Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Here’s a bit of wisdom for Sage

Avatar photo
The Government must love Associate Environment Minister Eugenie Sage. Whereas James Shaw comes across as rational and prepared to listen, Sage comes across as anything but.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The present she has handed the Opposition is her insistence on a cull of Himalayan tahr that’s gone round the maypole more times than a bunch of morris dancers.

To declare an interest I am a keen deer shooter and have shot tahr and chamois. 

Sadly, in my geriatric state those animals are beyond me so I stick to red and fallow deer.

Tahr stick to the tops and eat what little vegetation is available. According to Conservation Department literature woody species and herbs take up less than 25% of their diet.

We’re told that R Goodleyanus is the only plant vulnerable to tahr grazing and that there is little likelihood of it becoming extinct.

Be that as it may, tahr will eat vegetation and there are claims their numbers have exploded.

Another DOC paper does point out culling by private and professional hunters has lowered numbers. There was a moratorium on aerial hunting because it had reduced tahr numbers by 90%.

So what’s the problem?

Back when the DOC paper on tahr was written there were 15 operators killing 100 tahr. Now there are 100 operators killing 1200.

According to DOC literature tahr has a breeding range of 7000 square kilometres and that’s a lot of country.

A DOC paper in July 2018 estimates the tahr population at 45,633 with a 95% confidence interval. That means tahr numbers could be anywhere from 17,347 to 53,920. They’re worthless figures.

We’re talking a lot of money. According to Canterbury tahr hunting guide John Royle a hunter will spend up to $10,000 hunting tahr depending on the method used. The hunter’s minimum contribution to the economy is estimated at $14,500.

It’s a $48 million industry with hunters coming from the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. Combined with local hunters its worth over $200m.

Having shot a tahr, hunters are likely to come back for a trophy chamois, red or fallow deer.

New Zealand is the only place in the world where you can commercially hunt tahr and we’re going to cull them not knowing the real numbers, the damage they do and without any meaningful consultation. 

According to DOC there was going to be a meeting of the Tahr Liaison Group on September 29. 

What a ridiculous situation. All of the decisions were set in concrete long before then.

In response to a National Party media release questioning the cull, Sage rode into the fray accusing them of not understanding conservation.

It’s a stupid statement. I might not always agree with Dr Nick Smith but I’d never accuse him of not understanding conservation.

Then, in response to another question, Sage told the nation DOC will be using shotguns (to kill tahr) the same way as hunters use guns to kill them.

She seems to have no idea what she’s talking about.

I’ve used a shotgun often but never to kill anything larger than a hare or a duck. Using a shotgun to kill tahr is barbaric in my view. I’m only surprised SAFE and the SPCA haven’t become involved but as it’s not farmers they’re inevitably not interested.

National’s conservation spokeswoman Sarah Dowie is highly critical of the cull.

She accused Sage of making the decision to kill the tahr based on anecdotal evidence and without a proper consultation process.

She has a valid point. She added conservation should be based on science, not ideology. 

I agree but Sage isn’t known for her reliance on scientific facts. 

That is understandable as she studied law and history not science, yet that doesn’t stop her waxing eloquently on tahr, irrigation, glyphosate or anything else that comes to mind. 

Dowie said she would have consulted extensively before making any decision.

That Sage didn’t consult means 33,000 signatures were attached to a petition opposing the cull and $157,316 for a legal challenge was raised in short order by 1816 donors.

She has now been forced to back down. If she hadn’t she would have been hit with legal papers and a well co-ordinated media campaign.

It is a ridiculous and pointless state of affairs.

If she had initially consulted rather than riding into the fray wielding a big stick the politically embarrassing impasse would never have occurred.

The Tahr Foundation is an inclusive body with the approach of managing tahr to provide sustainable hunting while conserving alpine vegetation.

Why not consult it at the start and not wait until you’re at the wrong end of a media campaign.

Finally, I’m generally a strong supporter of DOC but it didn’t cover itself with glory on this one. 

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading