Bushwalk Australia

Our Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, wishes to impose a ban on the importation of the spoils of the ‘canned hunting’ of Lions, with fines of up to $170,000 (individual) and up to 10 years imprisonment for those caught. The Minister says:

It is cruel. It is barbaric. And this is something that I, along with many other Australians, feel very strongly about. We want this horrific practice to be a thing of the past.
The proposed new rules mean that if you go overseas and engage in the appalling act of canned hunting, you can forget about bringing your lion trophies back to Australia. You don't deserve the right to celebrate the slaughter of these amazing creatures.

Senator Leyonhjelm disagrees with the Environment Minister’s position on the issue, claiming that ‘canned hunting’ is not cruel and makes an important contribution to conservation. The Senator says:

There are many activities in which others participate of which we may disapprove. Smoking, game fishing, horse racing and motor sport, for example, all attract substantial criticism from sectors of society. In a free society we are entitled to make choices of which others do not approve. Unless we are inflicting harm on others, it is not legitimate to invoke the power of the government based on mere disapproval.

Whatever we might think of the practice, lions are not endangered by canned hunting. It is not cruel, and it is not a matter requiring government intervention.
Indeed, Hunt and his animal activist friends should be careful what they wish for. Future ministers may start clamping down on activities they choose to pursue. This will not be the last time there is an attempt to impose regulations because of something someone doesn't like.

So who is right?

And should we consider such an industry in Australia? Would people pay to shoot native species such as crocodiles, or to fish for great white sharks, etc., providing a valuable revenue source for domestic conservation projects? If we object to the hunting of native species as sport, would it be acceptable (assuming adequate safeguards were put in place) if hunters were to pay for the right to shoot feral species such as deer or pigs on public land with the income plowed back into conservation?

Many Thanks,

Maddog.

I dont like the idea of canned hunting one bit, to me that isnt hunting at all. (I'll admit i had to google it as i havent heard the term canned hunting before).

In terms of shooting natives here, again i dont support that either unless there is a genuine reason / need to do so.

Hunters in Australia already pay for the right to shoot deer on public land (state forests, crown land and within the ANP in Victoria) in the form of an additional 'permit' (game license) required to do so. This license is purchased off the DSE or whatever they call themselves this year.

Travis.

Unless those hunters can take the lion out with a single bullet to the brain, then I'd draw comparison to the livestock trade where a basic requirement is a humane kill. For some reason, I doubt those game hunters are that good with their shots.

Future ministers may start clamping down on activities they choose to pursue.

I agree. Ministers who stand up as fake environment ministers should be clamped down on. Australia is heading into laughing stock zone based on the environment performance of this government.

Regarding Lions as threatened species, it doesn't look good:

The total population of lions in Africa is currently estimated at about 34,000 animals, down by at least 50 percent from three decades ago. Those numbers, however, tell only part of the story. As Ashe pointed out during a press conference today, about 70 percent of the remaining lions—24,000 cats—live in just 10 "stronghold" regions in southern and eastern Africa. Lions in other regions, such as West Africa, have been almost completely wiped out.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ext ... rotection/

Canned or not, these creatures are at risk. We should be supporting the species as best we may. Perhaps feed them with fake environment ministers.

I think you would be surprised GPS, i would expect the vast majority of genuine hunters would be extremely proficient with their chosen firearm and capable of taking the animal as humanely as possible.

Travis.

Travis22 wrote:I think you would be surprised GPS, i would expect the vast majority of hunters would be extremely proficient with their chosen firearm and capable of taking the animal as humanely as possible.

Travis.

So maybe 60% are good enough to take them out with a single bullet to the brain? I doubt it, but even so, that leaves 40% of the animals in extended agony. Pfft.

Any killing of animals, in the name of sport, or recreation, is pathetic.........

The most humain bullet placement by a hunter is most often a chest shot through the heart & lungs. There are lots of factors that can change the placement but generally you dont just aim for the head.

An animal isnt a stationary object, a slight turn of the head at the instant the shot is made could easily result in a horrible slow and painful death to the aminal if its nose and jaw is hit instead thus again head / brain shots are not the best option.

