game is never permitted. The only exceptions are search and rescue or an in-flight emergency. In the past wild animal recovery operations WARO concessions did allow landing to recover meat, mainly venison for commercial meat recovery. The WARO concession expressly prohibited carrying recreational hunters or fare paying passengers.
For example we have wilderness areas such as the Hooker Landsborough where no aerial access is allowed at all except balloted pick up and drop off on a weekly basis over 3 months.
If you look at the areas mentioned in the thar info you will see often aerial access to hut only That means you get to drop your gear at a hut and no-where else. It is common for us to get dropped at say for example The Horace Walker Glacier Hut and then plan hunts for the next week. There are some places you can access in that area that will take days to get to and test you mentally and physically, then a 500 drops in in front of you and shoots it up, the landing to drop off the shooter and guide and recover the trophies is the illegal part of the operation.

There are at least 2 applications from aerial operators one of them McBride before the minister of conservation right now asking for concessions to validate the practice of buzz- hunting or heli-hunting as SCI seem to prefer calling it.
These come up periodically and are always turned down the last one being refused in 2007.

As far as Senters death goes;
I hope that Senter paid for his hunt in the US as his estate has a very strong claim against the outfitter the guide and the New Zealand Department of Conservation.
The initial determination by DoC at the time of Senters death was that the helicopter was engaged in WARO ... clearly the helicopter was engaged in illegal hunting. Why did DoC cover for the guide and pilot in this case as they have tried to do in other instances? I don't know but there is a lot of money tied up in SCI hunts and park rangers don't earn much these days.
The department of conservation has since changed its position on Senter's death and now view it as non WARO but will not prosecute anyone due to lack of evidence. This is a DoC attempt to avoid liability more than any determination of legality.
I would think that a dead tourist at the bottom of a cliff is plenty enough evidence.

Weathered

Like I said,it usually is the money...

For all the good things SCI does (I am a member),if you dig around,thier ethics are certainly questionable at times.They continue to accept money from an outfitter in africa(Out of Africa Safaris)that clearly has issues.Its sad to see passionate sportsman have to fight an uphill battle against the $$$$.

Only thing I request, is dont lump all American hunters as unethical.We tend to get painted all with the same brush...

You and your fellow countryman should continue to post here,keep us up on Senter trial.

Good hunting...

I am married to an American, my children are American, I am on holiday in America. I know about Americans and have a high opinion of them. I will post my next tahr hunt here.
I admire the wonderful animals raised on game parks and ranches and think that what hunting happens on private land is their business. Until the last few years I could hunt on public land in peace; SCI changed all that.

In 1980 heli-hunting for commercial meat recovery had decimated the tahr herd to fewer than 1000 animals. New Zealand hunters approached the government and sought protection for tahr from commercial exploitation that was clearly unsustainable. A moratorium was placed on tahr and the tahr control plan was created. The tahr control plan is a defacto management plan its sole objective is maintaining a healthy vegetative cover in the presence of a tahr herd on public land. I am a supporter of the tahr liason group which is a good working model between DoC and hunters. The guides owe the presence of the tahr herd they exploit illegally to recreational hunters like me.


In New Zealand we have a herd of around 10000 tahr about 2500 to 3000 are taken each year, assume that each year produces 1500 bulls the figure may be a little higher so maybe 2000 is closer to realistic. I know that each operator is taking around 120 bulls each season by heli-hunting. I won't name names but say 10 main operators doing heli-hunts that is over 1200 bulls taken by aerial hunting. Then there is the harvest of bulls by New Zealanders, we take 300 500 800 ?. It takes 5-8 years to produce a 12 inch bull and 8-12 to make a 13-14 inch bull. With less than 300 to 800 bulls surviving each year from the heli-hunting and ground hunting how long do you expect our hunting resource to last ?
The scrawny little bull that kudude took is barely a 3 year old that is is all left in some areas. We can access good bulls still but under this pressure who knows where our hunting resource is headed.

woodmanDan,
The blanket concession held by the Guides association gives the guide and his hunters the same "rights" as the NZ recreational hunter to be on DOC,public lands, and carry a firearm and that is all.
It in NO way carries any right to be in a helicopter or hunting with the add of the helicopter.
That is a totally separate issue.
I don't believe there is any "hiding" by the guides. more a knowledge that its not the guides requirement to undertake,its the helicopter operators responsibilty. I'm equally as sure the helicopter pilots will say its the guides responsibility.
Until a statutory body steps forward and takes control of these situations it will continue to be the way things are done here,unfortunately.
No one in the guiding industry wants to see a repeat of the accident that occurred with MR Senter.
This forum discussion is about as public as you can get this debate,so keep it going,who knows, someone in the right place may get interested.

