Experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

[Nuts]

There are 'an estimated 1.2m feral camels' on the mainland.

[maddog]

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..

Legislation will always trump the common law, unless that common law is Constitutionally derived. In NSW we have a Constitution that can be changed by an Act of Parliament, and it is difficult to see what business the Commonwealth would have interfering in hunting laws in NSW. If a basis were discovered, the cure of Judge made law could be worse than the disease of legislation.

Besides, the absurdity of the shooters justification for hunting in parks is also a weakness.

[Nuts]

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..

Legislation will always trump the common law, unless that common law is Constitutionally derived. In NSW we have a Constitution that can be changed by an Act of Parliament, and it is difficult to see what business the Commonwealth would have interfering in hunting laws in NSW. If a basis were discovered, the cure of Judge made law could be worse than the disease of legislation.

A change in tenure?, any of them worthy of world heritage status?

[maddog]

A change in tenure?, any of them worthy of world heritage status?

If the whole estate were assessed as worthy of World Heritage Status, a resulting change could work to bring the parks under Commonwealth control (External Affairs) as in the Tasmanian Dams Case. But surely we have more to fear from the further expansion of Commonwealth power, and increasing subjection of the democratically elected State Governments, than we do from a few toothless hillbillies wandering round National Parks shooting ducks.

[Ent]

Hi SOB

We have an over abundance of hunters and by the sounds of it game and Government department in control limiting hunting . The situation makes sense to me now. It is yet another mystery of bureaucratic thinking.

Hi maddog.

Some species can be controlled by shooting, generally the larger animals while others can not be. Ironically the cane toad was a control itself and no doubt one that had extensive scientific evidence to support its introduction.

In Tassie we do not have a native dog, nor even know have huge problems with wild dogs. The demise of the Tiger here was largely through the direct hand of man.

Huge culls happen as mentioned but nowadays remains rather low key Crocodiles are top of the food change but hunted to near extinction. With protection they are making a strong reappearance and keeping a certain newspaper's front page occupied.

We have two issues. Alternative land and pest control. A third one crops up with words like slaughter, etc. On the third it is unlikely any words will convince a person that has made a moral decision to remove animals from the food chain. I respect their stand and maybe in time we will look back on the eating of animals much as we now look back on slavery. But I struggle with differentiating and vilifying people that collect their own food from ones that shop.

If more people saw inside a battery hen "factory" I am sure the industry's attempt at modifying the definition of "free range" would get the scrutiny it needs. I personally strongly believe that if we chose to use animals then we should do it with a high standard of respect.

As for land use. Well I find myself agreeing with Nuts. We have set in the past the highest standard short of locking people out. Is this the right standard? I think for many areas yes but for all, no.

As for population control. Well if we can hunt species to extinction it is fair to say it can control some. As for the view of helicopter gunships patrolling the landscape with 6,000 RPM miniguns I think that belongs to Hollywood.

The problem is for Parks one of rock and hardplace. If they support hunters controlling animal populations then the mass media will savage them.

Much talk here is of studies not existing. It would be a brave ranger that published a study supporting animal control by hunting. If say the SSAA did then it is clear from prior posts that this would not be accepted. Who else remains?

I think of the movie "They shot horses donn't they". Culling brumbies generates the sort of heat no government wants to be around. Kangaroo Island is a classic example with cute and cuddly kolas with at least one group supporting, catch, sterilize and release as the ideal measure. Ethically it probably is but getting funds? Raising taxes of cutting other services?

It will be interesting to see the results of the NSW approach. Both sides might have their agreements crash and burn. But honestly I do not think I will see a universally accept study appearing. Arh yes, we are humans after all.

Regards

[Tony]

Hi Ent,

Much talk here is of studies not existing. It would be a brave ranger that published a study supporting animal control by hunting. If say the SSAA did then it is clear from prior posts that this would not be accepted. Who else remains?

I am sure if SSAA could publish a paper that proves recreational hunting is effective in culling feral animals it would and if the did I would be quiet.

