Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[corvus]

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........

Nice balanced post" BillV" and I agree
corvus

[maddog]

Calls for inquiry into suspension of game boss:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/calls-for-inq ... 2del0.html

And

Game Council told police of illegal hunt claim:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/game-council- ... 2df0b.html

[maddog]

Game Council NSW Hunter Education Handbook:

http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/docs/HEH-Complete.pdf

[maddog]

Shooters and Fishers call for a boycott of Fairfax - allegations of bias. The Shooters provide a list of Fairfax headlines:

Bill for goat shooting could fall on taxpayers
Game boss suspended over illegal hunt claim
Fears drunk hunters will roam parks
Hunt fury may trigger park disruptions
Hunting in national parks may increase feral animals
Park visitors could be in line of fire
Gun lobby on target again as law softened
'Not on our watch': shooters' lobby frustrates tighter controls on guns
Shooters to escape park rangers' sights
O'Farrell rewards Shooter MP with $25,000 pay rise
Shooters MP could lose gun licence after death threat
O'Farrell under fire as gun lobby grows
Police to investigate Borsak for perjury
Shooters Party MP faces potential jail term
$342 a day for shooter on Game Council
Shooters Party calls shots on how parks will handle hunting

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/ne ... rfax-media

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... x-says-sfp

[wildwalks]

Hi Maddog - thanks for sharing that info.

Who would have thought a newspaper would write articles in a way that would appeal to the majority of their readers?

Since the Governments balance of power is held by a gun lobby group (the shooters and fishers party), then it could be argued that such reporting it providing a balanced view when compared to the agenda of the government.
I encourage the Shooters and Fishers party in there democratic right to call for a boycott - But to me it sounds more like a tantrum by a 3 year old who is loosing their grip.

Matt

[Tony]

Worth a read NSW Game Council Critically Reviewed

Tony

[maddog]

Hi Maddog - thanks for sharing that info.

Who would have thought a newspaper would write articles in a way that would appeal to the majority of their readers?

Since the Governments balance of power is held by a gun lobby group (the shooters and fishers party), then it could be argued that such reporting it providing a balanced view when compared to the agenda of the government.
I encourage the Shooters and Fishers party in there democratic right to call for a boycott...

G'day Ww,

I agree. It looks like the Shooters have embarked in a novel new political strategy. A minor political party, representing a fringe group, loudly attacking mainstream media when it is displeased. While I am unaware of successful precedent for this move, it will be interesting to see how it works for them.

But to me it sounds more like a tantrum by a 3 year old who is loosing their grip.

But that child will soon be let loose, unsupervised within the National Parks in NSW, so we are going to have to get used to them in the short term. Looking to the future, there are a few obvious questions that remain unanswered. These include:

1. When will the shooter's attempt to do a deal to allow the shooting of native animals as 'game'? This is clearly an ambition of the Game Council.

2. Why are the shooters not paying, through publicly auctioned licences, for the right to shoot (as sport) desired 'game' such as deer on public land, as they do in other countries? The 'game' is public property, and the funds could be used for genuine conservation efforts (not just the concern of conservation hunters to conserve their 'game'). Similar fees for the taking of 'game' in other countries have been successful in raising millions of dollars for the benefit of their National Parks. So why not in Australia?

3. Is the training and regulation of hunters equal to or better than world's best practice? The Germans appear to complete at least 120 hours on courses and training before they are let loose. In contrast, the Game Council's model appears to lack rigour, allowing an open book exam. This does not inspire confidence.

4. Why are the Shooter's resistant to the idea that National Parks should be temporally closed to the general public when they indulge in their sport, as they are when professional shooters are operating? The temporary closure of public lands would negate many genuinely held public safety concerns, and would involve only a time limited loss of amenity. Such closure would also allow closer monitoring of the sport, and allow more accurate measurement of any claimed benefit.

Cheers

[wildwalks]

Good summary

I think the Shooter and Fishers are in for a bigger surprise - the State Government does not need them any more, as they have got through all there major political legislation changes they needed- so I suspect we will see Barry starting to play harder with them. This is obviously based more on hope then facts - but shall see.