Reading back on Kududes post I notice that its mentioned that his pilot logs 5400hrs a year.
I think CAA,Cival Aviation Authority would find that very interesting as their regs state that only 8hrs can be flown in a day and 30 in a week!
Do some maths on that.

This will be my final post on this issue for reasons that I will develop.

Weathered, I've tried to be a gentleman and to listen to your position. I've tried to acquire information in order to determine whether there is merit to your contention; however, I have become aware of a corresponding thread which you started on a NZ board in which you use this case as a cause celeb to get DOC to make a ruling on whether it is illegal. You can’t have it both ways. And by the way, some of the posts in yet another thread on that same board have been over the top in criticizing me. I wish I was so pure of heart that I could judge others that way. If it were not for the occasional voice of reason, who was generally shouted down, I could really get pissed at your decidedly parochial countrymen. I hope you will be kind enough to post this on that board for me.

As stated above, your assertion that what I did was illegal is belied by your posts on the other board. In any case, as I understand it, it was the "landing" of passengers that you allege is illegal. If you think about this for a moment, the outfitter can be guilty of this violation, but not the passenger, like your victim, Mr. Senter.

You'd admit the transport of hunters to a hunting area is not per se illegal even under your interpretation of the law. It becomes “illegal†under your construction at different times, in different areas, and other circumstances covered by regulations I haven’t been able to find. If this regulation is sufficiently unclear that your countrymen cannot agree on whether it applies, as you have tacitly admitted, how to you expect foreigners to reach a conclusion about this issue?

Regarding shooting from the plane and ethics, you have stated here and it is pretty well known that your country has treated as a pest the two animals involved here, tahr and chamois, and still limits their expansion by killing off those that venture outside certain boundaries. Your country permits commercial harvesting of wildlife for the meat market. Shooting from helicopters was an integral part of this practice as I understand it, and I suspect it is used in culling too. So it’s ethical if you are doing it for a buck (pardon the horrible pun), but unethical if you are doing it for recreation. By-the-way, I have hunted enough different places to understand there is no universality to “hunting ethics.†What is perfectly normal for a Spaniard, would be anathema for an Englishman. What is expected in Germany is avoided at all costs in South Africa. One really must follow local custom because they are most familiar with local conditions.

Given the rather chaotic background of both law and ethics in NZ, exactly what is a foreign hunter to do? What I did. Put my trust in an outfitter with an international reputation of being first rate; a leader in your country's hunting industry; and a person with whom many friends and acquaintances, including active and retired members of our Fish and Game service, have hunted. Their reports were glowing regarding their hunts. You accuse me of not asking the right questions of my outfitter. Exactly what would you have me ask him? Are you sure it is alright to shoot from the copter? Will you have copies of you “ballot†and aerial charts available for me to check? How will I know what area we are hunting in from the air?

I have come away with the feeling that you have used my honest report of a hunt, the way it was, to advance a personal agenda. In the course of this, I have been maligned and criticized by persons who don’t know me, don’t know the facts, and could care less. I notice that you and your NZ friends here and on the other board have not rushed to take on the outfitter so personally. I can't help but wonder if this is because of your libel laws or NZ directness in dealing with such affronts.

Your assumptions about me, and comments impugning my character and those of your friends left a decidedly bad taste in my mouth and your hunting community has come across as a bunch of holier-than-thou prigs. Unfortunately, it has spilled over into my feelings about New Zealand. Germany, Austrian and France have chamois for less money and with better beer. Kudude

quote:

By-the-way, I have hunted enough different places to understand there is no universality to “hunting ethics.†What is perfectly normal for a Spaniard, would be anathema for an Englishman. What is expected in Germany is avoided at all costs in South Africa. One really must follow local custom because they are most familiar with local conditions.

I have avoided wading into this debate, till now, as I could see it getting a little heated although I believe some very, very important issues have been raised as a result of Kudude's report - issues that all hunters need to think carefully about.

And Kudude, if you are still reading this thread, this comment is not aimed at you personally but is offered for ALL hunters to think about.

My comment is that surely we all should hunt in an ethical manner regardless of what others would coax us to do and regardless of the "local customs". Unethical hunting is still unethical hunting regardless of what language the locals speak.

I have hunted with guides who, when the hunting got tough, have suggested taking "short-cuts" like shooting from vehicles or "jumping fences" into more productive grounds. I have always resisted these pressures and I don't care what is accepted by the locals - I know what is accepted by me and I want to be able to hang my trophies on the wall knowing that I took them the hard way, the ethical way and the legal way.

The old saying: "When in Rome do as the Romans do" is not automatically correct, because some of those "Romans" are crooks and con-men without the scruples of real hunters.

I believe that we have a moral obligation to resist "short-cuts" and to insist on ethical hunting practices, even if it does mean going home without that trophy we have dreamed of - there is always next time.

