Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[ULWalkingPhil]

There are some support to stop this decision of allowing amateur shooters into national parks. ?

Finally.

[wildwalks]

FatCanyoner got in first with this post. But I thought I would copy it to here, as it seems mostly NSW (and ACT) people using this thread.

G'day folks,
......The following info come from the National Parks Association of NSW (go to http://npansw.org.au/ if you want to read more). I'll be attending.

**RALLY: No hunting in NSW National Parks!**

11am Thurs 14 June, Parliament House, Sydney

The bill to allow volunteer hunters in National Parks is likely to be introduced to parliament next Thursday 14 June. We need a large crowd- join us outside Parliament House in Sydney at 11am next Thursday 14 June to show the Government that we will not stand for hunting in our National Parks.
The Premier of NSW has broken his pre-election promise to keep recreational shooting out of our National Parks. He has announced that the government will be opening up 34 National Parks, 31 Nature Reserves and 14 State Conservation Areas across the state to volunteer hunters.
During his first week in government, the Premier made a strong promise to environment groups and the people of NSW that he would not allow shooting in National Parks. Now he has done a deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party so that they will support his electricity privatisation bill.
National Parks are for the protection of nature and for the enjoyment of the NSW public. This decision by the government compromises the values of national parks and raises public safety concerns. Contrary to government claims, this is not an effective or cost-efficient way of controlling feral animals.

I'll be attending

Clothed I trust

I am planning on showing up.

Matt

[johnw]

This just get worse with this recreational hunting in NP's, it is looking like that the National Parks are going to be closed to all other park users when the recreational hunters want to go hunting.

Hi Tony,
In my opinion that would be a disgrace if allowed to happen. I think it shows absolute contempt for those who practice and support self-reliant passive recreation in our national parks.

[wildwalks]

The idea here is close of an area of the park, whilst the hunters are in place. What is not clear from the NPWS website is if it also closed to NPWS stuff (as suggested by the website). This is for public safety.
(I am not defending this policy - just explaining the background)

I think this is just an example of policy on the run. We are expecting the legislation to be tabled this week. Should make for some fun reading and more interesting debate here

Matt

[Pteropus]

And now the bill has been introduced -> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-14/n ... ed/4070952

NSW national parks hunting bill introduced
Posted June 14, 2012 14:29:04
About 100 people protested outside the New South Wales Parliament as legislation to allow hunting in national parks was introduced to the Upper House.
The bill was agreed to by the NSW Government recently as part of a deal struck with the Shooters and Fishers Party to sell the state's electricity generators.
Shooters MP Robert Brown was heckled by the Greens as he introduced the legislation.
"The threat of ferals in our national parks is great, even more so after recent floods where the populations of feral cats, foxes, pigs, wild dogs and goats has exploded," Mr Brown said.
"What about horses? What about brumbies? They're full of sheep and brumbies," a Greens MP interjected.
"But of course the Greens, who all but one live east of the Iron Cove Bridge, wouldn't know that would they?" Mr Brown retorted.
Outside Parliament, Kevin Evans from the National Parks Association said they fear the parks and reserves initially identified for hunting will be just the tip of the iceberg.
"We certainly are worried that this will expand into additional parks and also to be be free reign to hunt feral animals in national parks," he said.
"This presents an enormous animal welfare concern and a safety risk to visitors and staff in our national parks."

[Pteropus]

If anyone wants to see the bill, see this link -> http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/p ... -House.pdf

or I have attached it to this post too.
I haven't read it yet.

I am not sure on parliamentary procedures though. Now that the bill has been introduced, does that mean it comes in to effect or do they now debate it? Can it be voted against and if so, does it get thrown out? Does anyone know?
(edit: to answer my own question this link explains the process. The bill will be debated and can be set aside or rejected, in which case it can be presented to the people of NSW in a referendum)

[Tony]

Hi Pteropus,

Thanks for posting the link, a scary document, the bill is obviously written by the Game Council for the protection of hunters.

Some things that worry me,

Schedule 1 [9] provides for a member of the Game Council to be nominated by the
Minister administering the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 rather than by the New
South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.

stacking the board

Schedule 1 [21] provides that the power of an inspector to require a vehicle to stop
so that it can be searched may be exercised without the inspector being accompanied
by a police officer.

Fair enough for Game Council licenced hunters vehicle to be searched by their own inspectors, but I do not want game council inspectors searching my car. This also opens up the possibility of the game council council inspectors to harassment of other park users. I have read that some Game Council inspectors have been known to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting.

proposed section 55A makes it an offence to interfere with a person who is
lawfully hunting game animals on public hunting land in accordance with the
authority conferred by a game hunting licence

,

Could walking through an area that a hunter wants to hunt in be called interfering and therefore a bushwalker could be charged for bushwalking, this gives hunters the right of way over bushwalkers should be the other way around.

Tony

[Pteropus]

Or this:

The Bill also amends certain other legislation:
(b) to require the Game Council to be consulted before any pest control order is
made declaring a game animal to be a pest,

I checked out the Game Council's site but apart from the NSW gov logo in the top left hand corner, I would think it was someone’s personal hunting site with excited headings (with exclamation marks!) such as:

NEW STATE FOREST OPENED TO HUNTING!

or photos of hunters and their kills
Anyway, the Game Council seems like it is run by hunters (apparently Robert Borsak of the shooters party is a former chairman) and I think there should be more independence in the whole thing if they are going to be "consulted" on pest control orders...what a freakin joke

[Pteropus]

The Game Council does seem to be a personal club for hunters. This link shows the current chairman, John Mumford and his son out hunting. Do other government websites show their councillors out doing their hobbies? I am full of confidence that they will make sensible decisions that have the environment's best interests at stake when declaring an animal a pest..

Anyhow, here is the Game Council's media release, that they are "ready to help National Parks in game and feral animal control"

[Tony]

The Game Council does seem to be a personal club for hunters. This link shows the current chairman, John Mumford and his son out hunting. Do other government websites show their councillors out doing their hobbies? I am full of confidence that they will make sensible decisions that have the environment's best interests at stake when declaring an animal a pest..

Anyhow, here is the Game Council's media release, that they are "ready to help National Parks in game and feral animal control"

This is some interesting information on the Game Council, NSW Game Council Critically Reviewed, some comments by ex-NSW Game Council CEO David Dixon.

It is a deeply flawed, quasi-public gift to the Shooters Party, compromised by hunting factions, jobs for hunters, dominant personalities and profound and unsolvable conflicts of interests

and

But allowing a government agency that is supposed to regulate hunting legislation to be dominated by representatives of hunting clubs does not exactly endow it with a clear and unambiguous field of action.

What other NSW agency, for instance, spends tens of thousands of dollars on ads featuring the chairman, who also happened to be the chairman of the Shooters Party, and a political candidate at the next state election?

and

Or was it when our expensive compliance team – equipped with four-wheel drives, satellite phones, all-terrain tyres, inspectorial powers, quad bikes, and seemingly unlimited expense accounts – did not make one arrest at a huge illegal pig-dog hunting event in a southern NSW forest? Despite a number of our game managers being present, the illegal hunters were let off with warnings.

and

Three other sacked Game Council employees have backed some of Mr Dixon’s claims, particularly that jobs are given to recreational hunters while they, with their backgrounds in environmental science and feral animal control, have been forced out.

One told the Herald it is a privileged ”boys’ club of trophy deer hunters” which – rather than trying to eradicate the animals from state forests – limits the number of bucks that may be shot to preserve the sport and its prized targets, the stags with their antlers.

Tony

[maddog]

[quote="

proposed section 55A makes it an offence to interfere with a person who is
lawfully hunting game animals on public hunting land in accordance with the
authority conferred by a game hunting licence

,

Could walking through an area that a hunter wants to hunt in be called interfering and therefore a bushwalker could be charged for bushwalking, this gives hunters the right of way over bushwalkers should be the other way around.

Tony[/quote]

Only if it could be shown that you were bushwalking with the intention to interfere with the hunting (s55A(1)(b)). However, 50 penalty units for those that do intend to interfere with that hunting.

[FatCanyoner]

Wow, here's a really interesting read. This guy represents a hunting club and owns a gun shop, and even he is against the proposal to allow hunting in national parks. A few choice quotes include:

“I’ve been involved in getting rid of rabbits, foxes and more over the years and just a few people roaming around a park with a gun isn’t going to stop them,” he said.
“It’s got to be planned shooting or poisoning and trapping, otherwise whoever goes in there hunting them will just scatter them all over the place and make them harder to cull.”

“It’s not a case of if but when someone gets shot that it will come back to haunt the lot of us.”

Read the full article here: http://www.mudgeeguardian.com.au/news/local/news/general/shooting-in-parks-madness-says-hunting-club/2591568.aspx?storypage=1

[izogi]

“It’s got to be planned shooting or poisoning and trapping, otherwise whoever goes in there hunting them will just scatter them all over the place and make them harder to cull.”

I couldn't say how valid a parallel it is but possibly in support of this statement, New Zealand has about 100 years of experience trying to control unwanted pest animals using various forms of hunting, and much of the above problems have ended up being part of that history (scattering animals, etc). More recently with the really bad pests like possums, rats and stoats in particular, there's evidence that it's necessary to keep the populations to about 3% of their natural levels before it makes a jot of difference for nativa flora and fauna. Anything less than 3% and it just makes the remaining pests fatter until they reproduce. To obtain this pretty much requires either intensive trapping (usually only possible in accessible places), or aerial poison drops.

[Tony]

Some regional news paper articles that are interesting reading.

Breaking promises to allow shooters in, 19 June, 2012 The Macleay Argus

Shooters now have protests in their sights, 19 June, 2012 Byron Shire Echo

O'Farrell's 10% of parks for hunting is 40% of total area, 18 June, 2012 Ararat Advertiser

Hunters may shoot in 94% of parks, 18 June, 2012 Northern Star

Recreational shooters could get local hunts 16 June, 2012 Daily Liberal

Bushwalker takes aim at hunting law change, 15 June, 2012 Cowra Guardian

[wildwalks]

Hi All

Looks like bad news (depending which side of the fence you are on with this debate).
I just heard that the Recreational Hunting Bill in NSW NP (amoung other things) was passed today - with no ammendments (which is very surprising)
So there is a 6month period untill the legislation comes into play.
The game is not all over yet, but this is obviouldy a harder battle to win now.

Will let you know more as it comes in. I am updating the maps, and stuff on nohunting.wildwalks.com

Thanks again for good natured debate.

Matt

[Pteropus]

Hi All

Looks like bad news (depending which side of the fence you are on with this debate).
I just heard that the Recreational Hunting Bill in NSW NP (amoung other things) was passed today - with no ammendments (which is very surprising)
So there is a 6month period untill the legislation comes into play.
The game is not all over yet, but this is obviouldy a harder battle to win now.

Will let you know more as it comes in. I am updating the maps, and stuff on nohunting.wildwalks.com

Thanks again for good natured debate.

Matt

Apparently there was some debate about an urgent amendment to the bill because the bill would allow hunters to use self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns? Perhaps they allowed that to pass as well?
-> http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-fear-sparks ... 20nf0.html

[Tony]

That is bad news Matt,

Unfortunately at best we are stuck with this bad decision for many years, the no-hunting organisations will have to get more political involved and hopefully will have some influence at the next NSW elections.

From my reading of what is going on it will only be a matter of time before all but a few NSW National Parks will be open to the hunters.

Many thanks for your efforts.

Tony

[wildwalks]

Yeah I am still trying to get my head around it. But it seems the some of the gun law changes made after port arthur are rolled back with this legislation. But it don't know the full scope and I am not sure those who voted understand it either. Lots of things very unclear. The NPA are getting some analysis done, so I will look foward to that.

Also STEP is organizing another rally is Ku-ring-gai, soon I will let you know.
I think if we can keep pressure up we might be able to wind it back a bit

Thanks
Matt

[phan_TOM]

Unfortunately at best we are stuck with this bad decision for many years, the no-hunting organisations will have to get more political involved and hopefully will have some influence at the next NSW elections.

Its a pity there isn't a 'no-shooting' party with the political clout held by the S&F party at present or we wouldn't be having this ridiculous legisltaion forced upon us the way it is. I guess necessity is the mother that will hopefully drive opposing people/groups into being more political and in the not too distant future reversing these farcical laws.

Apparently there was some debate about an urgent amendment to the bill because the bill would allow hunters to use self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns? Perhaps they allowed that to pass as well?

I'm pretty sure that I heard on the radio this morning that those weapons won't be allowed, a tiny win but a win nonetheless...

I also noticed this comment that came out of the debate, but was not suprised by it. When Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham accused the Game Council of taking millions in kickbacks during the debate, MP Robert Brown said "Unfortunately we're in a modern era so I can't take you outside and beat you to death"...

Its astonishing that people like that hold such political sway over important decisions that affect us all...

[Tony]

Apparently there was some debate about an urgent amendment to the bill because the bill would allow hunters to use self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns? Perhaps they allowed that to pass as well?

I'm pretty sure that I heard on the radio this morning that those weapons won't be allowed, a tiny win but a win nonetheless...

I also noticed this comment that came out of the debate, but was not suprised by it. When Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham accused the Game Council of taking millions in kickbacks during the debate, MP Robert Brown said "Unfortunately we're in a modern era so I can't take you outside and beat you to death"...

Its astonishing that people like that hold such political sway over important decisions that affect us all...

Hi phan_TOM,

A small win but there is a very long battle ahead, I just hope no other park user gets shot before this stupid law is beaten.

I am sure MP Robert Brown attitude is not that uncommon, from reading the SSAA and Shooters Party site and some shooting/hunting forums there is a very strong anti green sentiment amongst some of the shooters and hunters, I know most hunters are not like this but check out the link below, but a warning contains foul language.

NSW Hunting In National Parks, Bill Released

Some more regional news articles

A squealy pest issue letting loose
MPs should explain stance on shooting

Tony

[Pteropus]

..I also noticed this comment that came out of the debate, but was not suprised by it. When Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham accused the Game Council of taking millions in kickbacks during the debate, MP Robert Brown said "Unfortunately we're in a modern era so I can't take you outside and beat you to death"...

Its astonishing that people like that hold such political sway over important decisions that affect us all...

Yep, MP Robert Brown said that. I took this transcript from the NSW Parliament Hansard Transscript to show some context

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: This is a dangerous bill. The Government's credibility has been shot to pieces. It has been exposed for the sham it is. I read onto the record the contribution of Mr David Dixon, a resident of Orange, who used to work for the Game Council New South Wales. He used to be its communications director. He had this to say about the Game Council and his experience with it—which is the same experience as all those who see the big men of the Game Council driving around in their flashy utes. They buy expensive guns and all they want to do is shoot some animals and have them stuffed. All that Shooters and Fishers Party members are interested in doing is mounting deer; they want to stick a deer head on their wall. David Dixon knows about the Game Council and he knows about mounting deer. He said:
But after 12 years at three government agencies, I didn't quite expect to find myself living in the hunting fraternity's ongoing fantasy of making killing animals for sport socially acceptable. It was like a continuing serialisation of Razorback (or was it Wake in Fright?)

