Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[Tony]

Thanks maddog,

I got the same impression that O'Farrell is having second thoughts about his dirty deals.

You might also like this radio interview with Andreas Glanzig, the CEO of the Invasive Animals Co-operative Research, he has a few very interesting comments about the effectiveness of recreational hunting.

How Effective is Shooting Feral Animals ?

Tony

[forest]

You might also like this radio interview with Andreas Glanzig, the CEO of the Invasive Animals Co-operative Research, he has a few very interesting comments about the effectiveness of recreational hunting.

If you take this in a positive light maybe it would work, or at least assist. Will be interesting to see if this rec hunting model follows identically in the SF hunting plan... ie; no plan, just restricted numbers in each SF. Or if they will run a proper plan like mentioned in the interview which has had success on feral goats in SA. I doubt that there will be a plan though.

But the key thing he keeps mentioning is an "intergrated management system"

This is what is lacking currently. Unless someone steps up and says "we'll do it" I fear it will just be a handful of people all running around in different directions. ie: Game Coucil, NPWS, private land owners, PP board etc.
We allready have the different groups all shouting in different directions and it's not even started.

Of note is the comments I have passed much earlier in this thread regarding my personal experiences with reducing fox numbers on private land.
I have since found out that the property manager 1080 baits twice a year. So I guess with his guidance, while not perfect.. is some type of management system.
Definate reduction of foxes and ferals but this is over a controlled area and I go there again and again chasing ferals. But again, this must be spread over baiting and hunting. (I still hate bait's but I am learning to move forwards through some information posted here, So thankyou for that)
He does comment that the smart older foxes will not touch a bait. But that's okay as they are the ones that meet me

[Tony]

If you take this in a positive light maybe it would work, or at least assist. Will be interesting to see if this rec hunting model follows identically in the SF hunting plan... ie; no plan, just restricted numbers in each SF. Or if they will run a proper plan like mentioned in the interview which has had success on feral goats in SA. I doubt that there will be a plan though.

But the key thing he keeps mentioning is an "intergrated management system"

This is what is lacking currently. Unless someone steps up and says "we'll do it" I fear it will just be a handful of people all running around in different directions. ie: Game Coucil, NPWS, private land owners, PP board etc.
We allready have the different groups all shouting in different directions and it's not even started.

Of note is the comments I have passed much earlier in this thread regarding my personal experiences with reducing fox numbers on private land.
I have since found out that the property manager 1080 baits twice a year. So I guess with his guidance, while not perfect.. is some type of management system.
Definate reduction of foxes and ferals but this is over a controlled area and I go there again and again chasing ferals. But again, this must be spread over baiting and hunting. (I still hate bait's but I am learning to move forwards through some information posted here, So thankyou for that)
He does comment that the smart older foxes will not touch a bait. But that's okay as they are the ones that meet me

Hi Forest,

I could not agree with you more, an "integrated management system" is the way to go, the Invasive Species Council is also calling for the same.

As mentioned before I have nothing against recreational hunting, but for recreational hunting to have any effect in controlling feral animals it has to be integrated with other feral animal control programs, would have no problems with the National Parks being closed for a short period a few times a year for this to happen.

This is also worth a read Fox Bounty Report Vic 2003 I found the section of the report on the fox hunting trial on Phillip Island very interesting, while the trial was going on the fox numbers seem to increase.

Tony

[FatCanyoner]

A sign of the future?
A friend of mine took this photo on Wednesday while walking along the popular Six Foot Track. It seems a few over-zealous shooters are already taking pot-shots at bushwalkers, even if only pictures of them!
The truly worrying thing about the State Gov allowing shooting in National Parks is that even if most hunters do the right thing, there will be a small number (like the ones who shot this sign up) whose antics will put all park users at risk!
Unfortunately we have always had idiots in the parks, but at worst they usually make a lot of noise, do small amounts of damage or hurt themselves. Now we risk having idiots armed with guns, which is a deadly combination.

[Nuts]

In the absence of a crack team of forensic investigators (or exhaustive references ), i'd say that sign was shot through from Behind?
Don't forget that there are likely more guns not registered/ owners not licenced as there are those that are.

[maddog]

A sign of the future?

FatCanyoner,

Great photo. It certainly emphasises the incompatibility of the two activities.

Signs like that, changed to read 'Walk with Caution - Shooters in Park', could be cheaply produced and placed alongside existing Parks signs in strategic locations.

