by frog
The Game Animal Panel’s consultation closes tomorrow. It asks if deer, pigs, tahr and chamois should be managed as pest or resource, or someone in between. This frog supports the current legislation whereby conservation land is protected for its indigenous flora and fauna (including me!), and introduced animals are managed (or eradicated) to ensure minimal adverse impacts on my environment. I therefore generally agree with Forest and Bird’s strong words today that conservation land should not be managed in the self-interest of hunters. Recreational hunting is one method to keep numbers at a low-impact level, but it must sit below the priority of conserving our unique ecosystems. Have your say (questionnaire).
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, November 5th, 2007
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The hunters have to realise that the long term plan is to eradicate these introduced vermin. What we need is to spend a lot of the money the government wastes (on social engineering that does nothing) on getting the hunters, poisoners, fencers and public on board to have successive campaigns to exterminate these animals once and for all. Perhaps in return the hunters could be offered a quarantined island or something on which to have their long term management plan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Breathe frog, you’re going a bit blue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When are the government going to learn that you can’t have national rules for this kind of thing.
Isn’t 100 years of miserable failure enough.
NZ may not have a vast variety of climates but there are still many orders of magnitude too many distinct ecosystems for centrally managed ‘policies’ to work.
Far more local, non governmental, environmental agencies should be set up.
That questionnaire was surreal. What kind of idiot thinks that those questions can be answered for the whole of NZ at once.
Which introduced vermin would you exterminate first Kevin?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I encourage you all to fill in the questionnaire. The hunting lobby (with the help of United Future??) is trying to get deer, chamois, thar and wild pigs classified as a “resource” and therefore giving these destructive animals protection and management rights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> This frog supports the current legislation whereby conservation land is protected for its indigenous flora and fauna (including me!)
I didn’t know you were one of those rare native frogs! Most frogs in New Zealand are introduced species.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The tahr are on the endangered species list in the Himilayas, with a 50% chance of survival.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Reducing tahr to a purely bred stock (no wild populations) would reduce its chances of survival by subjecting it to purely non-natural selection.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is going to be difficult to argue for eradication.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On this one I think that F&B need to take a deep breath and think about the realities of controlling invasive species. There is no easy solution to controlling the invasive species currently under management such as possums, rats, stoats and cats. Funding and resources for the control of these species is always going to be stretched, and DOC are continually adding more land to the public estate.
Until the technology enabling eradication to even be considered on the mainland comes the emphasis will need to be on management. A further consideration is that any management project in one part of the country will be competing for funding with a project in another part of the country, so there is also a need for funding, and maximising the utility and benefits of that funding. Possum control is currently also carried out conjointly for TB management.
When the technology comes, and it could even be through genetic modification, then it would be worthwhile discussing the eradication option. In the meantime I think that what is required is some smart zoning, where some areas are managed for maximum biodiversity protection and eradication of exotic and invasive species, while others, especially easily accessible areas monitored with exotics managed through hunting, including possums. Rats? stoats? cats?…?? We might have to start eating them in the meantime also!
Another consideration for zoning, particularly if we want to save our remaining rivers from hydro development is areas suitable for wind development, profits from power generation could potentially help fund high protection zones and research into eradication of invasive species.
It is likely that in the near future the cost of Aerial 1080 application will rise due to fuel prices. Peak oil and climate change will have many other implications for biodiversity and our economy, so it is important to think about these issues now.
Whatever we do needs to be resilient, in the war on invasive species, we cannot spread our resources too thin, or we may loose the lot.
Wasps are a huge threat, they eat all the native insects and honeydew leaving little for birds. How are seeds to be dispersed and flowers pollinated? particulary since varroa is devastating wild bee populations. My point is that resources for tackling pest control are scarce and need to be targeted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap, the proposal from the hunting lobby is for deliberate encouragement of pest species, not for control. I think many greens are in the “don’t mind to encourage” zone when it comes to hunting, but very few are in the “we need to have more things to hunt” group. Personally, I am all in favour of hunting, even in national parks. What I am opposed to is anything at all that detracts from the goal of eradication. So if recreational hunters are willing to put up with the restrictions that go with hunting in national parks, let them do it. If they just want to run round shooting introduced pests anywhere else, fine by me.
But hunters who deliberately introduce new animals or fail to shoot breeders are legitimate targets as far as I’m concerned. They’re part of the problem, and need to be controlled. If that means they end up in jail, that’s their choice.
The idiots that introduced foxes to Tasmania, for instance, don’t have any way to make reparations, so we’re in the unfortunate position of just having to lock them up for a long time. When we catch them. They’re a great example of what “managed recreational hunting” actually means for the conservation estate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap has a point that maybe in some areas hunters groups could do a better job than DOC.
Perhaps DOC’s methods would work if they could concentrate the funding on a few critical areas?
But why would you want industrial windpower near conservation areas? The idea is to protect the birds, not kill them all with giant swatters so a few Aucklanders can have electrically heated floors and pools .
Also the independent studies (ie non wind power manufacturer funded) say that large Danish turbines imported into NZ actually result in more carbon emission than they would save in 20 yrs of operation. So they are not good for the planet either.
To make my point about local solutions for local problems.
In my area the cursed wasps can be reduced to insignificance by having a couple of tame hens live in the areas near to preferred wasp nest sites.
