I don't agree with shooting from helicopters and I don't agree with wannabes bagging visitors to this country.If anybody wants to vent their spleen about helicopters or most importantly 1080 poision for f-sake wade into the government and f-nn D.O.C And to you wirehunt REST ASSURED THERE IS ONE WITH YOUR NAME ON IT TOO

quote:

Originally posted by Kamo Gari:
Just curious, Sparrow Hunter: what's your take on shoooting from an aircraft?

Thanks for any response.

KG

I should not have to read without comment a hunt report by anyone who hunts from helicopters illegally in New Zealand and then asks if they got the NZ hunting ethos right which is exactly what kudude did.

FYI I am wading into DoC and the govt, some people might be unhappy with some of the posts here but most agree they are informative and provide an effective foil to the misconceptions spread by guides and helicopter pilots about hunting in NZ.

You are being disingenuous here if you maintain your only issue with my posts is that I gave kudude a hard time.
If my bad manners are the only issue you have then take away my birthday
Seems we will agree to disagree



.

I might have to do that
If my bad manners are the only issue you have then take away my birthday
Seems we will agree to disagree



.[/QUOTE]

WOW! I thought this had calmed down when I left. I guess I was wrong.

I still don't like (by either side) the personal attacks, name calling, attacks on nationality etc. All this does is cause tension to escalate and nothing is accomplished.

I do have a question for our Kiwi friends on this matter. Do you think posts on a forum like this will be used against the outfitter, in this case Shane Quinn? What about the posts on You Tube where they chase the tahr with a chopper and run it over the "client" (note I did not say hunter)? He ultimately shoots it in a cave. Will anyone, either client or outfitter have any legal issues as a result of this?

Larry I can't say.

Technically and practically the law has been broken and the calls from NZ recreational hunters and other groups is getting attention. New Zealand hunting organisations are slowly getting traction on this as the large scale and future implications become apparent. Expect prosecutions. The tahr hunting in the cave is under investigation at ministerial level, other hunts located on the internet have been taken and use as examples it is less likely there will be repercussions for the overseas hunters but the operators here in NZ definitely yes; what degree is in the hands of the police CAA and courts.
.

Kudude,

Great report and super pics. Looks like it was a heck of a good time. Loved the views from the lodge you were in. As far as the animals, I'd proudly hang them on my walls. Heck, I wished I was with you on that hunt.

One thing that this thread brought to mind was others hunting on the mountains where the helos were. I would have thought the outfitter might have had that area as a 'concession' which would allow him to hunt as he pleased - assuming helos were legal. Just the other day I saw on tv a hunting show where a guy was being set down by helo and shooting a tahr. I would have assumed helos were legal if only to cut down on climbing injuries by those trying to get to inhabital areas and in controlling the population. I have no idea what their mating habits are like. Here in TX we have wild pigs which populate like crazy. That's why it's legal to shoot them with spotlights at night. Some might consider that unsportsmanlike. But, it is one of the many ways the state tries to control their numbers. But weatherman wouldn't know that unless he's read the complete rules and laws concerning the game in Texas (hope you have a few months to set aside for reading).

I was considering a hunt in '10 in NZ and I thought the helos would be fun. It's something different - sort of like being dropped off on one of those extreme skiing adventures.

That's hard case bluefin, over here spotlighting is regarded as the least effective way to control pigs. The order here is 1)Chopper and buckshot or semi auto rifle 2) A man or men with rifles and a nice quiet indicating dog 3)Pig trap of the cage type. Depending on the area sometimes you would swap two and three around.
Pig's over here anyway won't hold in the spotlight at all.

For a whole bunch of fun then a good pack of dog's and a knife which is also very effective with a real good pack.

Hi bluefin,NZ laws don't allow for concession's on public land. In fact the whole ethos of hunting and fishing here is that anyone should be able to do it free of cost.
Part of what draws people to hunting Thar, is the sheer difficulty and danger involved. Its not just a test between hunter and animal, but also of fortitude and personel ability.
Yes shooting from a chopper looks exciting.At one stage I had a helicopter crew working for me and living on myfarm. In our down time we'd take it up and shoot goats, It gets boring real quick, there is no skill involved, you're sitting on a platform 30 meters from an animal that has no hope. As a tool for destroying animals, there is no comparison. As a method of sport hunting? I dont think so.

