The Green Room

Forest & Bird » Threats & Impacts

1. Oscar
   User Profile

   It looks like the Department of Conservation is planning to approve "helihunting" on Conservation Land.

   Helihunting is the practice of flying a guide and their clients around looking for trophy animals, mainly tahr and chamois. Once the animals are found, they may be herded to easier country, sometimes we hear they are chased till exhaustion and they stop running. The guide and "hunter" then get out, and often the animals are herded closer for an easier shot. The victorious shooters then fly home with their prize.

   I'm a lifelong hunter and member of NZDA, but hope that this is an issue all backcountry users can agree on, irrespective of our views on wild animals.

   This is a different issue from genuine Wild Animal Recovery Operations. The game targetted are mature, trophy males, so there is little if any conservation benefit - females are not taken.

   Access to land will be given for areas that no-one else can readily fly into, such as wilderness areas and it looks like Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park is on the shopping list too: http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/current/heli-hunting-in-aoraki-mount-cook-national-park/

   This affects trampers, climbers, walkers, hunters - you name it. Our public conservation lands are going to be opened up as aerial shooting galleries. This practice isn't allowed anywhere else in the world.

   This practice is not an appropriate use of our wild places, and it is definitely not in the spirit of our Conservation Lands.

   What's next - being allowed to land on the summit ridge of Aoraki so you can say you've climbed it?

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. clairegreen
   User Profile

   Oscar...sad to disillusion you but most of the pretend climbers and their guides who say that they have climbed Aoraki/Mt Cook have actually only climbed the top third of the mountain because they helicopter from the airport to Plateau Hut at 2500 or so metres way up the mountain and then only climb the last bit.

   NZDA has not made clear its opposition to guided heli hunting. It has been captured by Big Game NZ and Gary Ottman who are obsessed with selling New Zealand's big game animals to rich overseas hunters. Ordinary bloke kiwi hunters are opportunists who want to be able to hunt wherever they can and DOC does a brilliant job facilitating this with long term permits over big areas.

   When the new Big Game Council is established by the government you just wait and see how fast an expensive hunting licence will be introduced and every hunter will have to have one....or else.

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. Oscar
   User Profile

   "NZDA has not made clear its opposition to guided heli hunting"

   Completely incorrect Claire - you couldn't be further from the truth. We have done so, repeatedly - including directly to F&B management too. I know, because I was the one who was in touch with them.

   Irrespective - what do you think of helihunting? Should it be permitted on the conservation estate?

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. auckland anne
   User Profile

   If heli-hunting IS permitted on DoC estate, does that mean for safety reasons that the estate is closed to everyone else?

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. Tawaki
   User Profile

   I was invited to speak at the NZDA AGM in New Plymouth about 5 years ago and we identified lots of common ground between NZDA and F&B.

   Like Clairgreen I think that helihunting by tourist hunters is a abomination and can't by any stretch of the inmagnation be called a sport. Does it just reflect that these helihunters are too lazy to walk to hunt their quarry?

   The trouble is that if a high country farmer or other such landowner is getting a decent whack from a helihunter how long before the ordinary kiwi hunter is shut out by them or is this happening already?

   What can F&B do to help the NZDA on this issue?

   On the government's deer panel last year the clear message from the Safari Club International folk was that special priority should be given to the tourist hunters over New Zealanders because the tourist hunters bought in much more money than ordinary Kiwi hunters.

   But on this basis Kiwi trampers might soon be shut out of their parks and Great Walks because they can't pay as much as tourists?

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. auckland anne
   User Profile

   That's why I was asking about if areas might be closed to the public if they are also areas where heli-hunters can go. It means they'll be shut out of their parks, won't it?

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. Oscar
   User Profile

   At this stage, we don't expect areas to be closed to the public, although who knows in the future?

   What is more disturbing is that the proposal gives exclusive helicopter access rights to this one small sector. Recreational users are specifically barred from getting dropped off under these concessions.

   We don't have a problem with helicopter use being limited - for us, use of helicopters by recreational people, be they hunters, climbers, trampers or whatever should be controlled, and landings only allowed at a set point. Some areas should be kept free from helicopter access, and some landing zones should be restricted use.

   The 'idea' of opening up areas of Aoraki Mt Cook National Park to this activity seems bizarre.

   I think NZDA and Forest and Bird have more in common than we realise - we'll never agree 100% but when we do agree, why not work together?

   What can F&B do to help? Well, see what your members think of this, and then lobby MPs, Ministers and DOC.

   It really is a minority of people who are in favour of helihunting - a few hunting guides and a few helicopter operators.

   We know this practice is opposed by FMC, NZ Alpine Club, a lot of hunting guides, many helicopter operators, West Coast and Otago Conservation Boards, hunters, trampers and climbers.

   Its a minority practice, and can be accomodated on private land if they must. Its impacts on natural quiet, isolation and intrinsic values is enormous, and out of all proportion to the number of people who want it to go ahead.

   It has a negatve impact on the total tahr kill too - many recreational hunters stop hunting areas where helihunting occurs. We need more tahr killed by recreational hunters, not less.

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. Oscar
   User Profile

   If you want to see the sort of thing that is being proposed, watch video number 2 at this site:

   http://www.alpinehunting.com/information/shane-quinn-alpine-hunting-i-62.html

   Flying at low level over Conservation Land, herding animals, using a shotgun. It's all there.

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. Tawaki
   User Profile

   Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 1:00 PM
   Subject: Heli-hunting
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   From: Mike Cuddihy
   Sent: Monday, 21 December 2009 1:52 p.m.
   To: Wendy Osborne
   Cc: Sarah Mankelow; Lizzy Sutcliffe; Mike Cuddihy
   Subject: Heli-hunting

   Wendy, here is my draft covering email for the people on the list put together by Haydn, and you are adding some others. Check with Lizzy and Sarah re editing it, Mike
   Heli-hunting
   The purpose of this email is to let you know that the Department of Conservation has created a new web page on our DOC website as a source of information with regards to Heli-hunting. The Link is appended. (www.doc.govt.nz/helihunting)

   The Department has recently posted to this web page the following ;

   1. A copy of a letter to helicopter operators that contains Information about how we propose to manage a concessions process for this activity, and what we intend to do to manage the situation until the concession applications we have received, and expect to receive, are determined. (Please note we expect the applications to be publically notified in late February/early March and for the process to be completed by June/July.)

   2. We explain why an amendment is being considered for part of the Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park (the Murchison valley). The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the greater use of aircraft by recreationalists (including heli-hunting)

   3. We provide information about how you can request a copy of a disc we have produced that shows the public conservation land that may be available for this activity at the present time. (This is public conservation land that has no National Park or Conservation Act General Policy, Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) or national park provisions that would constrain a concession application for this activity)

   4. A draft form of what a heli-hunting concession document might look like.

   5. An online feedback form. (Please note that there is a deadline of 5 February 2010 for your immediate views on the mapping, the concessions process and the draft concessions document.)

   Please send your comments, queries and concerns to the me via the feedback form or to my email address of mcuddihy@doc.govt.nz . I will answer all your emails, but please note that some matters may need to be kept separate for the concessions process to consider.

   In the new year we will be arranging meetings so that your views can be discussed face to face.

   Mike Cuddihy
   Conservator
   Canterbury

   Posted 2 years ago #

10. Speargrass
    User Profile

    The Canterbury conservation Board will meet at Twizel on February 26th 2010.

    Start time: 10.30 a.m.

    Public forum: 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. (This may be extended if enough people confirm they will attend)

    The Conservation board will be considering whether to allow heli-hunting to occur in Mt Cook Aoraki National Park.

    Canterbury/Aoraki Conservation Board propose an amendment to the Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan (2004) to allow for heli-hunting within the park.

    A decision to seek, or not, an amendment to the plan with reference to heli-hunting will considered in February 2010, by the Canterbury Aoraki/Mt Cook Area Conservation Board.