I suggest you have a read of this site http://www.invasiveanimals.com/

Tony

[maddog]

Some species can be controlled by shooting, generally the larger animals while others can not be. Ironically the cane toad was a control itself and no doubt one that had extensive scientific evidence to support its introduction.

Sorry Ent, but the introduction of the cane toad was undertaken on the basis of fraudulent scientific evidence to achieve the commercial and personal ambitions of the proponents (read the sequel to Tim Low's excellent book 'Feral Future' , 'A new Nature' for a discussion of this). At the time of all this, the proposal was objected to by the insect scientist Walter Froggatt who predicted the 'toad, immune from enemies, omnivorous in its habits, and breeding all the year round, may become as great a pest as the rabbit or cactus’. So, should we chose political expedience or a scientific and evidence based approach for the management of our National Parks?

In Tassie we do not have a native dog, nor even know have huge problems with wild dogs. The demise of the Tiger here was largely through the direct hand of man.

Tasmania does not have a native dog, but it had the Thylacine that filled the same ecological niche of top predator. The mainland did not have a native dog but had a Thylacine, until the Dingo (asian wolf) arrived. The extinction of the Thylacine on the mainland is commonly blamed on the spread of aborigines and dogs, both of which hunted the Thylacine. Tasmania did not have a dog, but did have aborigines, and the Thylacine survived. The dog was introduced, and the Thylacine was driven to extinction. Ecological theory suggests that top (apex) predators do not tolerate the next predator down (dogs hate cats, and cats fear dogs). Man may have helped, but we cannot hunt like dogs can (one reason they are our best friend).

Huge culls happen as mentioned but nowadays remains rather low key Crocodiles are top of the food change but hunted to near extinction. With protection they are making a strong reappearance and keeping a certain newspaper's front page occupied.

If we had ever driven croc's to extinction in Australia, we would have got plenty more swim over from India.

We have two issues. Alternative land and pest control. A third one crops up with words like slaughter, etc. On the third it is unlikely any words will convince a person that has made a moral decision to remove animals from the food chain. I respect their stand and maybe in time we will look back on the eating of animals much as we now look back on slavery. But I struggle with differentiating and vilifying people that collect their own food from ones that shop.

I appreciate your interest in a vegetarian ethic, but if animals are killed for the purpose of eating it is a very different moral situation to being killed for no higher purpose than sport. Since there are plenty of animals available for food and sport outside National Parks, what was the justification to shoot for sport within National Parks?

If more people saw inside a battery hen "factory" I am sure the industry's attempt at modifying the definition of "free range" would get the scrutiny it needs. I personally strongly believe that if we chose to use animals then we should do it with a high standard of respect.

Though I am obviously not sentimental about these things Ent, I fully agree with you regarding animal welfare. Do you then find it concerning that the Shooters Party would also like to do away with Animal Welfare Advisory Council (AWAC), along with Ethics classes in schools?

As for population control. Well if we can hunt species to extinction it is fair to say it can control some. As for the view of helicopter gunships patrolling the landscape with 6,000 RPM miniguns I think that belongs to Hollywood.

As the proposition that sport shooting has a role in the management of feral populations is a work of fiction.

The problem is for Parks one of rock and hardplace. If they support hunters controlling animal populations then the mass media will savage them.

Much talk here is of studies not existing. It would be a brave ranger that published a study supporting animal control by hunting. If say the SSAA did then it is clear from prior posts that this would not be accepted. Who else remains?

I think of the movie "They shot horses donn't they". Culling brumbies generates the sort of heat no government wants to be around.

I am happy to support all evidence based conservation measures proposed involving the culling of out of control populations (feral or native) in the interests of genuine conservation. But the NSW Shooters proposal uses the name of conservation to justify an indulgence that has no basis in fact.

Kangaroo Island is a classic example with cute and cuddly kolas with at least one group supporting, catch, sterilize and release as the ideal measure. Ethically it probably is but getting funds? Raising taxes of cutting other services?

