Experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

[Moondog55]

traditional sambar deer hunting country and it had been for so many years.

Traditional? Traditional hunting of an introduced pest? Ha!

How long do you have to be doing it before it becomes tradition? Does this mean that non indigenous Australians cant have any traditions?

Well in Antarctica it only takes 24 hours for something to become a "Tradition'
I would say 100 years is long enough, I know my grandfather was hunting deer in the years before 1900 he had the head to prove it too ( Red deer tho not Sambar but the principle holds ) Hunting in those areas pre-dates the National Park by many many decades, in fact if it wasn't for the support of hunters the whole Victorian Alpine Area would be a dam for hydro-power generation

[Tony]

Nakedape.....critics of the sambar deer in our National Parks are long on rhetoric but very short on realsitic solutions. Call them introduced pest, ferals, environmental disasters ....put any emotive tag on them that you like but the fact remains that this makes absolutely NO difference to their numbers. If you want them "gone" then things need to be physically DONE to make them go away. Like it or not seasonal deer hunting in portions of the ANP has provided a method of control on the sambar deer numbers for 25 years or so....the ONLY means of control actually. Do you really think that by removing deer hunting from the ANP that the sambar will just go away....if you want them gone then there is just one thing that needs to be done....they need to be killed ! How do you propose that DSE & PV address the perception of building numbers of sambar deer ? Do you have a viable, effective and economically viable long-term solution to what you obviously see as the scourge of the ANP.....the sambar deer and deer hunters ? Cheers

sambar358

Hi sambar358,

I am not sure Sambar deer or any other deer species is under control as you claim or anywhere near it, if you read the ADA site you will read this

Australia’s premier game species, the sambar has now colonised all of Eastern Victoria and well up into New South Wales. Not only has their range expanded many-fold, the population density has also increased as well so that it is now relatively easy to find and hunt this species.

Four other Australian deer species have also increased their range in recent years and also increased in numbers. These are fallow and red deer along with rusa and chital. Some of this expansion has come from the natural increase of long-established populations, but much more stems from illegal releases into new areas, often far from any previous occurrence of deer.

I also suggest you read the Wikipedia page on Sambar Deer, Australian section.

In 2008/2009 35,000 sambar were removed from public land in Victoria, many from National Parks, by amateur hunters.[14] Although this is a small fraction of the 40 percent of individuals in a sambar population that need to be removed just to stop population growth.

Unfortunately removing any invasive species on the Australian mainland will never be possible, but what is obvious is that the scientific research into invasive species clearly shows that recreational hunting has absolutely no impact on invasive species populations.

Tony

[Moondog55]

Well actually it does, but in an indirect manner.
When Sambar are hunted regularly they breed more slowly, although measured hunting pressure studies have been done on other continents and I am unaware of any local studies on Sambar the evidence from Sri Lanka and India where the Sambars natural predator was reduced to low numbers suggests the same effect on this animal.
Animals who are hunted breed more slowly than those that are free from hunting pressure, the studies in Yosemite suggest that this is because those animals without hunting pressure have more successful mating chances ( fewer interruptions and more completed copulations ) if you really do want Sambar controlled I am happy to support natural ( biological ) controls, should we introduce the Asiatic Brown bear as well as the Bengal tiger to Australia??

[puredingo]

No, just one wolf pack would be enough. The results of reintroducing the wolf to yellowstone national park was a huge success in keeping the herbivores back into sustainable numbers allowing regrowth of the natural fauna.

[Pteropus]

...When Sambar are hunted regularly they breed more slowly, although measured hunting pressure studies have been done on other continents and I am unaware of any local studies on Sambar the evidence from Sri Lanka and India where the Sambars natural predator was reduced to low numbers suggests the same effect on this animal.

It sounds that the sambar deer's solitary social structure and habitat use is different to other species. Apparently they are considered rare in some areas of their native habitats of Asia due to poaching for bush meat and of course, trophy hunting ( Steinmetz et al. 2010). However, the key pressure on most native species around the globe, causing their declines, is habitat loss and fragmentation. Habitat loss, coupled with hunting across the population demographic WILL lead to declines in populations. Incidentally, many of the deer’s natural predators such as tigers have declined due to habitat loss, persecution and poaching etc. In Asia particularly there is much more human and wildlife conflict, simplify because the human population is so much denser and there are less strict controls protecting their native wildlife. I don't think there is a direct comparison between Australian sambar populations and populations within the species' natural range such as Sri Lanka or India.

