Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[garyd81]

Hi Guys,

I have been reading this thread with great interest to get the other side of the story. I am not here looking for a fight but I am a hunter and a current restricted game licence holder and I activly hunt in state forests. I can understand both sides of this argument but in the interest of balance I would like to address some of the points that have been made

1 I will start with safety as this is obviously everyones biggest concern. The common thread I am reading is that there are careless individuals running around national parks and state forests shooting signs and one day that could be a member of the public that is injured. In my experience in hunting in state forests is that there has been a lot of illegal hunting going on (mostly at night wich is not allowed on public land). These individuals are breaking the law, and will be on public land regardless of weather they are allowed to be there or not (hence the sign with bullet holes in a NP well before hunting has been allowed). Having legitimate hunters in the area who are part of the bush alert program (a program run to stamp out illegal hunting) has reduced the traffic at night in the state forests I hunt over the past 4 years noteably.

2 Hunting might not be the answer to the feral problems we have on public land, but it does give give people with a passion for hunting an opportunity to get out in the bush and harvest some game meat or just enjoy their chosen sport. From my experience it must have some effect, because it is much harder to find game now than it was when I got my licence 4 years ago. I cant say for sure wheather we have reduced numbers that significantly or just changed the ferals paterns and habbits but they are deffinately harder to come by.

3 The fact that some of the carcases will be left behind for foxes/dogs etc is true, but the fact is that those animals will die of something at some point and their body will be left in the bush. The only thing that hunters change is some will harvest some of the meat and that animal will have less opportuniy to reproduce, therefore lessening the amount of food for predators.

I do understand why people with no exposure to hunting would be nervous at the though of people with guns being around, but every legitimate hunter I have ever met has been extremely safety focused. Chances are you will never even run into us in the bush as it is most productive for us to target areas that receive the least traffic but if you do you might be suprised at who is under that orange cap, it might not be the blood thirsty redneck you expect. As I said i'm not looking for a fight just trying to put my honest thoughts forward.

Gary

[wildwalks]

Hi Gary

Thanks for joining in and sharing your insights.

Personal safety is not my biggest concern, the environemental impact is my greater concern.


1) Safety. Within this safety arguement it seems that when anything goes wrong, hunters claims that the the person doing the hunting is illegal or not legitimate in some way. As a driver I can't discount statistics of deaths on the road where the driver was doing something wrong. Sure some hunters are very safety contious, and some are not.
Two kids accidently shot in Victoria (survived) (2012)
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-na ... 1w67x.html
One boy killed - shot by friend in Victoria in 2010, confused him for a deer
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hunti ... 17ao4.html
Tragic strories of which there are more, it is not possible to call hunting safe, sure these risks can be better managed. But lets not pretend accidents don't happen and lets not assume that all hunters are experainced. I accept that many hunters are carefull, but I have been in enough state forstest to see that there is plenty of bad behaviour that goes on.

2) Thanks for acknologing that recreatioanl hunting might not be the answer to feral animal control. National Parks are are different from other types of public land, they are not set aside for recreation, but for preservation. Not all sports are compatible with this preservation. One huge risk we have seen in playing out in Victoria from allowing rec hunting, is that it leads to the preservation of feral animals not the reduction. With this legislation there is now motivation for rouge hunters to seed National Parks with feral animals (as happens in Victoria with pigs). How will the game council react if NPWS actually get funding to compltely remove feral animals from a popular hunting area? National Parks should not be put into a position where they need to trade off the interest of a small number of hunters when they are considering preserving the native biodeveristy of a whole landscape.

Thanks again

Matt

[Tony]

Hunting puts park users in cross-hairs, rangers maintain and interesting read.

Tony

[Mark F]

Better get out the flouro shirt and bear bells for the next few walks.

[juxtaposer]

Flouro shirts. Hilarious!

[Turfa]

yeah, it would be funny if there was no chance this would ever be necessary.......

https://www.atctrailstore.org/catalog/i ... 5&compid=1

[Tony]

Better get out the flouro shirt and bear bells for the next few walks.

