The Timaru Herald

Interest groups square off over DOC plans to extensivel­y cull tahr

- Matthew Littlewood

A profession­al hunting group has claimed a proposed tahr cull will wipe out a multi-million-dollar tourism industry as battle lines are drawn over the Department of Conservati­on’s plans.

The plan has so far attracted the threat of legal action from both conservati­on and hunting sectors along with a petition – already signed by more than 32,000 people – from the New Zealand Thar Foundation (NZTF) calling for a halt and review.

Profession­al Hunting Guides Associatio­n president James Cagney said the tahr industry ‘‘directly and indirectly’’ employed more than 500 people in the South Island, and DOC’s plans would decimate an industry already heavily affected by Covid-19 with internatio­nal hunters making up about 95 per cent of their business.

‘‘Our concern is that by the time the borders reopen, a sustainabl­e hunting herd will be completely wiped out,’’ he said in reference to DOC wanting to reduce population­s ‘‘to as close to zero density as practicabl­e’’ over the next 12 months in the Aoraki/Mt Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini national parks.

‘‘We acknowledg­e that the tahr population has to be controlled, but we want a science-based rather than ideology-based approach.’’

The himalayan mountain goat, while sought after by hunters as a trophy animal, is known for eating and trampling native plants on conservati­on land and DOC’s plans have been welcomed by Forest and Bird, and the New Zealand Conservati­on Authority.

NZCA chairman Edward Ellison said the plan was consistent with the National Parks Act.

‘‘While the population of tahr in national parks is of a minor scale in terms of the overall exploding numbers, we feel it is necessary to carry out the eliminatio­n of tahr in these areas,’’ Ellison said.

‘‘Previous controls have left the bull tahr on national parks and we are pleased the current control plan changes this approach.’’

While the NZTF has queried the fact it had just two days to consult on the proposed programme before its final release on Wednesday, Ellison said all members of the tahr liaison group – which includes hunting interests – had been extensivel­y briefed.

‘‘DOC has repeatedly signalled its intent since 2018 that it intends to reduce tahr numbers back to their lowest possible densities, and the agreed number in the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan, and remove those tahr outside the agreed range.’’

Forest and Bird West Coast manager Nicky Snoyink said it supports the increased official effort, but a timeframe for when the limits will be met is unclear.

During the September to November period last year, DOC conducted an estimated 40 hours of control on national parks, with the goal to ‘‘remove all tahr except identifiab­le males’’ but plans to increase that to 110 hours in the next 12 months.

The plan also proposes an extra 140 hours of DOC helicopter control across South Island public conservati­on land.

The new plan, due to come into effect this week, remains in limbo because of a High Court challenge from the NZTF, who have argued the programme is too excessive.

The original control plan, which became operative in 1993, set a limit of 11,000 tahr on public conservati­on land.

According to DOC’s webpage, the tahr population on public conservati­on land was approximat­ely 34,500 in autumn 2019. While more than 14,000 tahr has been culled over the past year, there has since been another breeding season.

NZTF president Snow Hewetson claimed, however, the population could be closer to 20,000.

‘‘If that’s the case, then this cull programme is utterly excessive.’’

Hewetson said there was a precedent in the National Parks Act to allow an introduced species into national parks.

‘‘You see that with trout. Fish and Game help monitor that,’’ he said.

‘‘We would like to see a balance between environmen­t and recreation. Not this blanket wipe-out of the herd.’’

 ??  ?? Himalayan tahr cause considerab­le damage to native vegetation on conservati­on land.
Himalayan tahr cause considerab­le damage to native vegetation on conservati­on land.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand