Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[maddog]

But some people say that elephant was Borsak's greatest triumph!

[maddog]

"The amateur hunters"

http://wixxyleaks.com/2013/02/08/squeeze-the-trigger/

[Rob A]

And I thought this thread had gone to the dogs at the time someone presented as serious debate a link to an article that quoted as quote as though it was a quote from the serial pests who want you to boycott Oxfam as being a bunch of butchers . Ok, cant top that one maddog, you win .

[maddog]

Glad you liked it Rob A. I thought the advice offered to Daniel Boone types was particularly sound. Given your appreciation of PETA, you might also be interested to know that Germaine Greer has contributed. An opinion piece on the general malaise regarding the current management of National Parks:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... 2dzet.html

Cheers

[Tony]

This is a post on Wild Walks No Hunting in our National Parks Facebook page by a Jo Pattison.

We live near one of the National Parks to be open for hunting and we hate the hunters who come up here already. They cut through our road to the Park mostly hunting for pigs with their pig dogs, they throw rubbish out the windows all along our roads out here, they have often been intoxicated when driving out here - throwing their KFC and Maccas rubbish and bundy and colas cans out the window. As we live on quite a few acres - if they travel through/past our property and see a pig before they even get to the national park they will often let their dogs out and trespass on our property. We have had to intervene on many many occasions to get them to bugger off. They have been known to lose their dogs which end up making their way to our house or our neighbours houses where we feel threatened by these almost wild half staved dogs. We have hunters coming up here with knives, guns and even bow and arrows thinking that because our property borders the national park and looks just as wild as the national park that they have some right to just walk on and start chasing or shooting things. We like to walk all through our property - but with an increase in hunters there will be even more of a risk for us and our dog getting attacked or shot on our own property.

I understand that most hunters will do the right thing but there is always a few who do not.

Tony

[Nuts]

I don't see what that link contributes to the topic, is the suggestion that registered hunters by default will be slobs (or that bushwalkers are snobs..)?

[Tony]

I don't see what that link contributes to the topic, is the suggestion that registered hunters by default will be slobs (or that bushwalkers are snobs..)?

I am not sure what your point is nuts, as I stated that most hunters will be doing the right thing, but I am pointing out that some hunters already think they have the right to hunt in or on properties near NP's, are trying to you saying this is OK.

Tony

PS I think my post is very relevant to this topic

[corvus]

IMHO that pic of the dead Elephant is so unneeded or wanted and I think the mods should have it removed .
Disgusting, disturbing, revolting not wanted and not to be kept on this Forum.


corvus

[Nuts]

Yes, the guy is relevant but i'm with you about that pic. Probably not a good idea for me to make any changes here.

[maddog]

The dead elephant is not disgusting, anymore than a dead dog is, it is just a dead elephant. The dead elephant is disturbing, as is the figure posing next to it, but only given the (lack of) purpose for which it was killed. Elephants as a species are considered in decline, but regardless are a much sought after game species. The figure posing next to the dead elephant is a man who, along with with the Shooters and Fishers / Game Council, is pushing for 'conservation hunting' to occur within NSW National Parks.

The introduction of hunting into National Parks represents a substantial change from the purposes for which National Parks were originally created. There are many potential adverse consequences of this change, and as such it deserves rigorous public debate. This debate includes public safety and amenity, the scope of potential game species, and the credibility of the conservation rationale and those that push it. The dead elephant is commentary on the credibility of 'conservation hunting', as represented to the public by the Game Council and Shooters and Fishers. As such the dead elephant, and the figure next to it, is a public relations disaster.

Cheers

[corvus]

I did consider hunting to be a possible viable option in NSW NP but the photograph of that dead innocent Elephant has changed my mind ,we do not need to do this for food so why do it for fun , I am an ex shooter and hunter.
corvus

[ULWalkingPhil]

I think the government has lost the plot here. Are we seeing the early signs of the demise of our national parks? I think we are, particularly if things continue as they are. Next thing we know, is there going to start letting sawmills into our national parks.

Look at Fraser Island, no real attempt has been made to repair the great walk tracks in over two years, since we had the 2010/11 floods, if the government was serious in caring for our parks and giving us facilities such as tracks we can hike on, this would have been done a long time ago, the fact they have just abandoned our national parks walking facilities and closing them is proof in my eyes, they don't care for our parks as they claim they do, I think the only thing they worry about is making money from our parks and don't bother putting much of the money back into the parks

And I agree the farmers perspective on the shooters written in the post above. You mention a few fools. I think there will be a lot more than just a few foolish idiots out there waving guns about, littering our parks.