If we all start insisting on ethical practices from our guides, PHs and hunting buddies, then our sport will not continue the slide into the immoral mess that it has in some parts of the world (such as canned hunts) and we will stop giving the anti-hunters ammunition to shoot back at us.

Kudude - as your last sentence clearly states, money is the deciding factor for your hunting. You are more than welcome to take your chequebook hunting elsewhere. This whole episode could have been turned into a positive. Bit sad really.

In my opinion Tahr & Chamois shot from the helicopter or herded to the hunter with the helicopter are a worthless trophy. I cannot fathom why anyone would consider taking animals like this and claiming them as a trophy.

To push through 8 chamois hunts in one day is ansoloutely ridiculous. I think you will find that to hunt these 2 species genuinely a genuine outfitter would allow 3-5 days per animal or up to 8 days for a combined hunt.

For a variety of reasons I have, prior to this thread, delved into the NZ hunting scene from the UK in some detail. As a mountaineer and hunter NZ is of great interest and I'd dearly love to hunt Tahr and Chamois traditionally, as it were.

However, from reading NZ hunting forums and sites, I fail to understand the political dynamic that exists where the Govt/DOC seems so disinterested in enforcing its own laws? Also, how the hell is the 1080 poisoning not drawing such massive comdemnation that it can't be continued? I appreciate its justified as the eradication of introduced species, but if we tried something similiar on, say, grey squirrels in the UK, the 'antis' would be mobbing Parliament.

It's good to see what I posted on the other site, and here about Kudude's story has created a far bit of debate from various countries, it was never done to see personal atackes on Kudude, but as a means of bring to the atention of board members the practice of hearding and shooting game animals from a chopper.It's a practice that a few cowboy operators use for the mighty dollar, people have to put themselves in the position of the normal kiwi hunter who does the hard yards up the hill only to have his hunts f**ked up by a chopper doing illegal operations, this also happens to guides with clients doing fair chase hunts on foot. Untill people in high places push for these operators to be taken to task not much will happen. As for those large amounts of money being good for the NZ ecomomy it's debatable as they stay in outfitters accomadation get transported by outfitters transport stay at the chopper operators place so unless these hunters stay for a normal holiday afterwards not much goes to the wider community. As for 1080 and such while it's stronly suported by goverment and the greens as a way of controling introduced animals it's a very uphill battle to stop or limit it's use. As for hiding behind shooting from a chopper as being ok it is only if it'd done legaly and thats only for wild animal control or wild animal meat recovery which can't include paying passengers and thats it, they aren't shooting for trophys they get cut up and sold as hard antler for cash, that also erks the average kiwi hunter but most of us realise that it is needed to control numbers. In wild animal control operations by DOC the are search and distroy and the animal is left on the hill. He who shoots trophys for the wall must only have his consious clear in the way he took it, some can be called collectors not hunters by the way they were taken but that's there choice

After reading the above posts I had a look at the Boone and Crocket laws for scoring a trophy. They make interesting reading and do not recognise as a trophy animals taken with helicopter assistance eg. used to herd etc. I do not blame the american hunter who wrote the post except to say it would be hard to look at the Thar and Chamois trophies without feeling cheated. A real mountain hunt.. and there are plenty of guides in New Zealand who cater for them... is probably the ultimate challenge in the hunting world. I am an Australian who has been travelling to New Zealand every year since 1986 to hunt Thar self guided. My last hunt was in 2007 and involved a fly camp high on a West coast mountain and the susequent shooting of my best bull to date. There is no way that I can put in words the feelings I had when I walked up to this bull Thar. It was the culmination of over 20 years hunting all on foot. I would also be the first to admit that the country that these animals inhabit is truly rugged and potentially dangerous. It is doubtful that I would have the ability and nerve to do it again as i feel that I am past it. Not everyone is going to be able to hunt Thar as I have done but there is still game parks and private property hunts that cater for such individuals. it is the helicopter operators that are to blame for this so-called heli-hunting. Ethics are up to the individual hunter and I would assume that if SCI stated that trophies would not be recognised if collected with the aid of a chopper the practice would be less popular. I would just close in saying that I had this same chopper drop into the valley that my companions and I foot hunted for Thar. We were fortunate in this case that the chopper backed off and allowed us the opportunity to collect a very good bull. It took us over 6 hours to stalk this bull that we had observed the day before. Don't blame the above hunter he seems a good keen man, blame the outfitters that are selling these bullshit hunts.

Gidday Guys,

As the greatest man to walk the earth once said,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Guys don't attack the person attack the issue. None of us have been perfect and have done something somewhere which would offend someone elses sensibilities so don't be so quick to judge others.

I am affected by the destruction of animals from the air and the wanton slaughter of animals both big game and fur bearing by 1080 but I am not about to start shooting at helicopters or poisoning the dogs of pesticide operators.