Hi Mark,

I have a very strong feeling that bushwalkers may be required to wear flouro gear when Hunting in NPs start, I think I read somewhere that it is required for users of State Forests if a hunt is going on in the area.

I came across this article on the weekend Bow hunters aiming for safe shooting in national parks teh article states

Hunters are required to wear an item of blaze orange clothing, and Mr Mallard suggests other park users should consider doing the same, 'It doesn't hurt for everybody to see everybody else'.

The fact that hunters recommend that other park users should wear flouro clothing does not instill a lot of confidence that bushwalkers and other park users will be safe, and what if a bushwalker who is not wearing flouro clothing does get shot, with the hunting lobby's ability to push propaganda will it be the shooting be turned around to be the bushwalkers fault for not wearing flouro clothing.

Tony

[wildwalks]

Hi all

For those interested and able - there are a couple of peaceful rallies coming up - a great opertunity to share your concerns about hunting in NSW National Parks.

Protest Recreational hunting in NP - Bundeena - this Sunday
When: 11:00am, Sunday 25th November 2012
Where: Horderns Reserve next to IGA in Bundeena, NSW
Speakers from the Greens, NPA and PSA
Bring: Placards and banners and a peaceful attitude.
Please come and show your support
More info at....
http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/events

Another Peaceful “Not Happy Barry” Rally
When: 12– 1pm, Wednesday 28th Nov
Where: Martin Place – North End
speakers, Member for Syd, Greens, Shadow Minister for the Enviro, NPA, and more
Protesting the NSW governments general weakening of environmental protection in NSW, including Mr O'Farrell's decision to allow recreational hunting in National Parks.
http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/events

Matt
**(edited to fix links)

[Rob A]

Keeping those two pretty quiet Matt.

Screen shot 2012-11-23 at 7.50.41 PM.png (18.37 KiB) Viewed 14293 times

[wildwalks]

Hum - thanks Rob
Strange - works if you are logged in as admin

This this one
http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/events
(I will edit my other post)

Matt

[matagi]

The fact that hunters recommend that other park users should wear flouro clothing does not instill a lot of confidence that bushwalkers and other park users will be safe, and what if a bushwalker who is not wearing flouro clothing does get shot, with the hunting lobby's ability to push propaganda will it be the shooting be turned around to be the bushwalkers fault for not wearing flouro clothing.

Tony

One of the things you are taught when going for your shooter's licence is safe handling of firearms - the discharge of firearms also falls under this heading. Basically, you don't fire in a direction where you might endanger somebody. A bushwalker could potentially be in danger not because hunters bang away at any moving twig or rustle in the undergrowth, but because they could be in danger of being hit by a stray bullet. If you see blaze orange when you are taking aim at an animal, then it alerts you to the fact that there is somebody in the range of your weapon and as a consequence YOU DO NOT FIRE YOUR GUN.

[Lindsay]

The visual pollution created by fluro jackets is contrary to the whole premise of minimal impact and leave no trace. Bushwalkers having to stand out like the proverbial dogs bollocks to guard against being accidentaly shot is yet another reason that hunting in National Parks is a bad idea.

[Rob A]

..

[hikingdude]

It will operate similar to State Forests. No one - except hunters - will be mandated to wear blaze.

[wildwalks]

We don't know yet how it will be opertated. NPWS is still working out the policy with the Game Council. I very much doubt NPWS will be able to allow hunting to operate in National Parks the same way it is allowed in SF. But we will all find out soon enough, unless of course we can stop it from happening at all.

[north-north-west]

,,, A bushwalker could potentially be in danger not because hunters bang away at any moving twig or rustle in the undergrowth, but because they could be in danger of being hit by a stray bullet. ...

That's not particularly comforting, mate. After all, saying "Oops, sorry" to a corpse is pretty ineffective.

[Tony]

That's not particularly comforting, mate. After all, saying "Oops, sorry" to a corpse is pretty ineffective.

From reading some comments from the pro hunting lobby, I get the impression that some hunters think a few deaths from hunting is acceptable because there are road deaths and some bushwalker's die sometimes.