Sadly, it is reality. Mr David Dickson continued:
<29>
Game Council NSW is not a modern government agency dispassionately fulfilling its statutory object: 'To provide for the effective management of introduced species of game animals and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land.' It is a deeply flawed, quasi-public gift to the Shooters Party, compromised by hunting factions, jobs for hunters, dominant personalities and profound and unsolvable conflicts of interests.
He worked for the Game Council. I live in Orange and this is also my experience of the Game Council. It is a little fiefdom for Brian Boyle and his Shooters and Fishers Party mates. There is a $1 million kickback for these guys, the model train engineers party—an irrelevance and an absolute disgrace.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Point of order: The member knows that it is disorderly to make imputations of impropriety, or dare I say even corruption, against other members in this House. The member implied that we were taking kickbacks. I ask that you direct the member to retract his comments.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I ask the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham to retract imputations against any other member in the House.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: To the point of order: I am not quite clear what the imputation was.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's not our problem.

The Hon. Robert Brown: You pointed at me and you said—

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I am asking the Deputy-President to direct me as to what the imputation was that I am to withdraw.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham said, "They have taken $1 million in kickbacks."

The Hon. Robert Brown: And he pointed at me.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Further to the point of order: I said "they"; I did not identify the Hon. Robert Brown.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You pointed over there.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I was waving my arms around generally.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Further to the point of order: I do not have a thin skin but when a guy looks at you and points at you and says on the record of this House, "They took $1 million in kickbacks", that is impugning my reputation. I ask you to withdraw it here. Unfortunately, we are in a modern era so I cannot take you outside and beat you to death.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Point of order: I would like it acknowledged in the House that the Hon. Robert Brown has just said, "I cannot take you outside and beat you to death." I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Would you like an apology, Jeremy?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I will go outside anytime with you.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Hon. Robert Brown has taken offence—

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I withdraw my comment.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: The Hon. Robert Brown just said something highly offensive to the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He has already done that.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: No, he has not. That also must be dealt with.

The Hon. Robert Brown: I lost my temper. I am sorry for what I said, Jeremy. I should not have said it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I ask all members to be civil for the remainder of the debate on this bill.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It is certainly a passionate issue. The people of New South Wales are watching. It goes to the culture and nature of this organisation. That is the second time I have had a death threat from the Shooters and Fishers Party in this House. It will be interesting to see how we go with interference from the Shooters. [Time expired.]

Crazy...

[phan_TOM]

NSW Hunting In National Parks, Bill Released

Some more regional news articles

A squealy pest issue letting loose
MPs should explain stance on shooting

Thanks Tony, it absolutely boggles the mind how short sighted these people are! The introduction of feral animals that cause untold damage to farmland, crops and the natural environment just so they have something to do in their spare time... It seems evolution is selective and some people do not get touched by it?

Yep, MP Robert Brown said that. I took this transcript from the NSW Parliament Hansard Transscript to show some context...

Crazy...

Indeed! thanks Andrew, most enlightening.

I was recently reading that there is a growing lack of engagement and apathy toward politics in our country, "drowning in distrust" as former ALP leader Joihn Faulkner said and no wonder it is a circus...

[FatCanyoner]

Here is a really good summary of the key issues in the legislation as passed, produced by the Colong Foundation - http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/