Don't attack these guys where you are only damaging our cause. Take the issue up with your newspaper editor or write/email your MP.

I admire your passion and desire to make this situation better and back the result you are looking for but please do it in an intelligent and less self destructive manner. Don't be like the idiots who have harmed our anti 1080 stand by poisoning some poor dog who just happens to belong to a pesticide operator. Do something other than beat up on the very people who could be your best allies.

In this battle we have to show more wisdom than those just pushing an idealogical barrow if we are to preserve our sport.

Happy Hunting

Hamish

Don't attack these guys where you are only damaging our cause. Take the issue up with your newspaper editor or write/email your MP.

I couldn't agree more hamish.

The problem is hunters such as kudude are told you can hunt a tahr and chamois like this. Before they know whats happening they're bundled into the machine and its "lets go get 'em boys. The adrenalin kicks in and next minute they've bowled over a tahr and chamois, the outfitters got his money and its on to the next guy.

Once the hunter has time to cool down he may start to think about what just happened.

It seems crazy you can get away with advertising an illegal activity as this outfitter does in SCI magazine. "Thrilling free range helicopter hunt for tahr and chamois." no wonder the overseas hunters are confused.

This may be of interest to some of you
Prosecution by Department of Conservation
The law may be slow to move, but it is moving.

As Weathered and many of my fellow Kiwi posters have already indicated, use of helicopters in this way is not only illegal, it contravenes the hunting ethos of nearly every Kiwi hunter. The result is that we have very little respect for people who hunt in this way, be it pilot, guide or client. While the client can be exonerated somewhat because of reliance on their guide for legal interpretations, the fact is that hunters here do not consider an animal taken in this way to be a trophy. Real Kiwi hunters look upon such trophies, and those who took them, with derision.

Forums like this are extremely important avenues for communication. They help us to understand the environments and cultures we enter as we hunt in other locations. I would be appalled to find I had broken the ethical code of a host. I hope this thread is helpful in making readers aware of the ethical code that operates here. New Zealand hunters are working extremely hard to have feral animals managed as game species. It would be very helpful to us if our guests would treat them the same way. The only way to truly respect tahr and chamois is to hunt them on foot.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:



I'd have expected John Gryphon to have waded into this - its his type of territory .

Are you starting the ball rolling again.

keep to the topic.

Hello Folks

I feel damm sorry for Kudude, if you can't go and hunt in a strange land and trust the bloody guide to keep you on the right side of local ethics and the law, who can you trust ??

In this case I think the Guides Association needs to get off its butt and censor the guide (money grabbing low life) and chopper pilot involved, doesn't matter if they are members or not, the resulting bad PR will be a start.

I'll be very certain myself to note for further reference the chopper pilot involved and there is no way I will utilise his services for legit fly-ins or recommend him to visitors.

Finally I think we should start a sticky of guides we know to be running legitimate bona-fide operations down here. That would assist folks like Kudude to at least have a chance of getting off on the right foot.

I think the anwsers lie here in our own hands rather than spoiling Kududes memories of what should have been the trip of a lifetime.

Cheers - Foster

PS Kudude - I'd still be happy to share a beer and break bread with you.

Finally we are getting around to the real issue (and the real solution)! If it is illegal to do certain things in NZ, and there are NZ citizens who are disobeying the law, then the other NZ citizens should be making law enforcement aware of these violations. Instead of saying that this type of thread is "useful", why not send a link to the thread to the appropriate enforcement agency? It seems to me that the rather shrill cry from NZ was aimed at Kudude rather than the NZ pilots and "guides" that KNEW they were breaking the law. While it is true that it is the 'dollar" that is causing this, Kudude is hardly to blame for having more of them than others. I have postd here before about obtaining information about hunting in NZ. I received little response other than to do a websearch for NZ hunting and find the websites of guides! (Note I am not maligning those who did try to help me out). If we are supposed to get our information from guides then how can we foreigners be blamed? Having said that, when we go on a guided hunt in Africa, say, we do expect the guide to inform us on local laws and customs eg. not shooting from avehicle etc.
Just my 2 cents. Peter.

Kudude, I feel sorry for you. You've been cheated, cheated out of a couple of trophys, cheated out of a real NZ experience and been put into an unenviable position. I've been cheated as well, you see of the last 20 days I've spent hunting the same peice of country you were flying over,6 were ruined by the type of operation you described.
Instead of bad mouthing you, I'd like to make you an offer. Make a formal statement to the Department of Conservation detailing the events of your Thar and Chamois hunts with all relevant information and in return my mates and I will take you on a real kiwi hunt for Thar, Chamois or both over 10 days next May into the same areas that you were flying over.
Beleive me if you think a beer back at the lodge tastes good, you wont beleive how good a Wild Turkey tastes at the end of a day on the hill.
Cheers
Shankspony

If there is one thing I hope all of you learn it is that if you want to hunt public land in New Zealand you can be dropped at huts or a designated landing site approved by DoC and recovered when your ground hunting is finished ... that is it.