Two chooks will clear a 20 Hectare area of wasps over a winter for a cost of 2 kgs of maize scraps. The resulting improvement in invertebrate diversity has to be seen to be believed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Management is a more realistic option for many ‘pests’ than eradication. Of course if you can eradicate rats and stoats etc then by all means. And anywhere hunters can help, let them.
Regarding tahr, I completely agree with unaha-closp here. Besides, I once had a tahr pie down in Waimate and it was bloody good!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doesn’t the name of the Panel itself say it all?
I notice it isn’t the “Introduced Pest Animal Eradication Panel” or even the “Introduced Pest Animal Management Panel”..is the “Game Animal Panel”….talking about signalling their bias before they even begin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh yes, my comment on the VERY FIRST question in the survey:
There is no conflict. You have set up a false dichotomy. Hunting as recreation does NOT have to be in National Parks or in areas of valuable eco-diversity. Farming is a completely issue. We can still eradicate pests in parks and ecologically sensitive areas while farming or hunting them ELSEWHERE.
Nobody is allowed to let cows or sheep loose or farm them in a National Park, why should it be expected that deer/pigs/tahr/chamois can run loose in them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
[Sorry off Topic but....]
there was a Real Estate Agent tonight on Campbell Live. She has paid $280,000 to go into space on Virgin galactic. John Campbell didn’t question her regarding the ethics of AGW. She says she will use the experience as part of a business plan to find rich clients to “market NZ property”….. like whoopee!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>jingyang Says:
>November 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
>Oh yes, my comment on the VERY FIRST question in the survey:
>There is no conflict. You have set up a false dichotomy. Hunting as recreation does NOT have to be in National Parks or in areas of valuable eco-diversity.
The problem is that if you allow a population of animals to grow large in one area, it will naturally spread to adjacent areas. Animals from the area set aside for hunting will migrate into the national parks because they have less competition for grazing there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe hunters also wish a few native mammals added to the ‘game animal’ list? Fancy shooting a seal for no reason – that’s just sad.
Seal Shot At Cape Palliser
Press Release by Department of Conservation at 3:31 pm, 07 Nov 2007
The shooting of a seal on Wairarapa’s south coast has prompted a reminder from the Department of Conservation that marine mammals are protected.
Wairarapa Area manager Chris Lester said the decomposing carcases of three New Zealand fur seals, or keneno, were found in September at Cape Palliser, one of which was confirmed by pathology report to have bullet fragments in its skull.
“We are disappointed to think that people would harm these protected creatures from the only fur seal colony in the North Island where breeding is well-established. They are just starting to recover and have only recently re-established breeding colonies in the North Island.”
“We urge the public to notify us if they see anyone harming or harassing seals or other marine wildlife, which are fully protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. “But the main message to the public is just to leave the seals alone to relax in peace”
DoC and local iwi and community groups plan to develop interpretative signage for Cape Palliser about the natural, historic and cultural features of the area, including guidelines for safe behaviour around the seal colony. “We welcome contributions to this work from all sectors of the community.” said Mr Lester.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’ll be explaining the meaning(s) of tangata whenua wont you Frog.?.. (since the greens Maori Party and human rights commision pushed to have the treaty put back in the school curriculum and the significance of Maori as tangata whenua…dispite interest in the treaty having fallen to “dangerously low levels”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interest in Treaty at dangerous low, says academic
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED0701/S00037.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tangata whenua, people of the land. the body politic present in Aotearoa prior to the arrive of colonial government (or crown or state).
as distinct from ‘tangata tiriti’, people of the treaty. the people who have settled in aotearoa since the state was established and who live here by virtue of the agreement to respect self-determination and citizenship rights and government.
that’s my definition anyway…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“the people of the land”. Essentially their land. An equivalent would be if farmer A hops in his Hilux and goes to farmer B’s place, farmer B is tangata whenua (and vice versa). The iwi who occupied an area were tangata whenua but if after conquest they were displaced, the second group became tangata whenua (eventually). Also means decended from Rangi and Papa (sky mother and sky father).
As Chinese actress from Shortland street snorted on program re Asians and racism “whose country is it any way”.
Green Party policy is that our right to be in Aotearoa is determinate on honouring the Treaty, (otherwise the leg must return to Tullpuddle On Tyne, the arm to Spain and the left thigh to Scotland etc?). but it is the original version which must be honoured. The original version leaves Aotearoa under Tino Rangitiratanga and Englsh law (sort of… or collosal mess and struggle for recourses, non Maori are resident foreigners)
The reality is that the treaty wasn’t signed in good faith, but under impossible circumstances (for those given the task) and it was assumed there would eventually be assimilation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and q..we can presume..from your (understandable) stance..
that you are vegan..?
and that you aren’t engaged in the ‘unecessary killin’g/eating of other (less exalted
by you) species..?..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
xur1z tests the comments
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dsgsdg sdfdsfs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
helo mr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
helo mr sailr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Reducing tahr to a purely bred stock (no wild populations) would reduce its chances of survival by subjecting it to purely non-natural selection”
Thats the same argument that people use to justify actively killing people with disabilities that will weaken the gene pool. It’s a bad argument in both cases. It might be a bad idea to have a purely bred stock (no wild populations) of tahr, but not for that reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)