ROD AND GUN Use Of Helicopters For Deer Recovery Poses Problems

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31627, 13 March 1968, Page 6

ROD AND GUN Use Of Helicopters For Deer Recovery Poses Problems

(Specially written for "The

Press" by

JAMES SIERS)

The recent controversy over the use of helicopters for venison recovery from the Tararua Range, north of Wellington, points to the growing tension between sportsmen and meat operators.

Though helicopter shooters may have a “clean” record with respect to firearms accidents, this does not mean they will continue to have one.

As was pointed out by the national secretary of the Deerstalkers’ Association, Mr I. D. Wright, so far helicopters have worked relatively remora areas not frequented by hampers and shooters. Although a spokesman for the Wellington company which plans to use the helicopter in the Tararuas says the work will be carried out when there are no shooters or hunters in the area, there is still a real danger of someone getting shot, because in the Tararuas there is always someone about. Possibly one reason why deerstalkers have accepted meat operators in the past without any great objection is the fact that the reduction of excessive numbers of game animals is a fundamental aspect of their policy.

Deerstalkers want a small number of high quality trophy animals. To have this, game densities must be kept low.

Trophy Beasts The constant and indiscriminate shooting of deer in the South Island high country, while reducing game populations to some extent, has also inevitably cropped some of the best trophy beasts as well.

In discussing the question of the use of helicopters in game meat recovery, various points should be considered. Is the prefit factor the most important consideration? Is it aesthetically acceptable to a growing body of the public who use the bush for recreational purposes tq have helicopters buzzing round, firing volleys at deer and then sky-lifting carcases? Could this mean that a growing lobby may press the departments concerned to close even greater ’ areas to the public?

At the root of this discussion is the question of basic philosophy concerning all aspects of outdoor use and management. New Zealand was one of the most fortunate countries with respect to the public being guaranteed certain rights to fish and game, but these rights are now being eroded through the commercialisation of fishing and shooting. While trout may not be owned and while the law in most cases provides fishermen with access to rivers and streams, there are some places which charge an access fee. The same has applied to the shooting of game birds on private properties which charge a fee for “amenities” supplied. Conflict Of Principle

Now that deer have a price tag on them, more and more farmers are charging shooters for the right to either cross or to hunt their land. There is a basic conflict of principle here.

If, as the law states, deer are vermin and belong to those who shoot them, then surely landowners should not charge tor having them shot off their properties and hide the fact under the cover of “amenities supplied.” Placing this type of value on fish and game can only land to a situation where gradually it will no longer be possible for the common New Zealander to fish and shoot; certainly the best trophies will go to those with the best bankbooks.

For the same reason, I am how having second thoughts about commercial trout farming. The Government is talking about creating a multimillion dollar export industry. The question being asked is where will the water, which will be the essential part of such trout farms, come from? Diversion races from rivers? How will this affect sport fish-

ing in the areas where these farms may be established. Draft regulations are being completed now but what sportsmen are asking is whether this does not pre-suppose the public acceptance of such farming; whether in fact, the Government intends to go ahead with the scheme regardless of the amount of opposition to it?