Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[Tony]

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...

Hi Wayne,

I have read some scientific research papers on the removal of invasive species from some of the small islands off the NZ coast and it is very difficult and can take many years, the removal of the last few animals can cost many thousands of dollars per animal.

Some good reading can be done on the Invasive Animals CRC site and the CRC Pest Smart data base

Tony

[Tony]

Interesting news paper article I just found in the Southern Highland News Licensed shooters to be allowed into national reserves

[Nuts]

Removing 457 wild dogs is a good thing?
It would be hard to draw the same conclusion as Borsak but any evidence that his figures (and All of those observations) are incorrect?

[Tony]

Removing 457 wild dogs is a good thing?
It would be hard to draw the same conclusion as Borsak but any evidence that his figures (and All of those observations) are incorrect?

Hi Nuts,

I have found no evidence that Borsak's figures are incorrect, the figure of 457 wild dogs killed would be the number of dogs killed reported by Game Council approved hunters in NSW State Forests, but also I have found no evidence that these reported figures are correct either, I am not aware of any politics in hunt results reported, but I suspect they are probably close.

The 457 dogs killed by Game Council approved hunters is since 2006, this is an average of 57 dogs per year, over 2,200,000 hectares of State Forests, I hardly think this low number would have the slightest impact on wild dog numbers.

Borsak mentioned

Forests NSW has conceded that if commercial rates had to be applied to the removal of the 18,485 feral and game animals from its estate, as has been done by Game Council conservation hunters last year alone, the cost would have amounted to a total of $2.4 million

What Borsak fails to tell his listeners and readers is that this is the amount ($2.4 million) that the Game Council received in funding from the NSW government last year.

Tony

[Nuts]

Still, 457 wild dogs removed and I doubt those dispersed wouldn't have a net deficit on the population (in that case).
I agree though, while it (the funding figure) is in their 11/12 benefit document, in mentioning the benefit (in that address) he should have also mentioned the costs.

[maddog]

Recreational hunting has no impact on feral populations. There is no conservation benefit, there are only costs. $2.4M to achieve absolutely nothing.

[Nuts]

Well.. there's 457 dead dogs!! lol!!! (lets say a net loss of 400, 57 were probably lost pig dogs)

[maddog]

400 dead dogs across 2,200,000 hectares of State Forests will make no more than the slightest difference to the population of wild dogs. New ones will move in after the culling, and / or breeding will quickly replace the losses. Same goes for cats, goats, deer, rabbits, pigs, and toads.

Even if the dog numbers were reduced in a meaningful number unless the dogs were replaced with dingos, all that would be achieved is the elimination of a top predator.

Self-indulgent recreation in the name of conservation.

[Nuts]

By the same token that sounds like as much a case for no attempt to do Anything about feral populations? Perhaps if those percentages can't be achieved then there is no point to baiting or other 'departmental' attempts at control? Sure there may be good 'short-term' localised outcomes..

If no lasting effect then the exercise is to indulge the public into 'being seen to do something'?


I've seen (to my eyes) pure dingo in NSW high country (hmmm i hope these aren't in those statistics) surely be great to have them back!!

[maddog]

By the same token that sounds like as much a case for no attempt to do Anything about feral populations? Perhaps if those percentages can't be achieved then there is no point to baiting or other 'departmental' attempts at control? Sure there may be good 'short-term' localised outcomes..

A agree. If baiting, trapping, or biological control were shown to be as ineffective as recreational hunting in controlling feral populations - they too would be of no benefit to conservation.

If no lasting effect then the exercise is to indulge the public into 'being seen to do something'?

If recreational hunting is sold to, and accepted by, the public as being of benefit to conservation, shooting for sport in National Parks may be viewed as legitimate. If the activity is of no benefit to conservation, it must be justified on some other basis. This would be difficult considering the obvious loss of amenity to other park users, and given there is no lack of alternative (e.g. private) land available.

Shooters however, like homosexuals, are very keen on normalising their preferences - not that there is anything wrong with that.

I've seen (to my eyes) pure dingo in NSW high country (hmmm i hope these aren't in those statistics) surely be great to have them back!!

Are the mongrels fair game, and at what point to they become a target?

Cheers

[Nuts]

Shooting has (and is) being used as a management tool. That it can be leads to the obvious conclusion that recreational hunting could be. The hunters may not like the restrictions at the point where it does become 'of use' but the possibility is there (if hunters must pass the 'useful' test.. relative to the effect of bushwalking (conservation wise))

Amenity too is all in the implementation. I picture a system where notices are posted well in advance to tightly restricted areas and times, out of ear shot of other park users (relative to the distance it could be heard from a park boundary..) and out of any realistic 'ricochet range' Most bushwalkers (especially around Sydney) could realistically be almost as safe as staying home? It may surprise some how few paying park visitors actually stray far from cars, i'm sure it won't bother them.. the vast majority.

Time will tell I guess.

I can appreciate the need for a clear, stubborn 'yes' or 'no' answer on this but hope park managers look first at what they can now salvage or could use to their advantage out of being forced to manage recreational hunting. Anything positive!! Any way to be inclusive, provide for recreation (as parkys learn in management planning 1A).

(If it looks like a dingo, its a dingo If it looks like a mongrel shoot it!!! If it looks like a cat, shoot it!! I am intrigued at the motivation the hunters have had to shoot these? blood lust? )

[maddog]

I am intrigued at the motivation the hunters have had to shoot...? blood lust? )

I am happy enough to accept Borat's assertion that hunting is a natural human instinct, a throw-back to the origin of our species. No doubt many recreational hunters genuinely believe they are making a positive contribution towards the conservation of 'native' species. But this is is a delusion, as the shooters own figures and existing ecological studies clearly demonstrate. And these deluded enthusiasts have no place in conservation.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Ha ha, is that the only line you read lol, slightly disappointing but LOL

[maddog]

Don't be disappointed Nuts, I read the lot.

In regards to the value of current shooting programs. I was recently talking to a shooter contracted to Parks, and a good and genuinely conservation minded bushman. He had spent a few days hunting cats in a National Parks reserve on the North Coast of NSW. It was wet, and apparently cats are hard to shoot in the wet. They shot 3 cats on their expedition. The thought crossed my mind - why bother? And why expand on, and pay more for, such failure?

In regards to notification of shooting, and restricting access when shooting was being conducted. The shooters ideas would be less objectionable if it was modelled on ideas like your own. However it is not. Under the proposed scheme, the walker will have no idea where shooters may be lurking, nor any assurance of their skill or moral character. The proposed 'open slather' access to National Parks proposed in NSW is a threat to the amenity of Parks to existing users who venture beyond the popular tourist trails, particularly those that walk with their children.

In regards to positive thinking, I suggest that you first consider the motivation for the Shooters to access National Parks. Why when they already have access to the State Forest reserves, private and Crown lands. Ideological perhaps? Forgive my comparative scepticism, but I am yet to be convinced that Borat and his ilk are genuinely motivated by noble service and the greater good.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Just to say that I don't really consider Borsak, the Game Council or politics. I don't care much about current regulations, tbh, i only have a vague interest in hunting in NSW parks full stop.

My interest is in the future direction, precedent, broader implications. Not convinced there aren't positive outcomes from even some of the seemingly less tasteful alternatives for the future of parks (conservation in general). I do tend to get a bit annoyed at 'absolutes', there have enough science-based disasters for healthy skepticism (especially for issues where anecdotal evidence/lack of reference/clumsy grammar is simply met with an assumption of lower IQ..)

[maddog]

I agree Nuts, there are certainly broader implications with this issue.

I have no problem with everyone being entitled to an opinion, regardless of IQ level, but the positioning of recreational hunting as conservation should not be confused with stupidity. It is a clever political strategy, designed to legitimise the opening of National Parks to shooters.