Cheers

[Dale]

The truly worrying thing about the State Gov allowing shooting in National Parks is that even if most hunters do the right thing, there will be a small number (like the ones who shot this sign up) whose antics will put all park users at risk!
Unfortunately we have always had idiots in the parks, but at worst they usually make a lot of noise, do small amounts of damage or hurt themselves. Now we risk having idiots armed with guns, which is a deadly combination.

IMO that's exactly where the 'rubber hits the road'. After reading the comments of hunters on this forum they all seem like reasonable and considered individuals who have a high priority on safety and a passion for their sport - I would feel comfortable sharing the Parks with them, and in most cases it sounds like I wouldn't even know they were there. But of course they aren't the issue. In the case of other sports in NPs I don't have to worry about my safety because of the carelessness of kayakers, canyoners, cavers, mountaineers et. al. it would have to be an imaginative and freak accident to harm a bystander as a result of their activities. Someone with a gun is a whole different proposition. Sadly the bell curve of human stupidity applies equally to hunters but with potentially tragic results.

[Pteropus]

In the news:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-09/f ... ection=nsw

Fears of unsupervised NSW national parks hunting
By NSW political reporter Sarah Gerathy, staff
Updated July 09, 2012 10:22:34

The New South Wales Opposition says information from the Shooters and Fishers Party undermines State Government claims that recreational hunters will be closely supervised in national parks.

Legislation to allow shooters access to 79 parks, nature reserves and conservation areas passed State Parliament last month.

The Government agreed to the measure in return for the Shooters party's support for the sell-off of electricity assets.

Labor is now pointing to the Shooters website and a "frequently asked questions" section about how the new arrangement will operate.

"National parks will not be closed and there will be no close supervision by NP staff," the website says.

Opposition environment spokesman Luke Foley says that statement directly contradicts assurances given by Premier Barry O'Farrell.

"The strict supervisions that Mr O'Farrell claims will be in place just won't be there. That's a risk to the public's safety and to the safety of our hardworking national parks staff," Mr Foley said.

"When hazard reduction burns occur and indeed when professionals are brought in to cull ferals in our national parks at the moment, those parks are closed.

"Yet the Shooters party have now revealed that when their blokes go into national parks under their deal with Mr O'Farrell, the parks won't be closed and the recreational hunters won't be subject to supervision."

Before the legislation passed Parliament, Environment Minister Robyn Parker also gave assurances.

"I will only be approving volunteer pest control in parks where there are clear conservation outcomes, it will be under strict supervision," she said.

A spokesman for Ms Parker would not respond directly to the Shooters website.

But he says safety will be paramount as a a clear supervised program is developed in coming months.

[Pteropus]

More news: Interesting clip from ABC's Lateline

Concerns hunters will disperse feral animals
Updated July 10, 2012 23:25:00

Critics argue NSW legislation to allow recreational hunters into national parks will actually make it harder to trap and kill feral animals.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-10/n ... nt/4122582

[Tony]

More news: Interesting clip from ABC's Lateline

Concerns hunters will disperse feral animals
Updated July 10, 2012 23:25:00

Critics argue NSW legislation to allow recreational hunters into national parks will actually make it harder to trap and kill feral animals.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-10/n ... nt/4122582

Thanks Pteropus,

Thanks for the link, some very interesting interviews, Mr John Mumford's of the Game councils stated the number of 73,000 invasive animals removed from State Forests over the last 7 years, this seems to be conflict with the Shooters party numbers, of

The Game Council has overseen the removal of hundreds of thousands of feral animals from State Forests NSW.

The Game Councils total at the end of 2010-2011 period was 55,000, so in 2011-2012 a total of around 18,000 invasive animals have been culled from NSW State Forests, wow another very bad year, these recreational hunters live in fantasy land if they think they are wiping out invasive animals.

And Mr John Mumford's claim that there has been no scientific research into the effects of hunting on invasive animals is typical Shooters party propaganda, the Game Councils own number prove recreational hunting is infective.

This is also an interesting article, Editor suspects hunters after pet horse shot in chest

Tony

[Tony]

This is also worth a read Shooters call shots on hunting in parks there seems to be a lot of working out to do yet, I suspect that the Shooters and Fishers Party will get their way in the end.

Tony

[Greenie]

I am not sure if this is normal. But I have noticed that the Shooters and Fishers party never return calls for comment. The premier has. I would like to hear their side of the story. Not just some faq, that wasn't that well written for an official site anyway.

