Experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

[maddog]

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

Good Evening Ent,

Having followed your posts on equipment with much interest, I am relieved that you have arrived at this thread and shared your opinion in such a concise manner. I assume that you would agree that there is also a difference between war and the delivery of humanitarian aid (such as flood relief in Queensland), but this does not prevent the Australian armed forces from making a substantial contribution thanks to high levels of discipline, rigorous training, and teamwork (of course the Americans were no where near as impressive in New Orleans).

From my limited understanding of the subject, I agree that you are correct that for the hunting ethos, one shot one immediate dispatch is ethically correct. However, if that ethos is considered in the context of feral animal control within National Parks, the numbers culled are of far more important than the pride of a marksman. This fact can be confirmed by even those with a limited understanding of the science of ecology. In this regard the endeavours of hobbyists represented by the sporting shooters are of no value, despite a number of claims to the contrary. While images of shells, gunships, and Wagner may alarm you, if people wish to preserve environmental values by culling to control populations of particular species, what is required is of industrial not hobby scale.

Cheers

[Moondog55]

I do not think that I have anything pertinent left to add to this thread, but maddog you grasp the intent of my last post, feral animal control is, as you so aptly put it, warfare not sport and will be as costly ( trillions) if it is to be successful.
If we do it at all properly it will probably be through disease and parasite vectors anyway with all of the risks those entail, biological control tho can be risky and also fraught with political danger, feline distemper for all the moggy loving townies? A nice virulent horse disease and the risks to our monied racing industry?

[Ent]

Hi Maddog

I am a target shooter but have been known to go bush. As a target shooter when I thought I was good at it over ten thousand pieces of lead went trundling down a range in a year. The vast majority were of the 0.177 calibre but a few 6.5x55MM were launched as well, a round that is rather well known to a particular firearm. I also reload my own ammunition using a Dillon press and have an interest in cartridge and projectile design. A humble .22 is my favourite for the minor species but on rabbits the twin viruses have made them rather uncommon which suggests that the most effective control mechanisms is the three of the Apocalypse riders, with us humans have fourth of for ourselves.

Vermin control is a complex issue with many control aspects with firearms having a role.

As for the military aspect, I am more than happy to have aid delivered by a military transport or civilian transport and admire our military personal, especially when having to deal with challenging aspects. As much as I love the F111 it is probably not the most suitable aircraft for that role

I merely point out that when "hunting" the huntsperson has an ethical duty to make a clean dispatch. On a commercial scale this might be compromised but then lends the pest controllers to dealing with claims of animal cruelty.

On the National Park issue the question is both multiple recreational uses and vermin control. I will leave up to the people in NSW to discuss the merits as in Tasmania we have enough debate on 4WDS. I have no strong view one way or the other as long as the debate is sensible with people on both sides willing to consider the merits of each others' points.

Cheers

[Tony]

Finally someone from the pro hunting side with some sense, Shooting in parks "madness", says hunting club

Tony

[maddog]

Finally someone from the pro hunting side with some sense, Shooting in parks "madness", says hunting club

Tony

Meanwhile, interest in the sport grows at taxpayer expense:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ofarrell-unde ... 20gq4.html

[Tony]

Meanwhile, interest in the sport grows at taxpayer expense:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ofarrell-unde ... 20gq4.html

Thanks for that maddog,

It is quite frightening, I also came across this NSW parliament has final say on shooting which is a way of saying the NSW government are ready to do more dirty deals with the shooters party.

I am currently doing some reading on the websites of SSAA Game Council and Shooters and Fishers Party, these minority organisations are all about the right to own guns to kill animals for fun under the false pretenses of game conservation hunting, very little is is actually mentioned about conserving native animals and fauna and there absolutely nothing about the rights of the majority of Australians who choose not to have anything to do with guns.

Tony

For those of you who would like to read about the use of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) and its impact native animals there is a lot of information on the feral.org.au data base, 233 articles.