Shankspony,

Thanks for the reply. What I was trying to get across to the holier than thou crowd is how it could be construed to be legal or even 'ethical'. No one in Texas thinks twice about shooting pigs at night or for that matter, shooting deer or any game behind high fences anymore. It's getting pretty common nowadays.
Matter of fact, on an ethical scale, I'd think it was more ethical to shoot from a helicopter than behind high fences. Kudude got a raw deal from this thread. What he did wasn't wrong. He had a great time and followed what his outfitters told him he could do. As a visitor to another country, that is the best anyone could hope for. I wouldn't blame a Kiwi for breaking the laws here if his guide was the one who told him wrong.

So with that, Weather(something), take your law books and shove 'em. What may be apparent to you could be absolutely innocent to a foreign visitor.

And as sad as it may seem, especially given this thread, I'd still like to go to NZ and take one from a helicopter - but only if I knew it wasn't screwing up someone else's hunt. And yes, I'd tell everyone I shot it from a helo.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:
Shankspony,

Thanks for the reply. What I was trying to get across to the holier than thou crowd is how it could be construed to be legal or even 'ethical'. No one in Texas thinks twice about shooting pigs at night or for that matter, shooting deer or any game behind high fences anymore. It's getting pretty common nowadays.
Matter of fact, on an ethical scale, I'd think it was more ethical to shoot from a helicopter than behind high fences. Kudude got a raw deal from this thread. What he did wasn't wrong. He had a great time and followed what his outfitters told him he could do. As a visitor to another country, that is the best anyone could hope for. I wouldn't blame a Kiwi for breaking the laws here if his guide was the one who told him wrong.

So with that, Weather(something), take your law books and shove 'em. What may be apparent to you could be absolutely innocent to a foreign visitor.

And as sad as it may seem, especially given this thread, I'd still like to go to NZ and take one from a helicopter - but only if I knew it wasn't screwing up someone else's hunt. And yes, I'd tell everyone I shot it from a helo.

Hello bluefin

The only things you need to know when you come to NZ are that any illegal helicopter hunting on public land will screw up someone elses hunt. Secondly your own federal prosecutors do not accept the defence you propose.
You are welcome to turn up and pay some farmer to jump in his helicopter and shoot on private land if thats your thing so be it.

I am really doing you all a favour, you can tell me to shove my law book that makes me smile read what the US FBI think.



Posted on Friday, 20 July 2007 5:24:04 a.m. by TexasCajun

A 2002 big game hunting trip in Siberia could bring big trouble for Houston billionaire Dan Duncan.

The 74-year-old founder of pipeline giant Enterprise Products Partners may face criminal charges following his appearance Wednesday before a grand jury in Houston, where he answered questions about the trip he and other hunters took with Russian guides.

During the trip, Duncan shot and killed a moose and a sheep while riding in a helicopter, a practice Duncan said he did not know was illegal in Russia. Neither animal was considered endangered, he said.

Russian officials were aware of the hunting expedition — Duncan's attorney Rusty Hardin said the guide on the trip is now a top official with the Russian Federation's hunting licensing agency — but there were no complaints or charges filed in that country.

Hardin said prosecutors from Washington, D.C., may use the Lacey Act, a 107-year-old law designed to prevent the interstate and international trafficking of rare plants and animals, to bring felony criminal charges against Duncan. If found guilty he could face jail time, Hardin said.

"What the hell is the U.S.' interest in bringing felony charges here for hunting on Russian soil, where not one single person has complained?" Hardin said Wednesday. "Is this really the best use of our prosecutorial resources?"

Government officials could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening.

Duncan is considered the wealthiest man in Houston and ranks 85th on Forbes' worldwide list of billionaires, with an estimated net worth of $8.2 billion. His wealth comes from his role as chairman of the company that manages Enterprise Products Partners, a midstream energy giant with more than 30,000 miles of natural gas, petrochemical and crude oil pipelines and other facilities.

He made headlines last year with a $100 million gift to Baylor College of Medicine, which named a building in his honor.
A native of Center in rural East Texas, Duncan has been a lifelong hunter who got into hunting exotic big game in the 1970s.