I doubt there is a figure to quote but again im just saying there would be a much higher percentage of shooters out there capable of taking a humane shot. In terms of canned hunting especially as it basically sounds to me like shooting cows in a paddoc from a hide etc. ie. The conditions are all in the favor of the 'hunter'... (again i dont support it at all).

Travis.

So we have an Australian politician trying to make a ban on something that is legal in another country?
Ethics and morals aside is that something we can do legally from this side?
I eat meat and use leather and don't have an ethical or moral problem with killing animals, if I did I'd be a vegetarian. On the conservation side this "Canned hunting" doesn't deplete the wild population of lions. As to numbers it's habitat that ultimately controls numbers, more people means fewer lions and I guess most pedestrian Africans would welcome that.

MD - his just trying to ban the importation of the skins or 'trophies' from such 'hunts' back into Australia.

Travis.

G’day Travis (and others),

I suppose the suggestion is somewhat like what happens if you go scuba diving. You pay for a licence, that certifies your suitability for an activity, then when you do go for a dive, you pay a fee for a boat trip to the reef.

The WA government culled sharks after a spate of attacks. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not this was a good thing, it was also expensive. The NSW government has a pest control program in National Parks. While to date the results have been underwhelming, it has also come in at a considerable cost to the public.

Now in the case of great white sharks, it is important to remember they were culled anyway. Instead of killing these monsters at a cost to the public, if rights were sold at auction this cost would (all else being equal) mean the cull would pay for itself or better – all costs borne by the game fishers (i.e. the boat, gear, etc.) plus a trophy fee to the government set by the highest bidder. My guess is that sportsmen would be prepared to pay a tidy sum to secure such trophies, great white and crocodile both, much greater than any associated administrative costs. So long as harvest limits could be set at sustainable levels, it is unlikely much harm would be done.

But why stop there. Though I imagine some would be displeased at being asked to pay for what they are currently getting for free, say for example with hunting pigs or deer on public land, it would be interesting to know what such a licences would be worth if supply was restricted and sold at auction. Plus the inner glow of contributing to conservation. What price for antlers and venison?

After all – campers often pay a fee and the level of these is set by supply and demand.

Cheers,

Maddog.

double post removed

Travis22 wrote:I think you would be surprised GPS, i would expect the vast majority of genuine hunters would be extremely proficient with their chosen firearm and capable of taking the animal as humanely as possible.

I think when it's a 'recreational' activity, even 1% miss hit is too much. I'd be more tolerant when it's a life and death or for other necessities. If those hunters want to play hunting, then allow me to hunt them first. :/

Yes, fully understand that hunters would go for a chest shot. This then goes back to the earlier reference of the livestock trade and abattoir procedures. Instant death through a head shot for food is quite different to a painful death with haemo-pneumothorax for the 'fun of it'.

GPSGuided wrote:

Travis22 wrote:I think you would be surprised GPS, i would expect the vast majority of genuine hunters would be extremely proficient with their chosen firearm and capable of taking the animal as humanely as possible.

I think when it's a 'recreational' activity, even 1% miss hit is too much. I'd be more tolerant when it's a life and death or for other necessities. If those hunters want to play hunting, then allow me to hunt them first. :/

I recon a fair few of the folks into canned hunting would proabbly be up for and some might already ingage in human hunting too GPS.

Travis.

Travis22 wrote:I recon a fair few of the folks into canned hunting would proabbly be up for and some might already ingage in human hunting too GPS.

LOL!

GPSGuided wrote:Instant death through a head shot for food is quite different to a painful death with haemo-pneumothorax for the 'fun of it'.

Good point GPSGuided!

I suspect, Maddog, that you have already made up your mind on this and that you just wish to discuss the topic on here.

That being said, what evidence would make you change your mind about it?

I also notice you seem to be advocating a free market system once again.

maddog wrote:I suppose the suggestion is somewhat like what happens if you go scuba diving. You pay for a licence, that certifies your suitability for an activity, then when you do go for a dive, you pay a fee for a boat trip to the reef.

You don't 'pay for a licence'. You pay to be trained. If you don't reach a satisfactory standard with both knowledge and physical skills, you don't get certified. Just like driving a car,although at least with SCUBA you're less likely to kill/injure someone else if you stuff things up.