Sambar deer are just one feral species out of the many that inhabit Australia. I won't speak specifically about them because I do not know enough about their ecology. However, the following quote is quite generalised and not really true.

...Animals who are hunted breed more slowly than those that are free from hunting pressure, the studies in Yosemite suggest that this is because those animals without hunting pressure have more successful mating chances ( fewer interruptions and more completed copulations )...

Actually, this is a general misconception about hunting and population increases or decreases depend on the hunting system. For example, humans and animals hunt completely differently, with humans going for the biggest male or females because they are either a more spectacular trophy, or will supply more meat. Conversely, animal predators generally hunt the weakest animals, whether they are old, sick, slow, or very young. Prey animals in their prime are able to continue to breed and this is part of 'survival of the fittest'. In the USA they reintroduced wolf packs to control elk areas such as Yellow Stone NP, because recreational hunting was not having the slightest impact on elk abundances, which increased to the point they could not be controlled, and they were having a negative impact on native vegetation. The introduction of wolves did not necessarily lead to direct population control of elk, but they changed their foraging behaviour because they needed to implement more anti-predator behaviours and spent less time foraging and more time on the lookout for wolves (and yes, perhaps a decrease in mating opportunities too).

Many species will actually respond to human hunting pressure by increasing their regeneration times. Wild pigs, for example, are known to increase their regeneration times and consequently, their abundances, when only one demographic of the population, such as adults, are selected for harvesting (Servanty et al. 2011). Deer numbers in Europe are also increasing, with population growth faster than harvest growth, and this is despite increased harvest numbers due to modified hunting pressure, with a lack of natural predators and changes in cultural hunting traditions (Milner et al. 2006). Once again, these increases in abundances are due to harvesting adults only, and not hunting across the entire population demographic. Milner et al. (2006) state that "...changing the adult harvest is more problematic because hunting traditions and economic considerations often conflict with population control objectives."

So one needs to be careful in claiming that hunting per se will control a species. Hunting needs to be strategic, with the purpose of removing individuals across the population demographic if the aim is to bring about a decline or some measure of control/management.

Milner et al. (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 721-734.
Servanty et al. (2011) Influences of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 835-843
Steinmetz et al. (2010) Population recovery patterns of Southeast Asian ungulates after poaching. Biological Conservation, 143, 42-51.

[Moondog55]

I wasn't talking about human hunters in that post, but thanx for the links to the research.
Of all the introduced species in Australia I think the Sambar is probably the least damaging OVER-ALL, but they are here to stay, just like brumbies , camels, donkeys, dingoes, goats, pigs, foxes,rabbits, cats, rats, pigeons, starlings, blackbirds, Indian mynas and all the other mistakes my great-grandfathers generation made

[Moondog55]

So one needs to be careful in claiming that hunting per se will control a species. Hunting needs to be strategic, with the purpose of removing individuals across the population demographic if the aim is to bring about a decline or some measure of control/management.

Milner et al. (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 721-734.
Servanty et al. (2011) Influences of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 835-843
Steinmetz et al. (2010) Population recovery patterns of Southeast Asian ungulates after poaching. Biological Conservation, 143, 42-51.

One thing I should mention; Sambar hunting in Australia is different to the hunting pattern in most other countries, here we take Sambar of all ages and sexes and at all times of the year.
One of the reason sport hunting had little effect in the Yosemite NP was probably the seasonal nature of the hunt and the restriction in the sex kill where only mature males were taken.

[Pteropus]

I wasn't talking about human hunters in that post, but thanx for the links to the research.
Of all the introduced species in Australia I think the Sambar is probably the least damaging OVER-ALL, but they are here to stay, just like brumbies , camels, donkeys, dingoes, goats, pigs, foxes,rabbits, cats, rats, pigeons, starlings, blackbirds, Indian mynas and all the other mistakes my great-grandfathers generation made

The damage is relative. Each species can damage the environment in a unique way. In regards to sambar, according to Peel et al. (2005)

Damage caused by Sambar, particularly browsing, antler rubbing and physical removal of particular plant species, is resulting in serious ecological consequences. Threatening processes instigated or maintained by Sambar include: loss of individual taxa, altered vegetation structure and massive
widespread removal and prevention of regeneration, which is now resulting in the loss of plant communities in some areas. These observations are particularly disturbing, as it is apparent that Sambar are yet to reach their full ecological and population potential in south-eastern Australia. The destruction documented ill this article is now so widespread and so severe that in places it represents an ecological disaster for specific plant and animal species, ecological vegetation classes and floristic communities.