The Safari Club International Record Book, which lists the biggest animals ever legally shot, has 550 entries for him.

Duncan said he shot the moose while flying in a helicopter with his Russian guide. He said he assumed it was legal to take such a shot since local guides and outfitters are usually expected to know the local laws.

"They're like marshals on a golf course who tell you if you can take a penalty shot," Duncan said. "They tell the hunter exactly what he can and cannot do, since none of us can know all the laws of all the different countries."

Duncan had hunted with the guide once before, in the Caucasus Mountains in the 1990s, and on that occasion also shot an animal from a helicopter.

"We admitted from the word 'go' that I shot them from the helicopter," he said. "The whole question is: Did I know it was illegal? I did not."

Duncan said the moose was similar to a moose one would find in Alaska but a bit larger, while the sheep is similar to a Dall Sheep found in Alaska. He said the helicopter was about 10 feet off the ground and 75 to 100 yards away when he hit the moose using a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle.

The moose was flown to a Russian town where the meat was given away, Duncan said.

The moose and sheep busts are at his 5,000-acre exotic game ranch near Bastrop, but are in storage and not on display.

Duncan first heard of a possible investigation about a year ago. A grand jury was convened in Charlottesville, Va., where the outfitter that organized the trip is located, Hardin said.

A second grand jury was convened in Houston most likely because Duncan's trophy heads, along with others shot by the hunting party, arrived in the U.S. through Houston, Hardin said.

Other hunters from the party may also be under investigation, Hardin said, but he declined to identify them

Original news source

Duncan has since been acquited but the US guide has been indicted. Do you need to hunt from a helicopter so bad you would risk this ?



.

Bluefin,I respect your honesty but by your deffinition its allright to break the law, as long as you tell everyone.
Can I ask you, Would you be happy if New Zealanders came to America, and shot 500-1000 Big Horn rams and a further 500-1000 Mountain Goats from helicopters, Then said oh but we didn't know the rules so that must be allright?

So here we are 210 posts and 6 pages later,and some still don't,or will not,ever get it...

These guys are just trying to protect the game and rights to hunt unmolested.Just as all ethical hunters should and many do.No one ever said don't go tahr or chamois hunting in NZ,all anyone asked is to play by the rules.

I have to apologize,not as an American,but as a hunter/sportsman,for the limited capacity of these people.

A fellow I worked with shot a really good deer 1day before opening day;he was caught,tried,and convicted.Lost his hunting license for 3 years,paid a $1500 fine,and lost his gun...

To this day,he told me the story 2 years later,he still doesn't see what was wrong.He will never get the idea,not only did he cheat other hunters,but he cheated himself,thats the sad part.

The frustration level for these people is so damn high,you just want to beat it into thier heads...

Weathered ,just so you know,Bob Kern(the booking agent for the helicopter moose hunt) was aquited on his charges.He is having a celebrity shoot/hunt to pay for his legal fees.All the"big time" clients of his are urging everyone to pitch in for his bills.

And so it goes.....

good hunting

dan

Dan, good post.
There are none so blind as those who will not see
It's an old saying, but its relevance becomes more apparent the longer this thread gets.

quote:

Originally posted by woodmanDan:
So here we are 210 posts and 6 pages later,and some still don't,or will not,ever get it...


Weathered ,just so you know,Bob Kern(the booking agent for the helicopter moose hunt) was aquited on his charges.He is having a celebrity shoot/hunt to pay for his legal fees.All the"big time" clients of his are urging everyone to pitch in for his bills.

And so it goes.....

good hunting

dan

The Russian issue is something I am not familiar with I don't think there was a prosecution in Russia which makes it a vague area. New Zealand is a little different.
There are two hunters from America, their guide and Mt Hutt helicopters under trial in christchurch for illegal hunting. This might get to US federal attention depending on the outcome.
Expect legal action of some sort in Senter's case hopefully the department and his guides.
Expect more case's to emerge in the next few months.
If we can get the legality of more hunts questioned we might be able to suspend the export of trophies by refusing to issue certificates of origin or CITES exemptions on tahr.
It is funny isn't it a couple of people in their own country put their heads up and say shame on you, what you did was wrong.
Look what you get.

edit to add: You know there has not been one guide who does helicopter hunts on here defending this practise doesn't that say something ?

