Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[Rob A]

'If' control of feral becomes necessary then it should be implemented by an organisation you can hold accountable.
There is no single 'appropriate' method of eradication.
Most damage done to the australain fauna and flora is done by people. Nearly all of it?

[forest]

It's a bit rich to support compassion when it comes to conservation, let feral numbers build until they are dying on road verges, chase them down taking pot shots from choppers, mass poisoning..?? the status quo isn't exactly compassionate?

+1

Add to that, is there any defense for killing stuff for fun.

Bit harsh, I don't agree with any of this NP hunting ramble, let the pro's do it. Do the chopper gunners have fun swinging out the side of a choppa at speed / low altitude shooting ferals.
If that floats your boat I'm sure there could be worse things to be doing. Pretty dangerous though.

I've been quite on this one for a while now after the onset. I can only oppose the bill as a sham. Too much evidence or lack off, supporting "conservation" hunting can make a difference.
That's a hard thing to say as a hunter..... There's just too many square kilometers of state forest and now National Park for R license hunters to have a decent impact, if any at all.
Yeh they will get to hunt, that's what the shooters party want. The pretence of "conservation" hunters eradicating all ferals from our parks is just media fluffy stuff.

I know in VIC the deer hunters haven't had any problems with the public in parks. What bothers me about this NSW bill is the open slather on ferals. There will just be more lead flying in the bush as they aren't going to be responsibly just stalking deer only. Hunters will be chasing all ferals.

[maddog]

Acting head of Game Council suspended over illegal hunting claim:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/game-boss-sus ... 2d5nn.html

[FatCanyoner]

I particularly like this bit:

At the centre of the investigation is a Game Council vehicle that was seen being driven through a national park without permission before allegedly breaking a fence and entering the privately-owned Karwarn cattle station in pursuit of a male goat with ''trophy horns''.

So these are the actions of the people tasked with enforcing hunting in National Parks... talk about putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!

[maddog]

Self-regulation by the self-interested. Looks like we are off to a promising start.

The Game Council master plan is also worth a look for anyone who is seriously concerned (it is very detailed). Available as a link through the NPA website:

http://npansw.org.au

Vol 1, pg 90 discusses rogues:

'the disconcerting and at times threatening experience...[of] people who think it is fun to drive around in four-wheel-drives shooting at everything which moves. These practices are carried out by people who have nothing to do with Conservation Hunting - they are simply criminals indiscriminately killing wildlife.'

Couldn't have put it better myself. The report, in the context of State Forests, reassures:

Conservation Hunters, on the other hand, have an R-licence and written permission to hunt...These are the people who are motivated and capable to help police such environments...

These licensed hunters also help to stop such illegal practices...It is only reasonable to expect Conservation Hunters in possession of an R-licence and permission to hunt... start their own policing functions ...

This will not make forests less safe, but safer, because they will police... forests for the first time. This is hardly something that should be stopped by "the community" but fully-supported.

Let us not also forget that Conservation Hunters themselves are respected members of their local community.

What could possibly go wrong?

[maddog]

Bill for goat shooting could fall on taxpayers:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bill-for-goat ... 2d7hf.html

[crayfish]

This has become a very emotive subject with folk on both sides being a little blind to the others point of view, the one thing we have in common is the love of the outdoors and the parks. The parks and upkeep are paid for by all tax payers and it is my feeling that as such we all have the right to use them and enjoy them. What is forgotten in the debate is the destruction caused by feral pigs on the native species that are so unique to Australia, I have seen first hand what they can do and they are very successful in that process, everything that flies, walks or crawls will be consumed depending on its feed needs at the time, ie the harder the season gets they just move to other feed sources . While farming I have seen pigs take calves as they were born and then take the cow as she is trying to get up. They learn quickly and work as a team to secure what they want, you can imagine what a mob is doing in a park to any animals we love to see. The trouble with poison its not species specific, in other words there is a lot of collateral damage useful for areas where protected animals are not present or can get exposure. How many pet or working dogs now die with baits that placed wrongly or notices were not seen.
Hunting is one very valuable tool that park managers have and with appropriate licencing and training, it will help in the control of those animals deemed feral. There is enough space out there for everyone to share and get what they need out of the parks be it biking, walking your dog, there is just as much chance of being bowled over by a mountain biker, no offence to any bikers out there, as you have of being shot by a hunter. Boom sticks, dogs and knives are part of hunting, those not exposed to these things may find them upsetting and the sight of a hunter carting home a well earned animal even frightening, but take the time and chat, the majority of us are very sane hard working folk who love their dogs and the outdoors just like you do , the only difference is the way we choose to spend our time in those parks

[colinm]

Hunting is one very valuable tool that park managers have and with appropriate licencing and training, it will help in the control of those animals deemed feral.

