Experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

[Tony]

It seems that very few posters (NNW seems to be one) have actually come into contact with a deer hunter in the bush

I have not come across hunters in Australia as I walk in NSW National Parks,though I have heard the odd gunshot. I have come across hunters in New Zealand, twice on walking trails where the hunters appeared to have gun ready to shoot, this was scary, and four times in huts.

One evening in the NI NZ near a hut, we spent a great evening around a camp fire chatting to some hunters, some very nice people, one told us stories how has had seen hunters in the area shooting across walking trails. The next night some more hunters turned up and all I can say, is that we where glad we where leaving early next day.

Tony

[Pteropus]

It would be good in NSW if only Deer's were permitted to be hunted, but if the law is passed there will be 11 other categories (including small birds) of animals that can be hunted.

I dont understand that logic. Just because your target species is different doesn't mean you can forget all about safe gun usage.

The fact that in Victoria you can only shot Sambar Deer while other ferals are protected within a national park is bizarre. Surely if you allow shooting within a national park all feral species should be shot.

Yeah crazy. If they allow the shooting in NPs then you would think they would say "shoot every feral pest you see." Sure, don't just shoot a single deer and haul it from the bush. Shoot ten why you are at it! And some foxes too!! (I'm not being sarcastic either)
But they (the Victorian Gov) are making money from this. It is not about feral animal control/management.
From the Victorian Department of Primary Industries website:

DPI regulates game hunting in Victoria by monitoring game harvest levels and ensuring that they don’t exceed the annual rate of production. This means that game hunting is sustainable, game is shared equally and non-game species and habitats are protected.

I have been wondering about what they mean at the end by saying "non-game species and habitats are protected." Does this mean if deer harvestng exceeded reproduction and numbers fell, then hunters might switch to non-game species?

[Greenie]

You are right it isn't logical. I am missing a sentence before it. But I have lost it now. I know the gist of it was to do with how Sambar hunting is regulated. Thanks Frenchy and Pteropus for turning it into something that make sense.

[sambar358]

Greenie....while I'm not familiar with the nuts & bolts of the NSW Parks proposal I would suspect that deer, wild pigs and feral goats would be the main species that would potentially be hunted. I think there are also moves a-foot in regards to the re-introduction of some level of game bird hunting apart from the duck mitigation under destruction permits currently undertaken across NSW but I'm not sure on the specifics of that....very early days with all this in NSW I think.

I think that the "sambar only" requirements are/were designed to reduce the level of disturbance to other user groups from excessive numbers of shots...or that was the logic behind it anyway. In reality I would see maybe a dozen wild dogs, probably the same amount of foxes and 5 or 6 feral cats in a full year sambar hunting. Many of these could have been shot I suppose and I suspect that most hunters who spend a fair time in the bush could relate similar numbers. So I suppose we're a bit "damned if we do" and "damned if we don't here"....if we fire too many shots shooting feral animals that we encounter other bush users will likely start complaining and feeling threatened....if we don't shoot ferals some will criticise us for being overly-selective by only shooting sambar. So an interesting one there.


Skills for pigs ? Pigs are pretty smart animals and that has been shown scientifically and I'd rate mountain pigs along with the deer....you will often see their sign (in NSW where I go to hunt red & fallow deer in the mountains of the New England area) but you will rarely come across them. But by their ground distrubance, wallows, tracks and scat they appear quite abundant. In mountainous terrain hunting wild pigs on foot with the help of chasing & holding dogs seems quite effective but this method would not be compatible with Park values and the likelyhood of non-target animals being disturbed would be significant. Pigs out on the flat country of western NSW are a bit different though as they seem more abundant and are in more open and accessible country at times. In my younger days I did quite a bit of pig hunting on foot around the Macquarie Marshes and a normal tally for a week or so was several hundred...but they can be seasonal and see to be subject to quite dramatic population spikes if the conditions are right.

Feral goats seem to be the easier of the 3 to hunt and I often encounter mobs of goats in NSW when hunting deer in terrain quite similar to our sambar range...steep, forested with rocky bluffs and rough country and occasionally more open ground. Goats tend to mob-up and from my experience on them anyway multiple kills per encounter are quite possible for a comptetent ground hunter who is a decent shot. So I think goats would be quite vulnerable to intensive shooting efforts but like anything it's always hard if not virtually impossible to get them all. As the numbers reduce the ones that survive are the ones with the smarts and the strategies to survive and like wild pigs, feral goats can quickly build-up their numbers in suitable areas so a few random efforts over 12 months may reduce them numerically but likely not effect the over-all population enough to enable much difference in the recovery of the environment to be noticed. But 1000 dead goats are still 1000 dead goats....and 1000 fewer goats to eat vegetation and to breed so there are still gains to be made.