Some more interesting reading,

Another backward step gift to the NP's from the Shooters and fishing party New horse riding plan even worse for national parks than feared

Another bullet from O’Farrell

Crowds protest O’Farrell’s bad environmental decisions

Some more propaganda from the Shooters and Fishers Party Hunting and fishing rights must be guaranteed

Tony

[maddog]

Some more interesting reading,

Some more propaganda from the Shooters and Fishers Party Hunting and fishing rights must be guaranteed

Tony

Borsack says:

Hunting and fishing rights must be guaranteed...Hunting is ingrained in human consciousness and genetics by at least 1.5 million years of evolution, according to the latest scientific evidence..“Anti-hunting and fishing agendas have been implemented by a minority who hold the ridiculous belief that humankind has evolved away from the urge to hunt, fish and gather, but the truth is these vocal activists simply do not like something that is part of our genetic history and central to our cultural heritage.”

Does Borsack want the right hunt animals with sticks and stones to supplement the herbaceous diet of a gatherer, or does he wish to shoot them for no higher purpose than sport? If it is the latter, I'm not sure that he can claim that '1.5 million years of evolution, according to the latest scientific evidence', supports his position.

Borsack continues:

The failed Australian experiment of conservation through neglect

This statement is part of a wider debate, including one on this forum. It would certainly appear that the future direction for the management of protected areas such as National Parks is wide now open. But if the justification for shooting is conservation, just what was the contribution of recreational hunting to conservation again?

Cheers

[Nuts]

Who's Borsack again?? People like Gary are peppered throughout these debates, here, contributing and largely ignored..
Is it a battle of extremists or can anyone join in

Still on the fence, I'd like to sign a petition I think, is there one that admits a selfish motivation?

[Mark F]

It is interesting to see that we are "collateral" to some hunters.

I assume Borsack is Borat's brother - his style of comedy seems similar. Can't wait to see his "scientific evidence". My view is that they should use the technology appropriate to their evolutionary past. For the more rabid that means a flint and a pointy stick at best.

[Hallu]

Hunting should only be allowed in NPs where it's been there for so long that it's now part of the ecosystem. That's the case in many NPs in Europe, just as fire control in some Australian NPs is also now part of the ecosystem. But authorizing hunting in NPs where it was banned before is a huge step backward. What's next ? Logging ? Mining ? Spa resorts ? The only way a national park status can have any meaning is if its rules are applied firmly, not if they are reconsidered every year. I agree that pest control should be left to rangers, and parks personnel. And if hunters are so inclined toward conservation why do they want to re-open duck hunting, a declining population ? Just keep to animals that were introduced by the English precisely because they missed hunting (deers, foxes, etc...) or to animals that are thriving because Australians extracted underground water for farming and cattle (kangaroos, camels).

[wayno]

not necessarily, you can have some animals that are out of control where there is no hunting allowed, introduced animals that have no natural predators in that area can be a real problem to the ecosystem outcompeting native animals for food or killing them and or plants.

[Nuts]

I'd imagine hunting was historically undertaken in All Australian parks. Generally (heavily forested areas are) not the best places to hunt (unless chasing deer I guess).
Hunting has and will continue to occur despite regulations and land tenure (check the links back to people who have been injured or killed, who they were, what hunting licences or permits they held..) There would no doubt be rouge licenced hunters but those involved in organised hunts are likely those 'trying' to do the right thing (something that seems lost for those labeling others redneck, by observation, a term more widely used here/in these debates than 'greenie')

I agree it would be best left to Parks to control feral species, history shows that it may only be academics who believe this possible. On the other hand I doubt any hunter would agree they can have a Major effect on feral species (of the legislation.. as it stands) Place a big enough bounty on non target animals this would change i'd say (but is not part of the current plan). A say in more tightly restricted areas and numbers and a regulatory fee as charged for all other park 'user pays' activities (besides writing guide books..) may work but again don't appear to be part of what i'm reading?

I'd probably still just vote 'no'.. While there is a precedent (tagging/regulating deer) in park management I doubt there would be competency to manage hunting (by parks) on a large scale.. but then personally i'd just ban walkers from some areas for the management purposes as well.