The catching, sterilising and relocation of Koalas was an expensive folly that diverted money from genuine environmental initiatives and proved ineffective in its results. While it was supported by politicians and pressure groups, it was opposed by most scientists and land managers involved in the debate, including the Koala Management Task Force set up by the South Australian Government to deal with the problem of feral Koalas on Kangaroo Island.

Cheers

[Son of a Beach]

Note that the demise of Thylacines in Tasmania is not attributed to hunting (at least not solely) by all historians or researchers (as I learned reading "Carnivorous Nights"). During their last years there appeared to be a disease that was also decimating them along with dogs attacking them of course.

Even if it was just hunting, the situation then cannot be compared to the possibilities of hunting now. It was not recreational hunting, it was bounty hunting courtesy of the VDL and every man and his dog had a rifle handy much of the time.

[Nuts]

I am sure if SSAA could publish a paper that proves recreational hunting is effective in culling feral animals it would and if the did I would be quiet.


Tony

This is what I was wondering.. Why? I thought your initial concern wasn't feral species but possible impact on your personal recreation. Is this not a valid reason to want hunting kept from parks?
(not trying to stir the pot, probably just repeating earlier question and thoughts..)

[Tony]

I am sure if SSAA could publish a paper that proves recreational hunting is effective in culling feral animals it would and if the did I would be quiet.


Tony

This is what I was wondering.. Why? I thought your initial concern wasn't feral species but possible impact on your personal recreation. Is this not a valid reason to want hunting kept from parks?
(not trying to stir the pot, probably just repeating earlier question and thoughts..)

Hi Nuts,

I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

For the record,

I am very concerned with the invasive species problem in National Parks and all of Australia.

I am not agianst recreational hunting.

I am against recreational hunting in NSW National Parks, NSW recreational hunters currently have access to more area than all of Tasmania.

I am concerned for my and the general public's safety if recreational hunting is allowed in NSW National Parks.

If it could be proven that recreational hunting does have a significant impact on feral animal numbers, which all research I have read has shown it does not, then I would be more than happy for National Parks to be closed for a short period of time for the recreational hunters to support the current National Parks feral animal culling programs.

For the record, I believe that this is much bigger than just hunting being allowed in NSW NP's, I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, if this is any indication, we can expect full open access to 4wd and trail bikes to National Parks next, and we just can imagine what that will do to our wilderness areas, if you have any doubt about this, read the the Shooters party policy documents yourself, it is a real eye opener to say the least.

And BTW as far as Tasmania goes, the Shooters and Fishers Party has its eyes on your wilderness areas to be opened up to hunting, 4wd, trail bikes and forestry, NSW follows Tassie into Green desolation and this http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/fi ... smania.pdf. as I said this is much bigger than hunting being allowed in NSW National Parks.

Tony

[Nuts]

..

[Moondog55]

OK one last and non-pertinent comment, it seems that the topic has devolved into a polemic.
I do disagree nuts that hunting is an activity that doesn't belong in National Parks but that should be decided on a case by case basis and historical hunting areas shouldn't be locked away from hunters ( but that is after all just an opinion) what is more disturbing to my mind is the inability of people to distinguish between a "Thing" ( firearms ) an activity ( hunting ) and a risk. There is no compulsion in this country to own or use firearms or to hunt but I do resent being told that what I do is wrong "per se" and I am really disturbed and disappointed in the current emasculation of our society on one hand and by government pandering to highly vocal minority groups on either side of the divide on the other.

[Nuts]

Seems ok to me? Nothing nasty, just some different points of view is all. If you think that you should be allowed to hunt in parks that's ok. If more people don't want you too than do then I guess your the one who needs to compromise (or submit). No harm in having a say though, your parks too

[Moondog55]

Polemic as in "Poles apart"
Still polite tho which is good.
I guess there are those who see "things" as evil or dangerous when I see "People" as evil or dangerous

[Tony]

From the NSW National Parks forever ours web page.

NSW National Parks are forever ours. Everyone is invited to visit, explore, discover and enjoy these special places

When the recreational hunters are hunting in NSW National Parks they will become the exclusive domain of the hunters, all other users will be excluded.

NSW National Parks will no longer be a place for everyone.