Prepare to see a real tanty from the S&F when NPWS release their hunting policy - hopefully next week (was supposed to be 29th of Jan) - I very much doubt it will be as relaxed as the legislation allows - I doubt it will be as relaxed as the State Forest model. It will be interesting - I am sure it will be one of those policy announcements where nobody is happy.

If you can get a copy of the "NPWS Firearms Management Manual" it is an interesting read - actually very painful read - but shows the much hire requirements that NPWS have for culling operations then the game councils. It is much harder for a ranger to hold a gun in a National Park then the simple R-licence 'test' (as implied by many hunters) - it does not seem as challenging as the German one you mention - but it is competency based.

If you have time please this page
http://www.facebook.com/NoHuntingInOurNationalParks
and send a letter via
http://nohunting.wildwalks.com

Some interesting weeks coming up - only 4 more weeks until hunting is due to start - still time to keep pressure on the Govt.

Matt

[maddog]

It will be interesting to see how the Premier negotiates with the Shooters in the future, particularly has he publicly expressed his distaste for them before this decision. However, I am particularly interested in what those who support hunting on public lands think about the introduction of publicly auctioned licences to provide a right to shoot 'game' such as deer, pigs, or foxes.

Such a system would be in practice quite simple. For example, each year the Government could determine the number of licences it wished to offer each year (eg 1000), and then auction the same number of conditional licences to cull one 'game' animal on public land to shooters. Those interested could bid for a licence, or as many as they wanted, and the market would determine the price. The successful bidder would then be legally authorised to cull the number of 'game' animals they held licences for. Such a system would need to be supervised, with heavy penalties applied to those unlicensed (which would be properly considered as poaching - a criminal offence). Unused licences would be extinguished at the end of each year.

There would be no reason such a licensing system should be limited to hunting in National Parks, but could apply equally to hunting on Crown lands and State Forests, allowing such a scheme to continue even if the decision allowing hunting in National Parks were to be reversed at a later date. This would operate in addition to existing professional culling efforts. Money raised would be returned to the authority managing the land, and put to use for genuine conservation purposes such as additional culling of feral animals, weed control, or scientific research. The use of the term 'conservation hunting' would then be appropriate.

This may be a compromise of interest to traditional conservation groups. It would represent an evolution of the existing system, particularly in relation to hunting in State Forests and Crown lands.

Cheers

[wildwalks]

The auctioning of permits is an interesting idea - I think it is important to think of new models, motivations and methods for removing feral animals. I can't see the benefit that this would provide. at the moment hunters only kill around 18,000 animals in SF each year - by "taxing" this you would reduce this number but I can't see the money raised been significant when hunting will still be available on private land.
Also this does not seem to produce a motivation to remove all feral animals from NP. It still imposes a bag limit - and provides a motivation to maintain feral animal numbers for recreational hunting. Such a limit just limits hunting to the rich and does not resolve any of the other issues such as safety, training and pressures on the NP system. I like the way of thinking - trying to find a new economic model that can solve the issue - but I don't think this one is it.

I think the term 'conservation hunting' is very clever - no one seems to ask "what are they conserving?" it is assumed that 'conservation' is always good for the environment. I think the game council have come up with a model to conserve recreational hunting by conserving the feral animal population - therefore the term 'conservation hunting' is accurate - however very misleading. Points to the game council for the marketing spin. Again thanks to everyone for the information here - very interesting.

Matt

[Nuts]

I can't help thinking that there is an opportunity in this. Hunters are only likely as much a minority group as walkers (as voters) but their money would obviously be welcome for park services that (by default) cry broke. There may seem a huge rift between dedicated amateurs and 'pro' hunters, assuming that there are good people everywhere, not dismissing the contribution from those who have made an effort to give their view here, assuming its only in the method, then perhaps managers have failed to be creative in including them.

The mention of unreported hunting sounds very likely. What if the real number (of dispatched ferals) was indeed many times higher, from my experience (in a small NSW town) I suspect it is (and i think it would shock people to know how much 'unreported' hunting actually goes on in regional reserves already). What if it could be done in a way where people 'feel' safe (which I suspect is at the crux of this rather than any great universal concern for conservation).