Dan, brilliant post, I think you've expressed the frustration that any sporting hunter feels,regardless of country, over issues of ethics.
Aldo Leopald once wrote; "A particular virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disaprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his conscience."
Its a pity some peoples conscience is governed by their pride.

The Russian issue as I understand it was that they were on a MEAT shoot which was licensed by the government. The meat was taken to some remote village to feed the people who were starving. They did it at their cost. On the chopper were a high ranking SCI person and a US Fish & Wildlife guy.

Bob Kern (the booking agent)was acquitted. He knew nothing about the chopper shooting.

All sounds like some political BS to me.

You are correct Larry,Bob Kern was not even present at the time.It is interesting to note that the meat hunt aspect was not reported immediatly however(?)


There was a story,in the defunct magazine Big Game Adventures,that also talked about Russian chopper pilots asking clients to shoot from the chopper.The client(s)refused in the story and had the pilot land.They wrote of their dissapointment in flying half way around the world to find they were asked to spot game from the air and to shoot it.

Sound familiar?

Point being that if it happened once,you cannot tell me others don't know about the tendency of this kind of behavior was occuring.Be it NZ,Russia ,etc.

Not accusing Bob Kern,or anyone else in this,of being complicit.

As I have stated before SCI ethics seem to be selfserving at times...

dan

Here are the NZ trial details

Helicopter hunt `breached rules'
The Press | Tuesday, 08 July 2008

A South Island helicopter company is facing a charge of operating without a concession after it was seen herding a bull tahr into a position where it could be shot by an American hunter.
Department of Conservation (DOC) solicitor Mike Bodie told the Christchurch District Court that a Mount Hutt Helicopters Squirrel was seen operating in the Rangitata-Rakaia headwaters conservation area on April 5 last year.
It was in an area known as tahr management area 1, where helicopter hunting was restricted.
Bodie said that about 7.30am the Squirrel, identified by Mount Hutt Helicopters insignia, flew into the area and let off two hunters before herding a bull tahr to a position where it could be shot.
Soon after, the helicopter was seen picking up one of the hunters and winching a bull tahr underneath before flying away.
Operating at that time and location was in breach of the defendant's concession, Bodie told Judge Raoul Neave.

When spoken to by a DOC officer, the pilot acknowledged conducting a tahr hunt, which included herding the animal by helicopter.

He admitted retrieving a shot bull tahr for his clients, who were a hunting guide and his American client. The pilot said he regularly carried hunting guides, as did a lot of other helicopter operators. Bodie said it was an offence to undertake a wild-animal recovery operation on land administered by DOC without a ministerial concession.
Mount Hutt Helicopters held a conditional concession for wild-animal recovery.
However, it excluded the carriage of recreational hunters or fare-paying passengers.
It also excluded the company from operating during and within three days of Easter, and within tahr management area 1.
The area was established in 1993 after concerns by recreational hunters about over-hunting by commercial helicopter operators, Bodie said.
The company denies a charge of engaging in wild-animal recovery without a concession.
The judge reserved his decision.
Christchurch Press News Item



.

Guys I missed you all!
Just back form 2 weeks hunting in Namibia and low and behold this juicey tread is still running.

As for Namibia, more on that latter, but note one thing ,alot of the info I gleaned for that hunt was from the pages on this AR site(Africa).
The info gathered and made available on this site and others like it is invaluable to the travelling hunter.

And that raises a point I'd like to make to my fellow Kiwi's. Put yourself in the position of any hunter and for agruments sake we'll say American hunter wanting to came to NZ to hunt. Where are these hunters going to glean their info and who are they going to believe.
Would you believe a reputable outfitter or a "local"?
As a kiwi wanting to hunt offshore where or who would you ask for info and advice. How many of you have every hunted offshore? I only ask this as it will put alot of questions into you heads that perhaps you have not considered,. This can and perhaps should have a bearing on there replies you are going to dish out to others. Objective-Subjective.