Using a helicopter to fly around public land to locate animals and then get out to shoot is illegal.
Using a helicopter to drive them toward you is illegal
Shooting from a helicopter unless engaged in WARO is illegal it also breaches Civil Aviation Authority codes

Some of you here don't seem to accept that ... This thread has been copied and referred to the authorities. There is some possibilty of action. Not much but anything is possible.
Some have said we need to get our act sorted out well ... It starts right here... I wasn't going to refer anything but guess I am going to finish what I started.
I would not like you all to think us New Zealanders are inconsistant. Complaints have been on the NZPHGA intray for months ... no reply.
The incoming Govt has a tahr hunter who is likely to be minister of conservation I think he would be interested in the Lacey Act

An American oil tycoon was arrested in the states for illegally shooting out of a helicopter in Russia under the Lacey Act. He used similar excuses, the same ones I hear now. He has a federal offence against his name now

quote:

Originally posted by Weathered:
This thread has been copied and referred to the authorities. There is some possibilty of action. Not much but anything is possible.
Some have said we need to get our act sorted out well ... It starts right here... I wasn't going to refer anything but guess I am going to finish what I started.

Wow, "Weathered", don't you think it is time you gave up your membership of AR?? You have not been here for all that long, and I'm pretty sure nobody will miss you when you are gone.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by Weathered:
This thread has been copied and referred to the authorities. There is some possibilty of action. Not much but anything is possible.
Some have said we need to get our act sorted out well ... It starts right here... I wasn't going to refer anything but guess I am going to finish what I started.

Wow, "Weathered", don't you think it is time you gave up your membership of AR?? You have not been here for all that long, and I'm pretty sure nobody will miss you when you are gone.

- mike

Dont know Weathered from a bar of soap so there is no influence in this post...dosent matter how many posts the man has to his scalp he still has as much right as yourself to post with your impressive tally.So perhaps if you are mounted on one...get off your high horse mate.

I think it is great that the fella is sticking to his guns and wont be brow beaten by such stupid comments as yours mho.....maybe just maybe it may have passed my mind just whom on this forum has taken tahr and chamois from choppers.....sometimes one reads between the lines for himself.

Good onya Weathered,you just got yourself an invite to sambar hunting in Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by gryphon1:
..maybe just maybe it may have passed my mind just whom on this forum has taken tahr and chamois from choppers.....sometimes one reads between the lines for himself.

Sorry, your attempt at reading between the lines was not very successful. It is probably best if you don't make as many assumptions as you seem prone to do, you have not got a clue after all.

Just for the record, when I hunted Tahr on the West Coast of the South Island, we did indeed fly in with a chopper. We were dropped off at our campsite, and hunted on foot out of there for (I think) 5 days. 2 days we managed to hunt, the remainder of the time we "enjoyed" West Coast rain and fog in our tents. I did not take a Tahr, but it was not a bad trip, all things considered. Tough terrain, I admire the people who hunt this stuff, even more so when they make their way in on foot from the bottom.

I also enjoyed a bit of Chamois hunting - on foot on a station in Northern Canterbury. Good hunt, lovely terrain.

Oh yes, and we flew in with a helicopter to an A-Frame hut on (what I was told was) Maori land on the North Island. I could have taken a Sika spiker, but elected not to, as I really was not well equipped to handle the meat. If it had been a good head, I might have coped, but decided not to under the circumstances. What a great place to spend a week - on foot, except for the trip in and out.

- mike

Weathered is absolutely correct, in fact there is a court case going on right now, where a ground hunter got clear photos of the helicopter in the act.
There are several South Is outfitters that do heaps of tahr hunts on foot on private land and run very high sucess rate, you will see them at the hunting shows, all it takes is a bit of research, (Check the record books).
I know of one outfit that gaurentees 12" or better,not a 10" 3 or 4 yr old young fella.
There is no such thing as an "Exclusive" DoC concession, it is a free for all on the public, guides with paying clients as well as the poor old resident hunter trying to hunt on foot.
I also note that there is a US hunter in trouble at the moment for shooting out of a helicopter in Russia. Another point is the SCI's own code of ethics: That they shall not use aircraft to spot, or drive animals.
And I don't know of any Kiwi hunters that hunt from a helicopter either so please don't put us in the same catagory by the saying "When in Rome". If that was truely the case you would have got great satifaction from hunting your Tahr on foot, taking a mature animal, and would have gained the respect of resident hunters.
Instead you have perpetuated the image of US hunters that come here and "collect" thier species rather than hunt them. I think that somewhere along the way some hunters have forgotten why they started hunting in the first place, it was for the great experiance, and a respect for nature and the animals they hunted I would think.