Luckily we in Victoria seem free of feral goats in the ANP although they are present in significant numbers the Mitchell River NP...but like the ANP deer hunters are permitted to shoot only the sambar. I can't recall any DSE/PV efforts on these goats for many years although there were several rather short and unsuccessful ones maybe 20 years ago so lots of goats now in the Mitchell River NP unfortunately. Wild pigs are starting to rear their ugly snouts here and there in the mountains and I have seen some soil disturbance and found tracks and droppings around the head of the Buckwong Creek in the Davies Plain area north of Benambra and I am aware of some being shot around Tom Groggin Station on the Indi in recent times. Annecdotal evidence of the odd wild pig being shot in the GDR and some sign seen but presently generally not present or in very low numbers in specific areas....but this will change with NIL effort on these satellite populations of course.

Guys : despite what the DSE and the DPI might like to boast about on their websites and glossy brochures there is absolutlely NO MANAGEMENT of sambar deer in Victoria....never has been and never will be....period ! While sambar are still classed as "Game" and therefore the responsibility the DPI there are no programs in place to either reduce, contain or manage their numbers. With sambar deer hunting in Victoria it is all about HUNTER MANAGEMENT : and even this is pretty dodgy. Charging a hefty fee for hunting sambar, being permitted to hunt during prescribed seasons on public land, compliance requirements in regard to legal hunting methods, minimum calibres, certain dogs OK and some not, some areas OK for some dogs but not others....some areas not OK for all dogs. So lots of hoops for us (which they loosly call management) but nothing really for the deer....as if they need it. They are doing quite OK by themselves....and some would agrue far better than just OK too obvioulsy. So don't all into the trap thinking that the government are managing the sambar via restricting the take to perpetuate the resource...sure they are making big money from deer licence fees (multiply 27000 X 234.60) for a 3 year hunting licence...but that all goes into the black hole that is Consolidated Revenue....we don't see much at the pointy end I'm afraid. So the DPI quote from a previous post is really just hollow window dressing...a pretty broad and sweeping fluffy statement that really has no substance.....sounds good....but what does it really mean ? Not much from where I sit I'm afraid.

Unlike NSW though Victoria does have some declared Game species : a number of duck species & stubble quail are "gamebirds" and we have 3 other deer species in addition to the Sambar (Hog Red & Fallow) that are also classed as Game and currently the Hog & Red deer are subject to quite short seasonal restrains and a one-month 2 deer bag limit under a tag system also applies to our Hog deer. So in reality DPI is probably crowing about managing our game-birds via season declarations and bag limits being set in regard to seasonal and game number situations and along with these activities certain management expenditure such as field staff present on duck opening and Hog deer checking stations are used to monitor hunter activity and harvest levels. But on deer management for a sustainable population for our sambar.....certainly absolutley nothing, nought, zip, zilch, zero !

Cheers

sambar358

[Tony]

Hi sambar358,

I came across these Victorian Sambar deer harvesting figures, 2009, 2010, 2011, and I thought you and some others might find interesting. I wanted to go back further but I am unable to find the information.

2009
16,193 hunters that held a Game Licence to harvest deer
Total deer harvested, 39,418 (estimate)
Total sambar deer harvested, 34,368 (estimate)
The total average season (all deer) harvest was 2.43 deer per Game Licence holder (95% CI = 2.06 - 2.88)

2010
The number of game licence holders with permits to hunt deer ranged from a high of 19,849 in November/December 2009, to a low of 16,088 in January/February 2010
Total deer harvested, 35,278 (estimate)
Total sambar deer harvested, 28,762 (estimate)
The total average season (all deer) harvest was 1.86 deer per game licence holder (95% CI = 1.49 – 2.30)

2011
The number of game licence holders with permits to hunt deer ranged from a high of 21,570 in November/December 2010, to a low of 18,652 in January/February 2011
Total deer harvested, 40,728 (estimate)
Total sambar deer harvested, 34,000 (estimate)
The total average season (all deer) harvest was 1.97 deer per game licence holder (95% CI = 1.57–2.48)


Estimates of harvest for deer, duck and quail
in Victoria: Results from surveys of Victorian
game licence holders in 2009, 2010, 2011
Andrew M. Gormley1 and John D. Turnbull2
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Heidelberg, Victoria

[Tony]

Nice to see some scientist starting to discuss the issue.