    Conservation Board Meetings allow a public forum where you can speak to these people and make your views known. Public Forum usually occurs after lunch but can be extended if enough people attend

    If there is one public meeting to attend either to learn about heli-hunting and its implications or to speak your thoughts this is the meeting to attend.
    You can contact the Canterbury Conservation Board liason officer directly at this email address

    cacb@doc.govt.nz

    You can phone the office direct here
    Canterbury Conservancy Office Phone: +64 3 371 3700

    I also ask you to download read and consider a submission on heli-hunting in Mount Cook Aoraki from DoC's website here. The deadline for submissions is Feb 1st 2010

    http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/current/heli-hunting-in-aoraki-mount-cook-national-park/

    This is not the public consultation process to decide on heli-hunt concessions, that is another process further in the year.

    This is a meeting to discuss where and when heli-hunting will happen in Mt Cook Aoraki National Park, even though no heli-hunt concessions exist.

    Feb 19th 2010 is the day Mike Cuddihy will permit allow heli-hunting to occur under his authority across the South Island.

    Posted 2 years ago #

11. Speargrass
    User Profile

    Just a Note to add this if you wish to write to the Canterbury Conservator

    Your views are sought

    Send your comments to:
    Canterbury Conservancy, attention AMCNPMP, by 1 February 2010, via fax, post or

    email ppalmer@doc.govt.nz:

    Canterbury Conservancy Office
    Phone: +64 3 371 3700
    Fax: +64 3 365 1388
    Email: canterburyco@doc.govt.nz
    Address: Level 4 Torrens House
    195 Hereford Street
    Christchurch 8011

    Postal Address: Private Bag 4715
    Christchurch Mail Centre
    Christchurch 8140

    Posted 2 years ago #

12. chris max
    User Profile

    Looks like you are saying no one should be able to enjoy the forest except in a puritanical form ( wheres your bag of poison) ?
    I would say peoples values however diverse are extremely important in "conservation".
    Hope you go barefoot in the forest like i do.

    Posted 2 years ago #

13. Oscar
    User Profile

    Hi Chris - you don't seem to be familiar with this issue (the 'bag of poison' comment is especially irrelevant, if you knew anything about the NZDA! ;)), so I'll try and break it down simply.

    This is not about stopping all aerial access, nor guided hunting. Both are very important, and have a (carefully managed) place on public land.

    This is about stopping one particular activity that is practiced by a very small minority (a few hunting guides) and strongly impacts on and is opposed by, the vast majority of back-country users - such as hunters and NZDA, many hunting guides and helicopter operators, climbers and the NZ Alpine Club, Federated Mountain Clubs, Forest and Bird, and several Conservation Boards.

    If people value helihunting for some reason, they can still do it to their hearts content on private land.

    Posted 2 years ago #

14. Oscar
    User Profile

    If you want to have a say, whatever your views, there is an online Feedback Form:

    http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/current/heli-hunting/feedback-form/

    It would be great if this link could be passed around and Forest and Bird members encouraged to have their say.

    Posted 2 years ago #

15. Oscar
    User Profile

    This email was sent from DOC Canterbury to the NZ Professional Hunting Guides Association:

    "Hi Adrian,

    Would you please pass this message on to your Association Members. These are matters on which I would like their feedback, either as individuals or collectively as an association.

    1. Introduction of a Trophy Fee/Environmental Mitigation Offset for tahr and chamois taken on public conservation land

    I thought it would be useful to follow up at this time on a matter we have previously discussed, but not as yet resolved, around the application of a trophy fee or environmental mitigation offset as part of any future heli-hunting concession. You will recall I have previously said that this fee or offset will not apply for the 2010 season (because these hunts have for the most part already been sold without this being taken into consideration), but that the Department has every intention of this in some form of other being in place for the period after that. There will be further discussions to be had around this, but the reason for my raising it now is that some of you may shortly be travelling to Reno or other such similar conventions to sell your hunts, including tahr and chamois hunts. You should factor into your pricing for the 2011 season tahr and chamois hunts on public conservation land (and subsequent years) a trophy fee of around $500 per animal, or the cost of an environmental offset to a similar monetary value. I want you to be aware of this now so that it does not cause you any inconvenience if this in some form or other should become part of a future heli-hunting concession. For the purpose of clarity this trophy fee/environmental mitigation offset will apply equally for any commercial method that removes trophy tahr and chamois from public conservation land, that means heli-hunting, capture and convey, and ground based guided hunting. Your feedback on this is welcome.