Deer are known to impact on water quality (e.g. McDowell 2007; Forsyth et al. 2009) and are potential dispersers of weeds such blackberries, because these make up a part of their diet (Forsyth & Davis 2011). Of course they also feed upon many natives. I have seen the damage that rusa deer do to native vegetation, especially young seedlings, and I am sure sambar do similar damage.

One thing I should mention; Sambar hunting in Australia is different to the hunting pattern in most other countries, here we take Sambar of all ages and sexes and at all times of the year.

Fair enough. I knew that sambar hunting was allowed year round but I was unaware that hunters would take fawns as well as adults. Most of what I have read so far is that adults were mostly taken.



Forsyth et al. (2009) Modelling the abundance of wildlife using field surveys and GIS: non-native sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in the Yarra Ranges, south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research, 36, 231-241.
Forsyth and Davis (2012) Diets of non-native deer in Australia estimated by macroscopic versus microhistological rumen analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75 (6), 1488-1497.
McDowell (2007) Water quality in headwater catchments with deer wallows. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36 (5), 1377-1382)
Peel et al. (2005) Observations of the ecological impacts of Sambar Cervus unicolor in East Gippsland, Victoria, with reference to destruction of rainforest communities. The Victorian Naturalist, 122 (4), 189-200.

[Moondog55]

BTW
Congratulations to all of us involved; for the moderate tone, excellent reasoning and lack of venom being shown, especially as it can be an emotional subject for some of us.

[maddog]

No, just one wolf pack would be enough. The results of reintroducing the wolf to yellowstone national park was a huge success in keeping the herbivores back into sustainable numbers allowing regrowth of the natural fauna.

Why not. The reintroduction of dingos has successfully controlled the number of feral animals in Australia. If they were ineffective at controlling mature deer, the asian wolf would still be useful for getting rid of their young, plus foxes, cats, and any overabundance of prey herbivores.

[north-north-west]

A real sambar hunter fires few shots at sambar deer in a year.....often only 2 or 3....sometimes none at all. The attraction for us isn't in the shooting....but the hunting of an elusive and intelligent animal....and doing it in a challenging and ruggedly attractive envoironment like the ANP.

Well, there goes the feral animal mitigation claim. Which, as any rational well-informed person already knew, had as much reality as the fire mitigation claim for cattle grazing in the ANP.

You totally miss the point there.
In National Parks we are hunting a designated game species, you can get into a lot of trouble while doing so if you happen to shoot a feral animal, those are :"Protected ": inside the national park boundaries, it is stupid but those are the rules

No, I am not missing the point, YOU are. Deer ARE feral animals, whether a bureaucracy defines them as such or as 'game' or as anything else. And the shooters' lobby is using the population control issue to support its push.

[Moondog55]

NNW the point I was making was the feral animal control OTHER than sambar by sambar hunters in National Parks is illegal.

I'd love to put a 22RF through the head of all the feral cats I see, foxes, hares and rabbits too, but I am not permitted to. Not even allowed to shoot the wild horses I see all the time either and to my mind those do far more damage and the meat is more tender and healthier than that of the deer to boot.

Can't shoot at anything that isn't a sambar and that is the law at the moment.

Personally I want to be able to shoot kangaroo for the pot like they do in SA, at the moment kangaroos are shot under pest control permits, we have to let the carcasses rot, not even allowed to take the skins or use them for dog food which is a stupid waste of protein

[maddog]

As State Forests, Crown Lands, and private property together would seem to provide ample land for hunting, it is puzzling that is there such an interest in National Parks. Given the determination to add Parks to the hunting grounds, and the modest evidence of any environmental benefit offered by the sport, is is tempting to conclude that the interest is driven by mere ideology.

