What are your views on using helicopters for hunting wild animals on public estates?

Is it legal in the states for outfitters to use helicopters to drop off a hunter at a particular position and use the helicopter to muster animals towards the hunter and tire the animal out?

Aside from whether it's legal or not, I'm also interested to learn whether you find this activity ethical or not.

Unfortunately the New Zealand Department of Conservation is pushing to legalise HELI-HUNTING in NZ, which will allow for this sort of aerial assault to take place on public land for chamois, tahr, and red stags.

In your opinion do you think SCI will recognise animals shot by SCI members using "heli-hunting" methods?

I always appreciate your game management views

Regards
Jamie Carle
http://www.mountainman.co.nz/articles/article/36

The following heli-hunting related youtube links may disturb you...
But this unfortunately illustrates NZ's utter lack of game management principles; total disregard for other public land users; and complete disrespect of wild (albeit non-native) animals in New Zealand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDMX4tQTy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vxr2EAZ5Og

Check out PART TWO of this link
http://www.alpinehunting.com/information/shane-quinn-alpine-hunting-i-62.html

I'm curious to know where some of you stand on the issue..

I am not aware of anyplace in the U.S. where it's legal to haze wildlife with the aid of an aircraft (or any other motorized vehicle). Alaska has a rule, I believe, that prohibits hunters from taking game the same day they fly when using aircraft to access remote areas.

Can't speak for SCI, but believe they already have restrictions on some activities (high fence enclosures), can't see them embracing aerial hazing.

Is it ethical sport hunting? I don't think so, but aerial shooting and hazing can be effective methods for controlling nuisance species.

Interesting rule that Alaska has for fly-in day.

Does this apply to all terrain such as heavily forested areas or typically open mountainous terrain (where flying in gives hunters the advantage of spotting animals on the way in)?

I'm not sure if heli-hunting can be argued as a form of population control (infact, in most cases it splits groups up and spreads them all over the place because their prime focus is a mature male). Heli-hunting targets trophy specimens and heli-hunters are therefor willing to pass up females in the process, educating them on ways to avoid aerial assaults..

Pest control generally targets females specimens to cost effectively control populations. IMO heli-hunting could almost have the opposite effect if they're constantly buzzing through groups of females to get to the male trophies...

But I do see your point, aerial culling can be an effective population control tool, however the scope of this activity serves quite a different purpose

Alaska's rule is statewide to preclude such activities as the one you describe or even the spotting of game through the air and landing nearby to put on a short stalk. Few here, if any, would consider such as sporting or ethical. Agree 100% that using aircraft of various types for reduction of nuisance species is occasionally called for and even Alaska sometimes allows for arial hunting of Wolves but an animal taken in this manner could not possibly provide the sense of awe and wonder and pride that taking a great animal in a more conventional manner of hunting provides.

No way It should be banned and made illegal. I would nver hunt from a helicopter as it is not even considered hunting.

CHANGE YOUR TITLE TO SLAUGHTERING FROM A HELICOPTER WITH BIG EGOS AND STUPIDITY and maybe you'll get the picture!!!

well put safariman

Call me a skeptic, but this type of talk, along with "disturbing" YouTube clips seems to be fishing for an anti-hunting viewpoint, hoping to get hunters to "agree" and "confirm" the unethicalness of "aerial assaults", "tiring animals out", "targeting trophy males", etc.

What's confusing though is the OP has a history of showing hunting pictures, etc.

I just disagree with the tone or angle the above post seems to be taking.

Check out his signature line, it may put your mind at ease a bit. Good thought though, and I'm glad you're vigilant.

That's why I posted my second note.

The wording certainly doesn't help us any, and that seeming disconnect with his history is what has me confused.

There are herd control, or cull hunts by helicopter, but no game hunts - and shouldn't be. I'm of the view that if you post your land, you should not be eligible for the permits to kill from the air either. Land owners do not own the game - one reason that high fencing should have a cost to the owner.

In skimming your website, it appears you stay involved in your passion. I was unaware of the 1080 flap, perhaps it's worthy of it's own thread. I have seen a couple other posters here from your part of the world, they might chip in as well?

We're good, I meant what I said about vigilance, if you see me as a sheep headed for the wolf - let me know!

Thanks for comments Coldbore and Mako25

Coldbore you have a fair point regarding my discourse being very emotive and very much against heli-hunting... Please forgive my passion and enthusiasm - it's an issue that strikes at the core for me and I do not want it legalised at all. In fact, I can't even believe NZ's let it get this far.. That's just my opinion, one of millions...