[maddog]

It is interesting to see that we are "collateral" to some hunters.

I assume Borsack is Borat's brother - his style of comedy seems similar. Can't wait to see his "scientific evidence". My view is that they should use the technology appropriate to their evolutionary past. For the more rabid that means a flint and a pointy stick at best.

Perhaps related in his 'genetic history' (certainly in the biblical sense).

Borsack is pictured below. Not sure he would be so keen if he was limited to the tools of his evolutionary past.

robert-borsak- with Elephant Kill.jpg (103.87 KiB) Viewed 14036 times

[Tony]

The body that will be administering the hunting in NSW National Parks, the Game Council of NSW has just released its 2011/2012 annual report into hunting in NSW State Forests, the report states an impressive 18485 game and feral animals (40% rabbits) removed from State Forests but if you put the propaganda aside and look at the reported figures in some perspective it was actually another spectacularly unsuccessful year in removing invasive animals from State Forests and shows recreational hunting just does not work in reducing invasive animals.
From the Game Councils report, “A total of 18,485 game and feral animals were removed from declared State forests during the reporting period, including 7312 rabbits, 1638 foxes, 4956 feral goats, 3091 feral pigs, 588 wild deer, 545 hares, 265 feral cats and 90 wild dogs.”

From the report the 18,485 game and feral animals removed by 17,946 Game Council licenced hunters who obtained 24,982 written Permissions (hunting permits) were issued for hunting in declared State forests in New South Wales.

From these figures it can be seen that on average the 17,946 Game Council licenced hunters removed 1.03 each Game and Feral animals per year, and a massive 0.74 Game and Feral animals per written Permissions per year.

The area of NSW State forest under Game Council control is 2.2 million Hectares (22,000 Sq kilometers) and if we look at the results in relation to area, that is 0.0084 Game and Feral animals per hectare, or 0.84 Game and Feral animals per Sq kilometer, a Hunting Written Permission allocates an area of 400 hectares or 4 square kilometers per hunter per hunt, if we look at Game and Feral removed per allocated area per year this equates to an average of 3.36 Game and Feral removed per allocated area per year.

Considering that with some invasive animals an annual reduction of at least 87% for rabbits, 65% for Foxes, 57% for cats, around 34-50% for deer and 35% for goats is considered necessary to reduce relevant populations, as in previous Game Council annual reports this year’s Game Council annual game and feral animal cull numbers can only be considered a joke and it clearly shows recreational hunting clearly does absolutely nothing to reduce invasive animal numbers in NSW State Forests.

If recreational hunters are unable to make any impact on invasive animal numbers in NSW State Forests, I cannot see how recreational hunters will make any difference in NSW National Parks.

Tony

[wayno]

trying to control rabbits is just a waste of time, the south island in nz used to employ full time people to shoot rabbits on farmland, they could kill tens of millions in a year in otago.... barely affected the population....

[Nuts]

..so farmers took it on themselves to spread Calicivirus, even that hideous disease wont achieve 87%.. 'Feral animal control in Parks' is the real 'joke' here, at least the dismal contribution of hunters will be quantified i suppose.. Interesting about the 90 wild dogs, were they mistaken for deer? (lol)

[wayno]

doenst matter what disease you introduce, the animals that have immunity will reestablish the population quickly... only dents the population for a year or two

[Tony]

trying to control rabbits is just a waste of time, the south island in nz used to employ full time people to shoot rabbits on farmland, they could kill tens of millions in a year in otago.... barely affected the population....

Hi Wayne,

If you believe the Shooters and Fishers Party propaganda they have you believe that recreational hunters are going to wipe out invasive animals and be the saviour of native animals in NSW National Parks.

speech on hunting in NSW NP's by Robert Borsak MLC

Tony

[wayno]

thanks for that tony, thats the funniest thing i've heard all week......
i was walking through an area the other day thats heavily trapped for rodents and stoats, , i watched a stoat waltz across the track in front of me in broad daylight, theres few fullproof methods of getting rid of invasive animals. the only chance is to either have a small island or an area a with a rock solid fence and then poison or trap the living daylights out of it consistently for some time...