No hunting in National Parks
by Keith Muir
The Shooters and Fishers Party (SFP) has introduced legislation that allows hunting of feral animals in national parks. Its passage through the NSW Parliament was assured in exchange for SFP support for the sale of state-owned power plants. The deal reverses Premier Barry O’Farrell’s repeatedly-made no hunting in national parks promise.
Let’s be clear, Premier O’Farrell didn’t want this deal with the SFP, or any deal, but believes he must so that Government legislation can proceed through the NSW Parliament. The previous Labor administration also found itself having to negotiate with the SFP to get those aspects of its legislative progam through the Parliament that the NSW Greens would not support, like its notorious Part 3A planning laws. Such negotiations led to the passage of the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 (G&FAC Act) and the creation of a pro-hunting statutory authority, the Game Council. The new legislation applies this law to national parks.
The first pest species to be defined as a game animal under the G&FAC Act was deer. They are a serious pest animal in natural areas, including in World Heritage listed rainforest areas, and deer have been listed as a ‘key threatening process’ under environmental laws. ‘Bag limits’ set for the sustainable management of deer prevent farmers from eradicating ‘game’ animals on their land, and deer numbers are growing rapidly across NSW, sometimes helped by maverick hunters, who are also known to release feral pigs. The new law allows the Minister for the Environment to make goat and other feral animals to the list of game under the G&FAC Act at a stroke of a pen.
Similarly pest birds, not currently present in NSW, are also defined as game under the G&FAC Act, including Californian quail and Guinea foul. When these birds are released into the wild, as they one day will be, this Act requires these highly invasive pest birds to be sustainably managed as game by hunters through licences issued by the Game Council.
The new law that extends game management to national parks:
· fosters the spread of feral animals, including the facilitation of new pest species;
· threatens the safety of park workers and visitors;
· compromises animal welfare; and
· erodes nature-based national park management and wildlife conservation.
Only 48 of the 779 reserves in NSW are excluded from being opened to hunting under the new law, so the 2.9 million hectares of parks now opened to hunting is just a start. The Environment Minister, Robyn Parker, can subsequently agree to hunting even in the excluded parks.
Under the G&FAC Act there is no public consultation on proposed park closures for particular hunting efforts. Once National parks are declared ‘hunting public land’ hunters are exempt from interference. Walkers who stray into such park land could be guilty of interference while at the same time at risk of being shot. Those park visitors in a national park also could be required to leave if hunters believe they might suffer interference. Meanwhile hunters are now exempt from pollution offences, meaning they cannot be held responsible for messes they make in our national parks from preparing their trophies, skins and meat.
The new law entrenches the Game Council’s vision of sustainable management of vertebrate pests by bringing so-called conservation hunting into national parks.
There are very serious vertebrate pest problems across the entire continent. It’s not a problem restricted to national parks. A rational response to this environmental threat requires well-planned and coordinated programs with specific goals of environmental impact reduction, using effective and humane methods, and with monitoring to assess whether goals are being met.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service employs highly qualified pest control officers that can kill hundreds of vertebrate pests a day. For example, through the use of helicopters they can eradicate hundreds of goats in a few hours. Amateur hunters in a ground based operation can only cover a few hectares, provided they have sufficient fitness to safely traverse rugged park terrain.
These sorts of activities actually prevent effective control of pest species by diverting limited staff resources. Even if feral animals are located during these hunting forays, unfit amateur hunters may find it difficult to get a clear shot in forested parks. Animals will be maimed and suffer horrible lingering deaths as a result.
In 2010-11 the Game Council issued 15,080 hunting licences and reported 14,161 animals killed on public land or 0.9 pests per hunting trip. Some 46% of the animals shot were rabbits, about 20% were goats and about 16% were pigs. Wild dogs, which are one of the biggest problems for landholders made up just 0.5% of all animals taken (Game Council Ann. Rpt., pgs 13 & 15). The annual budget for the Game Council is $2.5 million, so each pest animal killed last year on public land cost $176.50. Shooters and Fishers MLC Robert Brown claimed in Parliament that “game hunting licence holders will spend more than $100 million of their own money in pursuit of their volunteer hunting efforts” (Hansard, 14/6/2012). If even a quarter or a third of this money was spent on public land then the cost of killing a rabbit is truly astronomical.
These figures demonstrate ground based recreational hunting is an ineffective means of feral animal control. Removing the occasional rabbit, goat or pig is a waste of money and time.
The Shooters and Fishers Party allege that the impact by recreational hunters on feral animal populations has been proven as every pest animal killed counts. They also say that shooting ducks is appropriate because there are millions of ducks and the ones hunters shoot would die anyway. Unlike native ducks, whose long-term population levels are in decline, feral animal populations are on the increase and require effective control. To control feral animals, the techniques used must remove half of a population annually, or more. Hunting just doesn’t have any positive impact on pest populations.
Premier Barry O'Farrell’s claim that allowing recreational hunters into our national parks is a logical extension of an existing policy of having professional hunters cull feral animals is incorrect. The Game Council is replacing pest control with game management. The motivation of the amateur shooters as enshrined by the recent legislation is to hunt game for trophy heads, skins and meat. Amateurs don’t have the skills to eradicate pests and their motivation is to see pest numbers increase, so that there is game to hunt.
The very idea of game management works to defeat pest control. In the Australian Shooters' Journal, hunters admit to a proud history of maintaining sustainable populations of game species to shoot, which is completely the wrong motivation for feral animal control. Hunters’ proud conservation record historically includes introducing foxes and rabbits, and perhaps very soon exotic pest birds as well.
Our national parks are extremely popular. Millions of visitors and amateur hunting are a deadly mix. The risk of injury or death to park visitors and staff from accidental shooting is very real. Poorly trained amateur hunters can get ‘venison happy’, and then shoot at whatever moves. There are too many ways a person can enter any national park to ensure that hunting activities are safe. In New Zealand there’s an injury or death due to a hunting accident every nine months.
The decision to allow recreational hunting in national parks program may well haunt the Premier for the rest of his political career. Encouraged by their success, the Shooters and Fishers Party will increase their demands for more hunting opportunities and deregulation of gun ownership, including removal of licences for what they call ‘long arms’, meaning rifles and the reintroduction of automatic, high-powered weapons.
Meanwhile, conservationists have joined with park rangers to stop hunting in national parks. Park rangers have vowed not to implement the new law. Attempts to introduce hunting in national parks will no doubt lead to arrest situations, and the risk of heavy fines. Even octogenarian conservationists are prepared to be arrested than see this law put into effect. Stopping this abuse of national parks will be a very bitter fight that could well drag the NSW Government into disgrace.

[wildwalks]

Good article FatCanyoner - thanks for sharing.
I was not aware of the bag limits - that is crazy stuff.
I am a little confused about what actually happend yesterday - there are a few conflicing reports, but it will become more obvious today I think.

I made a map on the weekend based on the info in the draft legislation.
You can see it here http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/map
Green is no hunting allowed (NPWS land)
Red is where hunting can take place base on Ministers approval.
(There are some parks in urban areas still red on this map, because I can't find an actual definition)
Any way - have a look and share it around
Let me know any feedback

Matt

[WarrenH]

Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine - National Coroners Information System.
Australian External Caused Deaths While Engaged in Hunting
Between 1 July 2000 - 1 August 2010

The full report ... http://tinyurl.com/7xrqey3

NCIS's Disclaimer is interesting.
This data set does not purport to be representative of all external cause sporting-related fatalities between the specified time period.
Due to occasional coding errors, some missing data, and some cases not being closed it is possible that there are relevant deaths not included in this data set.
Accordingly, there is a possibility of under-reporting.

RESULTS
Between 1 July 2000 and 1st August 2010 there were 1473 external cause deaths while the
deceased was undertaking sporting-relating activities identified on the NCIS.
Of these 1473 fatalities, 22 involved a Target Sport, with 13 of these deaths relating to an
unintentional shooting incident. An additional 12 fatalities involving an unintentional shooting event
during a leisure/hunting activity were identified where the activity had not been coded as occurring during a ‘Sport’.

Most interesting.

Warren.

[robinmac]

OK, I have several concerns regarding this development in OUR National Parks.
First, it means that while hunters are in the parks, as a safety precaution, ALL OTHER USERS should be excluded. This will impact on travellers who may not be aware of dates of shooters' access etc and so reduce visitor satisfaction, numbers, interest etc.
Second, I do not believe that the average game shooter is capable of distinguishing between species of birds at distance.
Third, as a shooter and a conservationist, I am well aware that ground-culling does not significantly impact ongoing feral animal populations.
Fourth, as our state's national parks are severely underfunded and understaffed, particularly the more remote ones, there is a real danger that the shooting activity will not be regulated on the ground in any meaningful way.

To counter these concerns, perhaps it would be best to have designated times for game shooter access over the calendar year in each park, and possibly to tailor these times to have the most significant impact on particular feral species in regard to their herding and breeding behaviours. In this way, rangers and field officers can be present in specific parks while the shooting is taking place and monitor the shooters' activities directly, much the same as they act as guides to booked groups at the present. They may actually be able to act as mentors/guides to game shooters and directly supervise the shooting. If there are 1 or 2 target species in a particular park for a particular period, it would be much easier to monitor and regulate the shooting/shooters and to make scientific observations on the impact the shooters are having, or not, on the feral target species. If the shooters' access is designated to certain calendar dates in each park, then other park users can be aware of these dates and plan well ahead to not arrive at some remote area they have always wanted to visit with the kids, only to find their access denied.

If these shooters are not directly supervised and if there is no preordained calendar times for shooters' activites in each park, there is a real chance of unsupervised, uncontrolled, unregulated shooting activity and the terrible prospect of people being shot! These potential consequences make the current legislation completely unviable!!!

[FatCanyoner]

The shooting lobby is obviously feeling threatened by the growing campaign to roll-back the decision to allow recreational hunting in NSW National Parks. In the last 24 hours one of their larger websites, http://www.shooting.com.au/ (an equivalent of bushwalk.com), has included a prominent post urging people to "flood this guys site from hunters", with a link to my blog post on the topic (http://fatcanyoners.org/2012/05/31/hunting-in-national-park/).

The specific post says: "Lets flood his posts and show him who really is the red neck loonie - him!!". Amusingly, more than half of the responses on their site have been about the photo, and they are now competing with each other to find photos of cute girls hunting, but I have had nearly 200 people click through, about 16 of which have actually written comments. One of the comments on their site was : "The blog site has a very well informed debate unfolding, I would suggest that if members wish to post, they better have the data to back it up." which is a tribute to people like Tony from this site who have put a lot of effort into researching their arguments against recreational hunting in NP's.

Interesting, unlike this site, you have to be a member to see most of the posts. I joined to have a quick look around, and it is quite worrying. It doesn't take much to find comments supporting violence against their opponents such as: "Green = Feral animal in need of culling!"

Even more interesting are some of the comments they have left on my site. Here are a few which make some interesting points: 1) many shooters feel they are victims whose rights are impinged by any restriction on where they can hunt; 2) they know that hunting in NP's involves increasing risks to other park users; and 3) this is just the beginning, with shooters openly bragging about their new-found political clout and the fact they will continue to push for more access.

* "this is so narrow minded its almost as bad as a Homophobia and Racism... Hunters regardless weather they are shooters or Archers should be able to use national parks just like everybody else."

* "Nice stereotyping of hunters, Tim. Imagine what would happen if you applied the same stereotyping to Australians of any particular religion or ethnicity. Stereotyping is bigotry. No doubt you have justifications for your bigotry, because that’s what bigots do. They justify their ideology."

* "Hunting in National Parks must increase risk to users, as will any increase in patronage. Of course shooting a gun carries risk to other park patrons, but I don’t see these hunters as a bunch of gun toting loonies either... Risk is everywhere and I don’t know that the risk here is any greater than we face on the roads each day."

* "Now that shooters have political representation, and the numbers are increasing year on year, then you can bet your lattes that they will not be seeking landrights for gay whales. Get used to it."

* "Knowone in their right minds could argue that their isn’t an increased risk of someone getting shot but you are way more likely to die in a car accident etc on the way to the park!"

[FatCanyoner]

Oh, and apparently I am a "muesli munching nit wit"! ;-P

[Tony]

Shooters MP could lose gun licence after death threat

[maddog]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shooters-mp-f ... 20yme.html