We might now be facing the biggest threat to our sport since the 70's/80's. ​In this era of Sage, we have gone in a big circle. We thought we were past the destructiveness and “if it hops it drops” mentality. By this I am referring to the chopper pilots cleaning out areas. The 70’s and 80’s were particularly bad for it, when Heli-hunting really took off and we were left with very little game to hunt. My father always said my generation of young fellas don’t know how lucky we are. The hunting opportunities that exist now compared to his day are much better. A vivid memory was an old tacky looking Fallow deer head hanging up in the garage when I was a wee fella. I asked him why its not in the house, and he said its cause its not a very good one. He’d shot it on the Albury range. This is the Albury Park herd, and a characteristic of these heads is their split palm. This one had a bit of length, little palms, and the split palm. They were never imported for trophies- just for a meat herd. He got that one mounted, as at that time in history, there wasn’t much better around. Meanwhile in the house there were a lot better heads from before the days of the choppers. It would have been demoralising to have grown up in that era. Hunters seemed to have less of a voice then- there wasn’t any backlash from hunters from what I’ve heard, but I may be wrong. Nowadays when the Tahr cull has been proposed there’s a huge backlash from the public- and that’s due to more hunters. Yes, there are more hunters around nowadays where a lot of people see that as a bad thing, but I think it has its positives. We have more of a voice, and politicians are more likely to listen to us because we make up more of the voting population. Groups like DoC will consider us more in issues because we make up a bigger proportion of outdoor users.
The early 2010’s saw us have a game animal council (GAC) formed. This was a huge break through as we now had a voice in parliamentary issues. Game animals were now being recognised as for what they are- a valuable resource, one that needs to be appropriately managed. In high numbers yes, they are a problem- but where there is a small, highly valued, and sustainable hunting resource it’s a win-win for everyone. Hunters get enjoyment out of the sport, which in turn brings economic growth to more remote areas creating jobs and bringing money to the regions (for example the West Coast with a small population). Overseas hunters bring in export revenue which in turn we can use to enhance our natural environment. Many political parties who are environmentally leaning struggle to explain how we can pay for all their policies- and the unfortunate truth is that money spent on enhancing the natural environment doesn’t bring a return on investment (that’s not entirely true as there’s tourism), however there isn’t a direct return. Eugenie Sage is very opinionated and has her own agenda on how her “ideal New Zealand” would look like. She wants no introduced species, New Zealand back to the way it was before anyone stepped foot on our shores. That’s not a realistic goal, we need a balance between environment and economy. Times have changed since then. Yes, we want to conserve native species that are apart of our identity, but we must be real about what we want to achieve.
I’ve got several friends who are hunters in North America, and a lot are asking me about the Tahr issue now. Saying they’ve heard about it, and what’s happening. Explaining the whole thing to them is plain embarrassing. North America has nothing like that, and all the game is managed very well. They find it hard to understand, and I do as well.
If the government gets another three years in power, that would be damaging for us. She’s keen to get rid of the trout, and all game animals. Its amazing how much influence one person in the wrong place can have. That’s why as hunters, we need to keep the foot to the throat. We can’t afford to lose our hard-earned resources all because of one politicians’ agenda. We need to keep fighting even if we think we’re losing. And from what the NZDA has been saying, the pressure is working. It might not get realized for a while, but that’s life. Ignorance makes it hard to get our point across, but I am of the opinion hunters have the more balanced viewpoint. We realize numbers need to be cut back, but we want a sustainable well managed population. None of us wants to be telling the next generation we don’t have the opportunities now than what we did have because we did nothing. So keep fighting. 

​Wallabies are becoming an increasingly destructive pest over the South Island of New Zealand; their range appears to be spreading at an alarming rate- it’s clear the current plan is not working. I remember seeing my first Wallaby up the creek behind the house. I was out there with my .22 shooting rabbits- now their everywhere. Good target practice, however they’re a bad agricultural and ecological pest. They compete with livestock for pasture, browse seedlings in forestry plantations and browse native bush. They can also cause erosion leaving bare ground. Forest and Bird claims “their like giant rabbits eating their way through native bush, reducing plant species by 57%”.  My family is on a farm in the foothills of South Canterbury, and I think the economic effects will be felt shortly.