So long as the shooters continue to portray their activities as being of conservation value, it is legitimate to challenge this assertion. Let us be clear on this point - there is no evidence that a laissez-faire model of recreational hunting is of benefit to the conservation of native species, none. Given the high cost of the program, even if it were to be incorporated as an element within a broader strategy, it us unlikely to ever play a role in conservation. This is demonstrated by the failure of recreational shooting in State Forests to impact upon feral populations in any meaningful way. Such failure is explained by ecological science. Ecology is concerned with populations, not individuals, and the death of a few individuals makes no difference unless a population is threatened. Shooting a small number of feral animals will have no impact on their population, as others will just move in from surrounding areas to exploit the vacancy left by the culling of the individual. This will leave the feral numbers unchanged, and be of no benefit to the natives.

You may find absolutism irritating, but as the concept of recreational hunting as conservation is absolute nonsense, mere propaganda, then it can be treated with the respect it deserves.

Call shooting a sport, a legitimate recreation, and attempt to justify or manage the cost and loss of amenity to others it in such a manner if you like. But let us not imagine that it is in any way connected with conservation.

Cheers

[Nuts]

I have no problem with everyone being entitled to an opinion, regardless of IQ level, but the positioning of recreational hunting as conservation should not be confused with stupidity. It is a clever political strategy, designed to legitimise the opening of National Parks to shooters.

Really, It seems more to me to have been an opportunistic windfall for the Game Council ? Who did they catch sleeping?

So long as the shooters continue to portray their activities as being of conservation value, it is legitimate to challenge this assertion. Let us be clear on this point - there is no evidence that a laissez-faire model of recreational hunting is of benefit to the conservation of native species, none. Given the high cost of the program, even if it were to be incorporated as an element within a broader strategy, it us unlikely to ever play a role in conservation. This is demonstrated by the failure of recreational shooting in State Forests to impact upon feral populations in any meaningful way. Such failure is explained by ecological science. Ecology is concerned with populations, not individuals, and the death of a few individuals makes no difference unless a population is threatened. Shooting a small number of feral animals will have no impact on their population, as others will just move in from surrounding areas to exploit the vacancy left by the culling of the individual. This will leave the feral numbers unchanged, and be of no benefit to the natives.

You may find absolutism irritating, but as the concept of recreational hunting as conservation is absolute nonsense, mere propaganda, then it can be treated with the respect it deserves.

Call shooting a sport, a legitimate recreation, and attempt to justify or manage the cost and loss of amenity to others it in such a manner if you like. But let us not imagine that it is in any way connected with conservation.

Cheers

Well.. no, I don't think think recreational hunting has much potential to be useful for conservation. Personally, I'm not sure why it needs to be?
These people who claim to represent hunters are playing politics with the issue, it shouldn't be a shock, lots of green issues are tabled in the same way. People use BS when they have agendas, what can I say..

Just to be clear (again), I was never an ''enthusiast", some hunting through necessity (yes, some people do have to deal with feral animals through 'necessity') and for use (meat, leather, pelts etc). Iv'e hunted most common feral species (in NSW) (except deer). I haven't shot anything in more than 10yrs, one can buy excellent roo burgers from Coles

The people I have hunted with wouldn't see themselves as a savior of native animals. They would point out that 457 culled feral dogs are no longer there.. i'd say. They would likely put two and two together and ask 'If that has no meaning' (however small the number), 'what does'?? 457 taken out by 1080 on a bait line in one park would be hailed an enormous success! No?

[maddog]

I have no problem with everyone being entitled to an opinion, regardless of IQ level, but the positioning of recreational hunting as conservation should not be confused with stupidity. It is a clever political strategy, designed to legitimise the opening of National Parks to shooters.

Really, It seems more to me to have been an opportunistic windfall for the Game Council ? Who did they catch sleeping?

The former Shooters Party president David Leyonhjelm in 2006 (Sun-Herald 30/7/06):

Many Australians identify with the need to prevent the devastating effects on native fauna caused by foxes, pigs and cats....With other methods either ineffective or environmentally dubious, and professional hunters unaffordable or not available, there is an opportunity to position recreational hunters as environmental saviours

I agree the Shooters are opportunistic, but they do not rely on dumb luck alone. The Shooters have a clever political strategy - they are selling their sport to the public as conservation to gain access to National Parks.

Well.. no, I don't think think recreational hunting has much potential to be useful for conservation. Personally, I'm not sure why it needs to be?
These people who claim to represent hunters are playing politics with the issue, it shouldn't be a shock, lots of green issues are tabled in the same way. People use BS when they have agendas, what can I say..