All this venom against the S&F/ Game Council is in ignorance of the hunters. As it stands, likely as good, bad or intelligent as bushwalkers but who don't seem to get a second read.

If I had a vote i'm pretty sure now that it would be against the proposal but it seems this should be a far cry from anyones personal 'Franklin'.

[forest]

However, I am particularly interested in what those who support hunting on public lands think about the introduction of publicly auctioned licences to provide a right to shoot 'game' such as deer, pigs, or foxes.
Cheers

I don't like the sound of the auction for rights thing. After all no other park user has to bother with an "auction" to use the park for a legal activity.
I'm dead against what the GC and Gov has done with this bill. Now I think most here will agree that the whole "conservation" spin is a load of %$#@ but regardless of that the guys on the ground hunting will still be spending money to follow there passion. Charging them further and creating an elitist group that win the auctions would not benifit anyone other that those that could afford it.

[wildwalks]

I just can't see a model were recreational hunting in National Parks will help protect the parks - it creates too many pressures that are unhelpful. But happy for people to bounce around models to see if there is anything. I don't think this debate is about bushwalkers vs hunters - Recreational hunting is just not compatible with National Parks. There are many worthy and environmentally friendly activities that are also not compatible such as community vegetable gardens.
Sure this is not 'Franklin' but it could have worse effects as it erodes the value of National Parks and applies pressures on the system across the whole state - and sets precedents for other states.

[maddog]

In regards to the benefits of auction, it allows those who wish to take a public resource as private property - to pay for the privilege. Please note, a bushwalker has no rights to take or pick (animal, vegetable, or mineral) from public land such as a National Park without licence, and the walker does not threaten the amenity of others. What the Shooters propose is quite different from bushwalking.

An auction for licence system has merit when applied to the concept of hunting feral species and taking trophies from public lands, including those lands outside National Parks. The most obvious precedent for a pay-for-prey system is the CAMPFIRE model developed in Africa, which is discussed at length in Rosaleen Duffy's book 'Killing for Conservation'. This scheme is favourably reviewed in the Shooters manifesto 'Conservation Through Hunting', and widely credited with social and environmental benefit through the provision of funds. The manifesto references a paper discussing CAMPFIRE by Frost & Bond, 2006:

http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/15503IIED.pdf

The Game Council and the 'Shooters and Fishers' are, in the public debate, strangely silent on the conservation benefits which would flow from a system requiring payment for 'game'. Not so in the manifesto, where we learn:

...experience from overseas shows that, where Conservation Hunting is properly-regulated, Conservation Hunters are a crucially-important element for the conservation of many species with surprisingly - large economic benefits. (Vol. 1, Ch 3, pg 146)

In a submission to the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), it is claimed:

Hunters also provide financial support for conservation agencies through payment of fees for permits and licences. (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 42)

And on the 'future of the utilisation of wildlife in Australia and NSW', we are told:

The least one should expect is that Government agencies collaborate and that Conservation hunters, who WANT to shoot exotic vertebrate animals and will even PAY for it, are not excluded and vilified but supported and made more effective. (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 45)

In the context of feral species, a financial contribution from hunters would be appreciated by conservationists. However, to realise the value of 'game' species it is suggested that we must accept a paradigm shift, and to shun the term 'pest' which is:

so widely, indiscriminately, subjectively, and arbitarily used in Australia, [and] has distorted our views and prevented us from applying rational approaches to wildlife management. We believe that the impact of exotic species that have been declared environmental pests...is neither clear nor convincing. (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 38)

We should embrace change, and:

...support the [Conservation Hunters] use of renewable (if exotic) resource...In this new world-view "pests" will cease to exist but become "wildlife" which can be harvested for income and / or population control. There will be no "native" or "exotic" fauna, but simply different animal species and communities which will need to be managed... (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 39)

And move on from the:

sacrosanct, sanctimonious, and highly proprietary status of endangered wildlife by Government agencies and scientists... (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 25)

By so doing we can forget taboos, and utilise the services of Conservation Hunters to control the Koala on Kangaroo Island, and the Kangaroo more generally (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 32). We will also overcome reluctance and conserve threatened species by providing habitat and breeding them as game, including Australia's pigeons...[which] could probably greatly benefit from becoming cherished game again! (Vol 2, Ch 6, pg 47-48)

Despite all of these novel ideas, the debate regarding hunting on public lands as presented by the Game Council to the community has not emphasised the promise of more substantial financial and environmental benefit flowing to conservation and community, as they do within the manifesto. Though the Game Council has a dream, to reinvent conservation in the public imagination (a grander project than any dam), Conservation Hunting is simply presented to the common man as doing something vaguely positive about that apparently illusory, feral animal problem (to use that old-world lingo).