Also if shooting for nothing other than sport is permissible within the conservation reserves, what activities would then be considered unsuitable?

[north-north-west]

As State Forests, Crown Lands, and private property together would seem to provide ample land for hunting, it is puzzling that is there such an interest in National Parks. Given the determination to add Parks to the hunting grounds, and the modest evidence of any environmental benefit offered by the sport, is is tempting to conclude that the interest is driven by mere ideology.

Also if shooting for nothing other than sport is permissible within the conservation reserves, what activities would then be considered unsuitable?

^ Wot 'e sed.

[Moondog55]

Sorry but are we discussing sambar hunting as it already exists in Victorian National parks there or the proposed hunting in NSW parks.
We have hunted sambar in the Alpine Park area for a long period of time, much longer than the existence of the park.
My experiences of hunting in the Alpine National park have all been positive

[Tony]

Sorry but are we discussing sambar hunting as it already exists in Victorian National parks there or the proposed hunting in NSW parks.
We have hunted sambar in the Alpine Park area for a long period of time, much longer than the existence of the park.
My experiences of hunting in the Alpine National park have all been positive

I thought this thread was about experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

I'd love to put a 22RF through the head of all the feral cats I see, foxes, hares and rabbits too, but I am not permitted to. Not even allowed to shoot the wild horses I see all the time either and to my mind those do far more damage and the meat is more tender and healthier than that of the deer to boot.

Can't shoot at anything that isn't a sambar and that is the law at the moment.

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

Tony

[maddog]

I happily agree that the subject of the thread is 'experiences of recreational hunting in national parks'. However, as the 'environmental benefits' of the sport have been offered as justification for the pursuit of game within lands set aside for conservation purposes, should all posts be limited to an uncritical appreciation of the alleged benefits of Sambar hunting in Victorian National Parks?

In NSW we were clear felling timber long before the existence of our parks.

[sambar358]

I suspect that very few walkers would have had an ecounter with a deer hunter while they have been out in the ANP....not some yobs at a campsite behaving badly...anyone can do that.....but someone off for a walk and actually meeting a hunter out in the bush or maybe hearing a shot being fired...again out in the bush. So who's met a real deer hunter out in the bush in the ANP actually hunting or going to hunt/coming back from a hunt. I'd be interested to hear about this aspect of it because from the other side of the fence I have met very few walkers (prabably 6 to 8 in total) in 20+ years of hunting sambar in the ANP.

One thing most of the critics of hunting seem to miss (or don't like to acknowledge) is that recreational hunting of sambar in the ANP has taken a lot of animals out of the Park over the last 20 years and do this day to the best of my knowledge NO sambar have been killed by DSE or PV staff engaged in specific sambar deer reduction initiatives. FACT : in the past 20 years the ONLY method of control on sambar deer has been hunting....the government in Victoria DOES NOT emply professional shooters, DOES NOT use helicopter gunships and to this day they HAVE NOT used 1080 poison targeting sambar deer in the ANP. While it would be impossible to put an exact figure on it I would estimate that some tens of thousands (and most likely a lot more than that) sambar have been shot by recreational deer hunters in the ANP since it's declaration over 20 years ago....but I am quite positive in stating that exactly NONE have been killed by DSE or PV sambar-specific search & destroy missions. So we are doing our bit and ATM we are the only ones doing it....and the bottom line really is that every sambar killed by a hunter in the ANP is one less sambar in the ANP...simple as that !

The myth of sambar spreading weed species (especially backberries) is a popular one put-out by DSE and PV but this is based on the flawed assumption that when a hunters says "sambar like to eat blackberries" non-hunters think that we mean the fruit. The facts are that the blackberry BUSH is a staple diet of the sambar when feed resources are at a low ebb in the winter and at this time it is not in fruit....and the sambar eat the leaves and stems of the blackberry bush not as is popularly thought : the fruit. Many animals and birds feast on the fruit of the blackberries over the summer.....a large percentage of our NATIVE birds & Emus in particular just love 'em & I'm sure that you've seen the big purple seed-heavy "traps" they leave everywhere....so should we villify the Emu too as he and most of his native bird mates are really to blame ? Plenty of animals also eat the blackberry fruit over the summer and in reality any scat that you find where blackberries are in fruit will have evidence of their seeds in them....so let's not get too down on the poor old sambar.....they're in enough trouble....but as for being the main vector for the spread of blackberries....absolutely not guilty !