    2. Safari Club International Measures Manual (Lawful and Ethical hunting)

    I understand from SCI material I have read and conversations that I have had that the Safari Club in their Measurer's Manual (and possibly elsewhere in their rules) have a rule that says something like.

    "Animals shot from or driven by helicopter or other aircraft will not be accepted for the Record Book"

    You will be very much aware that much of opposition that comes from some parts of the community is around the use of the helicopter to herd ( or drive as SCI phrase it). I am further hearing comments that in some past cases in New
    Zealand the activity of "herding" has been carried out to such an intensive degree that animal welfare issues are raised. So, there are two issues here I would like your feedback on;

    1. The SCI rule set out above.
    2. The animal welfare issue

    Cheers"

    Posted 2 years ago #

16. whanahuia
    User Profile

    Hi guys, just seen this thread, and thought I'd add my two cents from a hunters perspective.
    there are allready valleys I will not go back too because this activity is so rife. I'm not going to put myself through all the effort of accessing an area by honest means, to have someone spoil it thoughtlessly.As has happpened on a number of occaisions.
    Helihunting angers the hell out of me, it serves no consevation purpose, in fact it go's straight against the Dept's advertising campaign to shoot 3 nannys for every bull.
    It is undenighably cruel in the methods used to break the animal and make it bail, or malleable enough to be driven too a retreivable position.
    It also make a mockery of all of our right to access these remote places and be undesturbed, and it serves as a major disinsentive to hunters to put in an effort to hunt Tahr and Chamois.
    I have allways done my part, and shoot, on average, ten times the number of Nannys over Bulls each year, but if Doc is going too allow this practice, and use the funds for animal control, i feel it alleviates me of the need to do so. Undenighably the New Zealand public do not want to see helihunting proceed, yet for a small number of lazy, selfish tourists, new Zealanders will be ignored.
    The same level of funding for animal control can be taxed on exported trophies without allowing helihunting. We just don't need to go there.

    Posted 2 years ago #

17. lonewheel
    User Profile

    As far as I’m concerned, the idea of people in helicopters screaming up and down our alpine valley’s chasing animals until their feet bleed fills me with disgust.

    When my wife and I shoulder our packs, lace up our boots and head for the outdoors, we go there to enjoy the wilderness experience and don’t want helicopters roaring up and down our alpine valleys like boy racers!

    Can somebody tell me, which NZ hunting organizations support this proposed concession?

    Posted 2 years ago #

18. Tawaki
    User Profile

    So it is designed to be a money making scheme for DOC?
    see this excerpt below from the DOC letter:

    "You should factor into your pricing for the 2011 season tahr and chamois hunts on public conservation land (and subsequent years) a trophy fee of around $500 per animal, or the cost of an environmental offset to a similar monetary value. I want you to be aware of this now so that it does not cause you any inconvenience if this in some form or other should become part of a future heli-hunting concession."

    1. There is no sportmanship in it...it is just a way that lazy rich shooters can kill their prized animal for the least possible effort. The fact that Safari Club International won't accept these heli hunted animals as genuine sporting trophies speaks volumes.

    2. I know that others on this thread may not agree with me, but I have always supported the helicopter hunting/game recovery of deer, chamois and thar because it is necessary to protect native plants and animals. It is usually done, however, in places where foot hunting has not been effective (eg the Landsborough Valley for thar and other equally rugged and inaccessible valleys). This helicopter hunting for game recovery is done quickly and relatively humanely.

    3. Helicopter hunting as part of a game recovery operation is a completely different situation from harassing a game animal by helicopter and driving it towards a staionary tourist hunter or actually allowing that heli-hunter to harrass the animal that they want to shoot for "sporting" purposes and then shooting it from the air.

    4. Is this heli-hunting DOC initiative one of their bright ideas to raise funds? Was it supported by the deer review committee chaired by Margaret Austin?