Keep it up Weathered. If nothing else we can attempt to educate the client hunters to ask questions of their guides as to the legality of their hunting activities. Refer to my post on NZ Hunting regulations and correct me if I have made a factual error somewhere, but I have tried to keep it simple.

gryphon1,

+1

Frankly this has been one of the best discussions on here.I've learned more about NZ hunting thru the various links provided than by reading the usual hunt reports,magazines,etc.

Weathered; you ever want to walk the woods in the Catskills be glad to share a trail with you.
Some pretty good black bear around.

Post counts mean #$%@ing nothing,want to see hunters/outfitters at their lowest...research PVT/sheephunter or the more recent "we all suck,or do we" thread here(both in the africa forum).Many a member here have some great info, but some seem to think its a private club for them and thier buddies.

OH BOY,I just increased my humble post count by one,maybe some day I'll be a real member.

mho, good thing you didn't shoot anything. Our Weathered friend would probably call it "scrawny"! Nice touch of class!
Peter.

I think you completely missed his point Peter - shooting immature tahr is unsustainable for the animal population as a whole.

It's this focus with getting your hands on something to whack on the wall no matter what, and the damage subsequently done to wild animal populations and free range recreational hunting in NZ, not just for kiwis but for everyone, that is the underlying issue here. Without SCI type tourist hunters, sorry I mean collectors, there would be no demand for this type of carry on that the guides get up to. If they stuck to private land and the online catalogue purchasing of farm raised animals, or engaged in guiding fair chase ground hunting on public or private land as they should be doing - great.

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by gryphon1:
..maybe just maybe it may have passed my mind just whom on this forum has taken tahr and chamois from choppers.....sometimes one reads between the lines for himself.

Sorry, your attempt at reading between the lines was not very successful. It is probably best if you don't make as many assumptions as you seem prone to do, you have not got a clue after all.



- mike

Yeah right you are,i have far more of a clue than you think cobber even though my post count is poor.

Of course you had to let us know how you did it "just in case" someone may have thought it was you in the "between the lines" paragraph,oh and i dont doubt for a minute that you are indeed truthful many others i do doubt...smile.

Loosecat, thanks for pointing that out. If correct, then that is certainly a valid point. I depend on the ph (guide) to tell me whether or not the animal I am looking at is a representative sample of the species. On my first day in Namibia, every single kudu looked huge! I was prepared to shoot the first one! Fortunately the PH said "NO" there are better ones out there. As I said earlier, I depend on the guide especially when dealing with species with which I am not familiar. I do not specify that I want a "gold medal" animal.
Peter.

Well, since I have already stuck my head out, I might as well have another go at this...

I would like to get across, that my (sole, 6 weeks) stay in NZ left me with a deep love and respect for the country, its landscapes and opportunities. What a fantastic place! I would love to come back, but, man, it takes a long time to get to your side of the World!

That said, I also left with a feeling of a country with a distinct lack of ethics for its big game populations. Just a few examples to illustrate my point:

- commercial helicopter shooting or live trapping was still prevalent, and illegally spilled onto private lands without anybody bothering to do much about it.
- open any NZ hunting magazine (at the time) and it would feature stories of (inexperienced) hunters who reveled in the number of Tahr (or whatever) shot within a single hunt, and mostly left to rot (Mt. Cook station, public access, if memory serves?). All in the name of Tahr control, I'm sure.
- indiscriminate aerial application of poisons such as 1080 with the stated objective to control non-indigenous species such as possum, but knowingly accepting eradication of big game populations as well.
- total lack of control of hunting or seasons for big game, in spite the infrastructure and rules being in place to control bird hunting.
- breeding of big game for the sole purpose of release of animals into shooting pens for the service of foreign "sportmen", or the equally unethical taking of big game from or with the use of helicopters.
- cross breeding of species (e.g. Red Deer with Wapiti) with the sole pupose of creating a more valuable kill. No thought given to the consequences when such crosses inevitably escape their enclosures and free range gene pools are irrevocably "polluted".

I'm sure many of these issues also sit hard with NZ hunters, who care for their game, and would like to see their country's attitude towards this valuable resource change. But it is probably a bit much, if you turn this into a case of the super ethical Kiwis fighting a loosing battle aginst an invasion of foreign milionaires with no ethics whatsoever. At least your society at large does not bear this out - even if you as a hunters feel passionately about this.

Now, in this particular case, I happen to agree more with Weathered and those of you who did not think much of Kudude's hunt, or how his guide chose to conduct the hunt he sold. In fact, I was a bit surprised that Kudude decided to make a public report about the hunt. I had expected an immediate and sharp reaction from the NZ membership here - as it has been the case in the past. But, hey, Kudude was probably somewhat blue-eyed in his approach to the whole thing. Like it or not, those types of hunts (canned deer, heli shooting etc), is how a lot (most?) NZ hunting is marketed in the US. I'm sure Kudude will think twice about sharing his success, and possibly even about with whom he chooses to hunt in the future. Pity he had to have his nose rubbed into it, I'm sure he was otherwise pretty happy with his hunt - for as long as that lasted.

