Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[True Green]

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

http://www.invasives.org.au

Cheers

They are not an impartial organisation. Some of their members ear their living from the sale of poison baits. They are just another group with an opinion, who use an official type name to give them some credibility.

[maddog]

They are not an impartial organisation. Some of their members ear their living from the sale of poison baits. They are just another group with an opinion, who use an official type name to give them some credibility.

Demonstrate the flaws in their work. Until you do your argument is ad hom - and of no value.

Cheers

[forest]

They are not an impartial organisation. Some of their members ear their living from the sale of poison baits. They are just another group with an opinion, who use an official type name to give them some credibility.

Demonstrate the flaws in their work. Until you do your argument is ad hom - and of no value.

Cheers

I thought that was discussed months ago. They have an official sounding name and website but they are NOT government based nor run. But anyhow......
Maddog you seem pretty set on dragging this into the don't kill animals period realm. I could be wrong though.

[maddog]

They have an official sounding name and website but they are NOT government based nor run.

Irrelevant. There is either merit to their work, or there is not.

Maddog you seem pretty set on dragging this into the don't kill animals period realm. I could be wrong though.

You are wrong.

I am inviting True Green to 'debunk' the work of the ISC.

[Tony]

hey are not an impartial organisation. Some of their members ear their living from the sale of poison baits. They are just another group with an opinion, who use an official type name to give them some credibility.

Hi True Green,

I have read this accusation 'Some of their members of the (Invasive Species Council) ear their living from the sale of poison baits' before on Wildwalks, No Hunting in National Parks Facebook page, the accuser (who has posted on this Bushwalk.com, Hunting in NSW National Parks thread before) when asked refused to give his sources, if you know that this accusation is true and have the relevant information then please post your sources.

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.

This has been debated on Bushwalk.com before, the figure of 40,000 Sambar Deer a year killed means absolutely nothing unless the numbers are put into some perspective, can you post the estimated numbers of Sambar Deer in Victoria and the estimated number of Sambar Deer a year that need to be culled to reduce Sambar Deer numbers.

Tony

[wildwalks]

Hi True Green
thanks for your input into this debate - I just want to add to Tony's point

if you know that this accusation is true and have the relevant information then please post your sources.

I think it was Guns In Australia (GIA) who made the accusation on Facebook - they are very serious accusation and if proven would not only likely lead to the closure of the ISC but some of his allegation would also mean the Green Party would face serious legal pressure and likely face serious tax and corruption inquires. If you do have any evidence to back this claim please do not post it here - it could compromise the investigation. Please instead send you evidence to the NSW Police "Crime stoppers unit". They can then forward the investigation on to the relevant bodies.
If the 1080 poisoning is all about kickback then this is potentially the biggest fraud seen in Australia effecting many government departments and not for profit environmental agencies - even the well respected RSPCA. Although such a large fraud it possible - to me the most likely/plausible situation is that hunters want to stop the use of 1080 because its use is so effective that it is bad for their sport. 1080 is horrible stuff but stopping it use would have huge negative environmental impacts - New more humane poisons are be investigated.

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.

I agree with Tony that the number of animals killed is a vanity figure - the reduction on the population is the number we need. This 40,000 is an estimate and the Australian Deer Association do not provide and rational (that I can find) to explain these figues and why they are sooooo much larger then the numbers killed in NSW.
Listen to this interview - it makes it very clear that that the Australian Deer Association has the goal of preserving the population not removing them - they want sustainable hunting - not a native eco system in National Parks
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/record-41000-deer-culled-but-thousands-more-roaming-free-20121204-2atbp.html
This to me is a key reason why recreational hunting has not place in NSW Natiaonl Parks - it does not aim to reduce the feral animal problem - but to maintain it.
The game council of NSW is just as bad in this respect - they goal is to "manage populations" not reduce them - they even impose bag limits where numbers are low.
"conservation hunting" is about conserving the sport/hobby of hunting - not protecting native ecosystems and is therefore not compatible with the NSW National Parks system.

Matt

[FatCanyoner]

I think Matt has summed up this debate better than anyone else with this line:

"Conservation hunting" is about conserving the sport/hobby of hunting - not protecting native ecosystems and is therefore not compatible with the NSW National Parks system.

