Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[wearthefoxhat]

Quote "I'm curious about recreational hunting as it will happen, i don't know much about deer and gather that overall they are the desired target, the stuff of dreams, at the heart of wanting to hunt deep into park lands?"

They also taste great!

Quote "So.. these 'recreational' hunters chase deer as a trophy target which apparently, traditionally, results in very few suitable animals actually being found in any given season?"

We seldom get nothing and sometimes we will get up to 4 deer between 2 of us over a couple of days. we also take pigs and goats and rabbits for the table. The dogs get the bones and we never have a problem giving the skins away... Foxes dogs and cats stay where they are.

Quote "Surely, as a serious hunter, taking pot shots at any feral that moves (the best approach for any chance at 'feral management') wouldn't be the desired approach to getting that target would it?"

We don't take pot shots! but yes we will attempt to shoot any feral while stalking deer.

I am hoping my previous post covers your last questions... but as for the conservation hunter question. I would certainly consider that I have made a contribution to conservation if I shot any feral predator. I see deer as far less destructive perhaps that is why they are considered a game animal unless you are in Queensland where deer are now considered a pest. There is no public hunting in qld and the state has failed to keep them under control.

One million feral and game species were taken last year by R licence hunters on public and private land. From memory R licence holders are 14% of all recreational hunters so reasonable estimate of 7 million animals removed could be considered.
Many may argue that this doesn't have an effect on the feral population but we all know that they will never breed again full stop.

cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

Forgot to say I am looking forward to getting myself a winter fox with a thick coat so I can

WEARTHEFOXHAT.

[maddog]

Foxhat (and Nuts),

Though many have no fundamental objection to recreational hunting per se, there were many objections to the Shooters & Fishers Game-Council plan for recreational hunting within National Parks. These concerns were discussed at length within these pages, with core objections including:

1. That ad-hoc recreational hunting is not conservation, and
2. That the scheme would come at the cost of amenity (and perhaps the safety) of others, and
3. That the scheme would invite an influx of dangerous rogues into National Parks.

In regards to the first point, recreational hunting as conservation. It is population that matters in ecology and the fate of the individual is rarely important. This is widely accepted, is not at all controversial, and a principle that applies to pest control regardless of the control tool used (baiting, shooting, trapping, habitat destruction, etc). The centrality of populations to ecology applies to both the feral animal we are trying to control, and any species we are trying to protect. If there are relatively few pest animals (perhaps recently migrated to an area), it might be worth culling a few individuals (though they may be hard to find). Alternately if there exists a rare or threatened species that we are trying to protect, a small scale localised cull of a threatening feral species (e.g. foxes) may be of benefit. Otherwise, we need to cull large numbers to make any difference to conservation outcomes.

While the scheme proposed by the Shooters & Fisher's Game Council could only have been of benefit to conservation by sheer luck, it may well have actually had adverse consequences (such as pest species released from predation pressure), due to the ad hoc nature of the proposal. In contrast, the scheme announced by the Government will allow for the integration of volunteer hunters into properly designed and targeted pest control programs. Hunters involved may well make a genuine contribution to pest control and conservation outcomes. Those volunteers that chose to involve themselves in such programs will gain respect as recognition for their contribution.

In regards to amenity and safety, the scheme proposed by the Shooters & Fishers Game Council failed to address the concerns of other users. The response as it was, consisted of patronising and absurd platitudes (such as 'shooting is safer than volleyball'), denied the legitimacy of genuine public concern. The Government did not make the same mistake. After consulting with key stakeholders, the validity of public anxiety was recognised, and addressed sensibly. A simple solution, parks will be closed to other users when pest control operations involving recreational hunters are taking place. Problem fixed.

On the final core objection, that of the armed and dangerous rogue, the Shooters & Fishers offered the non-assurance of the 'R licence', administered by a discredited Game Council, succeeding in convincing but a few sceptics. The Government offered a real solution. All hunting conducted within national parks will be directly controlled, supervised and directed by NPWS themselves. Rogues need not apply, and those that do shall be quickly weeded out.

In the wash the winners are conservations, park employees, the general public and the hunter with a genuine interest in contributing to conservation. The losers are the Shooters & Fishers, who made promises they could not keep to suburban cowboys (and other rogues) who had hoped for a free run within National Parks, regardless of the cost to others.

Finally, who might chose to involve themselves in such a scheme? Public spirited individuals with a genuine interest in conservation, who are handy with a rifle, would be my guess. In the broader community, there are no lack of such selfless individuals willing to make a positive contribution to a good cause, so why would the shooting community be any different?

Cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

"1. That ad-hoc recreational hunting is not conservation,"
This point has been settled by the Dunn report as it acknowledges the positive contribution of R licence hunters to conservation.

"2. That the scheme would come at the cost of amenity (and perhaps the safety) of others,"
A genuine concern of course. Using the case study of the perfect safety record of the previous 7 to 8 years under the game council hunting I think that point is settled. Not to mention the last 40 years hunting in the Alpine National park.

3. "That the scheme would invite an influx of dangerous rogues into National Parks."
Dangerous rogues are already in the parks as the photo on the previous page confirms. The introduction of licenced hunters to parks IMO would reduce the occurrence of these rogues/poachers. Licenced hunters are legally obligated to report any illegal activity within the parks. Not to mention it is your civil obligation. Poachers now know that they don't have to worry about a licenced hunters dobbing them in because licenced hunters won't be in the park full stop.. And as a licenced hunter I don't want to share my quarry with poachers.

Common sense and track record don't come into consideration when it comes to being politically shafted..

[Tony]

Hi Foxhat,

Fortunately My Dunn does not believe in hunters fairy tails either.

Whilst it might appear self evident that removing any feral animal from a population is beneficial, some experts do not agree, stating this is an over simplification. The review was advised feral animal control programs can have a variety of goals including removing whole populations, or controlling breeding populations. Sport hunting however is generally quite random and selective in terms of its target (for example large trophy males) and in some instances has a goal of leaving some for next time. It is argued by some that because most of the hunting by Game Council licence holders is not done as part of a structured program the benefits in terms of reduced impact will be ad hoc, not measurable, and will not achieve the espoused goals and outcomes. Some go further and claim the Game Council is actively misleading in its attempts to justify the success of its program.

I would suggest if hunting was banned in NSW Sate Forest the feral animal population would drop.

I found the comments in the correspondence section interesting.

7 Correspondence
The review received the following correspondence:
1. Kim de Govrik, Chairperson, Parks Officers Vocational Branch of the Public Service Association.
 Raises concerns on behalf of several staff about the Game Council’s involvement in undermining NPWS trials.
 Raises concerns about safety of NPWS staff and a range of program administration issues about which detail had not yet been provided.
2. Andrew Cox, Chief Executive Officer, Invasive Species Council.
 Raises a range of concerns about effectiveness, hunter competence, culture, statutory functions, and government control.
3. Mick O’Flynn, National Parks and Wildlife Service
 Questions about licence agents and what constitutes adequate training.
4. Janice Franklin, (East Monaro Central South Coast Wild Dog Management Plan Group)
 Concern over relationship with Game Council and their actions in not supporting wild dog management.

Foxhat, I would be very interested in reading the research into proving that

The doomed surplus theory is flawed

could you please provide me with links to this information.

And also if hunting in Victorian National Parks is so successful why is the Deer population in Victoria rising.

Tony

[maddog]

"1. That ad-hoc recreational hunting is not conservation,"
This point has been settled by the Dunn report as it acknowledges the positive contribution of R licence hunters to conservation.