    It does seem a bizarre way for DOC to raise funds and dreadfully damaging to our reputation as being a sporting nation...and a noisy nightmare for anyone wanting to quietly enjoy exploring public lands in the mountains.

    Posted 2 years ago #

19. Oscar
    User Profile

    Hi Tawaki

    To be honest, we are at a loss as to why DOC are so keen on this particular activity, even to the point of allowing it to occur this year before the publically notified concessions process.

    If it were simply the money, then they could impose the fee without having to allow helihunting.

    And just to be clear, I think Forest and Bird and NZDA are in broad agreement on the need for wild animal recovery as a management/control tool - it is something we need in a lot of places. We differ only on the degree, I think!

    Posted 2 years ago #

20. Tawaki
    User Profile

    Yes F&B and NZDA are in broad agreement about the need for control and the tools available to do this. I think we are also in broad agreement that the deerstalker should have access everywhere possible throughout conservation lands to pursue his/her sport.

    That is why F&B have also supported open long term hunting permits that enable hunters to have open access to big areas eg "Canterbury Conservancy for 6 months". This makes it as easy as possible for hunters to go out and enjoy their recreation.

    I'm really worried though that the new direction of DOC and the Big Game hunter types threaten that freedom and opportunist nature, the key feature of NZ recreational hunting.

    The Big Game folk are desperate to have a mandatory hunting licence priced probably similar to a fishing licence that is required to be held before you can go hunting. At say $100+ per annum per person you can imagine what a big bureaucracy that will generate without necessarily any guarantees of improved hunting. What's the next crazy concept....a licence for F&B and anyone else to go walking on Conservation land, our land?

    Secondly, as soon as DOC can get a $500 per animal fee from each tourist shot trophy animal aren't they surely going to favour the safari hunting tourist lobby over the ordinary Kiwi recreational hunter and zone accordingly? Already they are preserving some of the best hunting areas for their own staff.

    Yesterday I watched 2 big red deer calmly grazing along the Mt Cheeseman skifield road in beech forest. I had driven up in my van and stopped and waited for them to walk off the road. The eastern slopes of the Craigieburn Range have I understand for years been off limits to ordinary hunters (DOC thinks that the hunters might shoot skiers or mountain bikers). However I know that the local DOC staff go in there for their hunting.

    Why is this area not open to every recreational hunter?? The Firearms Act defines what you have to do for public safety if you are hunting. It isn't DOC's responsibility to police the Firearms Act.

    Posted 2 years ago #

21. Oscar
    User Profile

    There is now a very well put-together video doing the rounds, that all users of our back-country should see:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDMX4tQTy4

    Posted 2 years ago #

22. Tawaki
    User Profile

    Tragic film. There's nothing sporting about hunting a Thar with a helicopter and shooting it multiple times in the name of sport. Interesting that all the commentary is by an American hunter who guns down the same thar multiple times in the schist riverbed (Karangarua?). Are Americans the group that most want to hunt animals by helicopter? There is a big game hunting promotion show on in Las Vegas right now with lots of NZ hunting people at it selling their wares. Are they selling heli hunting?

    Posted 2 years ago #

23. whanahuia
    User Profile

    Americans make up roughly 75% of the market, Australian's the majority of the rest. That helicopter and guding company fly out of Franz Joesef, so its deffinatly West coast anyway.
    Not only are the NZ operators selling these hunts at the big show (Reno SCI), but the Canterbury conservator, Mike Cuddihy is also there marketing this.
    Although its allready going on, Its been kept away from most public veiw as its legal status has been dodgy and only a few operators have taken part. Now with concession applications in place, At least 10 operators are applying to undertake Helihunting. We will see a dramatic upsurge in contact with this activity from the general public over the next 12 months.

    Posted 2 years ago #

24. Tawaki
    User Profile

    I'm outraged that Mike Cuddihy a DOC Conservator is at the Big Game Show in Reno promoting this unsporting activity. I'm just wondering if it is another DOC attempt to snuggle up to the "tourist industry". This is something that DOC'S Minister and DG are very keen on DOC doing to justify its existence.