I guess from an international perspective, from someone outside looking in, I was curious to see whether overseas hunters viewed the issue with the same degree of passion (and detest)? And whether

a) you agreed with it; and/or
b) you would support it in terms of coming to NZ to use heli-hunting services

If it turns out that the majority of overseas hunters do wish to engage in heli-hunting on public land, then that would certainly add weight to the proposition. However my hunch was that more people would be anti heli-hunting.. and if that were the case, then the question begs what the hell are we doing it for??

Mako25 no wolf chasing sheep just yet - more like being shorn by the clippers!!

I agree totally - organised culls when animal numbers are high is completely justifiable. And if populations exceed a set threshold based on conservation values for that area etc, then a cull is necessary. But these culls are done by professionals, and not by paying Clients. And our govt refers to these as "management culls"

"Heli-hunting" on the other hand is purely for trophies and our New Zealand regulatory bodies are trying to dress heli-hunting up as legitimate form of "hunting"... as if it's part and parcel of the sport

I think you have it right.

Anybody who would display or even suggest that an animal killed by aerial means is a trophy, is not a hunter by my definition.

Once again the powers-that-be have it wrong, and normally you can trace their thought process back to $$$$.

Minus the helicopter, the scenary in your first photo is quite stunning by the way.

I'm firmly against it for anything that even remotely has the term "hunting" connected to it.

For a pure gov't sponsored (let THEM take the heat and answer the questions, not any group that the antis can hold against hunters) population control, or as a means to prevent disease spread, etc, I can see the point, but no way I can support it for any kind of "hunting".

I can understand your passion, just be careful on your choice of words and giving the antis free ammo to use in their propaganda.

SCI does not allow helicopter hunting since it violates their policy of fair chase. Recently a Virginia booking agency was charged by US F&G because some of his hunters allegedly used helicopters. My understanding is that bringing any big game trophy back into the US taken with a helicopter may result in charges from F&G. This is true even if the use of the helicopter was legal in the country hunted. I am told Russian hunts frequently use helicopters to allow guided hunters an easy shot. I would suppose using a helicopter to access a mountain in NZ & then hunting on foot would be legal. Several of my friends used this method to hunt Thar after being unsuccessful climbing mountains for several days. Despite using a helicopter to get to the top of the mountain one was unsuccessful, one shoot a Thar the first day, & the third took three days. I know the use of the helicopter added a lot of cost to the hunt. I don't think most American hunters would want to actually use a helicopter to shoot from, but a few will do anything to secure a good trophy. I do think predator control shooting from a helicopter would be a lot of fun. I have seen videos of shooters using helicopters to take hogs, coyotes, & wolves.

If they're gonna allow hunting from helicopters, they oughta legalize hunting from helicopters with Mike Dillon's mini-guns... in for a penny, in for a pound.

You can fly and shoot (we ain't talking commercial jets here) on the same day for deer in Alaska.

My buddy from Minn. guides over there for a few months each year (starting in March). He's done this for a few years and has offered me some very good deals to join him over there. His fee's would be waived and I would be able to hunt many of the animals on this particular property at no expense at all. But for the majors that are hunted over there, he states that the heli's are the only way his and other outfits approach such hunts. As one of the vids states, "we have 100% success rate". I suppose if that is the main focus of "hunting" the majors over there, then the heli hunts do that extremely well. Just not what a true hunt means to me nor something that I would consider. I may someday take him up on the "lesser" animals he speaks of, but those hunts involve spot and stalk.......on foot.

I have declined to hunt there, at this time, just due to the heli deal. I've explained my feelings to him and he understands. There doesn't seem to be a lack of interest by many others in doing so, however.

I've traveled Australia with my wife and would like to visit NZ as well. I expect that we'll do so within the next few years, but unless I can be assured of a hunt which is "fair chase", I'll just take in the view. It is really a beautiful country.

Now I'm sure that somebody will get all riled up and ask just what I feel "fair chase" really means, so I'll save you the attempt to make this more than you really need to. Suffice it to say that these vids do not exhibit what I would consider to be "fair chase".......IMHO.