[ULWalkingPhil]

I just don't believe in guns, they cause so much distraction to our world. I was watching ABC today and there was a program about the illegal killing of elephants for there tusks in the parks in Africa, in the last 3 years 30% of the worlds population has been wiped out, if this continues there will be no elephants left in the world in our lifetime. This is being accomplished with guns.

This is an indication of what we can see happen if hunters are allowed into our national parks. There are many fools in this world, give them a gun and allow them to roam freely in protected land is not a good idea.

I know there are a lot of hunters out there that know better and do the right thing. I believe there are just as many if not more out there that are not like minded. The example of what that farmer is witnessing on his property is a start to an increase of this destruction with littering etc if people are allowed into national parks with guns. It will start to attract those that don't care so much for our society and only worry about having a great time with little regard to peoples land and innocent wildlife and innocent hikers or park visitors.

This is my belief.

I just don't like guns.

[north-north-west]

IMHO that pic of the dead Elephant is so unneeded or wanted and I think the mods should have it removed .
Disgusting, disturbing, revolting not wanted and not to be kept on this Forum.

That is what hunting is: people with guns killing animals. If you can't look at the result, don't support the process.

[Nuts]

I don't see what that link contributes to the topic, is the suggestion that registered hunters by default will be slobs (or that bushwalkers are snobs..)?

I am not sure what your point is nuts, as I stated that most hunters will be doing the right thing, but I am pointing out that some hunters already think they have the right to hunt in or on properties near NP's, are trying to you saying this is OK.

Tony

PS I think my post is very relevant to this topic

Of course I wouldn't say its ok, I'm saying it's about as relevant as having to pick up a bushwalkers turd from a hut doorstep after snow melt. Emotive, judgemental and included to get a reaction by vague inference. C'mon, I mean are 'hunters' taking babies and condoms on their hunts or a few local dicks without so much as a licence! It just escalates ignorance (as we immediately see..). It seems 'most hunters will do the right thing' is mere lip-service. Keep it 'real'.

Perhaps registered hunters having access would have influence over the number of yobs?

[True Green]

IMHO that pic of the dead Elephant is so unneeded or wanted and I think the mods should have it removed .
Disgusting, disturbing, revolting not wanted and not to be kept on this Forum.


corvus

The Elephant picture is very relevant. Do you know that the counties with controlled and regulated elephant hunting all have increasing elephant populations, while most those with no legal Elephant hunting have declining populations, due to poaching. The reason for this is a large part of the hunting fee goes to habitat protection and anti poaching patrols. The local population also gets an income and employment from this as well as all the meat from Elephants shot. If they did not have this they often become poachers to survive. Allowing the locals to earn an income from elephants causes them to see them as a resource to be conserved. If they don't have this elephants are just a pest which destroy their crops and a source of ivory.

By shooting this elephant Robert Borsak has contributed more to conservation than everybody combined who has criticized him. Without controlled hunting and the money it brings to remote areas of Africa all elephant populations would be in terminal decline. You decide if you want elephants to survive in the wild or have legal hunting banned and Elephants wiped out by poachers.


Welcome! good points. Just to say that my earlier comment about relevance was an attempt to keep this topic vaguely related to bushwalking and the topic in hand (ie recreational hunting in NSW parks). I'm sure there are many practical examples and moral arguments about hunting/ guns/ animal rights.. in general that can be included (as well as their associated heated debates). Whether they have a place on this forum is questionable?

[True Green]

[quote="maddog"

The introduction of hunting into National Parks represents a substantial change from the purposes for which National Parks were originally created.

Cheers[/quote]
I thought National Parks were created for the benefit of native animals and the protection of their habitat.

Killing of introduced pests seems to fit in with this purpose.

[north-north-west]

I thought National Parks were created for the benefit of native animals and the protection of their habitat.

Killing of introduced pests seems to fit in with this purpose.

Yes but, as has been pointed out here numerous times, recreational hunting has been proven to have no impact on feral animal populations.

[maddog]

The Elephant picture is very relevant. Do you know that the counties with controlled and regulated elephant hunting all have increasing elephant populations, while most those with no legal Elephant hunting have declining populations, due to poaching. The reason for this is a large part of the hunting fee goes to habitat protection and anti poaching patrols. The local population also gets an income and employment from this as well as all the meat from Elephants shot. If they did not have this they often become poachers to survive. Allowing the locals to earn an income from elephants causes them to see them as a resource to be conserved. If they don't have this elephants are just a pest which destroy their crops and a source of ivory.