Just like it did for rabbits.

[Rob A]

Never seen any evidence that hunting has ever made a difference. Culls and eradication programs might make use of shooting as a method but this shouldnt be confused with recreational hunting, which is what the argument is about.

Poisoning can be very specific. Providing you keep it out of the hands of idiots.

[wildwalks]

Hunting is one very valuable tool that park managers have and with appropriate licencing and training, it will help in the control of those animals deemed feral. [/quote]
Hi Crayfish
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
This legislation is about allowing Ad hoc recreational hunting in National Parks. It has been going on in NSW State forest for many years now and has had no measurable impact on reducing feral animal populations. In fact the average hunt in a state forest yields 0.7 animals killed (that right only 2 out of three hunts on average kill any animal), and half the animals killed are rabbits. It provides no meaningful contribution to managing the environment. It is worse actually as this legislation provides an incentive for rouge hunters to seed NP with feral animals to improve access to their sport. Recreational hunting has also shown to increase feral animal population in other ways by dispersing herds into new and more wild areas.
Agree that their is a feral animal problem, but only methods that have a proven track record should be used. Culling or remove of feral animals should be tightly controlled and prioritised under a parks Plan Of Management. You see Ad hoc recreational hunting is shown to actually be bad for the environment in bushland settings - and should not be allowed for that reason allow - the safety of visitors and staff is just another reason. BTW it is different in farmland settings where recreational hunters have been shown to be able to reduce population numbers if they are able to sustain their efforts over the long term.

There is enough space out there for everyone to share and get what they need out of the parks be it biking, walking your dog, there is just as much chance of being bowled over by a mountain biker, no offence to any bikers out there, as you have of being shot by a hunter.

This is the big differences between National Park land and State Forest land. State Forests are land set aside for sustainable harvesting, they are like farms managed to provide people of NSW with products for the long term. NP on the other hand are set aside primarily to protect natural ecosystems. Many parks are closed to visitors - yes to bushwalkers as well. We respect these closed lands - they are not their for our recreation they are their to help ensure native biodiversity for the future. National Parks are not our playgrounds as you suggest - they are not their primarily for out "use". Use that is compatible with the environment is allowed under the parks Plan of Management.

Matt

[chops38]

It provides no meaningful contribution to managing the environment. It is worse actually as this legislation provides an incentive for rouge hunters to seed NP with feral animals to improve access to their sport.

How can removing Feral species provide no meaningful contribution? In the last 4 years down here there have been 430 Wild Dog Pelts along with 133,000 Fox Scalps handed in. I'd suggest 10 times that number have also been shot and not handed in. All the hunters I know don't hand in scalps. I would also suggest this would explain you '2 kills per 3 trips' number. People just simply don't report their numbers, thats fact.

Lets also be very clear, that there is no need to 'seed NP's with ferals'. With all due respect you've drawn a very long bow here. If the environment supports them, they are already there.

End of the day ladies and gents, hunting in NSW NP's is here and not going anywhere for a very long time. So please reserve your judgement until you actually come accross a hunter in the bush. You will find most of us are very decent people (same as most bushwalkers do the right thing) enjoying our time persuing our passion in the most beautiful of environments, just as you are.

Cheers

[colinm]

Lets also be very clear, that there is no need to 'seed NP's with ferals'. With all due respect you've drawn a very long bow here. If the environment supports them, they are already there.

There is ample evidence that when a bounty was paid in NSW for rabbit pelts, rabbiters used to ensure their area was not denuded of rabbits. It's the work of a moment to google up stories from NZ of rabbitohs cutting the ears off rabbits to claim the bounty, and releasing the rabbits to continue to breed.

Where there's an incentive, there'll be cheating.

End of the day ladies and gents, hunting in NSW NP's is here and not going anywhere for a very long time.