Great a scientest suggesting the use of toxic pig bait's

Ah.... I think we would all agree baiting has been proven to be very bad since moving forward from the 80's.

I know the baits work well but they also impact heavily on a lot of other non target species.

I don't support the game councils plan, but if it's between 1080 and the GC... Sorry I'll swing my vote for the dreaded GC.

Hi forest,

Thank you for your comments, I am a bit confused by them, it would be good if you could expand on your comments.

And btw, could you please explain to me why the use of lead shot for duck hunting is prohibited throughout Victoria.

Maybe you could answer this question as well, I would also like to know why the same 15,000 Game Councils licenced hunters who removed a whopping 14,162 feral and game animals from 2 million hectares of state forests would be successful in reducing the feral animal populations in NSW National Parks.

Tony

[sambar358]

Hi Tony.....good post on those sambar harvest estimation figures.....that's a fair mountain of sambar over those 3 years...almost 197,000 !! But those "estimation" of the harvest figures do have their critics as it is done via a relatively small phone sample of Licenced Deer Hunters at a particular time of the year and depending on when this is done hunters may or may not be active. It is not a compulsory written/on-line survey that all deer hunters are required to complete. My recollection of the process was that a ramdom sample of 200 or 300 hunters are selected and then they are contacted by phone and asked a number of questions about their deer hunting for that year. I've never got "the call" but I guess it'd be things like : Did you hunt, how many days did you hunt, were you successful, how many animals did you take and what species & sex were they, how many stags,hinds, vuveniles did you see etc. Then from these responses the results are tallied then these are multiplied by the total number of licenced deer hunters at that particular time to get these "harvest estimates".

Like all of these types of samples various assumptions are made and the primary one is that those participating in the sample are truthful....and I guess in reality there is no way of determining that. So those numbers are cetainly not "actual"....but rather a guesstimation and in my view they are probably on the high side. If they are accurate plus or minus even 20% and given "normal" international annual herd harvest criteria for large game animals by hunters.....then there's a whole lot of sambar out there ! So interesting to do the numbers on those harvest estimates....but pretty hard, impossible actually to really pin it down to a real and accurate number without presenting killed sambar to Govt-run checking stations, implementing a tag system or creating a whole lot of beaurocracy to "manage" all this to come-up with real numbers. It just won't happen. Cheers

sambar358

[forest]

Hi forest,

Thank you for your comments, I am a bit confused by them, it would be good if you could expand on your comments.

Hi Tony

I'll try to explain. I'm not pro game council so please don't paint me with that brush. I also don't hunt ducks so have no experience on that front or wish too.

What I am though is anti poison. Using a product that takes up to 21 hours to painfully kill an animal is very cruel.
The scientest you mentioed was very pro poisoning for reducing pig numbers. I can see where he is coming from as the stat's do show a large reduction in pig numbers, but what else did those baid kill too. With the midset of "can you provide a guarantee that a hunter will not shoot me in a National Park". I'll answer that and say no. This is why I'm a hunter that is against rec hunting in our NP's.
"Can you provide a guarantee that if we bait pigs (As an example) in NP's that non target natives will not be killed too.

Poison is just too Indiscriminate on a large scale.

[Greenie]

went extinct on the mainland very recently

Not really on topic but shhh, I know where there are some near me that they have been re-introduced.....

I'm sworn to secrecy but they aren't too far from home.....

I won't say anything either. But I did see it on the news..

Have you spent much time in that area? I have seen wild brumby's there and the damage caused by them. I am just wondering what other feral animals are in the area. As the area is where hunting will be able to take place, but brumby's are exempt from being hunted.

[Pteropus]

..."Can you provide a guarantee that if we bait pigs (As an example) in NP's that non target natives will not be killed too.
Poison is just too Indiscriminate on a large scale.