Nothing I disagree with there Nuts. The Shooters have learnt a lot from the Greens.

The people I have hunted with wouldn't see themselves as a savior of native animals. They would point out that 457 culled feral dogs are no longer there.. i'd say. They would likely put two and two together and ask 'If that has no meaning' (however small the number), 'what does'?? 457 taken out by 1080 on a bait line in one park would be hailed an enormous success! No?

I would say 457 Dogs culled in one park would have a real impact on the feral population of the park. Then I would realise you were talking about all parks, or an area of 2,200,000 ha, or one dog for every 4,814 ha. So then I would say you have not made any difference at all, but you sure have wasted a lot of money.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Put all the hunters in a line?

(Testing....I'm not sure why your post isn't bringing the topic into active topics..lol)

(edit: seems to be working fine now.. some good points there )

[Tony]

I would say 457 Dogs culled in one park would have a real impact on the feral population of the park. Then I would realise you were talking about all parks, or an area of 2,200,000 ha, or one dog for every 4,814 ha. So then I would say you have not made any difference at all, but you sure have wasted a lot of money.

Cheers

Game Council hunters claimed 90 dogs killed l2011/2012, that makes a pathetic one dog for every 24,444 hectares.

Tony

[Nuts]

Perhaps rather than hunters in 'parks' some of the areas that are unvisited, unmanaged headaches for everyone (involved) should be excised from park status and relegated something different.. parks in essence, but with hunters ?

[Rob A]

Probably because properly run baiting programs are more effective.
In the mean time an oss is an oss of course of course because in Aus its romantic to have ... brumbies spreading phytophthora and scotch broom amongst other things.
If you really want to look after the bush all youve got to do is keep australians out of it.

Why does hunting in parks raise conservation based arguments when its really collateral damage from politicking vested interests.
Didnt they ban live export until they could guarantee (in inverted commas and make em big) the way in which an animal died?

[maddog]

Perhaps rather than hunters in 'parks' some of the areas that are unvisited, unmanaged headaches for everyone (involved) should be excised from park status and relegated something different.. parks in essence, but with hunters ?

I have no objection to the existence of a 2nd tier of conservation reserve. In NSW they are called Native Forests and controlled by Forests NSW.

While I strongly object to the fraudulent use of the term 'conservation' by the shooters, I have no in principle objection to shooting per se. However, if they are to indulge their in recreation within public reserves, this will come at a significant cost both in terms of administration and the loss of amenity to other users. This increase in costs is specifically related to their activities, and at this point in time is unfunded.

If shooters are to be allowed to utilise public lands, the costs of administration should be born by the shooter - not at the expense of genuine conservation (and ultimately the taxpayer). That is, the Game Council should be funded by membership fees alone. In addition, any public land that is to be used by shooters would be better shut temporally to the general public for the duration of the activity, the closure advertised, and other costs including the necessary supervision by NPWS rangers charged to the Game Council.

If these were the conditions, I couldn't care less about shooting in National Parks.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Regulation Six: In addition to 'costs' a permit system should make a net profit payable to the park service (as is the 'ideal' of other user pays enterprises)

Regulation Seven: Hunters should (self) fund a pool of money to provide a bounty for non trophy animals. The bounty should not be paid for any animal not dispatched humanely (ie not gut shot...) which leads to:

Regulation Eight: Self funded accuracy tests prior to entering Any public lands http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... of-hunting

[Tony]

Here are some links to two very interesting articles by the Invasive Species Council

When hunting works for feral animal control and US songbirds decline as deer populations rise.