Now most of you know I'm a guide. And I will always stand by those that are in the same industry as I am. That some choose to operate in the "grey" zone is their business BUT they do so because they can, its not right its not wrong, BUT they can. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either of the operators referred to in this thread to any hunter, they can and will stand by their own reputations and don't need me to defend them.
The point being is how does a visiting hunter know who to believe.
It is legal to hunt from a chopper in NZ.
Its not legal to do so on public lands.
Fine, but who's going to tell me or you exactly where the public and private is!
Forums like this help alot. BUT the advice has to be qualified and unbaised.
Is a guide both of the above? is the "local hunter!

Also whats very notable on this post and is important to visiting hunters is that the NZ hunting communitity is relatively small, and most of the Kiwi's posting here know each other or at the very least know something of the others. This can be extremely helpfully to anyone wanting to gather info, just keep it on topic.

As a guide we have a huge variation in the fitness and abilities of the "clients" (hunters) we get to spend time with.
My business sense with tell me that by being directed by $$ I will say NO to nobody. What you have to be able to do is have different hunts to suit different hunters abilities. I annually subject 20 odd hunters to the rigors(not mortis)of foot hunting Tahr, I will also do a couple of chopper hunts, and by my own choice on private land only.
And the private land issue raises an interesting debate for me as not only do I pay chopper time to the operator but trophy fees to the land owner. If I hunt public land I pay only chopper time. The point being that it puts me at a disadvantage when trying to sell hunts,I can't do it for the same $$ as a public land hunt.
But a word of warning to the Kiwi hunter, if an outfitter can't get his Tahr on public land and can't get access to private land that leaves one option, capture them from public and place them into a high fenced area, the public tahr are still disappearing guys you just want see it in your face so much.

So what's to be done, well I know what Weathered is up to, i know what some of you from offshore are thinking. So i'll put my neck on the line and state publicily here and now that I'll do something as well.
At the next AGM of the Hunting guides assoc(November 08) I'll put a remit forward that asks the membership to vote on the use of helichopters for hunting on public land by the membership.
I'll get the wording right and ask openly for any advise here and now.
remember it has to go to a vote and it will not be a popular discussion BUT it is needed. AND if its succeeds and I'll be doing my bit on that as well,it should be able to give confidence to visiting hunters to NZ that the hunt they are on will be legal.
I don't believe that the guiding industry can truely be directed by anything other that its own membership.

Highlander, you raise some good points.

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
It is legal to hunt from a chopper in NZ.
Its not legal to do so on public lands.
Fine, but who's going to tell me or you exactly where the public and private is!

You are ducking your responsibilities here. Ignorance is not a legal defence. That's particularly true if you are selling professional guiding services. It's also very easy to find out where public lands are. DoC, LINZ and Regional Councils have this information on line. You say that visitors must rely on professionals to offer the correct advice, yet you seem unwilling to take even the most minor effort to deliver it.

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
I annually subject 20 odd hunters to the rigors(not mortis)of foot hunting Tahr, I will also do a couple of chopper hunts, and by my own choice on private land only.

That's great , more guides should obey the law too.

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
At the next AGM of the Hunting guides assoc(November 08) I'll put a remit forward that asks the membership to vote on the use of helichopters for hunting on public land by the membership.
I'll get the wording right and ask openly for any advise here and now.
remember it has to go to a vote and it will not be a popular discussion BUT it is needed. AND if its succeeds and I'll be doing my bit on that as well,it should be able to give confidence to visiting hunters to NZ that the hunt they are on will be legal.
I don't believe that the guiding industry can truely be directed by anything other that its own membership.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The association can hardly vote publicly to do something that is illegal, I'm sure DoC and CAA would be interested in that, so the outcome seems obvious (assuming it gets to a vote).
If your intention is to get the association to agree not to break the law (by ceasing helicopter hunting on public land) then you will have to give it some teeth. The need for this remit arises because people are breaking the law now, and the law of the land would seem to carry more weight than a remit at the association. I like the intent of your move, the challenges are to (1) get it passed, and (2) enforce it. Without enforcement it will achieve nothing. Do you have any ideas how that could happen?

biggest thread I've seen in this section sure did get people talking and the issue out there

Hello All

People who hunt unethically are the same sort of people who cheat at golf.

Its not usual to catch them at it, they deny the hell out of it, and at the end of the day the only person they are cheating is themselves.