These are some interesting articles.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pests ... Quolls.htm
http://www.feral.org.au/1080-aerial-bai ... australia/,
http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uplo ... quolls.pdf,
http://www.feral.org.au/aerial-baiting- ... -woodland/.
http://www.feral.org.au/the-immediate-i ... opulation/.

[forest]

I am currently doing some reading on the websites of SSAA Game Council and Shooters and Fishers Party, these minority organisations are all about the right to own guns to kill animals for fun

Tony that's just not true. A heck of a lot of people that own guns never would hunt or would ever wish too.

The SSAA does have interests in hunting but puts a lot more efforts into sporting shooting, ie target shooting, clay target shooting etc.

While I'm a gun owner that also hunts I know a lot of people at my local shotgun and rifle clubs that just enjoy shooting targets. They are just as anti hunting as the most devoted greenie, But they like shooting.
It's a legit sport and has just as much right to exsist in Australia as bushwalking does.

We have some of the best shots in the world in this country and hold current titles to prove it. Do them proud and show a little respect.

Game council, yes all hunting.
Shooters party, not all about hunting (But it is heavily envolved so don't get me wrong there) but it's what is perceved as of late because of this whole NP hunting joke.

[maddog]

I am currently doing some reading on the websites of SSAA Game Council and Shooters and Fishers Party, these minority organisations are all about the right to own guns to kill animals for fun

Tony that's just not true. A heck of a lot of people that own guns never would hunt or would ever wish too.

The SSAA does have interests in hunting but puts a lot more efforts into sporting shooting, ie target shooting, clay target shooting etc.

While I'm a gun owner that also hunts I know a lot of people at my local shotgun and rifle clubs that just enjoy shooting targets. They are just as anti hunting as the most devoted greenie, But they like shooting.
It's a legit sport and has just as much right to exsist in Australia as bushwalking does.

We have some of the best shots in the world in this country and hold current titles to prove it. Do them proud and show a little respect.

Game council, yes all hunting.
Shooters party, not all about hunting (But it is heavily envolved so don't get me wrong there) but it's what is perceved as of late because of this whole NP hunting joke.

Forest you are correct in your assertion that the Shooters and Fishers are not just about the right to kill animals and kill animals for fun. They are also about peddling nonsense about the environmental benefits of sport shooting, the abolition of animal welfare, increasing opportunities for inappropriate access into national parks, and diminishing the power of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to impose appropriate regulations on the activities within the Estate they were charged with managing.

They are also in favour of the sale of State assets.

Cheers

[forest]

Forest you are correct in your assertion that the Shooters and Fishers are not just about the right to kill animals and kill animals for fun. They are also about peddling nonsense about the environmental benefits of sport shooting, the abolition of animal welfare, increasing opportunities for inappropriate access into national parks, and diminishing the power of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to impose appropriate regulations on the activities within the Estate they were charged with managing.

They are also in favour of the sale of State assets.

Wow are you mad ??

But I agree with you.....so don't get me wrong there.

I just didn't like the generalisation that "gun owners" or groups that support them are all about killing animals for fun. This is not the case.
Anyway none of this has much to do with experiences of hunting in NP's so I guess I'll zip it.

[maddog]

Not at all mad, Forest.

I dont disagree that shooting is a legitimate sport (including hunting), nor an I opposed to forestry, 4x4's, trailbilkes, fishing, etc.

However I am opposed to anti-science flat earth land management policies, and mutton dressed as lamb.

And, please do not zip it Forest, the thread was recognised as drifting far from its original topic long ago, and I am finding all this very entertaining.

[forest]

mutton dressed as lamb.

Um shouldn't that be.....

lipstick on a pig.

[Tony]

Tony that's just not true. A heck of a lot of people that own guns never would hunt or would ever wish too.

The SSAA does have interests in hunting but puts a lot more efforts into sporting shooting, ie target shooting, clay target shooting etc.

