deer released into taranaki forests risking TB

+1 wayno, imo. Recreational hunters (deer or any other species) want to maintain (or even improve) their recreation. Claims of recreational hunters doing an environmental service are (literally) unbelievable. I am OK with a professional cull to assist in reducing feral species, together with other strategies, but I'm very much *not* OK with killing for pleasure. For food, yes, but to kill for enjoyment shocks me.

Conservation will only happen if we have a significant proportion of the population who want it to happen. The more people who value the bush and high country, the more pressure there is to look after it. How many recreational trampers are there in NZ? An how many recreational hunters? I'd be very surprised if hunters didn't outnumber trampers 2:1. Every person who grows up to appreciate the conservation estate is a plus. Even if all those people do is vote for a party who will keep the conservation estate intact, then they are providing a service to conservation. Then - look out there at the number of huts hunting groups maintain, the number of stoat lines they run. Think of all the projects that individual hunters support and help on. Why do so many trampers and conservationists keep trying to alienate the largest body of people out there who are on hand and willing to support their work? Why can people not accept that the bush was not put there for their chosen passion the exclusion of all others? There is no law of nature or physics or morality that obligates conservation to exclusion of all else. Nor recreation. Nor hunting. All of these activities are the passtimes and passions of man, not some god given right or the outcome of some natural law. Compromise. Accept that that hunter's passion for the bush is a valid as yours. Determine what levels of deer are sustainable, what combination of private hunters, commercial, WARO is required to keep them there. How that can be funded, how it can contribute towards other conservation. Accept that tramping with it's tracks, huts, contamination has great benefit to individual health, societal wellbeing. Acknowledge the intrusion of their infrastructure into wilderness, their contributions to erosion and spread of disease, their cost to the treasury. Work out where they can be sustainably accommodated and where not. Bring along all backcountry users to achieve a commonly held set of goals and we can achieve so much more, with more support, and more certainty that it will continue to be funded and staffed in the future. Play the card of divisiveness, hoard the backcountry for one narrow interest group and you risk losing it entirely.

But the hunters I know - most of whom certainly go out to look for a trophy come the roar - are not 'ignoring conservation'. They are deeply supportative of conserving the bush and hill country they frequent. Many are actively involved in conserving it in their free or professional lives. Even for those not actively involved in conservation, I'd say all of them have a deep interest in conserving the backcountry in the state that they enjoy, and that lets them carry out their pass-time. Are you saying that a version of conservation which eradicates deer is right, that any version of conservation which includes the presence of deer is wrong? thus we can and should never compromise? and that hunters have no fundamental right to have the opportunity to hunt of the conservation estate? but that anyone who wishes to carry out conservation within the narrow definition you are using has a fundamental right to do so? (and what definition is that?) That's how the combination of the various anti-deer posts/posters above reads from here. If that's the case: can you explain precisely what it is about your take on conservation that makes it profoundly 'right'? and what it is about a version of conservation which keeps that backcountry in a condition that includes both deer and hunters, tracks and trampers is wrong? And I don't mean a superficial statement like 'deer modify the plant communities present in the bush' - we've all agreed on that - but a fundamental definition of what is _wrong_ with that. What is _so_ wrong with that it means excluding the majority of bush users from carrying out their most cherished pastime, but allowing the minority who don't want deer to carry out theirs?

As a rider to the comments below, I'm speaking generally and about simplified motivations. Individuals are more complex and frequently hold contrary viewpoints. It's not my contention that recreational hunters, hunting recreationally, don't have an incidentally positive impact on the environment - but the motivation is the recreation, not the environment. Yes, they need an environment that supports the hunting so protection of the current environment would be desirable. But eradication of deer (in this case) would not be on their agenda. I know of two specific instances of recreational hunters (in Aus) trapping, breeding and then releasing goats in the Alpine NP. I also have had conversations with hunters who have intentionally not shot females so as to ensure continued supply. My definition of conservation includes eradication of non-indigenous organisms to the extent reasonably possible. Protecting the environment so it can support feral populations for hunting is not conservation, imo. What's your definition of 'sustainable'?

This definition of sustainable is what I mean in the Environmental Science field : the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance. Zero deer is sustainable. Because deer, possum, stoat, european wasp etc are not exposed to their usual sources of predation, they breed uncontrollably and are therefore unsustainable. Clearly, most of these species are unlikely to be completely eradicated so the environment will be modified and on-going effort will be required to maintain suspression - it's a value judgement whether it's harmful or not. For me, the presence of non-indigenous organisms is harmful.

Waynowski - "recreational deer hunters have never been able to dent deer numbers in NZ. and they never will." Sounds like the typical urbanite viewpoint I hear occasionally and is absolutely incorrect. Recreational hunters account many, many thousands of deer every year in NZ. The hunting population is vast and I agree with 'madpom' that hunters outnumber trampers, however the number would be more like 5:1 and more likely higher than that. Compared to places like North America, deer numbers are very low in this country. They have been low for decades and have only recently increased in more remote open areas due to the cessation of helicopter hunting. Try seeing a deer in the large Clements Mill Road area for example. You might see one or maybe two in a day if you tread quietly and watch the breeze and are lucky. Back in the early 60's the average sighting was about six per hour. Recreational hunters are responsible for the low numbers. I have been an avid tramper and hunter for 49 years and have seen a huge increase in the amount of hunters out there compared to trampers. Many if not most hunters are away in areas that many trampers never see, far from tracks and huts. The NZ wilderness is there for all of us to enjoy. It certainly isn't the exclusive domain of one group, whatever their views on conservation, fauna and flora.