Tony

[Pteropus]

In the news this morning: Leaked report warns against hunting in NPs -> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-23/l ... sk/4441652

[ULWalkingPhil]

In the news this morning: Leaked report warns against hunting in NPs -> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-23/l ... sk/4441652

Its about time someone in the government has some sense.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[davidm]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/park-visitors ... 2bsjk.html

Barry O'Farrell has been warned of a ''major risk'' that bushwalkers and parks staff will be killed or seriously injured if the state government goes ahead with its plan to allow amateur hunters into national parks.
A briefing document produced by the Premier's department has laid bare the lethal threat posed to the public when recreational shooting of feral animals begins in March.
It also warns of reduced visitor numbers to national parks ''because people don't like the idea of shooting'', and damage to the National Parks and Wildlife Service brand.
Waterways, especially those in areas that supply drinking water, will be threatened by rotting animal carcasses and there will be increased risk of diseases and weeds being introduced to the 79 NSW parks due to be opened to guns. The report also raises the need for parks staff to wear high-visibility clothing to avoid being accidentally shot by hunters.
Advertisement
In New Zealand, where hunting is allowed in national parks, a school teacher, Rosemary Ives, was shot dead at a camp site in 2010 after a hunter ''mistook her for a deer''.
The Draft Risk Assessment, produced by the Office of Environment and Heritage and dated December 10, 2012, lists groups at risk from ''projectiles causing death and serious injury to people'' as parks workers and visitors, including ''families, special user groups, remote visitors''. Hunters, whether shooting by permit or illegally, are also at risk, as well as ''neighbours'' with properties that border the 2 million hectares of parkland to be opened to hunters.
The 59-page document said the risks to these groups was ''major and the likelihood as possible … giving a risk rating of high''.
Sections of Environment and Heritage - which answers to Environment Minister Robyn Parker but operates inside the Department of Premier and Cabinet - are understood to be fiercely opposed to hunting.
The risk assessment was leaked to the Labor opposition and the Greens last week and passed to Fairfax Media on Friday. It has emerged just days before the December 27 deadline when changes to the Feral Animal Control Act become law.
Mr O'Farrell personally negotiated a deal in May that resulted in the Shooters and Fishers Party supporting the government's $3 billion electricity generator privatisation in return for access to national parks for amateur hunters.
Bushwalkers, representatives of parks staff, environmental groups and opposition parties called for a rethink from the government. Opposition environment spokesman Luke Foley said: ''If something goes wrong in one of the national parks, Barry O'Farrell will not be able to say he was not warned. For the government to proceed after receiving this warning, it would be abandoning its duty to community safety.''
Mr O'Farrell's office declined to comment but a spokesman for Ms Parker said a risk assessment was ''good operational practice''. ''Workshops with NPWS staff and experts in pest management, safety, environmental protection and risk management are identifying the possible risks to be managed and the appropriate controls.
''The risk assessment will allow the NPWS to tailor strict controls to suit circumstances in each park.'' The draft risk assessment predicts confrontations between the public and hunters and parks officers and hunters as ''high to medium''.
Representatives of the state's biggest 54 bushwalking clubs said confrontation was inevitable. Keith Muir, director of the Colong Wilderness Foundation for protecting national parks, said some bushwalkers will be incensed their freedom has been taken, while others will be put off by the perceived dangers.
''They will be discouraged by this. It's very sad because we're supposed to be encouraging people to get outside and exercise and to get visitors into our national parks,'' he said.
Under the heading ''post-incident controls'', the risk assessment calls for clear emergency procedures in the event that someone is shot, including training for first responders and first aid.
In terms of high-visibility clothing for hunters and parks workers, it said: ''This may reduce the probability of failing to see people who are inconspicuous against the natural landscape. This is particularly in a context where some park users deliberately use inconspicuous clothing to reduce their visibility and disturbance to wildlife.''
Steve Turner, of the Public Services Association, representing rangers and parks workers, said national parks would become ''Mickey Mouse playgrounds'' if his members were forced into fluorescent gear.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/park-visitors ... z2Frxo0zZS

[Tony]

The leaked report only confirms what is obvious, there is no way the Game Council of NSW who will be responsible for safety can guarantee other park users safety and recreational hunting will be totally ineffective in NSW National Parks as it is in NSW Sate Forests.

I would like to know when another NSW National Park user or worker is injured or killed can we hold the NSW Government, the Shooters and Fishers Party politicians and the directors of the Game Council of NSW accountable.

Tony

[ULWalkingPhil]

I certainly will hold them accountable.

Thank god i dont live in NSW.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2