The Dunn report, as a 'Governance Review of the Game Council of NSW', did not digress at length into the merits (or otherwise) of ad hoc recreational hunting as conservation, as its focus was governance, so the point was not settled by the report. But it was commented that:

the Game Council claims it can assist in the control of feral animal populations and hence their impact, reduce costs to government, and make a contribution to a range of other social outcomes from reduced motor vehicle accidents, to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Whilst it might appear self evident that removing any feral animal from a population is beneficial, some experts do not agree, stating this is an over simplification. The review was advised feral animal control programs can have a variety of goals including removing whole populations, or controlling breeding populations. Sport hunting however is generally quite random and selective in terms of its target (for example large trophy males) and in some instances has a goal of leaving some for next time. It is argued by some that because most of the hunting by Game Council licence holders is not done as part of a structured program the benefits in terms of reduced impact will be ad hoc, not measurable, and will not achieve the espoused goals and outcomes. Some go further and claim the Game Council is actively misleading in its attempts to justify the success of its program...this debate is beyond the terms of reference of this review.

But the good news is recreational hunters will now be able to become involved in genuine pest control programs, and make a real difference to conservation outcomes. The programs will be structured, planned, controlled and the results properly measured by the NPWS or DPI. And most importantly (and this is very important), it is likely that the scheme (and the volunteers involved) will enjoy support from key stakeholders, and the public more generally, as it will not involve the discredited Game Council, and will not be at the expense of the safety and amenity of others.

Cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

"Fortunately My Dunn does not believe in hunters fairy tails either."

This is not I stress NOT Dunns opinion. He was simply quoting an opinion of others. A huge difference.

"I would suggest if hunting was banned in NSW Sate Forest the feral animal population would drop"

How So? If this was the case there would be no need for pest eradication. They would all have died out under your theory.

"And also if hunting in Victorian National Parks is so successful why is the Deer population in Victoria rising."

Simple fact is there is not enough hunting pressure to reduce the population. Deer reside on private property and other un-huntable state lands in Victoria. Off course the population will increase. As in NSW state measures to control ferals has failed.

"Foxhat, I would be very interested in reading the research into proving that the doomed surpluss theory is flawed.

I would have to search it out again but the reality is the evidence is all around you. Talk to people on the land. 1st hand stakeholders and ask them what happens if they don't remove a feral pest from their property.
It lives out its natural life killing and breeding more feral pests at a huge cost to the farmer emotionally and financially.

"If The Doomed Surplus Theory" had any credibility then it would be practiced nation wide.. IT ISN'T.. are you suggesting we should stop feral eradication? Just leave it to "the Doomed Surplus Theory" How well is that going to look in 5 few years?
I will tell you.. if the 5 wild dogs were still running around our property and left unchecked they could reservedly become 100 plus in 5 years.
they would spread out over new properties including National parks and generally kill and eat anything and everything on the way..

Do you still suggest the "DST" will reduce the number of feral dogs? perhaps... but their food supply would have run out first and only after they have ranged the whole country.

To suggest we should leave ferals unchecked is plainly irresponsible and naïve IMO..

What about the red deer in Qld? you can't hunt them on public land and their population is exploding with some moving into suburbs and lets consider the Rusa deer population in the Illawarra area also the rusa population in the Port Maquarie district which is also on the increase.. Perhaps you should remind them of the doomed surplus theory and they will magically disappear?

Please show me how we can practically apply the "Doomed Surplus Theory" to our feral problem in NSW. If you can you will save the country billions of dollars and and a whole lot of grief..

[wearthefoxhat]

Whilst it might appear self evident that removing any feral animal from a population is beneficial, some experts do not agree, stating this is an over simplification. The review was advised feral animal control programs can have a variety of goals including removing whole populations, or controlling breeding populations. Sport hunting however is generally quite random and selective in terms of its target (for example large trophy males) and in some instances has a goal of leaving some for next time. It is argued by some that because most of the hunting by Game Council licence holders is not done as part of a structured program the benefits in terms of reduced impact will be ad hoc, not measurable, and will not achieve the espoused goals and outcomes. Some go further and claim the Game Council is actively misleading in its attempts to justify the success of its program...this debate is beyond the terms of reference of this review.[/i]


"Some experts do not agree" " it is argued by some" "some go further" Again these are not the Dunn enquiry opinions just acknowledgement that unknown supposed experts have an opinion but acknowledge these opinions are obviously still up for debate.