Lots of animals and birds "impact" on the environment to varying degrees....wombats love to burrow in creek and river banks causing erosion and bank collapse and they strip the bark off favoured trees for food and to line their nests....so should be point the finger at these too ? Feral horses....now anyone who's walked, fished or driven thru country that has a good population of brumbies should know what environmental damage really looks like....large areas pugged-up, well-trodden trails throughout the bush inviting (and usually causing) erosion, competing heavily for feed with our native animals....all this yet the feral horse seems to be viewed in a somewhat different light & an icon almost to some. So my point here is that we should not look at things in isolation....lots of critters "impact" on the environment & man does too of course.....and probably far worse than any critters native or otherwise. Like it or not the sambar are here to stay.....the question is "What should or can be done about that ?" While it might sound great to get up on ones high horse & demand their eradication at all costs, the practicality of it is that it will never happen and the best that can be done is that measures are put in place to attempt to control their numbers. Branding something as feral and then villifying them with half-truths, un-truths and the very occasional fact will not make them vanish in a puff of green smoke.....something needs to be DONE if there seems to be a problem. And at the moment for Victoria anyway and with sambar deer in the ANP that something is seasional recreational deer hunting as our government agencies responsible for these areas as doing absolutely nothing at all.

Land for Conservation purposes ? Hmmmm....this would mean different things to different people I suggest. If the land is being changed or potentiall degraded by something be it some weeds, the over-use by a recreational group, exploitation by a commercial interest, likely damaged by a species of animal or a natural occurence such as a wildfire then the conservation value of that land comes under threat and is likely to change for the worse unless some action is taken. If we apply this concept to the presence of sambar deer in the ANP....then those who see the growing number of sambar as potentially changing the environment over time need to accept that some level of population control of the deer is required to prevent or at least slow-down any changes or damage. Essentially....in the light of the lack of any sort of sambar population control initiatives by DSE or PV in the Victorian ANP....recreational hunting of sambar deer is IT....and I suspect will continue to be IT for many years to come.

When the ANP was declared in the late 1980's the LCC decided (after plenty of stake-holder consultation) that recreational deer hunting was to be one of the approved activities within certain areas of the Park....partly on "sambar control" grounds I would expect but also because hunting groups had established a history of presence in these areas long before the Park process began. All interested parties had an opportunity via the process to put their points of view on a large array of matters in the various Management Plans and there was certainly a level of opposition to hunting back then as there is now. But seasonal sambar deer hunting got the go-ahead not because the hunting orgs "did a deal" or the government was worried about the "gun lobby' or anything like that....it was simply that deer hunters put forward a good case for it and I think time has proven that over the past 20 years there have been very few if any REAL issues with the presence of deer hunters in the ANP. I expect that the NSW state government will follow a similar process of public consultation and everyone (both pro and anti hunting) will have the opportunity to put forward their views. There will be no "behind closed door deals done".....the issue of National Parks anywhere is far too sensitive for that & I expect that the process will be fair, transparent and done in a way that allows all fair and equatable access to the process. It will be interesting to watch this one and see how it goes I think. Cheers

sambar358

[puredingo]

Sorry but are we discussing sambar hunting as it already exists in Victorian National parks there or the proposed hunting in NSW parks.
We have hunted sambar in the Alpine Park area for a long period of time, much longer than the existence of the park.
My experiences of hunting in the Alpine National park have all been positive

I thought this thread was about experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

I'd love to put a 22RF through the head of all the feral cats I see, foxes, hares and rabbits too, but I am not permitted to. Not even allowed to shoot the wild horses I see all the time either and to my mind those do far more damage and the meat is more tender and healthier than that of the deer to boot.

Can't shoot at anything that isn't a sambar and that is the law at the moment.

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

Tony

When I shoot a feral Fox/Cat or whatever I'm not assuming I'm on my way to wiping out that specie here in Australia, I'm thinking at least I'm allowing at least a couple of their native prey animals a chance to live out their natural lives.