There is some school of thought that, because 1080 (sodium fluroacetate) is found naturally in many Australian native plants (some Acacia’s etc), many native animals have a tolerance to it. I personally don’t know much about the effects on natives and have heard mixed reports from scientists, with some agreeing that there is not much effect, and others saying that it does kill natives. I have met farmers who stay away from it too, though they are mainly cattle graziers, where as sheep farmers are more likely to use it for control of dogs.

I personally would err on the side of caution and am not a fan of baiting due to its indiscriminate nature, but I haven’t seen any studies on the effect of 1080 and natives (though I haven’t really looked – if I get time I might have a look for some studies).

There is some basic info here -> http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/documents/Bi ... 80-PA5.pdf

[Son of a Beach]

1080 has been used in Tasmanian forestry explicitly for the purpose of killing natives (wallabies). So they, at least, are not significantly resistant to it.

Back to the original mention of poisoning the pigs earlier though... I'm not sure if that scientist was actually advocating the use of poison as a standard method of feral species control, but merely as an emergency method of managing an outbreak of foot and mouth disease if it took hold in a population of feral pigs.

[forest]

I am just wondering what other feral animals are in the area. As the area is where hunting will be able to take place, but brumby's are exempt from being hunted.

I'm up there a fair bit as other than the Watagan's it's the closest place for me to walk. I love it up there.

Honestly whilst walking I do see a lot of brumbies. Last winter we spotted 14 just walking from Junction Pools to Little Murray (Which is only about 10km's of rd) You cannot see more that a few meters into the bush as it's that thick, but still we noticed the horses and yes, Lots of soil damage and poo everywhere. We were even challenged at the campground by a large black brumbie on dusk for about 15 minutes. Pretty cool but I'd imagine that might freak some out. IMO there are a lot of horses up there. Or it could be that they venture out on the roads more when the 4x4's are not on them as they are closed for winter. I do know that Little Murray camp ground is about 200 meters and in sight of the rangers hut up there, so it's not an unknown issue, maybe they like the horses ??

I do see the odd bit of pig sign but very little on the actual tops. Some dog prints too and we have heard them howl at dawn.
As a hunter I'm always looking for sign out of habbit whilst walking. Goodluck to the boys that venture up there hunting and for me, I wouldn't waste my time. It's too thick, hence why Malcom Naden was up there for 7 years being chased around.
Plenty of good hunting around the tops on private land.
I'm not impressed this bill has been passed

[Tony]

Hi Tony

I'll try to explain. I'm not pro game council so please don't paint me with that brush. I also don't hunt ducks so have no experience on that front or wish too.

What I am though is anti poison. Using a product that takes up to 21 hours to painfully kill an animal is very cruel.
The scientest you mentioed was very pro poisoning for reducing pig numbers. I can see where he is coming from as the stat's do show a large reduction in pig numbers, but what else did those baid kill too. With the midset of "can you provide a guarantee that a hunter will not shoot me in a National Park". I'll answer that and say no. This is why I'm a hunter that is against rec hunting in our NP's.
"Can you provide a guarantee that if we bait pigs (As an example) in NP's that non target natives will not be killed too.

Poison is just too Indiscriminate on a large scale.

Hi forest,

I am not trying to paint you as pro Game Council your last post did that for you, I was just trying to find out what you were getting at.

Lead shot has been banned in Victoria and apparently the US, because lead is very toxic and a lot of water birds where ingesting lead shot as part of their daily foraging, and many where dying from lead poisoning.

With the 1080, a very good question, you are right it is indiscriminate and there is no guarantee that native animals will not take baits set for other animals.

I have also read that as it does occurs naturally and some native animals have some tolerance to it, but you must also think about that it appears that using 1080 is one of the few ways to make some impact on feral animal numbers, using the case in the Namadgi NP and 80% reduction of pig numbers is very significant, the impacts of removing 80% of feral pigs from the environment must be balanced against some native animals taking the baits.

I have also read that there are methods employed to reduce native animal poisonings, like bait stations, where they place non poison baits for a few days to attract pigs then put some poison baits, the other method is using baits encased in something that native animals are unable to bite through.

Is baiting is humane, well you have a very valid point which the answer is no, but is not having a clean kill and wounding and animal with a bullet and then not being able to finish it off any less humane.

I think the most important thing here is that those of us against hunting being allowed in NSW National Parks work together to stop this insanely stupid slimy back door deal.