[photohiker]

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Jp_ ... &q&f=false

Seems to describe it well. Just indiscriminate killing of feral animals without an overall plan doesn't sound like the answer to feral animal control. For instance, for effective control, it appears to matter how many, what sex, and from which herd/pack animals are removed from by hunting.

Sustained shooting of foxes on a single property may well have a beneficial effect for that property whilst having virtually nil effect on the general fox population. This is not the same issue as an attempt to understand and control the feral population in the landscape as a whole and is at best a diversion for this discussion which is about hunting in National Parks.

With the demise of the Game Council and the advent of what looks like a real plan, hopefully we will now move into managed control.

[wearthefoxhat]

Tony... Some information you asked for about "TDS"
Our anti hunting friends at the Animal Liberation Front agree with me on this theory only being relevant when land is at maximum carrying capacity. Australia for the most part is a long way from that stage thankfully.
It is glaringly obvious the "DST" has no relevance to our debate..

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Pr ... lation.htm

must do some work now..

[wearthefoxhat]

I will quickly add that this report discredits the UTS university lecturers audio posted earlier. The lecturer obviously has another agenda as he didn't supply all the facts. Why? Anti hunter perhaps?

[colinm]

Objective reality has a well-known anti-hunter bias.

[maddog]

Foxhat,

The 'doomed surplus' hypothesis was introduced by the ecologist Paul Errington in 1946. It has been much debated, and ironically was enthusiastically embraced by hunters who felt it excused the hunting of native animals. Though the hypothesis has its limitations, it certainly not discredited, and it has been affirmed in some studies. For example:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

However, it is also widely acknowledged that there are other factors that may complicate population dynamics and the potential for maximum population growth (such as territory, natural disaster, drought or disease). While at times feral species, in some areas, have reached the carrying capacity of the land (eg rabbits), the impact of population management actions (both in relation to the preservation of threatened species or the culling of feral pests), is the issue. The centrality of populations (rather than individuals) to modern ecological thought, is evidenced in the so called '7 part test':

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 9/s5a.html

As it is recognised that many feral species are able to reproduce quickly, if we are to successfully deal with them we will be required to cull very large numbers to reduce populations in any meaningful way. While the actual numbers will depend on the circumstances, Jim Hone provided the figures relied upon by the ISC:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

The ad hoc nature of the Shooters & Fisher's Game Council scheme provided limited (if any) potential to impact overall populations, or to contribute in a meaningful way to population control. Nor was it possible to direct hunters to target specific local problems. In addition, the possibility that even well meaning recreational hunters would target the wrong feral species, releasing other feral (or native) populations from predation pressures and causing perverse conservation outcomes was a real risk. An example would be the culling of wild dogs that were not threatening stock or native populations, but were actively suppressing fox populations:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false

The Government's plan allows volunteer hunters to be integrated into genuine pest control programs, and for hunters to be directed to target specific local problems. Hunters with a genuine interest in conservation will be pleased, rogues that had been hoping for a free range of National Parks will not.

Cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

The first example shows obviously that foxes were not eating rats as their population didn't change with or with out foxes. The foxes were obviously eating other easier prey like lambs, and other native invertebrates. That study has some serious holes in it.
Also I seriously disagree with hunters using the DS theory. It is wrong as the animal liberation front have outlined.
If this is what the ISC have based there assumptions on it is very thin bordering on nil value. In fact the more we look into the ISC the more interesting it gets.. I can see why they wouldn't answer my questions..

"if we are to successfully deal with them we will be required to cull very large numbers to reduce populations in any meaningful way."