When they lock up serial killers it's not in the hope nobody will ever murder again because it wont... but to keep the psychos off the streets

[Tony]

When I shoot a feral Fox/Cat or whatever I'm not assuming I'm on my way to wiping out that specie here in Australia, I'm thinking at least I'm allowing at least a couple of their native prey animals a chance to live out their natural lives.

When they lock up serial killers it's not in the hope nobody will ever murder again because it wont... but to keep the psychos off the streets

Hi puredingo,

The notion that shooting one or two foxes helps native wildlife is a total MYTH, typical hunting lobby propaganda.

I challenge you to show me some proof you are right that.

Tony

[Moondog55]

Tony he didn't say that, neither did I.
We just said that we should do so when the opportunity arose.

I wonder, do those of you opposed to shooting feel the same way about those who hunt with spears or bows??
I also wonder how those opposed to hunting would go in Switzerland where ever adult male has an automatic rifle in his cupboard by the front door.

[Strider]

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

If you shoot ALL of them, then they are ALL gone. Differences don't come much bigger than that!

[Pteropus]

I accept recreational hunting seems to be an institution in Victorian National Parks, and I think it would take a lot of issues to overturn that. However, I think using the words "hunting" (as in recreational hunting) and "control" in the same sentence is wrong. They just don't go together.

..One thing most of the critics of hunting seem to miss (or don't like to acknowledge) is that recreational hunting of sambar in the ANP has taken a lot of animals out of the Park over the last 20 years and do this day to the best of my knowledge NO sambar have been killed by DSE or PV staff engaged in specific sambar deer reduction initiatives. FACT : in the past 20 years the ONLY method of control on sambar deer has been hunting....the government in Victoria DOES NOT emply professional shooters, DOES NOT use helicopter gunships and to this day they HAVE NOT used 1080 poison targeting sambar deer in the ANP.

As a few of us have stated and backed up with reports etc, taking a few animals here and there is a drop in the ocean and really doesn't constitute control. Over all, even taking 25 000 or so is but a few compared to what is out there. And I wonder if the Victorian Government have made the decision somewhere along the line that recreational hunting can take the place of active management programmes of deer? Because, as I have pointed out before, they DO make money from recreational hunters. Now, we both have agreed that controlling, managing or even wiping out feral species such as deer is practically impossible, but it seems that in Victoria there are not attempts at this. To the contrary, by allowing recreational hunting, they are allowing deer to thrive. You have even admitted you only shoot a handful a year and only if you can actually get the meat out of the bush. That is not even control but is SUSTAINABLE hunting. Tell us, if the Victorian Government tried to implement an eradication plan of your favourite game, the sambar, would you protest against that decision or would you rejoice that finally someone has decided to attempt to eradicate the pest?

...The myth of sambar spreading weed species (especially backberries) is a popular one put-out by DSE and PV but this is based on the flawed assumption that when a hunters says "sambar like to eat blackberries" non-hunters think that we mean the fruit. The facts are that the blackberry BUSH is a staple diet of the sambar when feed resources are at a low ebb in the winter and at this time it is not in fruit....and the sambar eat the leaves and stems of the blackberry bush not as is popularly thought : the fruit. Many animals and birds feast on the fruit of the blackberries over the summer.....a large percentage of our NATIVE birds & Emus in particular just love 'em & I'm sure that you've seen the big purple seed-heavy "traps" they leave everywhere....so should we villify the Emu too as he and most of his native bird mates are really to blame ? Plenty of animals also eat the blackberry fruit over the summer and in reality any scat that you find where blackberries are in fruit will have evidence of their seeds in them....so let's not get too down on the poor old sambar.....they're in enough trouble....but as for being the main vector for the spread of blackberries....absolutely not guilty !

I think saying sambar spreading weed species is a "myth" put out by the DSE and PV your opinion, yet the Forsyth paper I referenced in one of my posts above show that sambar do eat them. Sure, so do a lot of other species and the deer might be just one vector. But just because you think it is a myth doesn't make it so. That is verging on conspiracy theory.

... Lots of animals and birds "impact" on the environment to varying degrees....wombats love to burrow in creek and river banks causing erosion and bank collapse and they strip the bark off favoured trees for food and to line their nests....so should be point the finger at these too ? Feral horses....now anyone who's walked, fished or driven thru country that has a good population of brumbies should know what environmental damage really looks like....large areas pugged-up, well-trodden trails throughout the bush inviting (and usually causing) erosion, competing heavily for feed with our native animals....all this yet the feral horse seems to be viewed in a somewhat different light & an icon almost to some.