I think that Highlander is onto the right approach here, although it needs to be sharpened up.

The only time it is "right" in NZ to shoot from a chopper at a game animal is on a culling operation (and that does not mean it is ethical, in the same way that none of us would consider it ethical to poison a game animal).

The fact that both heli shooting and poisoning of game have a statutory basis in NZ is unfortunate but possibly (and many, including myself have doubts about this) justifable on ecological grounds.

Highlander I hope you can get something framed up, and like most things, it'll probably take a lot longer than one AGM. However by keeping this debate going we can generate the "ammo" to resolve the issue and change attitudes and understandng (of both domestic and visiting hunters).

Cheers - Foster

quote:

And I will always stand by those that are in the same industry as I am. That some choose to operate in the "grey" zone is their business BUT they do so because they can, its not right its not wrong, BUT they can. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either of the operators referred to in this thread to any hunter, they can and will stand by their own reputations and don't need me to defend them.

Sorry for being dense, but I do not understand this attitude at all.
Peter.

You are not dense peter; Highlander is saying its ok for guides to operate heli hunts because they can, a bit like its ok for PETA to operate in the grey area, take some boltcutters and let the animals out of the pens because they can too. The animals on public land are the property of the crown and accessing them illegally is theft. This a property rights issue as much as anything else. Highlander was doing well until he started excusing guides. Come on you can do better I know your heart is in the right place, take your hand off your wallet.

I seem to have missed the point on heli hunting. I'm a bit dense as well must be the jet lag.
I in no way will ever agree with shooting from a helicopter. To me heli hunting is the use of a helicopter for access to the hunting area and the use of it to locate game.
The pilots I fly with have too much respect for themselves and there machines to have some un trained person on board with a loaded firearm.

I don't know if my hand is always on my wallet but it sure as hell seems to be in my pocket to much!
The Peta comparision is a tad harsh mate!!

My aim with the motion/remit to the Guides assoc is for them to have in there constitution a rule that prohibits the use of helicopter operations for shooting on public land.
At present there is nothing on the issue what so ever. The guides have put a band-aid on the issue but need to wipe out the disease.
It should also be noted that 99% of the SCI Reno show New Zealanders are in the Guides association. the guides association also has had a presence at this show for the past 2 yrs so if hunters have questions on operators they have an avenue where they can get advice.

OK Highlander!

"In the end, there can be only one!"

Peter.

Geez I'm getting sick of those on this thread that choose to attempt to justify illegal and unethical hunting practices in OUR country.

To give you all the benefit of the doubt let's assume that anybody that has hunted out of a helicopter in a forbidden manner was given crook advice by their guide or pilot.

However you all now know that it is not a permitted activity.

it's really very simple, I don't care if you are disabled, overweight, crook knees or whatever. This section of the hunting community can go to private land and hunt in whatever way the law and landowner allows.

On OUR public land if you can follow the rules then have a great time. if you can't, stay the hell away and don't screw up OUR country. Remember it's OUR country not YOURS. We make the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
I seem to have missed the point on heli hunting. I'm a bit dense as well must be the jet lag.
I in no way will ever agree with shooting from a helicopter. To me heli hunting is the use of a helicopter for access to the hunting area and the use of it to locate game.

You must excuse me here if I seem a little vague on your direction. We all know that to allow a client to shoot from a helicopter is already a serious offence. If your remit only prohibits that it is worthless. You must direct NZPHGA to prohibit all activity using helicopters to locate game and drop hunters off to shoot the animals as they are herded towards the clients. Guides should be able to use helicopters on public land like the rest of us to access remote areas using the current designated landing areas to establish base camps, not to assist in hunting directly.

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
The pilots I fly with have too much respect for themselves and there machines to have some un trained person on board with a loaded firearm.

Uhh ... As far as some so called professional pilots look closely at Bill Urseths video you will notice the guide and MS fail miserably to ensure the clients safety as he approaches the helicopter with his rifle slung and the barrel well above his head at 1:12. Even MS ducks as he returns to the helicopter, this is a small example of incompetency snatched off a video. Basic safety stuff here isn't it ?Bill Urseth shooting helicopter driven tahr
You can actually see the down draft from the chopper blades in the tussock/hebes though the cameraman just keeps the helicopter out of veiw this hunt may have taken place on private land but I doubt it somehow.

