Your submission
Say why you don’t think much of AATH; tell them you are opposed to AATH in any form and write about any of the following points in YOUR OWN WORDS. Every submission helps.
- You already know that having your valley ‘buzzed’ by a low-flying aircraft frightens the heck out of the animals, making them MUCH harder for you to find
- Because you think it is cruel to chase animals around before shooting them
- Your love for the back country comes from the feeling of solitude, absence of traffic noise
- Sharing the company of like-minded friends, and is ruined by the operation of low-flying aircraft
- Scientists Parkes and Tustin (1989) estimate that about 2% of the tahr population are adult males with trophy horns of at least 12 inches, which equates to 200 of the 10,000 herd. AATH applicants don’t seem to accept this limitation, hence their expectations are unsustainable
- NZDA, like Forest & Bird and conservation boards believe that national parks and wilderness areas are firstly for the New Zealand public to enjoy, not for businesses to utilise
- Point out that DOC has not shown its ability in the past to control unlawful activity, so there is no confidence that they can now prevent these operations to herd animals or shoot from the air
- AATH is not a suitable activity in wilderness areas as it does not fit the definition for these areas as set out in the Conservation Management Strategies (CMSs)
- The increase of helicopter activity, irregular landings and low level flying negates the values associated with wilderness areas as stated in the CMSs
- AATH harms the international reputation of New Zealand and is seen as an unethical practice and is not condoned anywhere else in the world
- AATH causing resentment among tramping, climbing and fishing recreationalists, who seek a wilderness experience free from noise and disturbance
- DOC has no mandate to sell hunting rights on wilderness areas
- That heli-hunting or AATH or as it now known is inconsistent with the objectives of the Wild Animal Control Act (WAC) and threatens coordination of hunting measures under section 4, subsection 2 (a) & 2 (b)
-That the 2010-2011 seasons were sufficient to gather information and evaluate AATH as a management tool. AATH fails in this respect.
-The national parks and wilderness areas are high value and not suitable for further information gathering if the effectiveness of AATH as an animal control agent is in doubt the only responsible decision is to decline the applications
- The AATH/heli-hunter’s have taken 109 trophy animals from the wilderness areas and national parks and failed to maintain the required 5:1 male female cull ration taking only 391 females despite being given free rein to remove them as efficiently as possible.
- Recreational ground hunters have culled 845 animals in national parks and wilderness areas in the last 8 months compared to the low AATH tally of 391 animals. Recreational ground hunting is superior to AATH for animal control and needs to be supported. Recreational ground hunting is a valid alternative to AATH
- That removal of females in the wilderness areas by AATH operators did conflict and threaten coordinated hunting measures by impacting recreational ground hunting activity in the area
- AATH reinforces helicopter avoidance and encourages animal behaviour modification creating difficulties in animal control.
- AATH creates animal habitat modification forcing tahr off the open tussock and into the scrub impacting previously less browsed vegetation with its negative or unknown implications for previously unbrowsed vegetative health.
- AATH operators have not supplied information in the application addressing possible behaviour modification and its vegetative impact for consideration by the decision maker.
- Continual sub lethal AATH over flights are inferior to best practice ‘pulse control’ as previously used by DOC on search and destroy control operations
- Removal of animals by AATH operators does not in itself support a claimed conservation benefit if their removal could be achieved by other means consistent with section 4, subsection 2 (a) & 2 (b) of the Wild Animal Control Act (WAC).
- Unless the AATH hunters application provides supporting evidence describing AATH as consistent with the objectives of the WAC and does not threaten coordination of hunting measures under section 4, subsection 2 (a) & 2 (b) of the Wild Animal Control Act the decision maker must decline the application.
- If the decision maker declines the applications in the wilderness areas the current 2011 requirements for spider tracking and activity reporting must be continued for all AATH operators in all areas into 2012 to ensure compliance.
- The exclusive access gained by a select group of guides over the general public
- The loss of intrinsic values and natural quiet in the wilderness areas
- The widespread opposition to AATH from the general public. When the will of the people is counter to a law as interpreted by the Minister of Conservation it is the law that must change not the will of the people.
- AATH is not a long term sustainable hunting management tool
- The trophy hunting tourism markets primary customers do not wish to use AATH
