WHAT FUTURE FOR WILD TAHR IN NEW ZEALAND?

Forest and Bird, Volume 15, Issue 2, 1 May 1984, Page 6

WHAT FUTURE FOR WILD TAHR IN NEW ZEALAND?

National Conservation Officer

Gerry McSweeney

The liberation of introduced animals has created havoc amongst our native plants and animals. Strenuous efforts continue to keep our offshore islands free of many of these alien invaders. On the mainland, elimination of introduced animals is generally considered impossible and they are either controlled by poisons and hunting (rabbits, deer, possums) or regulated by natural factors (rats, stoats). The Himalayan tahr may be the exception. It may be possible to exterminate them in the wild with a concerted effort and a strong political will. The species would still survive. In addition to populations of tahr through its natural range in the Himalayas, tahr are wild in South Africa and Argentina and are also common in zoos and game parks where they breed well in captivity. Unlike the tahr, New Zealand’s alpine vegetation is unique to this country and deserves maximum protection from the devastating effects of this animal. On 18 August 1983, the Minister of Forests, Mr Elworthy, imposed a one year tahr commercial hunting ban. The ban followed determined pressure from the small group of hunters who still want to retain tahr herds to hunt. These hunters are also pressing hard for a recreational hunting area to be established for tahr in the mid-Southern Alps. The ban was alsa in response to Forest Service concerns that the decline in annual tahr commercial kill numbers to about 300-400 a year meant tahr extermination was a possibility. Forest Service now wants to study the distribution and density of tahr and considers that the ban may need to last even longer than one year. Our Society has expressed the following concerns about the commercial hunting ban. C) The ban will remove the only effective means of controlling tahr at no expense to the taxpayer. (1) The ban indicates a relaxation in Government and Forest Service

determination to control this highly damaging introduced animal. C) The ban applies to both Mt Cook and Westland National Parks and there has been no prior consultation with the appropriate Park Boards and the National Parks and Reserves Authority which control these Parks (as required under the National Parks Act 1980 and Wild Animal Control Act 1977). Although the Forest Service intends monitoring and if necessary introducing tahr control operations in Mt Cook National Park during the ban, no similar provision was made for the important Westland National Park. At its February 1984 meeting the National Parks and Reserves Authority expressed its concern that it had not been consulted prior to the imposition of the commercial hunting ban and endorsed our Society’s concerns about the effects of the ban on Westland National Park. This resulted recently in the Forest Service including Westland National Park within its monitoring and control operations. Our Society is working closely with deerstalkers on a range of issues throughout New Zealand. Most prominently, we are working together to safeguard natural and recreational values in the South Island’s pastoral lease lands. The preferred habitat of deer and chamois in forest and shrublands, comparitively inaccessible to helicopter hunting, means that these animals will always be available for the enjoyment of the recreational hunter and this is accepted in our Society’s 1980 Indigenous Forest Policy. However, in the case of the tahr are individual groups interests eclipsed by the national interest? Should the Himalayan tahr be allowed to remain in the vulnerable alpine regions of the Southern Alps or should every possible effort now be made to remove these animals from the wild?