Whenever I hear 'inevitable' I suspect an ideology is at work. A dirty deal was done, born of political expedience, but the problem with politicians in NSW is they just don't stay bought.

It will take one near miss, let alone a fatality, for the population to declare open season on politicians of the Huntin' and Fishin' party.

I confess I think it will take a while for this to occur, even though the NPs gazetted for shooting are precisely those which aren't wilderness, aren't remote, but if there's one inevitability in this it's that someone's going to die from it.

Who would have dreamt the heads of the regulatory authority might have been caught illegally hunting scant weeks before the legislation comes into effect? Perhaps they booked the party room a little too soon ...

I wouldn't be counting my spent shells just yet, chops38.

[colinm]

On the subject of increased risk of dying while using a national park, whether from a clean lung or head shot, or from a gut shot (as reportedly favoured by the head of enforcement of the shooter's regulatory authority) ...

If insurance rates for bushwalking clubs increase as a result of this legislation, would those clubs be able to seek equitable relief from the government for those increased charges?

Secondly, if someone does get shot, will the family and friends of the deceased be able to sue the government, the Huntin' and Shootin' party, etc for recklessly licensing someone to shoot in a populated area?

[chops38]

Excuse my ignorance, but why would a bushwalking club require Insurance?

Surely all the clubs are doing is walking along pre set paths and thats hardly a risky venture. Isn't it up to the individual to ensure they have approapriate medical cover?

Or have I misunderstood and the insurance policy to to protect the club in case one of it's members sues the club itself? In which case surely people going into the bush must accept some level of responsibility?

[colinm]

Many critics of the hunting policy falsely accuse the government of pandering to the interests of yobs like the ones who rode into a populated camping ground while shooting kangaroos.

It's simply not true! Critics of the enlightened hunting policies of our government should be heartened to learn that recreational hunting is an inclusive sport, open even to the blind!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/- ... -loophole/

[colinm]

Excuse my ignorance, but why would a bushwalking club require Insurance?

I don't know that they require insurance, but it is certainly something provided by bushwalking clubs, to cover their members against loss incurred as a result of accident while bushwalking. That would have to include accidentally being shot by a recreational hunter, after March.

Surely all the clubs are doing is walking along pre set paths and thats hardly a risky venture. Isn't it up to the individual to ensure they have approapriate medical cover?

They do that, by belonging to a club which gets a bulk rate on insurance. Clubs might also be able to get a discount on light-weight bullet-proof vests and helmets now too.

Or have I misunderstood and the insurance policy to to protect the club in case one of it's members sues the club itself? In which case surely people going into the bush must accept some level of responsibility?

It's personal accident cover, usually.

Are you suggesting that someone going into the bush should accept responsibility for being wounded or killed by a recreational hunter? I would think that unreasonable.

[chops38]

You're being emotional now and actually making my laugh. Thanks for that.

I can just picture a man stumbling through the bush, white cane in one hand, rifle in the other taking pot shots at anything that moves. Haha, come on, keep the conversation sensible.

[colinm]

You're being emotional now and actually making my laugh. Thanks for that.

I'm unaware of any emotion colouring my posted content. Perhaps you might direct yourself to rebutting it instead of avoiding it by means of pat labels like 'emotional.' That kind of ad hominem is the sort of thing I'd expect from an astro-turfer reading from the Huntin' and Shootin' party's hymn book, but you're not that, are you?

I can just picture a man stumbling through the bush, white cane in one hand, rifle in the other taking pot shots at anything that moves. Haha, come on, keep the conversation sensible.

You don't have to imagine it, you can look at the evidence: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/201 ... utheastnsw

During the recent school holidays a horrified family were confronted by a group of hunters driving into a camping ground in a south east National Park randomly shooting kangaroos. In front of the distressed family camped in the remote but popular National Park they shot a number of kangaroos and loaded some onto a vehicle before driving off, leaving dead and maimed animals behind.

[wildwalks]

How can removing Feral species provide no meaningful contribution?