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
I don't know if my hand is always on my wallet but it sure as hell seems to be in my pocket to much!
The Peta comparision is a tad harsh mate!!

Sorry but valid is it not

quote:

Originally posted by highlander:
My aim with the motion/remit to the Guides assoc is for them to have in there constitution a rule that prohibits the use of helicopter operations for shooting on public land.
At present there is nothing on the issue what so ever. The guides have put a band-aid on the issue but need to wipe out the disease.

No need to go that far let clients use the designated sites we all do unless you believe guides can not be trusted. Study the commercial climbing guides/recreational climbing conflicts and you see that commercial guides are expected to yield hut space to recreational users. All guides/clients using public huts and helicopter access are expected to carry tents and vacate huts for recreational users if there is over use.
If NZPHGA direct guides to only use the designated landing sites we all use now, sites decided in consultation with conservation agencies, concession holders and stakeholders that will remove a lot of conflict.

If this is similar to the intent of your remit then fine, pardon me as I seek total clarity on your intent (to much time reading DoC tenure review and 1080 docs)

Any attempt to validate heli hunting or appear to take action without real intent will be met with extreme dissapointment. Dave McClunie saw how the NZPHGA was going on heli hunting and no-one listened to him either so I applaude your intent if it is the same to what I have outlined.

Perhaps a remit addressing live capture of bulls on public land for release into enclosures would be good too. Is that hoping for too much.

Hey, Highlander got to hear about your hunt in Namibia. Will it be here or on the Africian hunt report?

The song about sums it up

Heli Hunting and how it upsets those that hunt on the ground

Listen carefully over the music you can hear the air horn the helicopter uses to scare the tahr out of the bluffs.

At a guess it might be this company

ZK-HFJ McDonnell Douglas 500N LN027 1746
Alpine Hunting Adventures Limited PO Box 131 Franz Josef Glacier 7856



Contact email: info@alpinehunting.com


The operator did not land to hunt those bulls ... probably because you can guess the outcome for the client and guide if these hunters got hold of them

This was filmed in July 2008 about the time Kudude was hunting the same area. Gee where have I seen that helicopter before .......

It does'nt get any easier to forgive"the poor overseas hunter" after watching that fucking mess.

I have to say these guys have far more restraint than I.

And,yes,the song is very appropriate...

dan

quote:

"We admitted from the word 'go' that I shot them from the helicopter," he said. "The whole question is: Did I know it was illegal? I did not."

I find it disturbing that so many 'shooters' have a problem discerning the difference between what is legal and what is moral and right, and this quote from Houston billionaire Dan Duncan bothers me considerably in this regard. (You'll notice that I have used the term 'shooters' here and not hunters!).

Just because the law "allows" certain actions, perhaps through an oversight or because the law predates the technology that enables those actions, does not make it right to exploit such loopholes.

I am astounded that people can call themselves hunters when they have no qualms about throwing their ethics to the wind and using technology, and legal vagaries, to cheat on the hunt, to steal a game animal and to lie to themselves and their friends.

To my mind, the title of 'hunter' is something you earn through dedication to the chase, the game and it's environment, through respect for the animals we hunt and the land they live in, through knowledge of the game laws, through a sound understanding of conservation, through successful stalking skills and, lastly, through marksmanship.

It is also attained by subjugating oneself to a higher order of moral behaviour in the bush - the innate sense of fair-play - despite the urgings of others who have a vested, financial interest in your success.

I do not believe that anyone who has hunted regularly can believe that shooting game animals from any vehicle is OK simply because the locals said it was an accepted practice. We all know what is right and what is wrong and we should stand by those principles even if it means going home without a trophy.

Currently as of today there are No permits issued which allow NZPHGA or recreational hunters to use a helicopter to hunt from or with. This from my discussion with the New Zealand department of conservation concession manager.



Relevant Section of the Conservation act covering the heli hunting. Section 38 of the Conservation Act 1987

BwanaBob, can I assume you do your huntiong with hand thrown sticks with poison on the end. I am sure you would not use any" technology" like a modern rifle or any rifle for that matter. That would not be the proper way for true hunters from the southern hemi, eh.