Fine, the strong reaction eventually happened, and apart from feeling sorry for Kudude, I suppose the discussion did amount to something positive... If only to educate other potential hunters planning to venture to NZ.

Seeing how US hunters have reacted in the past when it comes to illegal hunting methods, I'm sure Kudude would not have chosen his hunt if he had known it might involve illegal activities.

Do I always check legality when I book a hunt in a foreign country. No, that would probably be a bit much to claim. I guess I rely on my (carefully chosen) outfitter to operate on a legal and ethical basis. In the case of helicopter shooting, I guess we should all question the ethics (be it in NZ or Kamchatka), but expecting to get in trouble with the law would be something different all together. I would fully expect my outfitter to only offer legal hunts.

And then we come to the next act of this sorry play. It is pretty easy to disagree with people on the Internet. Never expect people to be of the same opinion as yourself, and if you do choose to voice a different opinion, be prepared to have more than a few punches come your way. But in this case, the outcome was a report to the police (effectively) - all within the space of a grand total of 10 posts on AR. You'll excuse me, but that is getting a bit out of hand!! What promise does that hold for future interaction here on AR?? Can we expect AR to be the place where potential foreign visitors can learn the do's and the don'ts of NZ?? I somehow doubt it.

Besides, knowing the apparent disinterest in such matters displayed by NZ authorities in the past (as often quoted in this discussion), it could well be that the sole person who might get in serious trouble for this would be Kudude. I guess it is a matter of taste, whether you think it serves the "rich, Yank bastard" well! Or whether you think the people who should really be stopped would be the people who offer these hunts to foreign hunters, who have little chance of knowing the fine print in some little observed NZ regulation. Yes, yes, if there is no market for ahunt, there will also be no hunts offered. I just happen to think you have a good chance of educating people on places like AR without necessarily reporting fellow members to the police!

- mike

quote:

I just happen to think you have a good chance of educating people on places like AR without necessarily reporting fellow members to the police!

mho, I agree that this is the opportunity to educate hunters on the basic rules.

You are right that our authorities do us no favours in the lax way that hunting regulations are (or not) enforced. The persons to blame are 1. Some unethical guides who DO know better but chase the dollar, and 2. some chopper operators/pilots who also know they are breaking the hunting regulations and our aviation laws.

To this end I refer you to my post in this section titled NZ Hunting regulations. I wonder if anyone will reply or ask any further questions on that topic?

Well done to weathered for clearly stating what and what is not legal for hunting tahr and chamois in NZ.

Also well done to all the kiwis who have joined up over the past few days to express your opinion on the illegal practise of heli-hunting.

Ethically its disgusting, law wise its illegal and 99% of kiwis don't want it except 4-5 big time oufitters who make a sh##load of money from it.

American hunters have been poisoned by these same outfitters for a long time now and amongst many this phrase is common "Its impossible to hunt tahr on foot." Why do they think that, because that is what they're told.

I have been bothered several times over the last few years by this outfitter also. I used to hunt soley on public land but have moved some of my tahr hunting to a private area to aviod these intruders from the air.

Last night I was telephoned by the landholder who told me yesterday they caught another big time outfitter shooting tahr in our private area.

These outfitters have long ago lost the idea of providing the client with a genuine hunt. It is all about $$$.

It is up to the guide to inform his hunter of what and what is not legal and as for this phrase.

ETHICS ARE UP TO THE HUNTER NOT THE GUIDE. I've had a gutsful of that.

I might as well join in. What the hell.

First, let me say that every tahr and chamois I have shot have been taken on foot. The only helicopter assistance we had was getting the dead animals out. I choose to do it this way.

I have personally witnessed BIG reputable outfitters tell clients that it was absolutely legal. While I chose not to shoot from the choppers for my own personal reasons, I had every faith in the guide and/or outfitter to be telling the truth. That is until I read this thread.

Frankly, I rely on the outfitters to advise me. It isn't lack of interest on my part. It is that I do not have the time to study these on my own.

I agree about the shooting of immature animals. I would not want to shoot an immature . At some point we client hunters have to rely on the guides assessment of these animals which may be the only 1 we see in our lives. The guide is supposed to be the expert.

These apparent misrepresentations come across as very believeable especially when one hears of what government contractors are doing to reduce populations. Shooting them from choppers and poisoning them make the story all the more believeable.

quote:

Frankly, I rely on the outfitters to advise me. It isn't lack of interest on my part. It is that I do not have the time to study these on my own.