Tony

[Pteropus]

1080 has been used in Tasmanian forestry explicitly for the purpose of killing natives (wallabies). So they, at least, are not significantly resistant to it.

Yes, I have heard this too. Do the wallabies die or just get sick and avoid young seedlings/saplings in future?

...I'm not impressed this bill has been passed

I am not sure if it has passed yet as it seems it has just been introduced. I am not really sure on the procedures but if you check my post in the NSW forum here there is some info on the process. I think it gets debated now. If it fails it could go to the people of NSW as a referendum. Maybe I am clinging on to false hopes there....

[forest]

Hi forest,

I am not trying to paint you as pro Game Council your last post did that for you

Um, I'm against the GC fully and not sure how my post was "pro" game council. (But I hold a R license out of nesessity for my deer hunting) I commented that if it were a choice between 1080 and the GC i'd choose the GC. Only reason for that comment is that for me the GC is the lesser of two evils when looking at GC vs 1080. That's just my opinion.

Maybe I should have put it this way.
Best option: No rec hunting in NP's, Use the pro's more activly though.
Second worst option: Use the GC.
Worst Worst option: Use 1080.

[sambar358]

On the 1080 issue I certainly agree with Pteropus here and have serious concerns in regard to the non-target kill and also the potential for a sigificant bi-kill on animals and birds that feed on the carcass of an animal poisoned by 1080. Among my other interests aside from sambar hunting is building and using game/trail cameras and these are small weather-proof boxes with a digital camera aboard, some batteries and a controller that has a movement sensor to trigger the camera when something is in front of the unit. I leave these out in the bush for a couple of months at a time watching various features and usually get some pretty interesting images of deer and many other bush creatures that we'd otherwise not see.

I have on a few occasions set a unit watching a dead deer carcass and for the sake of this comment let's assume that it's been poisoned by 1080 rather than shot. What tends to happen is that Wedgetailed eagles find the carcass quite quickly and begin feeding on it often within a day and they'll remain on or about the carcass for the duration, wild dogs usually arrive quite quickly and they-too will camp on it until it is gone....usually within a fortnight. Then we'll have foxes too & the odd feral cat.....so a few ferals.....BUT there are also plenty of native birds and animals too....the Wedgies almost always & other daytime bush birds : Currawongs, Crows, Butcher birds, Wrens etc. And at night another group usually turns-up for their share of the bounty....Quolls, small marsupial mice or rats often and some of the large Owls pretty regularly. So at this short-term banquet there are a varitey of species that potentially will feed on a 1080 kill after the target (or non-target) animal is killed and these-too then have the potential to be bi-kills. In my opinion the loss would be signficant....our large raptors are rare enough and they could potentially be wiped-out in some areas by feeding on 1080 kills....the same would apply to the seldom seen Quolls and other small native carnivors and of course all the host of bush birds that feast on these kills.

So as a result of these sorts of concerns the Victorian government recently abandoned plans to trial aerial bait using 1080 poison targeting wild dogs and foxes in a fairly signficant portion of the high country and while the DSE/DPI & PV copped plenty of flack over it from the farming interests I believe that it was the correct decision . I also believe for the same reasons that any attempt to mass 1080 poison for deer, pigs, goats or any other identified "problem" species is fraught with real danger for a whole host of non-target species in our bush. Is the potential for some short-term number reductions worth the likely long term decimation of a signficant range of our animals and bird species ? Cheers

sambar358

[Tony]

Found this on feral.org
SODIUM FLUOROACETATE RESIDUE IN FERAL PIG (SUS SCROFA)
CARCASSES – IS IT A SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY POISONING HAZARD?


2. Susceptibility of non-target species
The amount of sodium fluoroacetate required to receive a lethal dose (based on LD50), and
the amount of muscle, visceral tissue or stomach contents to be consumed to obtain this dose
of fluoroacetate was calculated for a range of likely non-target species (Table 2).
Table 2 Amounts of fluoroacetate tissue non-target species would have to ingest to receive.