While I'm a gun owner that also hunts I know a lot of people at my local shotgun and rifle clubs that just enjoy shooting targets. They are just as anti hunting as the most devoted greenie, But they like shooting.
It's a legit sport and has just as much right to exsist in Australia as bushwalking does.

We have some of the best shots in the world in this country and hold current titles to prove it. Do them proud and show a little respect.

Game council, yes all hunting.
Shooters party, not all about hunting (But it is heavily envolved so don't get me wrong there) but it's what is perceved as of late because of this whole NP hunting joke.

Hi Forest,

You do have a very good point that many gun owners are target shooters and are true conservationist and I do have respect for these people and sorry for any offence, unfortunately when reading the SSAA website this does not come through at all, there is a lot of anti green articles and anti labor articles, if there are anti hunting conservationists members then they are very quiet, I have read the the last two years of letters published on the SSAA website and I did not see one that was anti hunting, but many from members that want hunting on all public land, they want gun laws abolished and the right to carry a gun anywhere any time and gun training for children.

I have also been reading hunting forums and I will not repeat what is said about people trying to stop the hunting in NP's as I will be banned.

Tony

[Ent]

Hi Tony

It is ironic that world wide often the catalyst and drive for national parks came from hunters seeing the destruction of habitat as the biggest danger to wildlife yet now they are seen as the enemy. In Europe could be argued without rich landowners setting aside hunting reserves even less of natural Europe would remain.

I am sure if you read enough you will find fringe views offensive to main stream thinking from just about any large group of people. Please, do not fall for the trap of generalization.

Land under national parks had been growing dramatically over the last hundred years. I personally wonder if land management thought processes have grown as quickly. It appears that the approach is to squeeze out groups by marginalizing them. It is not surprising that this can and does bred strong language.

Countless animals are killed every year to feed our supermarkets. It is rather strange to single out a person that kills directly from the remainder that have others do that Job. I respect people that make a decision not to use animals as food or materials and if that is your bases of belief then good on you.

Regards

[north-north-west]

Land under national parks had been growing dramatically over the last hundred years. I personally wonder if land management thought processes have grown as quickly.

Given the push for mining, grazing, forestry and now shooting and other less than desirable (from a conservation aspect) 'recreational' uses, obviously not.

[Tony]

Hi Ent,

Countless animals are killed every year to feed our supermarkets. It is rather strange to single out a person that kills directly from the remainder that have others do that Job. I respect people that make a decision not to use animals as food or materials and if that is your bases of belief then good on you.

This is not about the ethics of eating eating farmed meat, this is about the ethics of allowing hunting in NSW National Parks.

I am sure if you read enough you will find fringe views offensive to main stream thinking from just about any large group of people. Please, do not fall for the trap of generalization.

Unfortunately it is the radical fringe that is pushing this on the main stream.

I will show you some garbage that is being used as the main reason for allowing hunting National Parks. This is the latest media release from the Shooters and fishers Party Hunting in National Parks is a victory for conservation.

Posted on 14 June 2012 by Content Manager

Legislation introduced today allowing hunting in NSW National Parks will provide genuine, measurable benefits to the people of New South Wales, to the State’s economy and to the environment, all at minimal cost to taxpayers.

Licensed, trained and tested Conservation Hunters are already on track to remove 1 million feral and game animals from public and private land in NSW, while injected more than $100 million of their own money into regional towns, and their impact will be even greater under the new laws.

“Since the passing of the original Game and Feral Animal Control Bill 2002, hunters have demonstrated a thoroughly professional approach towards feral animal control, and have also proven over the years the value of volunteer conservation hunting, both on Crown Lands and on private property,” Shooters and Fishers Party MLC, the Hon. Robert Brown, said.

“The threat of feral animals in our national parks is great, even more so after the recent floods, where the population of feral cats, foxes, pigs, wild dogs and goats has exploded.

“The utilisation of volunteer conservation hunters, as well as working well in our State Forests, works particularly well in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia.”