On the subject of elitism and inequality - why do you find this a concern? Elitism limits numbers, reduces the risk to other users of public lands, facilitates supervision, and hinders the establishment of a dangerous gun culture. In short, it prevents a free-for-all developing. The suggestion that hunting opportunities (wherever they are to occur) should be limited to competent hunters, of good character, of sufficient intelligence, with self-control, and keen eyesight - would surely be a reasonable expectation. But by imposing such conditions, or by endorsing professional hunters, we discriminate and applaud the elite do we not?

Cheers

[maddog]

The Northern Daily - 'The vast majority of Australians oppose hunting':

http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/s ... ng/?cs=161

[Rob A]

The Northern Daily - 'The vast majority of Australians oppose hunting':

http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/s ... ng/?cs=161

Drivel
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of whats written, the article is baseless and doesnt even have a name to it.

This is all thing it is about;

Screen shot 2013-02-04 at 1.04.45 PM.png (12.96 KiB) Viewed 12108 times

Journalists and marketeers.

[maddog]

The Northern Daily - 'The vast majority of Australians oppose hunting':

http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/s ... ng/?cs=161

Drivel
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of whats written, the article is baseless and doesnt even have a name to it.

G'day Rob A,

You agree with baseless drivel? I must admit I found it quite amusing, particularly this bit:

Hunting has no redeeming features – it is simply a blood sport. It is unethical and should be banned – not just in national parks, but in all NSW territories.

Bloodthirsty hunters have...

The opinion piece was written by Ashley Fruno, the campaigns manager for PETA Australia.

Cheers

[Rob A]

And he puts his name to it where?
I could write anything I like, post it on a blog and reference it here as accurate and informed information? Good one.
Its just media trading and cashing on your emotions. Hits for advertising revenue.
How far did fairfax get us a few pages back?

[Tony]

The Northern Daily - 'The vast majority of Australians oppose hunting':

http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/s ... ng/?cs=161

Drivel
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of whats written, the article is baseless and doesnt even have a name to it.

G'day Rob A,

You agree with baseless drivel? I must admit I found it quite amusing, particularly this bit:

Hunting has no redeeming features – it is simply a blood sport. It is unethical and should be banned – not just in national parks, but in all NSW territories.

Bloodthirsty hunters have...

The opinion piece was written by Ashley Fruno, the campaigns manager for PETA Australia.

Cheers

Hi Rob A and Maddog,

Do you have any information that you can post that proves this article baseless drivel.

Tony

[maddog]

Hi Rob A and Maddog,

Do you have any information that you can post that proves this article baseless drivel.

Tony

G'day Tony,

I have not offered a view one way or the other on the article, other than to say that it is amusing. I would like to know more about the opinion polling bit though, as the only one I know of is the SMH one (71% opposed, 24% for, 5% undecided as @ 31 May 2012). Do you know of any others?

In regards to following statement:

There are more humane and effective ways to reduce feral animal populations

The author could have expanded on what methods he would suggest to reduce feral populations as an alternative to 'killing'. Though perhaps a blogger on a bowhunting forum has an answer to the question:

Working as a NPWS volunteer in the 1990s, I was made aware of their so called 'deer control' methods. Their Wile-E-Coyote idea was to build a corrall with an open gate in the middle of a Rusa infested nature reserve, put salt blocks in it and encourage the deer to permanently spend their time in the corrall. The idea was that as the deer became more accustomed to the corral, the rangers would merely walk up and shut the gate and then transport the deer had to flowery meadows with rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

https://bowhunting-forum.com/showthread ... .../page12

The rest of the thread is well worth a look too (in particular the contributions of Jindydiver).