Now in the case of great white sharks, it is important to remember they were culled anyway. Instead of killing these monsters at a cost to the public...

They aren't 'monsters'. They are animals, living in their natural environment, doing what apex predators do: killing and eating when hungry. Given the number of human deaths and injuries from shark attacks compared with the number of sharks killed by humans both deliberately and accidentally, the sharks aren't even one millionth of the way to evening the numbers.

...if rights were sold at auction this cost would (all else being equal) mean the cull would pay for itself or better – all costs borne by the game fishers (i.e. the boat, gear, etc.) plus a trophy fee to the government set by the highest bidder. My guess is that sportsmen would be prepared to pay a tidy sum to secure such trophies, great white and crocodile both, much greater than any associated administrative costs. So long as harvest limits could be set at sustainable levels, it is unlikely much harm would be done.

I'd rather not debate the ethics of this, but for it to be sustainable you first have to know how many animals there are, how they affect the ecosystems of which they are a part, and how much reduction it will take to upset those ecosystems.
It's different with ferals, but these aren't ferals.

Just one comment on the philosophical side of it, however: 'sport' implies a fair and relatively equal contest. When one side is armed with high-tech instruments and weaponry and the other has nothing more than their natural attributes, when that second 'participant' does not chose to compete, and when losing for them means they die, it is hardly a fair or equal contest. If it was there would be far fewer hunters surviving their little recreational outings.
Please don't insult the rest of humanity by calling hunters 'sportsmen'. It is anything but sporting.

Totally agree NNW id never call hunting a sport or one a sportsman for hunting.

I guess some might view a sport within hunting, that being along the lines of who can hunt and take ie. biggest whatever it is they are hunting as the sport.

Travis.

Travis22 wrote:Totally agree NNW id never call hunting a sport or one a sportsman for hunting.

I guess some might view a sport within hunting, that being along the lines of who can hunt and take ie. biggest whatever it is they are hunting as the sport.

I would call hunting a sport, comparable to the skills used in orienteering/nordic combined, if they shoot harmless paintballs or Nerf gun projectiles. At most a red paint spot on a wild animal can count as one point. Bullets with the intent to kill, not in my books.

maddog wrote:Saltwater crocodile safari hunting could happen within a year in NT, says Nigel Scullion

Which will not be "Canned Hunting", so appears irrelevant to the thread.

Indiginous groups running crocodile hunting safaris using only "traditional hunting methods" could be interesting, should even the game up now that we have taught the crocs to get a feed from passing tourist boats. Might find more hunters are the hunted.

G’day Stry,

The idea of hunting licences for crocodiles was introduced in the OP.

G’day Swills,

Crocodile hunting safaris, as suggested by Nigel Scullion, would have the potential to provide an income to aboriginal communities and free them from dependence on government transfer payments or mining royalties. Mr Scullion asks - if it is ok to fish for flathead why not crocodiles? Crocs are, after all, a renewable resource and such safaris are likely to have a small carbon footprint.

As for your suggestion that traditional methods be employed. Do you recommend hempen rope to rock climbers in preference to synthetic types to provide a more authentic experience?

Cheers,

Maddog.

Those who don't hunt will never understand those who do
it's a huge divide for some reason

Moondog55 wrote:Those who don't hunt will never understand those who do
it's a huge divide for some reason

........................ Ivé found more so, the other way round.....

maddog wrote:Crocodile hunting safaris, as suggested by Nigel Scullion, would have the potential to provide an income to aboriginal communities and free them from dependence on government transfer payments or mining royalties.

Really? How many millions are people going to pay to shoot a croc? Are there even enough crocs out there to make any sort of significant dent on the government payments? I doubt it. And the mining royalties are negotiated between the communities and the mining companies, nothing to do with other income the people might make of their own endeavours.

What a load of hogwash.

It seems the bulk of the permits are actually For the aboriginal communities? If they want this and the croc numbers are there then why not?
No personal experience but I wouldn't underestimate the attraction of 'fishing' & significant income (with the same spin-off$ expected of any other park tourism)?

otoh. I suspect it will be Mining Plus Welfare Plus Canned Hunting and have zero personal interest in hunting, canned or free-range.

........Hogwash......... Good description for it Photohiker & I totally agree............................