For herd management and to reduce #'s of wolves where heli's or planes are the most reasonable, effective and efficient way to approach such reductions.......I'll all for it. But to pay to have a motorized vehicle of any kind locate, round-up, tire-out, and than place you in the most advantageous position for a shot at said animal.........the entire heli involvement seems to be lacking any and all of what many likely would consider to be fair chase attributes or criteria, at least for me they do.

YMMV............

Couple questions????
Are the animals you mentioned considered "Pests" in NZ?
Is there a "Season" for these animals?
Is there a "Limit" for these animals?
Is there a law that the meat from these animals must be salvaged?

I'm from Alaska. Alaska does shoot "Pests" from helicopters. Wolves are considered "Pests" in certain parts of the state.When they over populate, they are shot from a helicopter.
You can "fly and hunt the same day" for certain game animals in certain parts of the state. This is considered a meat hunt and not a trophy hunt.

I'm not much on "banning" anything. It may not be my preferred way of doing things, but that doesn't mean another person might thinks it's the cat's azz.

If the 4 questions you ask are for me, I can offer just the little bit I know, not having been there.

My buddy states that there are waaaaay too many pigs and kangeroo's/wallabies/whatever over there. He called them pests, so I suppose they are like PDogs and such. He made it sound like that type of hunting is an all year 'round thing, with no limits. But being a prviate property thing, it may be different......don't know.

Don't know about the wastage of meat laws in NZ concerning these "pests", but I've eaten kangs and pig, so it seems that it would be reasonable to do so there as well and then to give to those either in need or that want some as well.

As I said earlier, I'm also in favor of reducing pests/wolves/'yotes/whatever that needs thinning, but I don't consider heli "hunts" for Red Stag, Thar or other game animals to be in that same catagory.

WA state also does not allow you to fly and hunt in the same day......FWIW. Makes perfect sense to me.

I don't know of many in the US that would deem copter hunting or driving as fair chase sport hunting. Killing yes. Hunting, hell no. We already have a hell of an advantage with just our rifles, optics, rangefinders, and shotguns here. If we were to push for those options in the states, the anti's would probably make serious inroads into hunting in general. I'd not even suggest doing an exploratory survey on that issue in the US for fear of loosing ground.

I can tell you I'd be one pissed off puppy if I clawed my way to 10,000 feet one morning and a chopper roared over the rim and took out the animal I was after. A rock passing through their rotor would quite accurately convey my displeasures.

We can use aircraft for predator control and capture and transplant jobs. Even in those instances, folks try to be discrete.

I can't imagine SCI or B&C ever condoning such actions.

Your "regulatory bodies" don't have a clue what they are doing. Dropping someone off to hunt for several days would be one thing. Chasing an animal down and then shooting it IS NOT HUNTING BY ANY DEFINITION! If I were to see them doing it I would have a real problem resisting the urge to put a few bullet holes in the chooper.

Sounds like you have an good idea what the term "ethics" means.
Your "buddy" however is a piece of scum. Personally I would call him an "acquaintance" because every one has at least one acquaintance that they wish would just disappear. If they are always getting 100% "success" rate, then the best you can call what they are doing is "harvesting" not hunting.

Based on that--

I don't condone, endorse or like it. Just seems wrong. ALL wrong!!

I'm more against laws against any given form of hunting than I am against any given form of hunting.

Another disadvantage of non-native species--people (and government) tend to treat exotic species differently than native species.

In Colorado you cannot fly and hunt on the same day.



Casey

Its not hunting IT IS SLAUGHTER>against my values and ethics.

No....whether you agree or not, he will always be my friend. We spent time in the USMC at the same base in '69 in 'Nam. This doesn't warrant you looking at him any differently, but it does me. No offense intended to you and I appreciate your kind comments, but he is my friend.

As I said earlier, he has only guided for a short time there and he doesn't push me to do anything I don't want to. He likes to spend time with me and vice versa. He also guides in Idaho and Mt., but as we all know, the economy makes us look a bit harder and further for work these days. He is no exception.

Since it is legal in NZ at this time and it is part and parcel of the job, he's doing what he can to provide for him and his, of which there are several.

He knows where I stand and honors that, as I do your stance on this subject, but he is much more than an acquaintance to me. He is my friend and always will be.

Interesting point about F&G not recognising and in some cases, penalising a trophy hunters trophy should it be taken in a "NON fair chase" setting, as is the case when using helicopters to muster and manipulate a trophy hunt.

Would heli-hunting discourage you from visiting NZ to hunt for chamois or tahr on public land?

