Poll - Support for Hunting in National Parks and Public Land

[maddog]

A quick, dirty, and unscientific poll to estimate the level of support for recreational hunting in National Parks amongst bushwalkers. Hopefully, votes will be from current members and not blow-ins on one side or the other.

[Hallu]

A protected land should by definition be protected from hunters unless hunting is now part of the ecosystem, as it is in many reserves in Europe after centuries of hunting. It's of course impossible in Australia with its 2 centuries of significant hunting only (the aboriginal hunting never had the same impact as in Europe, different densities of population).

I mean that's precisely why you create a national/state/regional park : to protect it from logging, hunting, mining, and so our children and children's children can enjoy it... And yet in Australia, all those 3 activities are permitted in many national parks. And if the British hadn't been stupid enough to introduce foxes, cats, goats, camels etc... there wouldn't even be a discussion : no hunting in parks, period. Hunters should hunt on private land, or in public hunting grounds, they should NEVER mix with bushwalkers, this is insane.

And when feral species are a problem and shooters can prevent it, just close the park and organize a massive hunt, with quad-bikes and helicopters, just as they did with the goats on the Galapagos... And don't tell me the Australian government doesn't have better means than the Equatorian government.

[frenchy_84]

Im sorry but i think this poll is pointless. Just like if you were to have the same question on a hunting forum... Gee I wonder what the result will be.

[maddog]

Im sorry but i think this poll is pointless. Just like if you were to have the same question on a hunting forum... Gee I wonder what the result will be.

I agree that there is no point in taking this, or yourself for that matter, too seriously. But why does it follow that if those interested in hunting forums are likely pro-hunting, that those interested in bushwalking forums are necessarily opposed to hunting?

Harmless entertainment surely.

Cheers

[frenchy_84]

But why does it follow that if those interested in hunting forums are likely pro-hunting, that those interested in bushwalking forums are necessarily opposed to hunting?

Because bushwalkers (with a few exceptions) are generally left wing. Every previous topic, whether it be forestry, mining, climate change etc. the general consensus is anti development pro environment.

[Hallu]

Well so far against all odds the "Yes, I support all recreational hunting" is winning lol. Has the poll been hacked or what ?

[maddog]

But why does it follow that if those interested in hunting forums are likely pro-hunting, that those interested in bushwalking forums are necessarily opposed to hunting?

Because bushwalkers (with a few exceptions) are generally left wing. Every previous topic, whether it be forestry, mining, climate change etc. the general consensus is anti development pro environment.

One might consider foresters the original conservationists, mining to underwrite our national wealth, AWG a crock..., environmentalism a check on developers, and trade unions and progressive politics essential to interests of the common man. But what does hunting have to do with any of these things?

Why not start a poll and find out?

Well so far against all odds the "Yes, I support all recreational hunting" is winning lol. Has the poll been hacked or what ?

It's looking grim.

Cheers

[Swampy460]

I am a "bushwalker" and a "hunter" , but I think there are enough places to hunt and not in national parks.

Swampy

[forest]

I am a "bushwalker" and a "hunter" , but I think there are enough places to hunt and not in national parks.

Swampy

Couldn't agree more, Well said +1

[walkinTas]

But why does it follow that if those interested in hunting forums are likely pro-hunting, that those interested in bushwalking forums are necessarily opposed to hunting?

Because bushwalkers (with a few exceptions) are generally left wing. Every previous topic, whether it be forestry, mining, climate change etc. the general consensus is anti development pro environment.

If you are truly pro environment then why would you not support the extermination of feral species from all National Parks? True, hunting and culling are two different things. What I don't support are laws designed to protect the population levels of feral animals - like the deer hunting season in Tasmania which is basically designed to maintain a population of feral deer. Why??? If recreation shooters can play a roll in the removal of feral species from a protected habitat, then why is that not a good thing?

[FatCanyoner]

What I don't support are laws designed to protect the population levels of feral animals - like the deer hunting season in Tasmania which is basically designed to maintain a population of feral deer.

This is exactly why so few people in NSW have any faith in the environmental arguments trotted out by the Shooters Party to support amateur hunting in National Parks. The people who now claim recreational shooters can help reduce ferals are the same people who have lobbied long and hard for hunting seasons / bag limits for feral animals like deer. They do not believe in eradicating pests, rather they are interested in making their sport sustainable, which requires feral animals to continue to survive and thrive. If you read the deer hunters association website they not only highlight that recent years have seen a growth in the number of deer populations, but that 'seeding' (i.e. hunters deliberately introducing game into new areas) has been a big part of this!

[walkinTas]

The practice of protecting game for an elite group of game hunters is an ancient European practice that has no roll in modern conservation management.

The simplest law would be to allow licensed shooters to shoot feral animals year round on any land where they have written permission from the land owner.

The only question then is, should the government, as the land owner, provide that permission for Park Lands and Reserves. My answer would be use licensed shooter if there is no better way to control or exterminate feral animals. If there is a better way, use it.

[ryantmalone]

Without quoting all this stuff to make me feel more knowledgeable about the issue (which I clearly am not!), like about how shooting whichever threatened but introduced species is bad for the environment, and especially politics, lets put this in a way that I think most people can understand it, whether they are shooters or not.

First things first... What Is A National Park?

By definition, a National Park is an area of land that is used for conservation purposes, and is also what is classed as a Category II protection area, which means that the area receives significant protection for its cultural or ecological value.

Due to the fact that most National Parks attract people who want to be able to enjoy these national parks, and what has been preserved for the public to see, learn, or experience, they should also be places where people are able to feel safe, and where certain practices that may put other people in danger, plus the species that inhabit the area in danger, such as hunting, are not allowed.

This is just my opinion, although I know there is much more to the story, such as pest control, culling of pest species, and so on, and not to mention, I don't hunt, however... talking specifically about National Parks, and those who want to enter National Parks for the purpose of being able to enjoy Hunting... this is a very big country, and there are many places where hunters can shoot game safely, without having to do it in our national parks, and shooting animals within areas that by definition should protect its resident species.

[Mutley]

Many hunters love the bush. Their off track navigational skills are as good as many seasoned bush walkers. Like us, they enjoy and care for the wilderness. But unfortunately, guns also attract people who couldn't give a stuff about pristine ecologies or endangered species.

The great people I meet on tracks are generally sensitive to natural environments. It's the mindset of bushwalking - in touch with your surroundings and in awe of natural beauty. Not motivated to cull mammals.

And that's the point. Hunters hunt. Bush walkers explore and experience. The crack of a rifle will destroy the wilderness experience as violently as a near miss through a hunters sights will stay with them forever.

The two recreational activities are simply not compatible. Feral animals are a serious issue. I would support a short hunting season in national parks, where licensed and club affiliated shooters can move through an area, culling feral animals. But during this period, the area must be closed to everyone else and the shooters should be guided by an experienced bush walker, to ensure native species are not targeted.

Maybe we can work together and share the resource.

[taswegian]

I cannot see how the two can coexist in such a public environment.
It's like saying call in the shooters at Lords or the MCG.
"We'll handle the crowds and the players, you concentrate on the seagulls."

There must be other ways of culling though I appreciate the bullet is a sure way to do it.
Just the wrong consequences that have been known to happen and then it's too late.

[wayno]

standard practice in nz is to allow hunters in the national parks, a lot of them are pretty big though, theres room enough for all most of the time, but there are a few fatalities every year, usually hunter shooting hunter.... but theres a lot of hunters out there