IMG_5507.jpg (99.07 KiB) Viewed 13280 times

From the discussion.
Based on the residue level of 2.6 ug/g, there appears to be little risk to native Australian
animals from consuming muscle from poisoned pigs. All native species examined in Table 2
need to consume in excess of 15% of their bodyweight to be at risk from eating muscle tissue.
Of the introduced mammals, dogs and foxes are most susceptible requiring consumption of
less than 5% of their bodyweight in muscle for a lethal dose (Table 2). However, the much
higher concentrations found in the viscera and stomach contents suggest that there is a
potential poisoning risk to many native animals from consuming these tissues.
Despite the potential risk, few non-target animals were confirmed to consume carcasses by
remote photography. Goannas readily consume flesh including viscera, but are at low risk
due to their high tolerance to fluoroacetate. However their feeding habits may increase the
exposure of other species to visceral tissues, increasing their likelihood of secondary
poisoning. Despite anecdotes suggesting a low impact on secondary consumers, further
assessments should be undertaken to assess the extent that non-target species consume such
tissues.

[maddog]

Hi forest,

I am not trying to paint you as pro Game Council your last post did that for you

Um, I'm against the GC fully and not sure how my post was "pro" game council. (But I hold a R license out of nesessity for my deer hunting) I commented that if it were a choice between 1080 and the GC i'd choose the GC. Only reason for that comment is that for me the GC is the lesser of two evils when looking at GC vs 1080. That's just my opinion.

Maybe I should have put it this way.
Best option: No rec hunting in NP's, Use the pro's more activly though.
Second worst option: Use the GC.
Worst Worst option: Use 1080.

I fully agree with you Forest, that the use if 1080 should be a last resort option as the death of a animal via 1080 is inhumane. However as there has been no evidence produced that the firing of pot shots at feral species by enthusiastic amateurs (however well intentioned) will have any meaningful impact in reducing anything but endangered species, it is clearly not of any environmental benefit at all. It is fair to say that the only justification for such shooting is as sport, and the pursuit of this sport within National Parks is clearly both inappropriate and incompatible with the values that led to the creation of the Parks.

Presently if, after careful consideration, a park ranger makes a decision that culling is necessary, culling will commence. Most understand that from time to time species including foxes, pigs, dogs, koalas, kangaroos and wallabies, all become too numerous for the available land and require culling. This is an evidence based decision to manage populations, and involves careful consideration and the appropriate allocation of resources. Conversely, if a Government wishes to sell State assets and does a deal with a minor political party in order to facilitate the transaction, this has nothing to do with feral animal control, is not a decision based on the consideration of evidence, but is is a licence bought with a sleazy political deal. To claim otherwise is nothing but lipstick on a pig.

[Moondog55]

Unless political pressure brought to bear by vocal minority opinion parties causes reasonable action to be abandoned, as recently happened in NSW with the quoll project and other similar projects.
Have to say tho that I just loved this quip

"To claim otherwise is nothing but lipstick on a pig."
now I'm looking for a Facebook opportunity to use it

[maddog]

I like it too. It was Obama referring to Sarah Palin, in full:

"That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink..."

[sambar358]

Maddog...."lipstick on a pig"....I like that one and will have to try & use it some-day.

Agreed....NSW does seem to at times conduct "culls" on public land but I wonder how effective these are in reality. Shots fired are hardly an indication of critters killed...the next-door neighbor of one of the NSW properties in the Hunter Valley each April had a NSW PD helicopter shoot-over in March this year targeting pigs, goats and deer....2 days of a Squirrel chopper buzzing around and many 100's of shots fired....more than they could count. A big operation...half a dozen vehicles, heaps of blokes in support, camping gear, fuel, ammo, tucker etc....probably 20 people involved....2 actual shooters I think plus the big high-cost chopper of course. For the cocky all that noise, man-power and shooting seemed to indicate to him that his feral animal problems were a thing of the past....only thing was when he and his boys did an extensive search of the property to pile-up and dispose of all the dead feral animals they only found a few....and had to kill a couple more that were staggering around with holes in them. A few "sport" hunters probably would have killed a whole lot more in less time, made far less noise and also cost the government absolutely nothing. This was done on this property as a "trial" as owner permission is required to aerial shoot but I doubt if it'll be done again. One isolated exercise yes....but from my info on govt sponsored chopper shoots especially in a bush situation it is far from cost or kill effective on most ferals and is really (due to the cost) a one-off in most areas. Ground hunting over extended periods would have far greater impact but obviously is more man-power and time intensive and for government employed pro's....I would imagine very expensive. Hence I think the concept of hand-balling this to recreational hunters in-part as often the old "bottom line" is the major criteria by which governments operate.