New Zealand has some of the best public land hunting available at absolutely no cost, but with heli-hunting now becoming a legit activity, I fear this may deter people. Your opinion's??

Cheers
MM

Personally I feel very strongly against using helicopters for even accessing an area, wait times are often meaningless. All that said an animal would still have some chance of escape even if pursued by a helicopter. A fenced animal has none yet SCI will gladly take your money and list your ranch killed game.As in most cases I suspect it is commercial hunting interests that are pushing for this lowering of the bar.
Just follow the money.

MM:
My above post was directed at you. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. Could you answer my questions?
Thanks.

I feel helicopters should be illegal for hunting.

MM, those are some amazing pics. the terrain is amazing. One of these decades I'm gonna make it down there.

Chasing down animals with machines will only lead to this and god knows what else down the road.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/mike-schoby/2007/09/remote-control-hunting

Hi BrnBear

1) These animals are exotic (non native), however there numbers are not in pest proportions. Particularly tahr and chamois, these animals are kept in contained numbers. Deer on the other hand can become a "pest" problem in some areas and risk spreading TB. However, chamois and tahr (which are the prime targets for heli-hunters) are no considered high risks for spreading TB.

2) There are no season's for deer, chamois, or tahr hunting in NZ. There is however a season for freshwater trout & salmon fishing, and a season for waterfowl shooting (they too are all introduced animals). To hunt in NZ you only need to obtain a FREE hunting permit each year, and it's simply a matter of filling in an online form and providing your firearms license no. It is incredibly under regulated in NZ

3) There are no bag limits for how many animals of what ever species you can or can't shoot. It is simply open slather. Some hunting lobbyists / recreational activist groups (like the NZ Big Game Council) are pushing for this to change, however due to the animals' being introduced, our green parties in government don't want to be involved in "managing" non-native animals. Despite tahr for instance prooving to be one of biggest hunting resources for New Zealand. Particularly given that NZ is the only place in the world where you can hunt them.

4) No law stipulating that meat is to be utilised for personal consumption or sold as domestic/ international product. There are however some operators that do sell deer meat to overseas markets like Germany who demand feral venison..

Shooting "pests" from helicopters is one thing, but for Clients to pay to shoot trophies is something completely different.

Copter "hunting" would certainly deter me from considering a potential area. First, I personally would not employ such methods, and if such activities disrupted my efforts, I'd be extremely angry.

About 5 years ago as we were folding up camp after a friend's successful pronghorn hunt, an ultralite type craft began working the country to scout for a pending bighorn hunt. Over about an hour and 15 minutes, he worked about 100 to 120 sqaure miles. Not a large area at all in our environment, but certainly a significant chunk if one's worked hard to get there and is hunting afoot. For the entire morning, every feral horse band and all pronghorn in sight were running around the country seeking escape. Any attempt at spot and stalk would have been futile. When we departed, about 1 hr after he had landed, things had still not settled down.

Some animals are almost oblivious to aircraft, Our moose and caribou will hardly even notice aircraft that land only yards away. Bighorn will flock up and seek cliff rock shelter. Our elk will clear out. Hence, our regulations against hunting on the day one is transported, hazing of wildlife, or transmitting game locations from above.

I've had several days of low flight work with copters, and in 2 hrs of flight, I could have taken bighorn, pronghorn, mule deer, mountain lion, bobcat, and coyote. All of those without even breaking a sweat or getting my boots dirty. A helicopter and a firearm make a wonderful killing combination. But the results of such an expedition would not hang on my walls proudly exhibited as trophies.

For population or animal damage control, fine. But let's not even attempt to label the take as a trophy.

It ain't hunting, but I would LOVE to smoke some pigs from a helicopter with an AR.

As a hunter from NZ I have been to the Alps where this "style" of "hunting" happens but I was lucky enough to have no choppers to deal with....It is some awesome country and it is reasonably easy to access a good area to hunt...then the climb starts...I would be Gutted to do the climb and have a chopper strole up and destroy my experiance
That simply is not what hunting is about and DOC must have thier head in the sand to think its OK. I have sent letters and submitted my view but was dishartened with their response to date. This style of hunting wont even help manage herds as who is going to pay the big $$ to shoot nannies
Gutted they are even looking at this at all...it is only going to end up in tears one day

I have to look harder and further for work these days too. Wouldn't excuse me doing certain things. And doesn't excuse what he is doing.