Cheers

[Tony]

I have not offered a view one way or the other on the article, other than to say that it is amusing. I would like to know more about the opinion polling bit though, as the only one I know of is the SMH one (71% opposed, 24% for, 5% undecided as @ 31 May 2012). Do you know of any others?

Hi Maddog,

I actually think the opinion in the Northern Daily Reader by Ashley Fruno is fairly close to the mark.

I do recall reading a hunting site that claimed a survey suggested that most of the public where in favour of hunting in NSW NP's but I am unable to find the site again.

I found this survey Rangers warn unauthorised hunting rife in national parks: survey

HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION SURVEY
Key statistics
• 292 respondents, mostly rangers – all NSW National Parks staff
• 96.2% do not support hunting in NSW National Parks
• Hunting in National Parks will overwhelmingly be ‘bad’ for park rangers:
o Bad for carrying out your job: 71.7%
o Bad for your safety: 83%
o Bad for the safety of other park users: 95.9%
o Bad for pest control: 69%
o Bad for native animals: 85.8%
Not one respondent believes hunting will be good for carrying out their jobs, or for the
safety of other park users.
• 93.4% of respondents did not believe recreational hunting could help control feral pests in
national parks.
• 63.3% of respondents thought that New Park Rangers should manage and supervise groups
of recreational hunters (30.5% believed existing Park Rangers should do the job). Notably,
only 5.9% believed the Game Council should be responsible for management and
supervision.
• 53.9% have witnessed/observed signs of unauthorised hunting in National Parks
• 15% have noticed an increase in illegal shooting or hunting in National Parks since the Govt’s
National Parks hunting bill was introduced.

Tony

[maddog]

For anyone living close to Sydney, and interested in the issue, the UTS is holding a public lecture titled Compassionate Conservation - is recreational hunting defensible? It will be held at 6 pm 15th Feb.'

The public lecture will examine the use of recreational hunting as a conservation tool to control invasive species in New South Wales, with particular reference to animal welfare.

Registration required.

http://cfsites1.uts.edu.au/science/news ... emId=33618

[wildwalks]

I have booked my ticket - see you guys there

Matt

[gelandangan]

I would go, but since I am not good in vocal skill, I am afraid I may hurt the cause.

[wildwalks]

It is more of a lecture - there are a few experts presenting research into the effectiveness (or otherwise) of ad hoc recreational hunting in bushland settings. -- should be good to understand the science behind the debate more.

[maddog]

David Shoebridge (Greens) - application membership for gun club refused - "not a fit and proper person":

http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2013/02/0 ... -down-smh/

[phan_TOM]

well, Mr Leyonhjelm sounds like a reasonable and well balanced chap, not. Green politicians are all 'nutters', really? better than an extremist with a love of guns

[maddog]

You can't really expect them to get on - given that Shoebridge want's to abolish the Game Council and ban all recreational hunting on public land:

PETITION – ABOLISH THE GAME COUNCIL AND RECREATIONAL HUNTING
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Legislative Council of NSW, this petition of certain citizens of New South Wales notes that:
- The Game Council of NSW, a body that was supposed to be self funding, currently receives more
than $2.75 million of public funding per year to promote recreational hunting on public land in NSW;
- The Game Council promotes so-called "conservation hunting" that is carried out by amateurs, has
minimal effect on eradication of feral animals and produces needless animal suffering.
- The Game Council is a pro-hunting lobby group that should not have statutory support or public
funding to promote a pro-gun culture in NSW.
Your petitioners request that the House:
1. Abolish the Game Council of NSW; and
2. Legislate to permanently end recreational hunting on public land.

http://djdh9atks0nwf.cloudfront.net/wp- ... uncil4.pdf

http://davidshoebridge.org.au/portfolios-2/firearms/

[maddog]

Anxious elephants fear hunters.

Robert Borsak-420x0.jpg (66.17 KiB) Viewed 11843 times

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/21279321

[Nuts]

Well, that completes the full circle, images repeated now as well as opinions and dodgey links..