He said a thorough review of the original Act, which created the Game Council to manage volunteer conservation hunters, had confirmed it was a successful approach.

“The 2012 Act addresses some of the recommendations for reform found in the review, including the expansion of the system into some National Parks,” Mr Brown said.

“National Parks near metropolitan areas, Heritage areas and other sensitive places will be excluded from the program, and there is a heavy onus on hunters to do the right thing or risk significant penalties,” he said.

Mr Brown added that Australian figures showed hunting on foot, as is required on public land, is one of the safest outdoor pursuits that Australians enjoy.

“There is no better professional body than the Game Council, and no more dedicated conservationists than volunteer conservation hunters when it comes to the control of game and feral animals in NSW,” he said.

During this debate I have spent many hours of reading scientific research, conservation information, shooters websites, (SSAA, Game Council, Shooters party information) I have not read one piece of information that shows recreational hunting has any effect what so ever on feral animal numbers. and as mentioned several times before the Game Councils own figures prove I am right.

There are 15,000 registered hunters in NSW , the hunters have access to hunt on more land than the area of the whole of Tasmania, surely that is enough, what I am trying to understand is why they want more.

This is not about culling feral and game animals, it is something much more.

I and many other people go to National Parks for peace and for the solitude, I have the right to walk in National Parks and not to hear gunshots and not to have the fear of being hit by a bullet.

Tony

[maddog]

Tony,

I fully agree with your sentiments as expressed above. The Shooters and Fishers are currently forcefully pushing an extremist agenda into actuality that 6 mths ago few conservationists would have thought likely. Before the move on National Parks, I was happy to support hunting in State Forests and similar activities, now I am less inclined to support their position on any such policy.

It is worth considering however whether the unnecessarily restrictive and elitist approach NPWS has taken towards benign activities such as bushwalking, for example: actively discouraging walkers by obstructing pubic access with exaggerated claims of environmental sensitivity, allowing established tracks to decay, and limiting services available at camping sites (e.g. no firewood or bins provided) has left the Parks with few friends to defend them.

[Ent]

Hi Tony

The classic control of imported species by recreational hunting is deer in Tassie. Here the deer population is controlled extremely well. Without hunting other control mechanisms would be required. If the idea was to seek elimination then all year round hunting with no bag limit would likely work.

Assuming Tassie has the claimed foot hold of foxes it might work there. Personally tend to think the reason why the fox is so hard to find is because he/she is not here.

And for the record never been deer hunting nor interested in it but it does bring a lot if revenue into certain areas as does trout fishing.

Practically you have a much higher chance of being killed by a bad driver but yes accidentally being shot has increased but is there not seasons proposed so if so concerned you can avoid the parks in those seasons?

Regards

[Son of a Beach]

Hi Tony

The classic control of imported species by recreational hunting is deer in Tassie. Here the deer population is controlled extremely well.

Do you have any research documentation to support this? Note that anything from the Government would most likely be skewed towards managing a recreational hunting resource, and not to managing a feral species (it is both). To get some idea of their bias, take a look at this page where they seem to imply that deer cause no significant environmental problems, but that wallabies are a serious pest! What??? According to that page, there are about 20,000 wild deer in Tasmania. They say that it's the worlds best managed deer population, but that depends entirely on your point of view, and what you think should be done with a feral species.

When I've been out hunting wallaby, I've found that the fallow deer population in some localised areas of Tasmania is HUGE, and it appears way out of control to me. The destruction they cause to the bush in enormous. When out in the bush, I've seen huge herds of the deer running through the bush, leaving large swaths of trampled mud behind them. Although even more frequently, you'll just find the trampled mud and not see any deer.

Just because most people don't see them, doesn't mean they're controlled. They are good at hiding from humans. They do not frequent the areas where people usually bushwalk in Tasmania, thankfully - at least so far. There are huge numbers of them in Tasmania and they cause substantial problems to farms as well as to the bush.