I agree large numbers will need to be killed to reduce the population but disagree that rec hunters don't play a part. remembering rec hunters also hunt on private land. My friend just shot 4 pigs while hunting deer on a crop and beef farm in the New England area.
Pigs haven't been seen in this area for nearly 3 years. This was very meaningful to the property owner. Its not all about having to wipe out thousands at a time. These pigs will never breed or kill lambs or wreck crops. Meaningful in my book. Meaningful to the farmer and a contribution to that environment.


"An example would be the culling of wild dogs that were not threatening stock or native populations, but were actively suppressing fox populations:"

Perhaps a little mischievous there mate. The study you supplied was relative to dingoes not wild dogs or feral dogs as we would refer to them in the bush. Perhaps you don't know the difference? Wild dogs are incredibly destructive to livestock often killing for the sake of it. Dingoes will usually kill to eat and it seems have assimilated quite well in the 3500 years since they have been introduced.
Wild dogs on the other hand need to be killed as they are the apex predator..
Try telling these farmers about the "Doomed Surplus Theory" also these wild dogs come from the nsw state forest and NPS Surprise surprise. This is becoming more prevalent across NSW farming communities as the relevant park authorities fail or refuse their duty of care to control ferals

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/0 ... =newcastle

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

[maddog]

Foxhat,

The first study was introduced only as a recent example of the application of the 'doomed-surplus' hypothesis, in which the researcher clearly thought it applicable:

the general lack of response by rat populations to fox removal supported the doomed surplus hypothesis, that fox predation operated as a compensatory source of mortality rather than an additive one. Consequently, there was no measured benefit to native rat populations of intensive short-term fox control.

If one form of predation is successful in demonstrating the validity of the hypothesis, it is reasonable to suppose it may apply to other forms of predation in similar circumstances (and hunting is a form of predation). The doomed-surplus hypothesis does not explain everything, but nor does it explain nothing.

In regards to the use of Jim Hone's figures, the ISC correctly described the estimates in their material, and referenced them.

In regards to wild dogs, not at all mischievous. As the authors state, they do not distinguish between pure dingos, hybrids, or feral dogs in their study. This is quite a common practice for two reasons. The first is largely pragmatic, due to problems with reliable field identification (particularly with hybrids). The second is that both:

dingos / wild-dogs appear to have positive effects on the conservation of native animals

The benefit is explained in terms of the mesopredator release hypothesis (MHR). That is, if we eliminate the apex predator (eg the wild-dog) we can explain the decline of smaller animals (eg the rock wallaby) targeted by mesopredators (eg the fox). The dynamics are explained thus:

the fundamental criterion for a prey species to benefit from the presence of a larger predator is that the prey species' intrinsic rate of increase should exceed the sum of the per capita rate of predation by both the large predator and the mesopredator. This criterion is likely to be met if the prey species is more vulnerable to predation by the mesopredator, and the top predator limits the per capita rate of killings...In simple terms, this is the familiar concept that my enemy's enemy is my friend'

It is also worth pointing out that while wild-dogs have the potential to benefit native species, they also have the potential to become agricultural pests. And the pure dingo has quite a reputation as an agricultural pest.

And in regards to your suggestion that volunteer hunters have no place in conservation, I disagree. I am positively enthused at the prospect of volunteer recreational hunters assisting the NPWS in the control of feral species, given the sensible controls put in place by the Government.

Cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

Tony said "I would suggest if hunting was banned in NSW Sate Forest the feral animal population would drop."

Maddog said "dingos / wild-dogs appear to have positive effects on the conservation of native animals"
And what about our farm animals maddog?


How is the Doomed surplus theory work for these poor farm animals?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB0jNiELlyk

How has it worked for this young calf?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMZZTOIIJU4

This doomed surplus theory is wearing pretty thin. Tony you suggest not to kill these wild dogs? leave them alone and their numbers will reduce? This is the ISC mantra. Next thing they will be suggesting that we sterilize all the ferals to take care of the problem

"And in regards to your suggestion that volunteer hunters have no place in conservation, I disagree. "
I did not say this. I was quoting a point you made in an earlier post..