New Zealand effectively has four sub species of Wallaby. The three other sub-species were introduced on Rangitoto and Rotorua. This will mainly focus on the Red-Necked Wallaby, which was introduced to South Canterbury in 1874. They can weigh up to 18 kg and eat six times more than a rabbit. The Otago Regional Council (ORC) states that a Wallaby makes up 0.33 of a stock unit (meaning it eats 33% of a mature sheep with twin lambs at foot). This makes it a serious pest, as imagine how many Wallabies a sheep station would have on it at any given time.
A male and two females were introduced near Waimate, South Canterbury. The numbers reportedly increased dramatically to the first world war. By World War Two, they had extended their range slightly further south to the Waitaki, and north to the Rangitata watershed. Just after the war, they realised numbers had exploded. Control was necessary. Wallabies were reportedly all the way down to the coast as well, and cullers from the wildlife branch of the Department of Internal Affairs “didn’t cope with the natural increase and had the undesirable effect of spreading them to a more extensive area” (Victoria University, 1967). A Wallaby Destruction Committee was eventually set up (a branch of the Rabbit Board) at Waimate. Extensive aerial poisoning followed up by shooting, reduced the population of 500,000-1,000,000 Wallabies on 1,886,000 acres to 1,000-2,000 individuals (Victoria University, 1967). That is a solid effort to reduce numbers. Since the Wallaby board was dis-banded, they have once again spread as the responsibility of control is left to the landowner. In our area, Environment Canterbury administers this. If a farm hasn’t been controlling numbers, ECan will force them to poison their land.
 History has shown that shooting on its own is not effective. For many landowners this is the only method of control, which clearly is not going to work. Its not as simple as dropping 1080, Pindone or Cyanide on the hills either. Forest and Bird claims 1080 takes only two weeks in warm moist conditions but can be up to months in dry or cold conditions. Farmers would go with the latter to avoid poisoning stock, meaning they might not be put back out on the hills for a year. Good luck telling the bank manager that! Not sure how they did it in the 60’s but they did well. Heli hunting has proven an effective method of control. Once a big dump of snow comes along, they’ll shoot a whole heap from the helicopter as their easy to spot. If it was so effective with deer (to many hunters’ disgust) why can’t it work with Wallabies? I can think there’s two issues with that. The first is a cost point of view. Many of us who fly into roar blocks and the like know all about helicopter charges, however the bigger stations seem to be able to afford it. Smaller hill country runs (one-man operations for example) can’t really afford it, as there’s a lack of cash. The second issue is it needs to be a team effort. If one farm does it and not the neighbours (which does happen) then the individuals from the neighbours will come back and we’ll be back to square one. They don’t appear to have a fast breeding rate (1 offspring per doe) however their ability to move around and spread their range seems to be the problem. All farmers in each area aren’t going to magically decide overnight their all going to band together and crack down on the numbers. This will need to come in from a higher level (i.e. local councils and government funding).  
​
Their natural containment range from ECan is from the Rangitata to the Waitaki. Their main objective is to prevent the spread of them outside this area. Sightings have been reported at Mt. Oxford in North Canterbury, Banks Peninsula and Lake Hawea, even down in Southland. It is thought hunters might be releasing them in these areas to hunt them, which I hope isn’t true. It is clear this current management plan isn’t working; we need to try something different. Government funding needs to be used, as leaving responsibility up to the landowner hasn’t worked.
Anyone who’s keen to shoot Wallabies on most properties are welcomed, provided their responsible and courteous. We often see them in scrubby gullies meaning you might encounter them at close range, hence why some use buck shot. Rifles are more versatile however, with the most popular being .223. I’ve been using a .17 HMR which works well. The smaller calibre also means I need to place my shot. Mainly a nocturnal animal, many have the most success night hunting them. I have seen them a lot on dawn and dusk, and I have shot the most this way. This is when you’ll see them shifting to and from feeding grounds. Walking through scrubby gullies all night isn’t most practical with a spotlight, and on our farm, I haven’t seen many either.