I don't have any documentation to support my perspective on this either, but I have seen them a lot when out at night. There are sooooooo many more deer in Tasmania than most Tasmanians think there are. In fact many Tasmanians wouldn't know there are deer here at all, outside of farms.

PS. New report on the Tas deer population being out of control two years ago: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content ... 934952.htm

Note that a perfectly-fenced farm in a limited area, it is possible to control the herd on that land. This theory does not extend to the bush.

[frenchy_84]

I agree Nic, its rediculous the restrictions placed on hunting deer in Tas... Can only hunt them for 2 months of the year... WT *$&#? They are a feral species and should be shot all year.

[Ent]

Hi SOB

The evidence is the limited hunting period and bag limits. This strongly suggests that the controllers of such things have the view that the level is right. If they thought it was wrong then other measures such as poisoning, etc would be in place. The demand by hunters is been restricted by government regulation. If the regulators have no scientific proof behind their decision then the question best be directed to them.

I struggle with zealot beliefs that imported species is automatically a bad thing, or a good thing. The issue is damage and the control mechanism. For various reasons the fox did not fortunately establish in Tasmania and pig and goats along with horses and camels not to mention water buffalo skipped being a problem. Natural controls such as climate or higher density farming means the rabbit is our main imported pest.

The main means of controlling the fortunately rare number of wild dogs is by firearm. My brother is regularly invited by farming friends to assist in controlling of pests. We are indeed making progress as most farmers nowadays are not zealots with wild animals and accept some impact of wild animals as acceptable. It is a pity such thinking did not exist with the Tasmania Tiger. At the time the only thought was its total extinction.

Most of National Parks in Tassie appear not to be habitats preferred by pests as they are generally in alpine areas. This means we do not face many of the issues in other places. Personally I would need some convincing of the need for shooting in National Parks here. But as more land classification is changed in use this belief may change.

Our farming practices have assisted open grazing animals so at times wallaby populations explode. A shooter can take out many animals so quickly the area is no longer a problem. With forestry the critical time is the first few years and after that period of time the trees can look after themselves.

Land use is an emotional issue as for years in Victoria fire management was downplayed with the emphasis on minimal impact. Now after recent events the pendulum has swung. Time will tell if it had gone too far.

I heard on the radio some "academic" was pushing for the sale of smaller National Parks on city fringes to overcome land shortages and provide money for other things such as health. We might be seeing a change in land use demands from conservation to economic development. Given how the Brisbane Council was prepared to endanger a species to get more water I am not confident such a push could be moderated. Destruction of habitat is the biggest danger in my books.

To the best of my knowledge no study or plan exists to allow the interlinking of wild animal populations. We are reducing genetic diversity by having isolated National Parks. Asking for posters to find studies that should exist but do not exist is rather using debating tactics. And what is to say a study is without bias? History has shown more than a few landmark studies have had their results fudged, either by design or accident.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Hi SOB

The evidence is the limited hunting period and bag limits. This strongly suggests that the controllers of such things have the view that the level is right. If they thought it was wrong then other measures such as poisoning, etc would be in place. The demand by hunters is been restricted by government regulation. If the regulators have no scientific proof behind their decision then the question best be directed to them.

Cheers

It's a feral species, ironically the only effective measure taken to manage numbers is a bag limit preventing 'eradication' enforced (ironically) by dpiwe Bag limits dictated by what motivation??

I hunted in Kossi as a kid, 'everyone' did, probably still do.. I don't think i'd like hunting in Tassie parks so guess i care about the mainland. It seems an odd debate though, does anyone outside of GC and certain vested interests actually believe that hunting is any effective feral control?? On the ground folks just want to shoot stuff.. (just like they wanna go walking)... Walkers don't want them to.. does either side Really see conservation as the core of their motivation?? The only downside is the potential to harm others, that seems far fetched (other than the odd hunter shooting one another), lost walkers force others to put their lifes on the line.. (just saying..)