[wearthefoxhat]

Ok fellas inc Tony who said "I would suggest if hunting was banned in NSW Sate Forest the feral animal population would drop.

Just curious at what point does the Doomed surplus theory kick in? A serious question?

An overview of the feral problem in NSW..

Impacts of Feral Animals

• According to the report “Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia, 2004” (Pest Animal Control CRC), the cost impact nationally of 11 feral animal species totalled $720 million per year.
• Rabbits, foxes, feral pigs and feral cats were shown to inflict about 83% of the cost impact on the Australian economy.
• Australia accounts for about one third of the world’s mammal species that have become extinct in modern times.

• More than 95% of New South Wales is inhabited by some species of wild or feral animal. Left unmanaged, feral animals can adversley affect the environment and agricultural production.

NSW Agriculture studies recommend hunting can be appropriately incorporated into pest control plans. In NSW and adjoining states, there are more than 250,000 licensed hunters.
Foxes

• The fox population in Australia is estimated at 7.2 million. It is estimated this population consumes 190 million birds every year.

• The fox is threatening the survival of many Australian mammals and birds including the Western Quoll, Greater Bilby, Black-footed Rock Wallaby and Long-footed Potoroo.

• A female fox can produce more than 20 cubs over an average lifetime of four years, with cubs beginning to eat prey from four weeks of age.

When you consider that this massive fox population consumes an average of 190 million native birds each year, building on current control efforts using licensed hunters in a more organised manner will help turn around negative environmental impacts in the long term. It is estimated that shooters already account for 13% of fox control actions in NSW.
Feral Pigs

• The feral pig population is estimated at about 23 million in Australia and they destroy the vegetation that prevents erosion and provides food and nesting sites for native wildlife.

• In some areas feral pigs kill and eat 40% of newborn lambs.

• Feral pigs can have up to two litters every 12-15 months and they can produce 10 piglets in each litter.

About 22 per cent of feral pig control initiatives undertaken in agricultural areas involve conservation hunters. A further 8 per cent involve commercial hunters.

One study has estimated that private hunting delivers over $3.5million in savings to landholders affected by feral pigs.
Feral Goats

• Feral goats damage vegetation, soils and native fauna in the large areas of pastoral land that are overgrazed and populations can increase by 75% annually.

• Australia has an estimated 2.6 million feral goats.

In South Australia, under a conservation program called “Operation Bounceback”, hunters have culled more than 25,000 wild goats from the Flinders Ranges since 1992.

In Victoria, a successful trial by Parks Victoria and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia resulted in a 25% reduction of the feral goat population in the southern part of a 633,000 ha public land area.
Feral Cats

• There are an estimated 18 million feral cats in Australia.

• 19 species of endangered mammals are under threat from feral cats, including the Rufous Hare-wallaby, Greater Bilby, Eastern Barred Bandicoot and Little Tern.

• Feral cats generally eat small mammals, but can also eat birds, reptiles and insects.

REFERENCES:

feral.org.au

"Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia, 2004" (McLeod)

Tisdell, C.A. (1982)

NSW Agriculture Pest Animal Survey 2002, Peter West a& Glen Saunders

[wearthefoxhat]

Now this is interesting from the Invasive species council themselves..The very same group that promote the Doomed Surplus theory as a reason that recreational hunting has no positive impact.

How did the Doomed Surplus Theory work out for these now extinct 19 rodents and marsupials..? Anyone feel like they have been duped yet..

http://www.invasives.org.au/page.php?na ... andingpage

> Our work > Feral animals

Feral Animals

Feral animals have wreaked massive environmental damage on Australia’s unique mammal population.

Of the 21 completely extinct marsupials and rodents in Australia, the red fox and cat have most probably contributed to the extinction of all but two.