Great question. with most animals there are what are called "doomed young", babies that will never grow up because there is just not enough food, water etc due to competition with others animals. When animals are killed in an ad hoc manor through recreational hunting the dead animals are quickly replaced by the otherwise doomed young. It varies greatly on each species but generally you need to remove around 50% of the population from and ecosystem each breading cycle to impact on the overall population. The type of animals targeted is also very important - a yound female removed has a lot more impact on reducing the population then an male.
The Game council push theory that since they have killed 15000 animals this year that there are 15000 less animals in the bush. If this where true then clearly you would get to zero in just a few years. But it is propaganda, they are just wanting a sport to sound like it has environmental benefits. This is a sport, a recreational past time - that is OK - just not in a National Park where it will do damage.

Lets also be very clear, that there is no need to 'seed NP's with ferals'.

Then why are people seeding parks?? You may see no need but other people do - and do seed the parks. Generally it is to introduce a new species (rather then build up a population) and presumably to get them breeding in a more convenient location. The is much evidence to show this happens, infact the deer council in Vic mention it in their reports (as though it is a good thing).

So please reserve your judgement until you actually come across a hunter in the bush. You will find most of us are very decent people (same as most bushwalkers do the right thing)

I don't doubt many hunters are decent people, I know many hunters and get along well with them. But this is not the point, lots of well meaning people have chosen to ignore the evidence to protect their own interest and hobbies and caused great deviation. EG why do we have foxes and rabbits in Australia now?? - from decent friendly hunters protecting their hobby. The personality and friendliness of hunters is irrelevant in this debate. We are not judging the people but using evidence of past and current action to demonstrates the damage that is to occur to National Parks if adhoc recreational hunting is allowed.
Why would you want to ignore this evidence to expand your hobby from a state forest that is already under booked for hunting??

Matt

[chops38]

Let's take a step back from the whole Vermin erradication discussions, as I think we all agree here that this was never the main reason for Hunting in National Parks to be allowed, it was simply used as an excuse to make it more palitable to the masses.

I look it differently. Why should the best land not be available for hunters to use and only be the domain of bushwalkers?

It works well down here and I'm sure it will be the same up there. Looks like we're not going to agree and that's fine. Best of luck to all.

[russell2pi]

The comparison to inland fishing is an interesting one.

* Government-run and -sponsored stocking of natural ecosystems with exotic species (trout) and natives
* Socially accepted and government-sanctioned hunting (fishing) of native and introduced species
* On conservation grounds, a minority of fishers oppose the introduction of exotic species and advocate hunting (fishing) of native species instead
* Most fishing methods impose a relatively prolonged death upon the animal
* On conservation grounds, a sizeable proportion of fishers advocate subjecting the animal to a prolonged suffering event and then releasing them, just for fun (catch-and-release fishing)

I think it's quite interesting to compare attitudes towards fishing practices with attitudes towards land-based hunting. Apart from the lack of public safety hazard posed by fishing, I can't see many sensible reason why attitudes should be different towards fish compared to other animal phyla, or towards aquatic ecosystems compared to land-based ecosystems. This is not to say that I support either the popular positions on fishing or the popular positions on land-based hunting. I just think the comparison is a useful way to pick up inconsistencies and unexamined assumptions people hold towards the two matters, with regards to conservation, animal welfare, and extractive uses of natural ecosystems. (Of course, the prefix "ex" implies that humans aren't part of ecosystems - need to be careful how language can frame debates...)

[maddog]

The parks and upkeep are paid for by all tax payers and it is my feeling that as such we all have the right to use them and enjoy them.

And you do. You have the right to engage in a range of low impact activities, on just the same terms as all other park users. But you seem to suggest that shooters are entitled to something extra. Something for nothing. To take away fauna, trophies, and the amenity of others.

Many disagree.

End of the day ladies and gents, hunting in NSW NP's is here and not going anywhere for a very long time.

Perhaps. But I doubt it. Self-regulation by those that lack self-control is unlikely to last long. Our's is a nation lacking a gun culture, unlike the United States. Hunting for sport (as in Britain), was the preserve of the rich, so again we lack the culture. The public support for the Shooters and Fishers is thin, just 3.7% of the 2011 vote in NSW, and support for the Shooters is thinner still (compare this with the support for another minor party, the Greens, with over 11%).

Shooting in National Parks will last as long as they hold the balance of power. And if the behaviour of the Game Council representatives is confirmed as reported, perhaps not even that long.

Cheers

[colinm]

Surely all the clubs are doing is walking along pre set paths and thats hardly a risky venture. Isn't it up to the individual to ensure they have approapriate medical cover?