[north-north-west]

[snide]They're probably having trouble finding anyone who has evolved beyond grunting to communicating in something like English. [/snide]

[Nuts]

This is also an interesting article, Editor suspects hunters after pet horse shot in chest

Tony

If Stephanie Gardiner happens across this topic then perhaps she can expand on that article, fill in the blanks where she links someone having a horse shot on private land outside a national park (yes..by unknown persons) to recreational hunting in parks? Pretty *&^%$#! poor reporting at best!





Environment Minister Robyn Parker said hunting in national parks would be supervised.

"There's no intention to have all of these parks open with shooters rampaging through and that's the scare campaign that is being run by a number of people," Ms Parker, who is also the member for Maitland, told ABC Radio yesterday.

Ms Zaetta said she was angry at Ms Parker's accusations of a scare campaign.

How ironic, an article dismissing scare campaigns based on just that!

C'mon, i'm trying to relate to someone on this but its not the current opposition (and definitely not Steph). All as bad as each other!! Disingenuous or just easily led ?

Is it not exactly that, opposition based on fear. How many had any idea that recreation hunting might have a negative effect on feral numbers? Seems obvious that this is mostly about this personal fear and resulting politics, not conservation..?

Either way- projecting small sample, vaguely related surveys onto not-yet-tried (or perhaps not-best-tried) management scenarios seems to make for pretty feeble opposition. How about some reporting on current management success, how robust national park legislation is, get embedded with a hunter( ) Real world stuff not aligned with whatever headlines, numbers (or politics) suit personal views (or sell best)..

The only hope is that the role of fear in motivating voters hasn't been fully realised. There doesn't seem much from the hunting opponents, their emotions and clutching at straws.

[Tony]

I am very busy at the moment with work and getting ready for a weekend of snowshoeing and I have not had much time to post, but this article and following discussion is worth reading political dreaming shooters solving pest problems

Tony

[ULWalkingPhil]

A sign of the future?
A friend of mine took this photo on Wednesday while walking along the popular Six Foot Track. It seems a few over-zealous shooters are already taking pot-shots at bushwalkers, even if only pictures of them!
The truly worrying thing about the State Gov allowing shooting in National Parks is that even if most hunters do the right thing, there will be a small number (like the ones who shot this sign up) whose antics will put all park users at risk!
Unfortunately we have always had idiots in the parks, but at worst they usually make a lot of noise, do small amounts of damage or hurt themselves. Now we risk having idiots armed with guns, which is a deadly combination.

photo.JPG

This is terrifying. I'm contemplating on hiking the six foot track in a month or two from now, but now I'm not so sure. especially on my own.

[Nuts]

I'm sure 'terrified' is just the reaction the poster was after. Not that it makes any sense to be (unless one is just the 'terrified' type.. then there is no hope i guess). I guess hunters have their mindless rednecks.. what should we label our unscrupulous alarmists? The example here plays right into their hands How about one of these topics reserved for the level headed only.

[forest]

This is terrifying. I'm contemplating on hiking the six foot track in a month or two from now, but now I'm not so sure. especially on my own.

I wouldn't walk that track unless I had body armor and had a firearm (at least .50 cal) for self defense. Maybe you should touch up on this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10373

Seriously, I'm sure you will be fine Phil. Huntings not even allowed in NP's yet, anyway this would have just been local hoons running a muck. I'm sure there are plenty of local rural lads in QLD that do the same thing (But please don't read this as support for this type of behaviour as it's definately not !!)

I'm sure the thousands of people a year that walk (probably quite a few solo) the track all get shot at and it's just part of the experience
I hear hammock campers are esspecially targeted as they tend to sway more in the breeze making a more challenging "moving" target.

[ULWalkingPhil]

Terrified is over exaggerating, but I'll certainly will be concerned walking in a National Park open for shooters. Will it stop me from hiking the Six Foot Track? No it will not. I just hope I'm not the poor soul that will one day get accidentally shot. It will happen, if they open National parks to shooters, it will only be a matter of time.

I was not going to participate in this subject, You obviously know my thoughts on this subject. I think it's ludicrous to even think about allowing shooters into a National Park. I only came upon this, when I did a search on any topics in regards to the Six Foot Track, and one of the first search results was the image shown above of a Sign on the Six Foot Track with bullet holes.

[ULWalkingPhil]

This is terrifying. I'm contemplating on hiking the six foot track in a month or two from now, but now I'm not so sure. especially on my own.