Recently DPI in Vic came up with what they thought was an attractive offer in that they floated the concept of "employing" retired, older experienced and competent sambar hunters (like me) to cull sambar deer in designated areas of the ANP and other public land. Apparently they were quite excited at this new and ground-breaking strategy....what was the offer ? Oh....that there would be no payment, no special access concessions (areas would still be under normal no-vehicle restrictions), no support at all....but they'd "generously" fix us up for some fuel and any ammo costs ? Obviously the concept didn't fly and go beyond initial discussions which were rather brief I understand...but it does give you some idea of the thinking of some of these people....totally cost driven. "Lipstick on a Pig" Cheers

sambar358

[Moondog55]

"Cost driven" when they won't pay front line staff a living wage and almost all the salary and wages money goes to head office bumwarmers, it really doesn't take 100 office staff to support a single ranger but that appears to be how parks actually runs.

[maddog]

I agree Moondog, pressure from ill-informed minority pressure groups can lead to perverse environmental outcomes. A classic example is from 1996, when the Koala Management Task Force (SA) sensibly proposed the humane culling (shooting) of Koalas on Kangaroo Island (a species without a predator), to overcome problems of environmental degradation and starvation caused by overpopulation. As many would be aware the proposal suffered at the hands of public outrage and subsequent political interference, which ensured the degradation and starvation would continue. In this case, the stop-gap methods of control implemented included expensive sterilisation programs and transportation to the mainland. As the problem of excessive koala populations remains unsolved to this day, as do the out of control feral populations despite being subject to recreational shooting as sport, it is certainly much better that all is politics is removed from population ecology and only genuine environmental programs be implemented as required.

Sambar 358, even better than old retired Sambar hunters, would be the professional soldiers working under the supervision and direction of NPWS Park Rangers. If we are serious about bringing feral (or other populations) under control, I doubt there would be a more experienced, competent and disciplined group of professionals available. Close a National Park for a week or two (for national security reasons) and bring in the helicopter gunships, machine guns, snipers, and support infantry, etc. All currently employed to eliminate an enemy in a systematic way and so available at no net increase in cost to the government (it could correctly be regarded as a useful training exercise in bushcraft skills). I am sure this would result in a dramatic decrease in Sambar numbers.

Cheers

[Moondog55]

Hi maddog, the problem with using "old" professional soldiers is twofold, one most members of the military are not overly proficient with firearms, usually just good enough to stay in service ( Infantry are of course different) and two they would be accustomed to using a rifle which the law would not allow to be used.
They would have to be retired soldiers as there are constitutional impediments to using the military except in the "Defence" of our country ( although all of our Governments have been pretty good at ignoring our constitution when it suits them) perhaps even 3-fold, they would expect to be paid a "Military" wage which at the moment is incredibly generous 55->150k PA

[forest]

I remember years ago, maybe 10-15 (or was it 20 ?? Signs of age) that the army was used shooting feral cats, might have been in QLD but my memory is being stretched.
This was on a 60 minutes program that I watched as a youngster ??

[Moondog55]

I think may have seen that "once-upon-a-time" I seem to remember the kill ratio was abysmal 1 cat for every 10,000rounds.
They had a big roo cull at Pucka a while ago, Army were forbidden to do the shooting ( can't trust a soldier with a loaded weapon can we??" ) and they called in civilian shooters, Biggest load of political BS I have ever heard, but it seems that BS and politicians are inseparable ( like the military having to carry pretend red plastic rifles in training now )

[maddog]

Hi maddog, the problem with using "old" professional soldiers is twofold, one most members of the military are not overly proficient with firearms, usually just good enough to stay in service ( Infantry are of course different) and two they would be accustomed to using a rifle which the law would not allow to be used.
They would have to be retired soldiers as there are constitutional impediments to using the military except in the "Defence" of our country ( although all of our Governments have been pretty good at ignoring our constitution when it suits them) perhaps even 3-fold, they would expect to be paid a "Military" wage which at the moment is incredibly generous 55->150k PA

G'day Moondog,

I would be genuinely shocked if the standard of our serving military personnel, particularly those in the infantry (the obvious choice), were not significantly higher than that of ageing sporting hunters (unless perhaps they were ex-military). If this were the case, it really would be a matter of national security for them to get more practice. But more importantly, as soldiers are disciplined and of known quality, their would be little chance of rogues with guns under minimum supervision being set loose in our National Parks posing a threat to environmental values and other park users.