Just occurred to me: If many recreational hunters are stalking prey under the misapprehension that bushwalking is confined to pre-set paths it doesn't bode well for off-track walkers encountering recreational hunters.

I think the game council needs to undertake to educate recreational hunters as to the habits and runs of non-prey species like bushwalkers so we can keep the distinction clear.

[maddog]

One hunting official cleared of animal cruelty

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/na ... public_rss

[Rob A]

No he wasnt.

"... reinstated ... This recommendation was made on the basis of a detailed statement to NSW police by Mr Mallen that clearly proves he was in Sydney on the date of the alleged incident,"

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/na ... z2J1peHLX3

Someones lying ... v ... the facts arent as good a read as a fairytail that no one checks at Fairfax.

The whole thing sounds like a circus.

"the pair were confronted by a group of hunters who had paid to shoot at Karwarn. They claim the men in the vehicle identified themselves as ... "
“How can anyone have faith that hunting in national parks will be run safely? Imagine what's going to happen when the rogues get going.”

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/game-boss-sus ... z2IkVmX269
http://www.naroomanewsonline.com.au/sto ... m/?cs=1237

Excuse my ignorance, but why would a bushwalking club require Insurance?

Associations and Clubs are (generally) incorporated. Join the dominos club most of the membership fee will be for etc.
And etc .... www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumerprotecti ... /index.htm

[russell2pi]

I think the game council needs to undertake to educate recreational hunters as to the habits and runs of non-prey species like bushwalkers so we can keep the distinction clear.

The licence education already directs you not to shoot at anything you can't clearly identify. Don't shoot at shapes, don't shoot at movement, etc. It's not that hard. As with anything though, there will always be idiots, no matter how much education, licensing and enforcement you do - as anyone who has ever driven on a public road can attest. The question is whether there are enough of those to present a significant hazard.

[maddog]

No he wasnt.

"... reinstated ... This recommendation was made on the basis of a detailed statement to NSW police by Mr Mallen that clearly proves he was in Sydney on the date of the alleged incident,"

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/na ... z2J1peHLX3

Someones lying ... v ... the facts arent as good a read as a fairytail that no one checks at Fairfax.

You have linked to the same article, Rob A.

Mr Mallen is in the clear, as his alibi has been accepted by the police investigators. No further information has been provided regarding the Game Council's acting Chief Executive Greg McFarland at this point in time.

Please note:

1. The Game Council blog confirms there was a Game Council vehicle in the vicinity at the time of the alleged incident. This does not imply guilt, but it is a co-incidence:

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... n-t-add-up

2. The initial report suggests that there were eyewitness reports of a Game Council vehicle being driven through a National Park and then onto private property.

3. A National Parks source confirmed that if this has occurred it was without appropriate permission to do so.

4. There exists photographic evidence, provided by the owner of the station adjoining the National Park, of an goat that has been killed in a manner considered cruel.

We shall no doubt learn more as the investigation proceeds.

Cheers

[Rob A]

What I meant was he jsut wasnt there. Supposedly or whatever. As opposed to his conduct being deemed humane and not cruel, had he been there.

Interestingly, and where does this leave the animal cuelty aspect, for those arguing the humanity of recreational hunting;

"Hunters sometimes avoid shooting a goat in the head to ensure the skull and horns can be hung as a trophy." That op-cit thingy.

[BillV]

Been a bush walker for many years and have never had a gun in my face nor felt threatened by hunters..........I take crowfly trecks quite often too........The great bulk of people I have met in the bush have been great to meet ie Walkers, Hunters, FWDs, Bikers with the walkers and hunters being the more keen on no trace bush experience........Not to say FWDs and bikers don't but my experience walkers and hunters by nature are more natural............on the other hand I've met total idiots in all the above...........The idiots should be targeted not the person respectfully pursuing what they love........

[maddog]

The idiots should be targeted not the person respectfully pursuing what they love........

If things are set up as a free for all, targeting idiots with guns will be impossible.

What two consenting adults do behind the privacy of closed doors, is their own business. If the same were to occur in a public park, it is viewed differently. In the case of the latter, such behaviour is properly considered offensive. By destroying the amenity of the public park for others, the claim that the act is committed pursuing love is of no consequence.

Cheers