So.. at the same time, bearing in mind that our parks system took a (perhaps idealistic) standpoint of maximum restriction (compared to others around the world), maybe its not the best model? Why don't all other interests/users (besides walkers)) have a legitimate claim to propose whatever they choose to do in parks? If government agencies do little more than token efforts at managing quantity perhaps they don't really have a legitimate right to a part in this particular debate?

(again) I don't think i'd personally like a change in hunting permits but over-riding this is that (imo) parks must pay their way, remain relevant to the widest proportion of owner use.. Whatever it takes should be on the table (and not just with hunting)!! It will still just be the most dedicated that wander far from their cars. A fence sitter i guess..

Last edited by Nuts on Mon 18 Jun, 2012 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[maddog]

Hi SOB

The evidence is the limited hunting period and bag limits. This strongly suggests that the controllers of such things have the view that the level is right. If they thought it was wrong then other measures such as poisoning, etc would be in place. The demand by hunters is been restricted by government regulation. If the regulators have no scientific proof behind their decision then the question best be directed to them.

I struggle with zealot beliefs that imported species is automatically a bad thing, or a good thing. The issue is damage and the control mechanism. For various reasons the fox did not fortunately establish in Tasmania and pig and goats along with horses and camels not to mention water buffalo skipped being a problem. Natural controls such as climate or higher density farming means the rabbit is our main imported pest.

The main means of controlling the fortunately rare number of wild dogs is by firearm. My brother is regularly invited by farming friends to assist in controlling of pests. We are indeed making progress as most farmers nowadays are not zealots with wild animals and accept some impact of wild animals as acceptable. It is a pity such thinking did not exist with the Tasmania Tiger. At the time the only thought was its total extinction.

G'Day Ent,

The issue here is not zealots, it is ignorance.

The issue with predators is whether or not the ecological niche has been taken. If the Thylacine was still in existence, either in Tasmania or on the Mainland, then dogs would be a problem. As the Thylacine is extinct the dog plays an ecological role as top predator by removing the old, weak, and deformed. (Note it was the dogs not humans that dispatched the tiger, which being an inefficient marsupial mammal could not compete and was replaced as top predator). Where there are quolls the cat is a problem (because it will eliminate the less efficient quoll), where there are no quolls the cat fills the ecological niche. Remove the dingo and foxes move in, reintroduce the dingo and they hunt the fox, etc, etc.

The issue for herbivores is whether or not there are predators. Koalas are a problem on Kangaroo Island because there are no effective predators on the Island (they are no longer hunted by aborigines), the population is disease free, and the population is now too great. To solve this one systematic shooting by professionals, or the introduction of disease (chlamydia), could be used - either or a combination would work.

The recreational hunting you propose as a solution, is irrelevant to environmental management as individuals do not matter to ecology, populations do. If you doubt this, go to Queensland and try shooting cane toads for a few weeks, then observe the difference you have made to the toad population after a month or two. What is important is that the management is properly thought out and consequences are considered from an ecological perspective. If this is done, sporting shooters will play no role, because they are ineffective in managing populations.

Cheers

[Tony]

Hi Ent,

To the best of my knowledge no study or plan exists to allow the interlinking of wild animal populations.

There is a lot of work going on in Australia with wildlife corridors, I know this as my walking mate is one of the main scientists involved.

A compendium of existing and planned Australian wildlife corridor projects and initiatives, and case study analysis of operational experience.

and Gondwana Link Project

Tony

[Son of a Beach]

Hi SOB

The evidence is the limited hunting period and bag limits. This strongly suggests that the controllers of such things have the view that the level is right. If they thought it was wrong then other measures such as poisoning, etc would be in place. The demand by hunters is been restricted by government regulation. If the regulators have no scientific proof behind their decision then the question best be directed to them.

I don't see this as being evidence of anything to do with population control. It is evidence only that there is a plan for some purpose. And that plan may not be anything to do with population control either. The plan may be to do with safety or something else. But either way, this is not evidence of anything.