If you want to hunt on your own land / other private land with permission, then I don't think there will be any arguments here. If the government also provides access to public land of low environmental value (i.e., not National Parks that are specifically protected because of their high ecological worth), then it is also unlikely to get people too worked up (I don't recall a big stink about hunting in State Forests). But when you push to have access to public lands protected for their environmental values (lands which are also visited by millions of people a year) then you will inevitably run into opposition. It's not because people are anti hunting or anti hunters, simply because bushwalkers -- like most people in the community -- do not believe hunting is a compatible land use with these special places.

[wildwalks]

State Forests are like farms in the sense that it is land set aside for sustainable harvesting (of timber) - that is why mushrooming, fire wood collection and hunting are more acceptable in these forests.

There was a bit of a fight at the time - concern over thin edge of the wedge - "give them the state forests and they will want National Parks next" as well as staff and visitor safety concerns

National Parks on the other hand is land set aside for the protection of native landscapes and eco systems. You are not even allowed to pick flowers - why would we allow a sport that wants to ensure the long term viability of feral animals in the area. It makes no sense.

[Nuts]

If it was a group of park users interested in pulling weeds would you have the same concern? It appears that the conservation argument is blurred with the (perhaps real) concern for bushwalker safety?

Iv'e been involved weed eradication programs in parks and if you don't get them all they just come back.. is pulling weeds not compatible?

[wildwalks]

If it was a group of park users interested in pulling weeds would you have the same concern?

Hi Nuts
Nope no problem with that- in NSW (as with many states) we have great number of volunteers doing great work removing weeds. They are well trained, well organised and work within the plan of management.

As you would know from your experience - you need to be trained and work to a program. People who just do there own thing can make the situation worse - remove to many weeds in the wrong area can lead to erosion or other weeds out competing the remaining natives.

But this is different - In NSW the legislation allows Ad hoc recreational Hunting - the game council has no policy on reducing feral animal populations - there goals is to make a sustainable sport. This is just not compatible with the idea of national parks and is very different to an organised, well managed , coordinated program using will training volunteers to remove weeds, fight fires or even cull feral animals.

I am not apposed to hunting - but I am apposed to any sport in a national park that does not align with the that lands goals. Imagine in the Bushwalks party pushing legislation to prevent harvesting of trees in State Forests we would soon run out of paper and timber. Each land has its purpose - lets not stuff up that balance.

Matt

[Nuts]

Given that seeding parks with ferals would be illegal (and therefore not related to a discussion of the regulations.. illegal is illegal) at best the control exerted over hunters by the GC (limiting numbers) could only be less hunting, not more

Your right that a co-ordinated approach is the only really useful management option for these things but (ime) the outcome would be similar.. a token effort at conservation. I doubt anyone (on the ground) really believes much can be done other than 'being seen to try' and manage weeds (and ferals).

From what iv'e seen the effect of bushwalkers (over/above any other park user) doesn't have much net benefit for conservation of ecosystems within parks

I'm just not convinced that there is very much other than a perceived social impact, it seems to do a dis-service to conservation (as apart from just being 'green') to make much of the hazy reliance on the conservation argument (to me) (along similar lines of what the GC make of it).

[maddog]

if you know that this accusation is true and have the relevant information then please post your sources.

... send you[r] evidence to the NSW Police "Crime stoppers unit". They can then forward the investigation on to the relevant bodies.

The use of ad hom to discredit the ISC is the issue. If people disagree with the conclusions of the ISC let them state their case.

"Conservation hunting" is about conserving the sport/hobby of hunting - not protecting native ecosystems and is therefore not compatible with the NSW National Parks system.

Hunting need not be any more than benign to be compatible. There is no positive requirement on hunters protect native ecosystems. But advocates of 'conservation hunting' should produce substantiation for claims of benefit.

it seems to do a dis-service to conservation... to make much of the hazy reliance on the conservation argument...

The potential for pest introduction is a valid conservation concern.

Cheers

[wildwalks]

Hi Nuts

Thanks for sharing

Given that seeding parks with ferals would be illegal (and therefore not related to a discussion of the regulations.. illegal is illegal) at best the control exerted over hunters by the GC (limiting numbers) could only be less hunting, not more

Seeding is an interesting debate - we all know it goes on - there are several studies that prove it. I think seeding is important to discuss. If recreational hunting will never be allowed in a place then there is no motivation to seed that place with feral/game animals. This legislation provides a motivation, for rogue hunters to do illegal stuff that has huge consequences to parks. All legislation needs to consider and deal with unintended consequences. This legislation does not address it but just hopes NPWS will pick of the mess.