If you reread the original post it says that a NZ gov agencie is trying to legalize this practice. There is a huge difference between legal and "trying to legalize". For his families sake I hope he doesn't find out the difference the hard way.
If they are "trying to legalize" that tells me that even if it is "part and parcel" of the job it is still illegal at this time. If someone wanted me to do something that could land me in a jail cell the first answer is NO the second is "what part of the first answer are you too stupid to understand?" And yes there have been several instances where I was offered employment if I was willing to do something that would land me in jail if/when caught. Most recently by an old "friend" who was having problems with his exwife. I can sympothis with his reasons for wanting the company books done that way but it is a ticket to a jail cell if he or the bookkeeper got caught.

Again, not trying to change anyone's mind, but it seems obvious that it is legal (in the sense that it's not illegal) in NZ 'cuz there's just too many outfitters/hunters (so to speak), participating in such activities and so many videos advertising such.

Can't imagine that they'd be flaunting illegal activities so openly.........I surely don't have the answer. But if it is legal, then it changes only the fact that my friend or anyone else so involved is not acting illegally.........I still do not condone nor choose to participate in such practices.

I'm happy that you don't involve yourself in illegal practices as was offered you. I don't expect that many of us would, hopefully. But it seems that your only stated reasoning for not doing so was to avoid the possibility of jail time. I'm thinkin', like what I believe the intent of this thread was, that such decisions, whether guiding a heli hunt or cookin' someone's books for them, should be primarily based on more moral and ethical reasonings rather than the fact that we might be otherwise.....caught.

I surely don't reside in a glass house........I'm pretty sure that none of us do.

NZ is a strange country. The conservationists want to kill all the animals by dropping poison from the sky and the hunters argue for more restrictions.

Please note that this activity is currently illegal. Thats despite the fact thats it's common.

One point I would like to raise is isn't this going to devalue trophies taken from NZ?

e.g. You come to NZ and hunt the Kiwi way. On return to the states you show everyone your new 14 inch Tahr horns. The first question everyone has was what's it like to shoot out of a helicopter?

Also for those that don't see the harm in it please understand that this is being done on public land.

Imagine it happening in the states. Say your a keen Elk hunter who every year hunts the same bit of public land. You draw an Elk tag for this season and on opening day head to your spot. You spend the day trying to get close to the bull you know is in the area (because you have spent time and energy scouting the area on foot before the hunting season started).

There is a loud roar as a helicopter flys overhead, circles the valley, then hovers over the thicket that YOUR bull is hiding in. The copter chases it out of cover then chases the poor animal around for a while. The copter lands, a rotund overseas hunter with a shiny rifle and a full camo outfit gets out, shoot the bull, takes a photo, hooks the bull up to the helicopter and flys off. Next week you see the trophy Elk tack in the SCI magazine with a beaming overseas hunter holding it.

How would you feel? This is our reality.

Please bear in mind that local foot hunters can't fly where ever and whenever they like on public land like heli hunters can. We have designated flight paths, landing spots, limited numbers of landings, restricted seasons etc.

We are being discriminated against in out own country. The really sad thing is that we are doing it to ourselves.

Well said and I feel for you and others who fair hunt.

Times are changin', but not always for the better......

I wish you and others the best in regards to these heli hunt issues.

Chris112"



A good point. Such a practice could eliminate the need for guides and outfitters. One could leave work from the helipad and be back for lunch without taking off his tie. We'd only need the services of a skilled pilot.

I may be wrong, but I think there was a request from the international crowd to comment on this about 18 month ago. Didn't support it then either.

The legality is in question....Bit like tax law if they can find a loop hole they use it...

But some chopper outfits are a law in to themselves and have been braking the law by going in to no fly zones to recover animals for sale....Some are going through the courts after being vidioed doing it but they will probably get off due to quality of the video but the locals know who it is... A chopper was vidioed on private land (without permition) taking a bull that was eneterd in a hunting comp the next day....but withdrew it when the vidio was produced

They think they own the skies and because they can they think the rules are there to be bent and DOC have not been chasing down those that do break the current law.

For a brief historical overview of heli-hunting, go to http://www.kiwiopinion.com/

Someone mentioned the diff betw legalised and wanting to legalise.