    As someone who works every day in the tourism industry, I'd think that the majority of tourists would be appalled by heli hunting by rich and lazy Americans (75%) and Australians (say 20%). The majority of tourists wouldn't see this sort of hunting as having any sort of a sporting dimension in fact quite the opposite.

    Isn't this an issue that should be aired in the public media rather than just on the F&B website and other blogs?

    Should F&B and NZDA be making a joint statement about it?

    I still see a strong distinction between this heli hunting for commercial "sport" and the game meat recovery operations on DOC managed land which are aimed at reducing overall numbers of wild game animals in sensitive natural environments. I know that F&B and NZDA both agree that commercial game meat recovery can occur, we probably disagree about the scale of this.

    Certainly we can agree that this legitimisation of heli hunting for sport is an outrage and an affront to our traditions of sportsmanship.

    Posted 2 years ago #

25. whanahuia
    User Profile

    Its not easy to get an issue such as this covered by mainstream media.
    Deffinatly a joint response from forest and bird and FMC and NZDA would help.
    The thinking hunter will agree that W.A.R.O meat recovery has a place as a herd control/management tool, and invariably management in new zealand is numbers control/reduction. What i would like to see is the emphasis changed from primarily male based harvest, to a female based one. This would allow for lower overall herd numbers, but a higher availability of the valued category to the general public/rec. hunter.
    Quite clearly helihunting works opposite to that, and acts as a dissincentive for hunters thinking of accessing those areas.

    Posted 2 years ago #

26. lonewheel
    User Profile

    Nah, you'd be wrong. There's no way Mike Cuddihy (DOC Conservator) would be in Reno directly promoting helihunting in NZ. Doesn't make sense.

    Posted 2 years ago #

27. whanahuia
    User Profile

    Mike was there, allright, and chaperoned by members of the guiding industry in NZ.
    interestingly I arranged for a well respected American hunter who has visited NZ a number of times and spent many thousands of dollars on hunting to contact him at the show and give an alternative veiw. Mike didn't even bother too return his phonecall.

    Posted 2 years ago #

28. Oscar
    User Profile

    An article on this in today's Sunday Star-Times:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/3276924/Death-from-above

    What seems remarkable is that the Minister and DOC appear to have already made their decision on this, and are just looking at ways to introduce it and manage it.

    NZDA executive have been in touch with F&B exec, so hopefully we will see some joint statements etc soon.

    Posted 2 years ago #

29. ethos
    User Profile

    Oscar you might find that some people like the guide in the above article have a long history of letting clients shoot ageing ex velvet animals behind wire. Ethics are for sale for some.
    Whilst I am a proponent of ethical hunting methods, herding and intentional wounding by helicopter instead of a quick clean kill I find disgusting. An international backlash to this practice could remove legitimate ethical hunting as a feral animal control tool.

    Maybe the deerstalkers and F and B could employ a lawyer to investigate whether such behaviour contravenes animal welfare law?
    This practice is wrong on so many levels.

    No one wants this except a minority of money hungry ethically bankrupt guides and chopper cowboys.
    Why is Mike Cuddihy even considering this? Perhaps he needs to remember he is a public servant not an enabler for an extremist element of the safari "hunting" industry.

    Posted 2 years ago #

30. ethos
    User Profile

    Email to MR Cuddihy sent today:
    Mr Cuddihy
    As a veterinarian and also recreational hunter I am dumbfounded at DOCs plan to open previously restricted areas to allow a hunting practice which is undoubtedly considered unethical by the majority of New Zealand back country users, if not illegal.

    Please remember it is DOCs responsibility to manage the back country for NEW ZEALANDERS. Not to change the rules to cater for an almost exlusively overseas clientelle.

    Helicopter culling by professionals and legitimate ground hunting may suffer in a backlash against such legalised redneckery, all at the expense of our wilderness experience and animal welfare.

    No other country allows their remote areas or animal populations to be abused in this way.
    Please consider extremely carefully the rammifications of what is proposed.

    Should this decision go ahead against the wishes of the majority, I hope to see a legal challenge to the underhanded manner with which this has been decided, and maybe even prosecution under our (ironically) now stronger animal cruelty laws.

    Your response is welcomed but not anticipated.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.