I'm sure the thousands of people a year that walk (probably quite a few solo) the track all get shot at and it's just part of the experience
I hear hammock campers are esspecially targeted as they tend to sway more in the breeze making a more challenging "moving" target.

Maybe we need to carry flashing lights on our Tarps.

Like I said before, I was not going to participate in this subject again, the one time that I did, a while back I got flamed by gun lovers. I thought never again. I don't know what's being said here. I've not read prior messages, not since I posted on this subject some time ago.

I'm going to say it again, Your Government down there, must have saw dust in there heads, to think about opening National Parks to shooter's. what are they thinking? Ludicrous.

You could say, I'm kind of involved in the Parks and Wildlife Service up here in QLD, a volunteer researcher for the past 12 years. Human safety comes first up here. At least from my experiences. I work on Endangered Species. But safety is high on the list for me and other workers. I certainly wouldn't call your average Joe Blou wondering around with a gun Safe.

[Nuts]

Like I said before, I was not going to participate in this subject again, the one time that I did, a while back I got flamed by gun lovers.

Where?

Anyhow.. yes, that's a relief. I walked the north end of the 6 ft track a Long time ago. iirc it skirts farm land. Isn't part on a station? Maybe it's been acquired by parks? Bullets don't stop at fences.. Either way, unlikely to be included in any hunting zone is it?

[Pteropus]

I wouldn't walk that track unless I had body armor and had a firearm (at least .50 cal) for self defense.

A fifty cal is a little on the heavy side...I am sure some proponents of ultralight walking would be able to suggest something a little more minimalistic...perhaps an M4 with a 40 mm grenade launcher attached would be a more sensible option

[gunsinaustralia]

I suspect the original poster is quite possibly a troll. Whilst i do not support the deal the Barry O'Farrell government has done, i do support peoples rights to enjoy their recreational activity on their land. If the safety standards aren't high enough, then lobby your government to increase them. There is no evidence to support they are not. Hunting is one of the safest sports.

Learn all the facts here in my blog.

http://aussieguns.blogspot.com.au/2012/ ... ional.html

[juxtaposer]

I camp regularly on a large property on the Murrumbidgee near Bredbo. Grazing country borders the property on two sides, the rest backs onto semi wilderness. Spotlight shooting of kangaroos and foxes on the adjoining properties is a regular occurrence. It takes some getting used to lying in ones sleeping bag hearing the gun explosions in the distance. Sometimes it sounds closer than it is and can be startling. In that setting I have to accept it as part of the business of running a farm. The effect of it is that all the wildlife on one side of the property is permanently spooked despite that it is never actually shot at on the property itself. The mobs there flee for their lives on every sight of human or vehicle. On the wild side of the property, which more resembles national park conditions, you can stand and watch them graze at fairly close quarters. I love it down there, but I'm always glad to be back where I can camp and not have to hear the unnerving crack of the guns. I sort of think that was always the original idea of having national parks in the first place.

[phan_TOM]

Learn all the facts here in my blog.

Facts? I see a lot of "i suspect' & "usually" in there as well as a whole load of your personal opinion & other unsubstantiated rubbish as well as many points that have already been debunked both here and through other forums/the media...

& I'm not sure how you could call this post trolling, from someone who has several hundred bushwalking related posts on this forum?

This article is short on details but the gist is there -> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6374185226

This could open up a whole can of worms...

But you probably know more about it than me, trolling that is, you're obviously a pro!

[Pteropus]

I suspect the original poster is quite possibly a troll....

Strange for a first and only post from someone to contain an accusation of trolling...or perhaps it is common practice on pro-gun blogs and forums?

[phan_TOM]

I've long thought you're avatar wasn't quite right Andrew. I hope you don't mind but I went through your family album and selected one that's more appropriate (I think its from christmas '09)

pteropus.jpg (23.33 KiB) Viewed 13455 times

[forest]

I suspect the original poster is quite possibly a troll.

How did I miss this one......

LOL

Wow, first post and first sentance... That's a new record I would think.
Even being a pro guns kinda guy myself... man you doing no one any favours with an atitude like that.

I'm still amused, The first post was just a link.... How's that bad.
Things may have continued from there but it's all be reasonably civil and as a shooter I have learned a thing or two

[Pteropus]

Clearly you are not busy enough Tom

[phan_TOM]

Nope, it's just just my innate mastery of procrastination shining through