G'day True Green,

The CAMPFIRE model, was introduced into the discussion on page 11 of this thread. Would you be supportive of a similar model, requiring a substantial financial contribution from hunters, being applied to hunting on public land in Australia (in the form of publicly auctioned licences perhaps)? Both Deer and Crocodiles are prospective game species, with significant revenue potential to achieve unrelated conservation outcomes.

BTW - the CAMPFIRE model is not applied to game animals seeking refuge within National Parks - where safari hunting is excluded.

By shooting this elephant Robert Borsak has contributed more to conservation than everybody combined who has criticized him. Without controlled hunting and the money it brings to remote areas of Africa all elephant populations would be in terminal decline. You decide if you want elephants to survive in the wild or have legal hunting banned and Elephants wiped out by poachers.

Many philosophically object to the killing of an elephant for sport. The slaughter of whales and dolphins is also generally considered socially unacceptable. Those that are foolish enough to display photos of themselves posing with such trophies, are unlikely to enjoy widespread political support or influence. As such, some might say Robert Borsak is a liability to his cause, and an embarrassment to the government.

But leaving politics to one side, do safari hunters pay the fee because they wish to achieve desirable conservation outcomes, or because it is a condition imposed on Safari hunters? If it is the former, then why was this money not raised before the introduction of the CAMPFIRE scheme? If it is the latter, then the positive conservation and social outcomes are the result of the appropriate regulation imposed on the hunting of game species - not the benevolence of the safari hunter or the killing of the elephant.

I thought National Parks were created for the benefit of native animals and the protection of their habitat.

Killing of introduced pests seems to fit in with this purpose.

As pointed out by north-north-west above, there would seem to be very little evidence to suggest that recreational hunting will have any meaningful impact on feral animal populations, and conservation outcomes in general. I would be interested if you have anything new to contribute in this area.

Cheers

[Tony]

Of course I wouldn't say its ok, I'm saying it's about as relevant as having to pick up a bushwalkers turd from a hut doorstep after snow melt. Emotive, judgemental and included to get a reaction by vague inference. C'mon, I mean are 'hunters' taking babies and condoms on their hunts or a few local dicks without so much as a licence! It just escalates ignorance (as we immediately see..). It seems 'most hunters will do the right thing' is mere lip-service. Keep it 'real'.

Perhaps registered hunters having access would have influence over the number of yobs?

Hi Nut with all due respect, I think you are the one that is out of order here, my post is entirely relevant to this hunting in National Parks issue, The comment that I posted by Jo Patterson as originally referenced, and was from Wildwalks No Hunting in our National Parks Facebook page and it is as relevant as you can get on the topic.

I your really believe that my post is

about as relevant as having to pick up a bushwalkers turd from a hut doorstep after snow melt. Emotive, judgemental and included to get a reaction by vague inference.

then as a moderator you should remove it and if you do then you should also remove every anti hunting post on the Buswalk.com forum.

Tony

[Nuts]

I don't have any intention of deleting anything (within reason), i'm suggesting that it may be better to stick closer to the topic (perhaps i could have just said so but I sincerely don't know how to re-word that post to make the reasoning any clearer). Besides, I can hardly moderate this particular topic when iv'e been questioning things along the way, with a different view to some of the members involved..

Iv'e read those comments, other blogs, FC's entire stream. There are so many similar posts that (while obviously the concern of the poster) don't have a lot of relevance to the new regulations. Just because they are linked here from one of those blogs doesn't make them relevant to the topic (or moreso the impact on bushwalkers). What I have noticed is the usual cherry picking when emotion rules and almost no acknowledgement when facts are given in response to fallacy. I know this is a two-way occurence and hunters probably don't acknowledge the facts about feral control or address concerns for safety (even if accidents are likely very rare) but some of the attitude aimed at hunters could only be clutching at straws if even a pause is given in reading their view.

As iv'e said, I think the situation as it stands sounds like pretty poor policy and more dangerous than it needs to be. The permit system may not last long but hunters will still be around regardless (especially those yobs for who regulation will mean nothing..). All I see happening is a further rift between 'greenies and rednecks'.

meanwhile.. Here, do we want an endless too and throw about animal rights, conservation hunting in Africa, gun ownership, slobs who car camp near parks, the psychology of fear?