Foxes and cats are also blamed for the loss from the mainland of another nine species that survive on islands, sometimes precariously.

[wearthefoxhat]

And another little gem from the ISC...

quote: "The NSW and Victorian governments have been funding recreational hunting and opening access to public lands on the basis that hunters can control feral animals."
Not quite the truth is it. Rec hunters have never said they could control feral animals. They have always said they could contribute to control. A mighty big gap right there..

And this..

Quote :"Funding recreational hunting as a primary method of control is a waste of taxpayers’ money."
where did rec hunters ever claim they wanted to take primary control? another little fib..

There is also the risk that opening up public lands to hunting creates an incentive for maverick hunters to shift feral animals into new areas – as has occurred particularly with pigs and deer.

OK ..where was this? speculation perhaps?

And this.."We are still waiting to see how this unfolds to determine if hunters in NSW continue to undermine effective feral animal control.

" Undermine" where? How do you undermine a problem that is already out of control. The only ones undermining feral control are the state departments themselves through lack of action and ignoring landholders as the video about feral dogs explains..

Does anyone know who pays this group? its not a government dept!

[wearthefoxhat]

You can trust National parks to do the right thing re pest control... maybe not!

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/articl ... -news.html

[wearthefoxhat]

When all else fails...use 1080..... personally I would rather take a bullet if I had a choice..

Please don't watch if you can't take a dose of reality..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yJSvAe8SXw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlC3yLShuRI

They use 1080 in NP's don't they?

[wearthefoxhat]

Tony said "I would suggest if hunting was banned in NSW Sate Forest the feral animal population would drop.


Tony... Maddog the photo attached is more proof that the "doomed surplus theory" has no relevance to this debate. More proof that the Invasive species council really have no idea about the real world control of ferals. I am sincerely worried for people who take this group as gospel. They have been mislead.
I would love for them to apply their theory to this mob of pigs and better yet explain to the farmer how the DST will reduce his pig problem... Or more to the point explain to the farmer why the DST hasn't worked...How much more evidence do you want?

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f8/an ... 099546.jpg

The credibility of the ISC is destroyed IMO. Why would we believe anything they say?

[colinm]

the photo attached is more proof that the "doomed surplus theory" has no relevance to this debate

It's not proof, it's not even evidence, it's anecdote. About all it proves is there are a lot of pigs in that paddock. The farmer ought to shoot them ASAP, I reckon.

I would love for them to apply their theory to this mob of pigs and better yet explain to the farmer how the DST will reduce his pig problem... Or more to the point explain to the farmer why the DST hasn't worked...How much more evidence do you want?

After the farmer has shot all those pigs, over time more will move in from adjacent areas to fill the niche left by their eradication. IIUC, The DST suggests that even if you shot everything you could, there would still be enough breeding stock to ensure that there are more pigs to replace the ones you shot. I don't see how you can disprove that by demonstrating that there are pigs somewhere.

I must be a bit autistic, because I'm not getting how this photo advances any theory more complex than "there's a hell of a lot of pork right there!"

[wearthefoxhat]

You have failed to grasp the logic behind the DST theory.
The original DST theory is that the population of animals will self regulate when it reaches a maximum population. The given land area will not support more of that animal. The die back become "the doomed Surplus" The study was by Errington in the 30s using Native Quail.

The DST is quoted by some as we have seen above to be an effective control. I refer to Tony's comment earlier who implied stop hunting ferals and the population will reduce..
The photo proves that this is very much a misconception. If left unchecked feral populations increase which is evident everywhere. Pigs will displace stock and natives quickly as will dogs and foxes etc.
Obviously the DST will apply to the pigs population eventually but they would have eaten everything including sheep and native animals. It would be a waste land. The DST has no relevance to effective feral control in Australia.. especially concerning pigs and feral dogs.
Using your DST example...
We have shot 5 dogs on our property and surrounds earlier this year. They have not been replaced. The only dogs we have seen on this property in 4.5 years
We shot 7 foxes between 2009 and 2011. There has not been another fox sighting since. We would know if they are around because they go straight to the chook house. DST has broken down
But recreational hunting doesn't work apparently according to the so called experts and promoters of the DST..