My understanding is that our regulatory bodies have granted certain helicopter operators the go-ahead to heli-hunt under their existing wild animal recovery operations (WARO) concessions. WARO is typically the shooting & recovery of venison for export to overseas markets - but due to the nature of using aircraft for the activity, DOC thought that was the best concession process to tack heli-hunting as an acitivity to cover their a$$e$. So for some operators, the activity is legitimate according to Dept Of Conservation.

For the majority of other helicopter operators and hunting outfitters, they are pushing to legalise heli-hunting, which IF it's granted, will be sanctioned under a different concession (namely a heli-hunting concession). From then the temporary permits to heli-hunt which currently exist for a handful of WARO concessions holders will cease, and all applications will have to made under what is currently being developed as "specific heli-hunting concessions". If that makes sense?

Basically our regulatory bodies realised, "oh [bleep], some of these outfitters have been doing heli-hunting for years"... as it's been creating a huge public outcry (due to people making numerous complaints etc), and so now that the limelight is on the authorities to "FIX" it...

So they've decided to simply put a bandaid on it by making it legit for the biggest outfitters who rely heavily on the activity for $$business$$ in the interim, and are currrently working towards making the activity legitimate sometime in 2010 after various "public consultation" processes, which to date haven't got us very far at all.

SO instead of putting a halt entirely to the whole thing, they've said, "well, it's been happening (illegally) for years anyway, why not make it legit and turn this money making scheme into a legitimate (albeit unethical & unsafe) means of hunting. And then sell it as a sport / tourism related venture

Makes me sick

Like I said in one of my earlier posts I would have a real problem resisting the urge to put a few bullet holes in that chopper. Maybe send a few at the "hunter" as well.

In the field I work, an "ethics" violation will almost always end up with at least a termination of employment and in a majority of cases a possablity of jail time. Just the nature of the work. Tends to be a good reason to behave yourself.

I've always wanted to visit NZ for some hunting and fishing and finally rached a stage in life where it could be possible. If the helo thing becomes legit, I'll pass on a visit.

As my last post said......one's ethics and morals should guide them first, no matter whether a certain action is legal or not.

In other words, "behaving yourself", as you say, should have more to do with being guided by what one believes to be proper and fair rather than what criminal charges might be brought.

Most career fields will result in termination where a cookin' of the books adjudication is found. Whatever your career is, it's not unique to such consequences, so stating such is of no value and changes nothing. The point of my posts and this thread is not about the criminality of heli hunting(and if you've read all these posts, it doesn't seem to be a crime) as much as the unethical results and or feelings that it leaves in it's wake and how it adversely affects all sportsmen and also negatively impacts the publics point of view.

Again, it would be nice to know that most of us proceed through life while doing what we know is the right way to act, rather than just fearing the results should we involve ourselves in certain activities and then get caught, which seems to be your only real concern if you take your last few posts at face value. Your most recent offerings only concern themselves with legal consequences for one's actions.......not ethical or moral concerns, which was the intent of this thread.

If you now have or eventually might have children someday, they WILL eventually do something that YOU deem unethical. Since you seem to easily assign the name "scum" to people who act unethically in your point of view and then state that we should then only refer to them as "acquaintances" rather than friends (as friends and family share many of the same qualities), I expect that introducing your son and/or daughter to someone as "scum" or merely an "acquaintance" (if you truly embrace your own statements and beliefs) will be quite uncomfortable and disturbing, at best, for all involved. And if you deem friends and family as being so different as far as what's expected of them and how we should treat them should they act differently than what you deem appropriate, ethically speaking, I'd be curious as where you draw those distinctions and/or those differences, if any........? .

If you and/or any other family members, in fact, reside within the aformentioned "glass house", my congratulations on your being, at all times, ethical...........I can now better understand your position. I wish that I could say the same, but me and mine are resigned to living in a plain, 'ole Hardi Board dwelling.

It's a work in progress...........

Thanks for your comments guys, it's interesting to read your thoughts and views on heli-hunting!

For anyone attending the SCI Reno Convention this year, keep you eyes and ears peeled for people marketing "heli-hunting".

I'm under the impression that one of the New Zealand Dept of Conservation managers is flying over to the Convention to present the activity to SCI members who may wish to heli-hunt for tahr & chamois in NZ..

p.s. somewhere back in one of the previous posts on this thread, someone mentioned the number of kangaroo pests and that aerial control was required (again a diff issue to heli-hunting)... I think you may have New Zealand mistaken for Australia. NZ does not have any kangaroos. Australia does.

Cheers
Jamie