Where they defecate, no other animal will graze near that area for a given period. I can’t find any details on why, but I’m guessing its due to odour from their digestive tract. This is what makes them probably the worst agricultural pest. Where we are in South Canterbury also has Fallow deer, and this may drive the Fallow deer out, or create competition between the two. As we try look after the Fallow deer, this is another negative consequence. This creates further issues if we go back to the idea of poisoning. The poison will kill off deer as well (not that DoC cares about it on public land). Their worms are something else- if someone gut shoots one or you cut one open, it looks like a bunch of spaghetti coming out of them! This also makes them bad for being carriers of worms (nematodes), allowing more to complete their life cycle and end up in livestock. Some people seem to ask if I eat Wallabies- my answer usually is that I’m not that desperate for a feed, I’m not living in the great depression. If they still question why not, I’ll tell them about the worms. I don’t want to touch them!
Where we are situated in South Canterbury, we also have Fallow deer sharing the same area. It is most frustrating when chasing Fallow. Anyone who has hunted Fallow knows how flighty they are, and the need to be quiet. Wallabies typically will sit in a ridge, sit there and look at you. Scanning around for deer in the thick scrub, you’ll head down the gully then across the ridge to see what’s over the other side. Wallabies will sit there and look at you. They get to kicking distance and I usually look them in the eye and think “I could so smoke you right now”. They look back presumably laughing at me. The classic “thump” you always hear when their running away alerts everything else in the vicinity. Sometimes the deer won’t stick around, other times they’ll put their head up and you’ll freeze. They’ll then go back to feeding and you can stalk that little bit closer or take a shot.
Murphy’s Law works against me so often, and when I take the .17 HMR I don’t see near as many. I have countered this by taking the .17 HMR and going out like I’m hunting deer, and the Wallabies must think I’m after deer, until they get a nasty surprise! We’ve got a black huntaway whose got an energetic personality. When we’re mustering, a Wallaby will pop up out of the scrub and she’ll be off like Beauden Barrett after it. She’s never caught up with one, but she always comes back drooling and keen to do some work.
It is clear Wallabies need a different management approach, as the current one is not working, and Wallabies are spreading. It is desirable to act early, so we want to do something before they become a serious problem. Us hunters can assist with this. Particularly in the case of landowners, if we whack some Wallabies, they might give us a bit of mutton or shoot a deer if available. Humans are particularly good at teamwork, so let’s put it to use.
It is good there is some more government funding ($27 million) to go towards Wallaby control in Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Canterbury, and Otago. No-one benefits out of Wallabies (except for pest controllers) so the time to act is now before it becomes a much bigger problem. Especially after the COVID crisis, we can employ people in these kinds of jobs. It appears the government is looking at this, and I think its sensible as we can “kill two birds with one stone” so to speak. We are creating jobs, getting money going round the economy while we’re controlling pests. This should pay dividends further down the track when we have less pests competing for forages with livestock. 

​Back in March this year, the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation was in dire straits. The Wapiti ballot was cancelled, and a lot of successful applicants weren’t happy. And understandably- I know a lot of people who have tried for years to get a block and getting one this year is only to have the ballot cancelled. Fiordland is the pinnacle of NZ hunting- it requires every bit of mental and physical toughness, bush craft, skill, and experience to be successful. However, no-one could have predicted the outbreak of COVID-19 and the consequences. The Department of Conservation effectively put a stop to the ballot. The much bigger concern however was how to manage the herd- the foundation must remove 1,000 animals from the herd each year, as part of an agreement with the government. These are animals with not desirable heads and/or Wapiti/Red hybrids.  The wild venison market had collapsed, and the foundation was told it wasn’t likely to get going again until at least 2022. Then a pandemic showed up, throwing in a lot of uncertainty. In the meantime, they had to pay for 1,000 animals to be removed from the Wapiti area, and because there was no market, left on the ground with no opportunity to even break even with costs. The cost of killing a deer is $100-130 per animal, so 1,000 animals is $100k-$130k. It’s a huge cost for the foundation to cop. The new initiative is providing game meat to foodbanks, supplying more than 18,000 families around the country. It is in partnership with the game animal council and Department of Conservation. It will benefit families in need especially in the current circumstances, as well as providing jobs to meat workers. It will also be beneficial for our image- which has been under pressure in New Zealand over recent issues. This could be rolled out in other areas where high deer numbers are a problem and are causing damage to crops or eco-systems. The current circumstances seem a perfect time to have a crack at solving issues in our own backyard.