Quite right Larry, You should be able to rely on the outfitters, but since you joined the NZ hunting forum a while back you would have gathered that they don't tell the truth and that it was illegal from all the discussion about it wouldn't you.

The last I hunted NZ was before I joined any NZ forum. Didn't matter much to me at the time as I hunted on foot. At the same time another US hunter went with Richard Nunnick. He was told to shoot from the chopper, it was all legal. He did it from the chopper.

I now know it is not legal and there isn't a chance in hell that I would do it . Although I never shot from a chopper in the past and won't do so in the future.

I am passionate about my alpine hunting I want to fix what is wrong. Animals and ethics are important to me.
We are going on and butting heads about animals and ethics thats good but how the hell have all you Americans Forgotten one of your own ? Clifford Senter ? the poor guy was half crippled and had to wear soft shoes, he got dumped out of a helicopter on a snow tussock ledge in country he had no idea about. He slide off that ledge within 3 steps from the helicopter ... to his death. He trusted his guide too and he's dead.
That guide was filling the hunt diary, gotta get that chamois ...got more guys booked tomorrow probably. Why was he not hunting on a good piece of private land with free range animals available. He would be alive today if he did. Is this not another reason for cleaning up the guiding industry ?
Thank you for the support from the rest of you I appreciate it.

mho go chew on this last post and tell me you want me gone cause I can go ... no problem
I can respect the lives of people too not just animals ...
Where are the questions from this board on Harold Senter's tragedy
mho with my 11 posts I have raised and answered more relevant issues than you probably have in a 1000 posts.

Edit to add: Yeah I know I wade in a bit like a wrecking ball sometimes ... it gets me in trouble ... I pay for that too

You guys are shooting the messenger. Weathered raised some important points and was challenged. He posted the WARO rules, but that failed to convince people who didn't seem to want to know. I can understand his frustration leading to his challenge to put up or shut up. Give the guy a break.

Weathered has alerted you to the possibility of prosecution for illegal behaviour. When your accountant or your lawyer does that you thank them and pay them for the advice. He has also alerted visiting hunters that they are getting ripped off when a guide tells them a 10" tahr is a trophy - it's not even a teenager. Again, you should thank him for exposing that sham.

Pull your heads out of the sand. Harden up if you want to come to NZ to score a trophy - and congratulations to those of you who have done it the hard way, or have chosen not to pull the trigger on immature animals.

As far as not all operators getting prosecuted; does that mean we can come to the US and kill a few people because you haven't managed to put all the murderers behind bars? Innocent until proven guilty applies here too, and it's extremely difficult to get conclusive proof of these activities in remote locations. The Department of Conservation is grossly underfunded and is currently shedding large numbers of staff. Their failure to prioritise prosecutions on these matters is completely understandable given the sorry state of our indigenous flora and fauna and the efforts they ar making to sustain them. However, that doesn't change the fact that using helicopters in this manner is definitely illegal. Prosecutions are under way.

I suspect most of you wouldn't appreciate us coming to your country and breaking the game laws just because it's easy to get away with it. We feel likewise.

Meathunta, good post & fair points. I've refrained from comment till now because I'm way out of date re hunting regs & practices. Even so, as I read Kududes post I was cringing at the situation he had found himself in & the crock of shit he'd been fed. It was obvious that he believed that he'd had a great adventure, albeit with aspects which lead him to feel uneasy, all credit to him for this. Having had experience in the tourist industry in the past I've seen the rubbish that is dished out to gullible tourists & in truth some of them deserve it, but it doesn't make it right nor does it make me proud to be a Kiwi. What also didn't make me proud to be a Kiwi was the attack on Kudude by Weathered in his first post. Kudude had obviously been tried & found guilty whether or not he was the guilty party in this case. I certainly believe that there are valid points to be made but don't think for a moment that this attack was justified on the individual concerned. A zealot is a fanatic in any walk of life & in my experience they're bloody nuisances at best, dangerous menaces at worst. Weathered, you come across as a fanatical hunter & while I can repect keenness & a desire to see change this is not the way to go about it & your first post on this forum was simply a shocker. Your subsequent posts have, while being factually accurate as far as I know, been further displays of arrogant intolerance & you've shown no inclination to respect others opinions. Perhaps you should do what you've offered to do & just bugger off.
Kudude, thanks for the post & especially pic 5, Lake Rotoroa in the Nelson Lakes National park, a wee slice of paradise. Sorry that your parade got peed on, I hope in time you will come to see it as a great adventure, albeit with lessons to be learnt, & don't let the actions & opinions of a few colour your attitude to the rest of us, we're not a bad lot all in all, just a bit too laid back for our own good sometimes, or we might be able to get the powers that be to do something about our shitty game laws & the way they're policed & create what most of us think it could be, a hunters paradise.
Steve

Well said.