Every species has an impact on the the environment. Even natives. A wombat causing erosion or stripping bark is a process that has been going on for millions of years in this environment so I think that is a bad example. Yes, feral horses do damage and should be removed. And yes, people seem to hold them in some high regard for cultural reasons. When there have been culls of brumbies people are up in arms because horse carcasses end up lying about the country side. Similar to your reasoning in an above post that you don't think it is ethical to just kill a deer and leave its carcass to rot. Yet this would be the outcome of true feral management and perhaps it is unfortunate but is more practical than just killing feral animals in areas where you can get the carcass out.

Like it or not the sambar are here to stay.....the question is "What should or can be done about that ?" While it might sound great to get up on ones high horse & demand their eradication at all costs, the practicality of it is that it will never happen and the best that can be done is that measures are put in place to attempt to control their numbers.

Yes, I agree, sambar are here to stay, and this is partly due to the activities and lobbying of hunting groups, as I have shown in some previous posts. You may disagree with papers such as Moriarty's work, which show that 58% of deer herds are the product of deliberate releases by people wanting to hunt the deer (including Victoria), and the paper is published in peer reviewed scientific journals, not just the writings of someone's opinion to a forum. A concentrated effort on eradicating deer in areas of conservation value might just work. Saying it won’t work just because it is against one's beliefs or interests is a cop out AND is against your own personal interests.

Branding something as feral and then vilifying them with half-truths, un-truths and the very occasional fact will not make them vanish in a puff of green smoke.....something needs to be DONE if there seems to be a problem. And at the moment for Victoria anyway and with sambar deer in the ANP that something is seasonal recreational deer hunting as our government agencies responsible for these areas as doing absolutely nothing at all.

Where are the "half-truths, un-truths" in th discussion by anyone else but you? I have been able to back up my arguments with science or show links to websites that show that hunters have NO interest in deer management. Others such as Tony have done similar, backing up their arguments with research. You, on the other hand just seem to dismiss this as "myth".

There is a paper, Yamada et al. (2003) Eliciting and integrating expert knowledge for wildlife habitat modelling. Ecological Modelling, 165, 251-264, that shows that used many expert opinions on the use of habitat by smabar populations in Victoria. Experts included deer hunters, photographers and rangers. They found that agreement between these so called "experts" varied widely, and that opinions of experts still need to be backed up by detailed field research. Part of the problem was the scale of knowledge. Most experts only had experience of sambar in their small patch of forest that they regularly frequented but they did not have an understanding across the species' range. My point is, you might know a lot about sambar in the Alpine NAtional Park, but your knowledge is not necessarily transferable to other regions.

I personally respect your right to hunt in Victoria. It is the law there that you can. BUT as I and a few others have stated, recreational hunting is not control or management of a feral species (an I am not just labelling them that, it is what they are). Sure, defend your right to hunt if people tell you it is wrong, which it isn’t because it is the law down there. But bagging the science and facts regarding the damage your favourite prey species do to the environment as half truths or un truths or myths does not help your cause, that sambar are not all that bad. They are a recognised threatening process, determined by science, and if the State and Federal Government stood up tomorrow and said they had a plan to ban recreational hunting in NPs and impliment their own plan to eradicate the deer once and for all, despite protests from hunting lobbies, I would not care one iota that recreational hunters would lose their tradition. I would celebrate that someone was actually doing something about these feral pests and not letting them proliferate.

[Tony]

Tony he didn't say that, neither did I.
We just said that we should do so when the opportunity arose.
.

And what difference would that make.

I wonder, do those of you opposed to shooting feel the same way about those who hunt with spears or bows??

I am unable to speak for others but I am opposed to any recreational hunting in NSW National parks.

I also wonder how those opposed to hunting would go in Switzerland where ever adult male has an automatic rifle in his cupboard by the front door.

Nice try but this debate is about recreational hunting in NSW National Parks.

Tony

[Pteropus]

I also wonder how those opposed to hunting would go in Switzerland where ever adult male has an automatic rifle in his cupboard by the front door.