Interesting that we agree that shooting is a way of reducing these numbers. this has been my argument all along yet I am being consistently told hunting feral animals doesn't work..

Done for now

[photohiker]

Yawn.

There is a difference between shooting out the local population of a sparse species on a domestic farm and indiscriminate piecemeal shooting of a small number of individuals from a much larger population spread over a wide area of native bushland.

[Nuts]

I can relate to your 'enjoyment' of hunting foxy.. if that is the word. Can't say i ever 'enjoyed' killing things, perhaps the first years I started shooting 13/14 yo.. After that it was just a fact I guess, living on a farm. Cheap food trotting or hopping around, a decent price for fox pelts, feral cats and dogs passing through.

I'm sure some people here knew about population ecology before this topic, before recreational hunting proposals. Really though, just using imagination without references, I suspect that the bulk of bushwalkers are worried about their own carcasses more than doomed species. Also, while there are likely a number of responsible hunters around, by the same token I can't imagine that feral management is any sort of driving agenda for the average hack...

If you remove 1000 feral animals from a park one year they may very well be back (albeit in different ratios) the next year.. the impact of changing species may in fact be negative as far as the total even if numbers are slightly less.. (ie I can't see how anyone could only guess given the survey references iv'e seen so far- too complex for modelling or conjecture, the effect can't be known for sure as it would be very much situational) Even if not, if there would be fewer ferals thanks to hunters, i'd say environmental factors probably play the far bigger/broader role in keeping numbers in check (as I think anyone in resource management, probably any old farmer would know)

Too much politics, to much emotion. Liberationists would rather let kangaroos die on road verges from starvation than accept a cull, at the other extreme i'd suspect some hunters would shoot anything.. and yes, there is no excuse for a gut shot as with the goat proudly displayed earlier in the topic- a pot shot.. so they Are about.

I like having campfires, we (were forced to) give up the right with in mind all the other bushwalkers, their competency and in a trade-off. Are you sure that you can speak for 'all' these R licence holders, minimal skills, less sincere motivations. If your primary hobby was bushwalking i'm sure you would be wondering what you get and what you loose from any deal..?

Anyhow, as it stood, i'm almost sure the permit system was a ridiculous idea, certainly seemed that way. Unskilled hunters, some bumbling around, all unchecked.. Perhaps what remains of the system will actually prove useful, lets hope so. Lets also hope that the fear will be unfounded.

[forest]

There is a difference between shooting out the local population of a sparse species on a domestic farm and indiscriminate piecemeal shooting of a small number of individuals from a much larger population spread over a wide area of native bushland.

Yep, what he said

Perhaps what remains of the system will actually prove useful, lets hope so. Lets also hope that the fear will be unfounded.

That too.

[forest]

We shot 7 foxes between 2009 and 2011. There has not been another fox sighting since. We would know if they are around because they go straight to the chook house.

Nah, they are probably in the National Park down the Rd........

[wearthefoxhat]

Perhaps there is an example of TDS right here in Australia.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/0 ... tnews.html

Sadly the native animals have been screwed over again. Begs the question why was it left so long. Inaction has led to great suffering to feral and Native. But this is typical of our state services. The warnings have been there for years, Could be possibly decades for mother nature to do her repair.

Wind the clock back 10 years and allow recreational or preferably guided hunts in these areas. Let the communities benefit from the resource and new income not to forget the meat. An industry in itself.
Unfortunately the greens movement probably would have stopped it and this is the result..sadly

[wearthefoxhat]

Thanks Nuts...

Strange thing is we all want the same end goal which is preservation of our NP's 'State forests etc in as close to natural state we can possibly achieve it.
Its just how we achieve that goal that greatly differs lol.