7 ms·

Im a kiwi in my late 20s. I spent much of my childhood and teenage years in the mountains and bush (jungles) of New Zealand hunting introduced mammals. I wouldn

Im a kiwi in my late 20s. I spent much of my childhood and teenage years in the mountains and bush (jungles) of New Zealand hunting introduced mammals. I wouldn't have spent so much time in the bush if there weren't these mammals to hunt. I'm not a yee-haw gun toting hillbilly, I'm an educated guy who, as a young man, got so much informal education from being in the mountains trying to stalk in on Deer, Tahr, Pigs (all introduced) that I could take home and eat. It taught me resourcefulness, physical discipline, patience and survival skills. Having now traveled the world and spent many years living outside of New Zealand I have come to realize what unique abilities these are and in what a unique way us Kiwis have them. My grandfather used to tell me how appreciated us Kiwis were in World War Two for exactly these reasons. There is nothing special in our water or our climate or anything like that. We just have an incredible resource that many young kiwis have traditionally engaged, often for the purposes of recreational hunting. There is a chunk of conservation advocates who hardly engage the New Zealand outdoors, like myself (and others), yet they have a say in how it is run. They live in cities and have an idealistic but impractical understanding of our resource. The outdoors and the animals within the outdoors are a concept to these people, not a part of their lives. Some mammals in New Zealand are an absolute resource and would be easy to control if we saw them as such. We wouldn't need state sponsored poisoning runs or organized culls of NZ's large mammals if youth were shown the educational value of going out and learning how to survive, be safe, be brave, in order to hunt a deer - and then how to not waste it. I really hope the larger mammals in New Zealand remain and are treated as a resource for NZ's ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find it in playing video games and driving cars fast on public roads. I see myself as a conservationist, I just don't see the need to wind back the clock 300 years. Lets control the large mammals and protect our unique environment: the two aren't mutually exclusive.

mcv 12y ago
According to the article, it's not really about large mammals (which are always easier to control), but about rats and similar small, uncontrollable pests. Whatever the case, it makes every kind of sense to focus preservation efforts in NZ on saving the truly unique birds, rather than the same mammals that occur everywhere in the world. Those unique birds are the truly unique resource that New Zealand has.
- cconcepts 12y ago
  Agreed, however, there are those that would have all mammals (including large ones) removed for the sake of NZ's ecological originality. Perhaps this is an "authentic" thing to do but I believe there is more at stake than original ecological authenticity. Protect the unique birds, definitely, but I haven't heard of large mammals posing a threat to birdlife in NZ except when populations get so out of hand that vegetation is being destroyed - a point we wouldn't reach with well managed large mammal initiatives.
gambiting 12y ago
I see what you are saying as similar to the "window breaking argument". Just because a bad activity produces a positive output, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the bad activity(so like in the example - just because city's glass makers have more work thanks to the vandals breaking down windows everywhere, doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to stop the vandals). >>ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find it in playing video games and driving cars fast on public roads. Come on now, real world is never as black and white as this. It's not like the only decisions in the world a young person can make are "hunting in the wild and learning to be brave" and "driving fast on public roads". I am very glad you had a great childhood - but I also feel like you are romanticizing your experiences and feeling like everyone should have the same ones because they were the only good ones in your opinion. That's called bigotry, no?
- cconcepts 12y ago
  I'm not against organized mammal control in NZ. I am against ridding the country of mammals completely. My statement was an attempt to show that I believe we have an incredible resource that is largely under-utilized for the benefits it offers people. Regarding your last point; it depends if you see spending time in the outdoors and breaking laws on public roads as ethically the same thing. Everyone doesn't need to have my experiences, but if I cant talk about the value of those personal experiences and recommend some of them without it being referred to as bigotry then I'm left wondering what the free sharing of ideas is for? Can I only share purely objective ideas? - Because, unfortunately, I don't have any of those.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Oh god no. I appreciate the ideas. My problem is that you categorized experiences into good ones(as in - the ones you had) and into bad ones(as in - the ones others are having). And driving fast on public roads is not the only point you made and I am not trying to defend illegal activities - and also one could argue that ethically hunting animals stands lower than speeding - but I am not trying to make such point so I will not defend it if you decide to discuss it. You also mentioned people spending their childhood playing games - what if I show you someone who thanks to THEIR experience with games went on to become a programmer, designer, artist - and is now a perfectly happy person? Is their life any less because they have not experienced hunting deer in the wilderness? I only mentioned bigotry, because this is what happens when someone says "I have experience X, therefore everyone should have experience X because I have had it and it is the best, instead of activities Y or Z which are clearly inferior to my experience X". I am not calling you a bigot - one comment on the internet is far too little to judge that.

mcv 12y ago

According to the article, it's not really about large mammals (which are always easier to control), but about rats and similar small, uncontrollable pests. Whatever the case, it makes every kind of sense to focus preservation efforts in NZ on saving the truly unique birds, rather than the same mammals that occur everywhere in the world. Those unique birds are the truly unique resource that New Zealand has.

cconcepts 12y ago
Agreed, however, there are those that would have all mammals (including large ones) removed for the sake of NZ's ecological originality. Perhaps this is an "authentic" thing to do but I believe there is more at stake than original ecological authenticity. Protect the unique birds, definitely, but I haven't heard of large mammals posing a threat to birdlife in NZ except when populations get so out of hand that vegetation is being destroyed - a point we wouldn't reach with well managed large mammal initiatives.

gambiting 12y ago

I see what you are saying as similar to the "window breaking argument". Just because a bad activity produces a positive output, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the bad activity(so like in the example - just because city's glass makers have more work thanks to the vandals breaking down windows everywhere, doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to stop the vandals). >>ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find it in playing video games and driving cars fast on public roads. Come on now, real world is never as black and white as this. It's not like the only decisions in the world a young person can make are "hunting in the wild and learning to be brave" and "driving fast on public roads". I am very glad you had a great childhood - but I also feel like you are romanticizing your experiences and feeling like everyone should have the same ones because they were the only good ones in your opinion. That's called bigotry, no?

cconcepts 12y ago
I'm not against organized mammal control in NZ. I am against ridding the country of mammals completely. My statement was an attempt to show that I believe we have an incredible resource that is largely under-utilized for the benefits it offers people. Regarding your last point; it depends if you see spending time in the outdoors and breaking laws on public roads as ethically the same thing. Everyone doesn't need to have my experiences, but if I cant talk about the value of those personal experiences and recommend some of them without it being referred to as bigotry then I'm left wondering what the free sharing of ideas is for? Can I only share purely objective ideas? - Because, unfortunately, I don't have any of those.
- gambiting 12y ago
  Oh god no. I appreciate the ideas. My problem is that you categorized experiences into good ones(as in - the ones you had) and into bad ones(as in - the ones others are having). And driving fast on public roads is not the only point you made and I am not trying to defend illegal activities - and also one could argue that ethically hunting animals stands lower than speeding - but I am not trying to make such point so I will not defend it if you decide to discuss it. You also mentioned people spending their childhood playing games - what if I show you someone who thanks to THEIR experience with games went on to become a programmer, designer, artist - and is now a perfectly happy person? Is their life any less because they have not experienced hunting deer in the wilderness? I only mentioned bigotry, because this is what happens when someone says "I have experience X, therefore everyone should have experience X because I have had it and it is the best, instead of activities Y or Z which are clearly inferior to my experience X". I am not calling you a bigot - one comment on the internet is far too little to judge that.