I'm not implying wilderness should be the exclusive domain of trampers (is anyone in this discussion?) .. and the relative number of hunters vs trampers is immaterial. I have an issue with killing for pleasure. I don't have a problem with killing for food or for conservation of the natural environment. Imo, hunting with those intents is OK. While doing this sort of hunting, drawing pleasure from the bush, the effort, the mates, .. is great. Pleasure from the kill is a real concern. Clearly, killing just 1 deer will have a (very small) positive impact on the environment so killing many is a positive. However, recreational hunters are hunting for the recreation - and are not ever going to eradicate the species; to the contrary, they will seek to sustain a viable population to maintain their recreation. This is not conservation, imo.

I love the idea and activity of hunting and gathering. In this plastic instant world. I personally love to dive for a cray fish for a snapper or hunt for a deer to put Kai on the table. It's a noble thing. You soon would learn how many people would become vegetarian if we all had to hunt and gather our protein. But I have always hated hunting and fishing solely for trophy or even worse just to kill. I don't get catching a blue marlin or a trophy stag? I hate to kill anything and to do so to provide protein for the family is a good thing. But to kill for fun which 90% of hunters and fishermen do is really strange to me, as well as scary and thoughtless. But my real question has always been. Aren't deer considered a pest? If so shouldn't we be trying to eradicate them entirely from our country much as we do koi carp, old mans beard or possum? Why are we managing stock if the whole purpose is to get rid of them from our flora? I have no problem with hunting. I just think if deer are an introduced pest that cause large amount of damage to our Eco system shouldn't we be trying to fully eradicate them ?

@wayno, @bernieq. You are pretending that we can turn back the clock to that magical time when there were no human-introduced species in NZ. The very narrow definition of 'conservation' that you have chosen would more accurately be called 'restoration' or 'recreation'. You are not talking about conservation of what we have now, but talking about turning back the clock to what we once had. Firstly, that is unrealistic. We have lost major parts of the ecosystem that you wish to recreate. We have lost the top predator (Haast eagle). We have lost the primary ground herbivore (moa). In my Otago region we have lost much of the shrub layer, and nearly all of the sub-story of shade-loving plants that lived beneath it. Who knows what changes have occurred in insect and soil-microbe and fungal populations as a result. Again in my area we have lost much of very soil chemistry that supported key ecosystems (e.g. once extensive inland salt basins, ~2ha remaining). So, even were you to succeed in eradicating human-introduced species, the ecosystem you recreate would in no way resemble the one you claim to be restoring. Deer certainly have different browsing habits than moa. Be clear, I'm not arguing that the two are equivalent, especially given that NZ flora evolved in the presence of moa and not deer. But,acknowledging that the impacts of the two species would be different effect, the absence of moa would like have _as big an impact_ on forest composition as the presence of deer. Secondly, eradication of all introduced species is simply not going to happen. We do not have the technology or money or political will to do this at present. And - by talking about eradicating deer, pigs, thar, chamois we will only see our funding and support base decrease. So instead of living in the clouds, sticking our heads in the sand, choose your metaphor and pretending that we can magically turn back the clock to pre-human times in some grand restoration project, lets talk instead about conservation and sustainability. Conservation: conserving what we have for present and future generations. Ecological sustainability: Focus on what the ecosystem will support without further species loss. Focus on control measures that will achieve those goals, not on the 'nice to have' goals beyond that. For some species in some places that may mean near-elimination (stoats, rats) for others it will mean keeping numbers down to levels that the ecosystem can support. Economic sustainability: Develop management stratergies that are economically sustainable - i.e. _affordable indefinitely_, preferably self-sustaining. There is no point going hard out today only to see all our gains reversed in hard times tomorrow. Current management of deer, thar, chamois is a great example of this - species knock-down carried out for the mere cost of issuing a permit to commercial meat recovery companies. Low population levels aided by recreational hunting in accessible areas. We are a long long way from the barren forest floors of the 50s, 60s,70s - deer populations are a tiny fraction of what they were. Decades of government management failed entirely to change anything, the gains made are due almost entirely to commercial aerial hunting. Political sustainability: keep our support base on side. Do not deliberately alienate 50% of our support base out of bloody mindedness. Where possible, choose policies wisely to bring along the maximum support base possible. There is no point going hard out today only to see all our gains reversed in a different political environment tomorrow. That means supporting the activities of all user groups, trampers, hunters, fishermen, MTBers as far as possible within the limits of what the ecosystem will sustain. And in turn being supported by them in our conservation efforts.

Firstly, well said gaiters. Madpom, I don't disagree with the majority of your comments. All ecosystems change over time and I'm not advocating a return to any particular system nor time - as you say, not possible. I have two issues in this discussion. The primary one is killing for pleasure. My ethics see that as wrong, shocking in fact. I'm expressing my ethics, not insisting any/every other person think the same. I contend that recreational hunting is killing for pleasure. I don't support recreational hunters involvement in environmental control programs. The other issue is environment and conservation. "Conservation: conserving what we have ... " What we have is in a state of decline; that's not what we should conserve. We can argue the detail about how many deer or pines or stoats; how much coal or tuna or rimu tonnage; is 'sustainable' but, really, we're not even on the right page. The primary environmental threat is climate change and the underlying cause of that is too many people. Apology in advance - too big an issue to discuss here - back to local conservation : Zero deer is not currently achievable, I agree, but it should, nonetheless, be the target. If you were satisfied with current population levels, for example, why fund biological control research that might achieve a zero goal? BTW, if by "commercial aerial hunting" you mean for environmental control and/or for food industry then bring it back!