[maddog]

I have enjoyed the posts and links I have read with the 'endless to and throw' resulting in greater clarity regarding the issues at hand, highlighting deficiencies in arguments, and presenting interesting possibilities for future regulation of hunting on public lands.

Given that allowing recreational shooting in National Parks appears to be without precedent, and undoubtedly a significant shift from the 'conservationist' status quo, it is a controversial and potentially explosive topic. Particularly when compared with other forums, contributors have been measured in their views - so the lack of intrusive moderation has been appropriate. I would have thought, a credit to all involved.

Cheers

[maddog]

Podcast - Game Council NSW CEO Brian Boyle:

http://australianhuntingpodcast.com.au/ ... ian-boyle/

[True Green]

As pointed out by north-north-west above, there would seem to be very little evidence to suggest that recreational hunting will have any meaningful impact on feral animal populations, and conservation outcomes in general. I would be interested if you have anything new to contribute in this area.

Cheers

Are you saying that NPWS pest control has long term impacts. From what I have seen they focus on a couple of parks at a time with the worst problems and promote their huge tallies of animals killed. Then they move on and neglect those areas until the pest breed up to their former levels. When they have baiting programs they quote the number of baits laid, but can not have any idea how many pests they killed or how many native animals such as Quols were accidently poisoned.

Using volunteer hunters as another method as well will stop numbers rebuilding. Hunters will also get bait shy foxes and be able to report numbers of pests seen and how many were killed.

In Victoria hunters kill 40,000 Sambar Deer a year, many of those in the Alpine National park. You can not say that does not have an impact.

[True Green]

Given that allowing recreational shooting in National Parks appears to be without precedent, and undoubtedly a significant shift from the 'conservationist' status quo, it is a controversial and potentially explosive topic.

Cheers

What about the precedent set in Victoria with several National Parks open to hunting including the Alpine National Park. There all you require is a game license which you buy over the counter from the DSE and you can hunt whenever you like. The system in NSW is much more controlled with hunters required to join an approved organisation such as the one which refused David Shoebridge's application due to him being an unsuitable person. They then have to pass the Game Council test and before they can get an R license. Then they must book where they are going and carry the permit to hunt which includes the list of pest animals allowed to be shot. They then have to put in a report of what animals were killed.

The only new precedent is all the extra requirements over the successful system which has worked in Victoria for years.

[maddog]

I have made no reference to the pest control efforts of NPWS.

For the likely contribution of recreational hunting to controlling populations, refer to posts by wildwalks (pg 10 of this thread). In the lack of evidence to the contrary, this argument is convincing.

Cheers

[True Green]

I have made no reference to the pest control efforts of NPWS.

For the likely contribution of recreational hunting to controlling populations, refer to posts by wildwalks (pg 10 of this thread). In the lack of evidence to the contrary, this argument is convincing.

Cheers

You have made no comment about NPWS pest control, but do you agree that they do not have the funding and will never get the funding to have a pest control program which will achieve more than a temporary reduction. The whole point is this will add to their current methods and provide a better result for our native animals.

Wildwalks comments on the doomed young is only right when the carrying capacity of the country is already full. I doubt there are any NP with that density of pests where most of the young simply die of starvation. In many cases though animals disperse from high density area to other areas like farms or on to other national parks. Animals travel a long way and will move to new areas by themselves even if some people blame hunters. Saying killing animals achieves nothing is simply wrong. Wildwalks provided no evidence to the country, just an opinion.

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.

[north-north-west]

In Victoria hunters kill 40,000 Sambar Deer a year, many of those in the Alpine National park. You can not say that does not have an impact.

Where did you get that number? It seems wildly optimistic, given the insistence here by a number of hunters that they often spend entire trips without firing a shot . . .

[maddog]

...but do you agree that they do not have the funding and will never get the funding to have a pest control program...

Germain Greer and many others agree with you that NPWS require more funding. That is why CAMPFIRE is such an interesting concept. Adopt the paradigm shift, and 'pests' become a valuable publicly owned resource.

Wildwalks provided no evidence to the country, just an opinion.

Refer to material on the Invasive Species Council site for more information.

http://www.invasives.org.au

Cheers

[True Green]

In Victoria hunters kill 40,000 Sambar Deer a year, many of those in the Alpine National park. You can not say that does not have an impact.

Where did you get that number? It seems wildly optimistic, given the insistence here by a number of hunters that they often spend entire trips without firing a shot . . .

That number is from the DSE in Victoria, from surveys of licensed hunters.