Your right that a co-ordinated approach is the only really useful management option for these things but (ime) the outcome would be similar.. a token effort at conservation. I doubt anyone (on the ground) really believes much can be done other than 'being seen to try' and manage weeds (and ferals).

NPWS have some some very successful feral animal and weed management programs in place - they are hard work and take a lot of time but in many parks they are making in roads. By introducing ad hoc recreational hunting this will only draw resources from an already very stretched budget. Ad hoc recreational hunting provides no benefits to the system but adds increased pressures. Hunters already have large amount of land in which they can enjoy their sport - land that is not even close to been booked out.

From what iv'e seen the effect of bushwalkers (over/above any other park user) doesn't have much net benefit for conservation of ecosystems within parks

NPWS act in section 2a says "fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation," is one of the reasons why we have national parks. Although bushwalkers may not provide direct benfits during their walk there do help "foster public appreciation .......". The more people that learn to love these places for the value of the native eco system the more people will be keen to protect them. Recreational hunting on the other hand fosters appreciation of feral animals in a places where they are destructive, sure hunters may enjoy nature whilst they are there. But this is why there was a need for the change in legislation to change the purpose and allowed use of NSW National Parks.

I'm just not convinced that there is very much other than a perceived social impact, it seems to do a dis-service to conservation (as apart from just being 'green') to make much of the hazy reliance on the conservation argument (to me) (along similar lines of what the GC make of it).

The majority of feral animals where introduced by hunters for their sport. Once allowed in National Parks it will become a "right" to maintain the sport and hence maintain the populations. Hunting groups actively fight against the use of very effective culling methods to protect their stock. The Game Council and the S&F party recently passed legislation to prevent a very effective professional deer culling program south of Sydney. There is nothing wishywashy about this - this is a powerful group who want to ensure the long term viability of their sport. They are welcome to their sport - but not in land that has been set aside for protection from such things.

Matt

[maddog]

Hunting groups actively fight against the use of very effective culling methods to protect their stock. The Game Council and the S&F party recently passed legislation to prevent a very effective professional deer culling program south of Sydney. There is nothing wishywashy about this - this is a powerful group who want to ensure the long term viability of their sport. They are welcome to their sport - but not in land that has been set aside for protection from such things.

Including a campaign against alternative control measures, such as the use of 1080, out of humanitarian concern for native species?

They may have a plan but they are not a powerful group yet. Consider the comparative position of 'green' groups:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6023735955

Cheers

[forest]

They may have a plan but they are not a powerful group yet.

Cheers

Powerful enough to influence some stupid decisions within the NSW government...........

[wildwalks]

Powerful enough to influence some stupid decisions within the NSW government...........

LOL - if it was not so sad and true
(we need a like button for posts on this forum)

Matt

[colinm]

Consider the comparative position of 'green' groups:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6023735955

LOL. Last line in the article "Source: governments"

Lacking: journalistic integrity.

[maddog]

LOL. Last line in the article "Source: governments"

Lacking: journalistic integrity.

From the first line 'The Australian' - you were warned

[Nuts]

..didn't someone they had lost the power of their vote already

Iv'e seen a dog die from 1080 poisoning. I can honestly say that I would much have preferred any recreational hunter (that iv'e ever met) to have taken a pot shot at the dog. I'll save linking it here but do a y-tube search for NZ dog 1080 for the addition a rounded understanding of alternatives for feral (or native..) species.

[wildwalks]

Iv'e seen a dog die from 1080 poisoning. I can honestly say that I would much have preferred any recreational hunter

Yeah I agree 1080 is a horrible way to go - it is a very effective poison in controlling feral animals and most people want it replaced with something more humane. But even the RSPCA acknowledging how terrible it is says that it should continue to be used until a better alternative is found (and makes a suggestion for research). But the thing in this debate is that I can find a single example of a bushland setting where ad hoc recreational hunting has been effective - let alone effective enough to even reduce the use of 1080. recreation hunting is not a substitute for 1080 - in fact in some case feral animal numbers have increased under such hunting programs which may lead to the use of more 1080.
Matt

[Nuts]

Ok, fine, notwithstanding your points Matt.. I was giving 'my' view having worked with 1080

[maddog]

Never having been particularly enthusiastic about poisoning animals (I keep a cat for rats), I would prefer to see any animal shot and killed quickly than suffer a slow death by poison. But equally, it is difficult to view the two as alternatives in the current context. If we assume culling animals is necessary, recreational shooting (or professional for that matter) is unlikely to achieve the same result as baiting (particularly as cost is a limiting factor).