Tony

[north-north-west]

I guess there are those who see "things" as evil or dangerous when I see "People" as evil or dangerous

Some 'things' make 'evil' people more dangerous. Guns are very firmly in that category.
Unfortunately, they also make careless, ignorant or just unlucky people more dangerous, too.

[Greenie]

Well it has passed parliament now, so I guess in six months time I will experience what it is like to have hunting in a National Park.

[Moondog55]

Simply cannot agree NNW, but that is the nature of the discussion, as a rider knocked off my pushie more than once I fear cars and semi-trailers far more than random bullets, far more murders committed in Australia by cars, blunt objects, knives than by guns, firearms just get more news coverage IMO

[Tony]

Simply cannot agree NNW, but that is the nature of the discussion, as a rider knocked off my pushie more than once I fear cars and semi-trailers far more than random bullets, far more murders committed in Australia by cars, blunt objects, knives than by guns, firearms just get more news coverage IMO

Sorry moondog55,

I fail to see the relevance,

Governments are doing a lot of work to improve road safety with both cars, trucks and cycling, but this decision to allowing recreational hunting in NSW National Parks will only make activities like bushwalking more dangerous.

Tony

[Moondog55]

it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion but the current push as a lot to do with John Howards legislation that stole a lot of legitimate shooters and hunters rifles and shotguns and placed enormous restrictions on our favoured pass time, so while it is reactionary it is only to be expected.
I am sure history will prove John Howard to be the coward he is

[Tony]

it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion but the current push as a lot to do with John Howards legislation that stole a lot of legitimate shooters and hunters rifles and shotguns and placed enormous restrictions on our favoured pass time, so while it is reactionary it is only to be expected.
I am sure history will prove John Howard to be the coward he is

Hi Moondog55,

You and the gun lobby will absolutely get no sympathy from me on John Howard's legislation, I do agree on one thing John Howard was a coward, his the gun reforms did not go far enough.

Tony

[hikingdude]

it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion but the current push as a lot to do with John Howards legislation that stole a lot of legitimate shooters and hunters rifles and shotguns and placed enormous restrictions on our favoured pass time, so while it is reactionary it is only to be expected.
I am sure history will prove John Howard to be the coward he is

Hi Moondog55,

You and the gun lobby will absolutely get no sympathy from me on John Howard's legislation, I do agree on one thing John Howard was a coward, his the gun reforms did not go far enough.

Tony

The Federal Government has no power to change firearms laws, John Howard only persuaded the states to change their laws, something to do with cutting their budgets if they did not comply if I remember correctly.

"...his reforms did not go far enough". How far should they have gone? We have some of the most draconian firearms laws on earth. Should he have made it so no law abiding citizen can own a firearm, leaving only the criminals armed?

[Moondog55]

I think personally it was the confiscation with-out compensation that got under most shooters skins.
There is a belief in the shooting community that there are NOW far more illegal firearms now than before the "so called" buy back.

[Tony]

The Federal Government has no power to change firearms laws, John Howard only persuaded the states to change their laws, something to do with cutting their budgets if they did not comply if I remember correctly.

"...his reforms did not go far enough". How far should they have gone? We have some of the most draconian firearms laws on earth. Should he have made it so no law abiding citizen can own a firearm, leaving only the criminals armed?

I think personally it was the confiscation with-out compensation that got under most shooters skins.
There is a belief in the shooting community that there are NOW far more illegal firearms now than before the "so called" buy back.

This thread is about Experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks? and this is going off topic, you hunters will be able to hunt in NSW National Parks by Christmas and as I read on one hunting website you will be able to shoot quail to have quail for Christmas lunch, you have what you want, it will be us bushwalkers and other park users who will be locked out of our National Parks at the whim of the hunters Game Council.

One thing is for sure, hunting being allowed in NSW National Parks has stirred up a lot of people who were quite happy to let the hunting lobby go by its business, but since this started I have noticed that a lot of organisations are starting to put the Game Council and the whole recreational hunting scene under scrutiny like never before and I am sure this is not the end of this.