Not a very good example. That is about national defence, which is a completely different issue and not a hunting in National Parks one. I don't think this is about guns or weapons in general, but more about the fact that people with guns are, or could possibly be, actively hunting in areas where other people are enjoying nature.

[forest]

I've kept quite on this as I don't have any first hand experience with "National Park" hunting.
Yes, I have crossed hunters in our NSW State Forests a handful of times. Probably 30% of the trips I have had into our local SF whilst walking.
They are just driving around in cars all camo'd up and quite often stop too ask what I have seen. Several times I have had no confidence at all in them one bit (Sorry I know it's bad to judge on a first impression but I sometimes do)
It bothers me that these dudes are just crusing around looking for something to blast, well I'll explain that a little better. I have no issue with cruising around blasting ferals on private land, when one is fully aware of who is where on thet parcel of land. This is not the case with hunters in a public space blasting away when who know's ?? could be around the corner.
I'm a hunter and I'd just be out there stalking away like the dedicated bunch. It's the riff raff in the cars with guns out the windows that are of more concern.

Traditionally the VIC sambar hunters are the most dedicated of all deer hunters. As it has been described the terrain and actual animals make hunting them extremly difficult.
Also they stalk the deer sometimes for many hours and they would know if another human was in the area anyway (I couldn't see a sambar standing around for too long in a populated area, ie; gully with hunter at one end, bushwalkers at the other. That deer will be long gone in those circumstances)

The notion that shooting one or two foxes helps native wildlife is a total MYTH, typical hunting lobby propaganda.

I will never agree with that comment. No stat's or reports are required for me. Every single feral cat of fox does untold damage to our native wildlife.
Even way understating that a fox kills say, 30 native animals a year. Is leaving that fox out there a good thing eh ??
I think not and I'll gladly pull the trigger everytime knowing I'm saving a few of our small natives.
Fine to say every fox will be replaced by 6 etc. Bullocks poo I call that and untrue.

What worries me is the difference in VIC hunting and the NSW model. As stated in VIC it's only sambar hunting. Here, they want open slather on all ferals. That's a whole lot more shooting in the bush compared to what occurs in VIC.

I also don't agree we should do nothing either. There has been a lot of opposition to this NP hunting and I'm one of them, even as a hunter.
What bothers me though is it's fine to quote all the stat's and reports in the world but at the end of the day just having that report is doing nothing to reduce the ferals.
More action needs to be taken in these removal plan's. Well, I think that needs to be the pro's, not us but many will argue either way.
But any feral removed is a good one in my eyes.
The NPWS need more funding though to further expand on feral control programs, this is something they don't get enough sadly.

Fine to sit on the fence and be anti this and that. But what matters is the current system isn't working and more action is required.
I just don't agree with what they have planned in NSW National Parks. It's a dodgy, dirty deal.

[Pteropus]

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

If you shoot ALL of them, then they are ALL gone. Differences don't come much bigger than that!

The thing is, recreational hunters don't shoot all of them and are not even attempting to. Hunters are selective, as has been pointed out by sambar358, and only take a fraction of the animals they possibly could. Sure, it's not in their interest to kill an animal an leave it's carcass in the bush, but leaving it alive does not lead to "shooting them all".

[Tony]

Hi Strider,

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

If you shoot ALL of them, then they are ALL gone.

And how are a few amateurs with guns going to do that.

Differences don't come much bigger than that!

I would suggest you do some reading on feral animal control, the Invasive Species CRC and Invasive Species Council websites are a good place to start.

Tony

[Strider]

Hi Strider,

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

If you shoot ALL of them, then they are ALL gone.

And how are a few amateurs with guns going to do that.

No idea. You made the comment!

FYI, wildlife management was a major component of my undergraduate degree. I am well familiar with the principles.

[Son of a Beach]

Even if you could or all of the sambar hunters shoot all of the feral animals you see it would not make one little bit if difference to the feral animal populations.

If you shoot ALL of them, then they are ALL gone.

I think there is some confusion here. Tony specifically said "all of the feral animals you see", not "all the feral animals in the bush". I think that what he was getting at was that if you were to shoot all the ferals you saw, there would still be a lot left that you didn't see - perhaps so many still left that it wouldn't have made much difference to the overall population, at least in the long term.