The page I linked to earlier implies that the plan is all about improving the quality of the animals being shot by hunters and doesn't mention population control.

As stated by others, recreational hunting does not control a well-established population of animals in large wild bush areas. The research supports this for other species, and I would expect the same to apply to the fallow deer in Tasmania (and from my own personal experience hunting in the bush that appears to be the case).

You say that if the population was too large, that they would be poisoning, or increase bag limits. Well I disagree. I think the population is already too large (I've seen the damage, the farmers frequently complain about it too). However, the large population is good for the deer hunters and for the tourism (yes, there is a significant market for deer-hunting tourism). Deer in Tasmania are a protected species. They are clearly not in any danger of extinction, even if there were much greater bag limits. So the protection is there for some other reason. It baffles me, to be honest, as they are a feral pest species outcompeting Forester Kangaroos in some parts of Tasmania, and destroying endagered native plants:

Fallow deer compete with native herbivores for food and graze on threatened plant species. For example, in the Great Lake area on Tasmania's Central Plateau, grazing and browsing by this species is contributing to low seed establishment of the endangered Miena cider gum (Eucalyptus gunnii spp. divaricata) (Internal linkThreatened Species Network 2006). The Miena cider gum is only known from a 40 by 40 kilometre area from west of Miena to Interlaken.

Clearly from a purely environmental perspective, the fallow deer in Tasmania are out of control in the sense that they are destroying habitats and outcompeting native animals.

(As an aside, the cider gums up there are pretty cool. I haven't tried the natural cider though.)

[Tony]

Hi SOAB,

The page I linked to earlier implies that the plan is all about improving the quality of the animals being shot by hunters and doesn't mention population control.

I would also add 'and quantity' of game.

This is what I have been reading on the Game Council, SSAA and Shooters Party sites, they all mention that hunting in Sate Forests and National Parks is about conservation of game for hunting purposes not for conservation of native flora and fauna.

I believe many hunters actually believe they are doing the environment good by killing a few feral animals, this message has been pushed for possibly over a hundred years and I believed it too until recently when I started to do some research on the topic.

Tony

[maddog]

I believe many hunters actually believe they are doing the environment good by killing a few feral animals, this message has been pushed for possibly over a hundred years and I believed it too until recently when I started to do some research on the topic.

Tony

The halo effect derived from good intentions is comforting and more publicly acceptable than the grim reality of pointless slaughter as entertainment.

[Nuts]

Its pretty rare for a mass, 'organised' culling to make the news. When it does (again some irony here) the grim reality seems equally hard to stomach for many.. even if it results in more than a token effort, is culling (at a scale needed to have real impact) any sort of viable option in todays world? Why so much science and so little done?? I'd suggest that (as a management strategy) it is just as politically tasteless as allowing hunting... no?

Obviously (merely) controlling numbers is the only hopeful outcome of such culls but is this even close to being of a scale to be effective? It's hard to say whether open hunting and dispersing populations would reduce feral numbers overall more than current management actions is it not?

This is why it's hard to have a solid opinion without recognising the opposition, other than arguing the stand point of "i'd be scared and i have a right not to be regardless of whether i know any hunters or what they do". While ideal, is this not more the crux of the opposition to hunting bans? At the same time hunters should argue their case 'we like to (for whatever reason) kill animals as our ancestors have done and have a right too, regardless of what the 'greenies' say..'.

If i still hunted i'd be pretty ashamed at those representing me. Equally, the opposition seems just as unfocused, surely there is something in common law rights on public land as a precedent? (rather than just opposing the 'dumb' argument that hunters are some sort effective management option?) Challenging hunters rights to effect those of other users..

[corvus]

Interesting that no one has mentioned the massive cull of feral Camels ,cannot recall the numbers but it was in the thousands ?
corvus

[Nuts]

Ha ha trumped me, i was thinking more of the Koala and Brumby culls.

[corvus]

Any one know what happened to all of that good food from the Camels ??
corvus