I would not be concerned regarding constitutional impediments if I were you Moondog, as soldiers are commonly used for other non-military purposes such as disaster relief where they are beneficially employed under the instruction of State and Local governments. I am unaware of any such involvement that was successfully challenged on Constitutional grounds. Such projects allow the military to hone their undoubted logistical capability and a range of skills in a socially beneficial way. In fact, where a difficult job of a large scale needs to be done, and done properly, we often rely on the military.

As for the cost, I disagree with your remarkable assertion that our serving military personnel are overpaid, as I think many would. However, whatever be the appropriate salary paid to the soldiers, it is a price paid regardless of whether they are left to malinger around the barracks, or are utilised for socially beneficial projects such as the complete eradication of Sambar from National Parks (that all important environmental concern much stressed in this thread). At this point in time however, we as a society are not burdened with the cost of attempting to successfully regulate and minimise the damage done by a grab bag of amateur sport hunting enthusiasts of variable quality roaming free within National Parks.

Cheers

[Tony]

I think may have seen that "once-upon-a-time" I seem to remember the kill ratio was abysmal 1 cat for every 10,000rounds.
They had a big roo cull at Pucka a while ago, Army were forbidden to do the shooting ( can't trust a soldier with a loaded weapon can we??" ) and they called in civilian shooters, Biggest load of political BS I have ever heard, but it seems that BS and politicians are inseparable ( like the military having to carry pretend red plastic rifles in training now )

I havn't found anything on the army shooting cats in Queensland yet but I found this.

In 1992, at a cattle station in the South Western Australian outback Professor J Pettigrew of the University of Queensland shot 175 ferals in a 10 sq km area. The army shot a further 400 in three days yet a few weeks later they returned to shoot a further 200. According to Professor Pettigrew cats were pouring into the vacuum created by the extermination program.

So by your reckoning Moondog55 the army in WA cat hunt used 6,000,000 bullets to shoot 600 cats, all in just a few days, that is an awful lot of lead, I hope their guns were water cooled.

Tony

[Moondog55]

I actually think I had a "Fingerfart" there; I meat to write "1,000"
As I said our wunderful government is always doing what-ever it wants and disregards the constitution when it suits them. As for the military not being very good shots? Only the infantry really get to practice properly, our defence budget is so low most serving soldiers only get issued sufficient ammunition to allow each yearly qualification.
We have on hand about enough ammo for a 12 minute fire-fight although that is an improvement on my years when we had on hand about 5 minutes worth.
The general standard of " FIGHTING " soldiers is quite high, most soldiers are not warfighters tho, just people who have a job in the military and are no fitter than they have to be to stay employed.
The army know this too, that is why they have huge "Pre-deployment " efforts to make sure folk are fit and strong enough to do the job.
I could get the rounds fired to kills information for you for WW2 and Korea (no idea on Vietnam) but the conception from the Falklands was that it took 1 to 2 thousand rounds to get each confirmed dead enemy, cats are not shooting back, but they do how-ever move very very quickly and are a very small and well camouflaged target.
Pig shooting ( not pig-hunting) I know that the first shot gets a kill, after that it gets harder and using a bolt action rifle is not conducive to really accurate free-hand shooting from a moving vehicle so you can expect to miss more than you hit. this is why aerial shooting simply does not work unless you use a minigun or multiple MGs and those really do use 10 ->100,000 rounds at a time.
So even assuming the use of automatic rifles ( which pest hunters can still use - Lucky B*****s) you will use a LOT of ammunition, this is simply the way of it when certain animals are shot at.
Some animals do not scatter and run when they hear the first shot, these are easier to shoot large numbers of quickly

[Ent]

Um? Huge difference between war and pest control. Since the advent if the Maxim (Vickers) machine gun the rounds per enemy causality has been climbing dramatically. After the second world war the US Army looked at casualties and formed the opinion most casualties came from fire aimed in the general direction rather than from marksmanship.

Frankly, if pest controllers were of that mindset there would be new mountains of spent cases springing up. The hunting ethos should be one shot one immediate dispatch. By that, do not pull the trigger unless certain of this. Anything else has more in common with uSA action movies.

Regards