I just hope that no one is injured or killed in NSW National Parks before we get this very bad law reversed.

Tony

[Pteropus]

One thing is for sure, hunting being allowed in NSW National Parks has stirred up a lot of people who were quite happy to let the hunting lobby go by its business, but since this started I have noticed that a lot of organisations are starting to put the Game Council and the whole recreational hunting scene under scrutiny like never before and I am sure this is not the end of this.

Yeah, this is the main thing that hunters here have not taken into account when they are defending their hobby. Most of us who have posted our displeasure about hunting in NPs are not anti hunting per se, but are just anti hunting in NPs. In fact, there are a number of members here who hunt who don't agree with hunting in NPs too. As has been mentioned a dozen or so times, there is plenty of private land and State Forest for hunters. But some hunters seem to find that preventing them from having access to certain land OR certain guns, is an attack on their way of life. It's all about wanting cake and eating it too/give an inch and take a mile stuff as far as I am concerned...who needs a semi-automatic rifle for hunting anyhow?

[Ent]

.who needs a semi-automatic rifle for hunting anyhow?

Just to correct the above no normal hunter in Australia has access to semi-automatic rifles as they were banned.

Regards

[Pteropus]

.who needs a semi-automatic rifle for hunting anyhow?

Just to correct the above no normal hunter in Australia has access to semi-automatic rifles as they were banned.

Regards

The bill passed in NSW last night almost got through with some amendment that would allow for the use of semi-autos. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-fear-spar ... 20nf0.html
I think that part got rejected but there was a lot of last minute debate as far as I can tell.
I believe that some of the discussion above was about lamenting the loss of access to such rifles:

it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion but the current push as a lot to do with John Howards legislation that stole a lot of legitimate shooters and hunters rifles and shotguns and placed enormous restrictions on our favoured pass time, so while it is reactionary it is only to be expected.

[hikingdude]

Pteropus,

Samanth Lee is telling blatant lies - something she is very good at.

There was NOTHING in the draft legislation that would allow the use of semi-auto rifles on public lands.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.

[Ent]

Under the laws put through semi-automatic rifle were removed from all but a select group. Due to farmers generally having semi-automatic 0.22 they were excluded but given a category C classification along with semi-automatic shotguns. Outside military and law enforcement a centrefire (basically the larger rounds) having one is a ticket to a court appearance. Unless NSW is reversing the nationally "agreed" standards I would think that it unlikely that normal hunters would have access to these fire-arms. My guess is a provision for farmers boarding onto National Parks would have the right to use their firearms (0.22 rimfire and shotguns) to avoid the need to have to purchase an additional complying firearm.

But regardless of the above apart from select people eligible for category C license the semi-automatic is not an option for hunters in Australia. And the preferred/required rounds for hunting are illegal to all but the government organizations as they are centrefire rounds.

And just to answer the question on the the power behind the laws. The Federal Government has control on importing firearms so even if NSW allowed certain firearms they could not be imported into Australia unless the Federal Government allowed it.

And just to add some balance to pressure that minority parties can exert I came back from a tax seminar today and the Greens were responsible for removing the sliding scale based on statutory mileage percentage for employee motor vehicles. The reason was it "encouraged" use of a motor vehicle and this was bad. Um? dear Mr and Ms sales representative please do not visit as many customers Big hint, many sales representatives hate the long hours in the car so only drive when they have to.

Regards

[Nuts]

SLR are not available anyhow are they?, gun club use perhaps? Anyhow... yes, i had a chance to check some of those forum links last night and a few thoughts about this today... I'm not so sure I have ever been a 'recreational hunter'. A lot of that forum quaff and the rhetoric coming from proponents leads me to believe there is a vast difference between the mindset of the country and that of some of these 'urban warriors'.

I'm not convinced that in practice the situation will be that 'drastic' Tony (lets hope not) but agree it must be a bit of a shock for anyone who hopes our parks can be forever.
All said and done I really don't see any way someone can reconcile a passion for hunting with any true appreciation of 'wilderness' in supporting these changes.