Die ou jagter, how can you miss the point so badly?
Why are you determined to defend something that is indefensable?
Do you have a Tahr on the wall, that was shot from a helicopter?

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaBob:

quote:

"We admitted from the word 'go' that I shot them from the helicopter," he said. "The whole question is: Did I know it was illegal? I did not."

I find it disturbing that so many 'shooters' have a problem discerning the difference between what is legal and what is moral and right, and this quote from Houston billionaire Dan Duncan bothers me considerably in this regard. (You'll notice that I have used the term 'shooters' here and not hunters!).

Just because the law "allows" certain actions, perhaps through an oversight or because the law predates the technology that enables those actions, does not make it right to exploit such loopholes.

I am astounded that people can call themselves hunters when they have no qualms about throwing their ethics to the wind and using technology, and legal vagaries, to cheat on the hunt, to steal a game animal and to lie to themselves and their friends.

To my mind, the title of 'hunter' is something you earn through dedication to the chase, the game and it's environment, through respect for the animals we hunt and the land they live in, through knowledge of the game laws, through a sound understanding of conservation, through successful stalking skills and, lastly, through marksmanship.

It is also attained by subjugating oneself to a higher order of moral behaviour in the bush - the innate sense of fair-play - despite the urgings of others who have a vested, financial interest in your success.

I do not believe that anyone who has hunted regularly can believe that shooting game animals from any vehicle is OK simply because the locals said it was an accepted practice. We all know what is right and what is wrong and we should stand by those principles even if it means going home without a trophy.

Agreed...

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
BwanaBob, can I assume you do your huntiong with hand thrown sticks with poison on the end. I am sure you would not use any" technology" like a modern rifle or any rifle for that matter. That would not be the proper way for true hunters from the southern hemi, eh.

There is a huge difference between using the technology of a helo or vehicle to do your hunting and using a firearm. And I take it, from the fact that you have decided to clutch at this 'frail straw' of an argument, that you do not agree with the morals that should go with hunting - or are you just 'shit-stirring' on this issue?

Yes, I do use a firearms but, as I am also a bow-hunter, I normally hunt with open sights or low powered scopes and I like to get to within bow range, or as close to it as I can get, before I take the shot. I like the challenge of hunting with a bow but prefer the much more positive effects of large calibre rifles in ending the hunt humanely.

But when I do take the shot, I have earned it and have done it the hard way - my physical fitness, my knowledge and my bush skills against those of the game. Normally, the game wins but, occasionally, I win .....and that, to me, is the true joy of hunting - to be able to beat a wild, game animal on his own turf and under his rules where he has the advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
BwanaBob, can I assume you do your huntiong with hand thrown sticks with poison on the end. I am sure you would not use any" technology" like a modern rifle or any rifle for that matter. That would not be the proper way for true hunters from the southern hemi, eh.

Will you be hunting lion or buff from a helicopter anytime soon ? How about those Dall rams ?

Interesting debate and one I am glad to see happening.

Having exchanged emails over the years with some of the passionate and ethical hunters of NZ, I know this abuse of their natural resources is a huge concern, and quite rightly so...

Its funny how Americans try to defend this when it occurs in NZ, but its a practice that is illegal, and an offense that is rigidly enforced in most if not all of the individual US States.

I would guess that many aspects of hunting in Alaska are comparable to those in NZ, but the Alaskans strictly control how aircraft can be used for trophy hunting, such that hunters can only hunt after a fixed period of landing ie the next day...It most places in the States I believe it is also illegal to communicate from an aircraft to a ground hunters to relay the where abouts of game??

So I find it strange that so many Americans are upset when the ethical hunters of New Zealand wish them to treat New Zealand's game with the same respect as their own?

The sad part and something that has already been acknowledged, is that part of the problem is due to greed New Zealand's own guide industry in taking advantage of the NZ Governments lack of enforcement in these matters.

Weathered post highlights the double standard nicely:

quote:

Will you be hunting lion or buff from a helicopter anytime soon ? How about those Dall rams ?

For me, anybody who shoots a trophy animal from a helicopter or after its been chased or herded by helicopter is not "hunting" and the "trophy" has no more validity than the rabbits I shoot out of the window of my 4x4 while doing pest control.