It has been suggested there is some doubt over how much pain is felt by the animal due to the impairment of neurological functioning. It is claimed this impairment includes some pain receptors, [making] it is difficult to interpret the behaviour of affected animals, or to assess their ability to experience discomfort or pain. Perhaps it is this consolation (in addition to the ends) that allows the conservation minded to consider baiting ethical, while hoping that a convincingly humane alternative including ameliorative agents in 1080 baits aimed to further improve welfare outcomes are developed soon.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/ar ... 10&index=3

An updated review of the toxicology and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in New Zealand:

http://www.newzealandecology.org/nzje/n ... 35_1_1.pdf

On a somewhat lighter note, poison campaigner fined after using kiwi in stunt:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rosaleen-macb ... id=3588802

Cheers

[True Green]

The Game Council and the S&F party recently passed legislation to prevent a very effective professional deer culling program south of Sydney.

Matt

There are so many points I could argue with, but as proven evidence is needed I will just stick to the statements that are wrong.

I saw that 7:30 report where it was claimed that legislation just passed stopped using professionals to kill deer. That was completely wrong and the legislation does not do that.

[maddog]

The 7.30 Report includes the following:

Editor's note (January 10): The introduction to this story has been changed as it initially reported incorrectly that recent law changes will allow amateurs to shoot feral deer. Both professionals and amateurs have been permitted to shoot feral deer.

BEN KNIGHT: A professional deer culling program is taking aim at thousands of feral deer running wild south of Sydney.

The deers have to go because they wreck bushland, farms and gardens.

But the shooting program is in the firing line - because of new laws which favour amateur hunters.

Critics say the aim is to protect deer numbers to provide sport for weekend warriors.

...

ADAM HARVEY: The laws were introduced by the New South Wales Government to appease the hunting lobby. It means professional shooters will now be governed by a pro-hunting group called the Game Council of NSW. And there will be new restrictions on what the Shooters can do.

MICHAEL KNEZ: We can't use our night vision, we can't use spotlights. We can't shoot off the back of a ute, off a moving vehicle. The only thing I could think of there's a lobby out there that wants to preserve deer as a hunting game animal.

ADAM HARVEY: The program's partly funded by local and state government. Its spokesman is Daniel Shaw.

DANIEL SHAW, CUMBERLAND LIVESTOCK HEALTH & PEST: We found early in the piece and tried to raise some concerns.

...

DANIEL SHAW: At the stage that we got a response it was too late. It had already passed both houses of Parliament.


The 7.30 Report program is available here:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3661272.htm

[Tony]

For those who are interested, a couple of articles worth reading.

Is it too late to bring the red fox under control?

The protected pest: deer in Australia

Tony

[colinm]

This is obscene http://austdeer.com.au/

[Lindsay]

"ADA’s members are dedicated to the retention of habitat for deer and other wildlife, the preservation and extension of access to public land for hunting and recreation, the sustainable management of deer as a resource and the management of deer hunting to perpetuity"

Now they are out in the open - it's not about the eradication of feral animals at all. But we all knew that already.

[forest]

"ADA’s members are dedicated to the retention of habitat for deer and other wildlife, the preservation and extension of access to public land for hunting and recreation, the sustainable management of deer as a resource and the management of deer hunting to perpetuity"

Now they are out in the open - it's not about the eradication of feral animals at all. But we all knew that already.

No that's just deer as they are classed as game. And that's no new thing either. Always has been.

[maddog]

In addition to being a 'game species', the herbivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer is a Key Threatening Process:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/deter ... eerKtp.htm

While this listing is acknowledged as a threat to the status of deer as 'game' by groups such as the Australian Deer Association, listing recognises that the rapid growth and spread of deer populations poses a threat to conservation. Baiting would appear to be the most useful method of controlling feral deer populations. For example, in a New Zealand, 'two-thirds to three quarters of the population of deer were killed during one aerial pellet operation' targeting feral possums (Eason C, et al, 2010). Given the figures of the ISC (in 'Claims vs Facts'), baiting alone can achieve the necessary kill rate of 40-53% per year required to reduce the population growth of deer species.

It has also been argued that 1080 is a humane toxin in herbivores, in part because the 'subdued behaviour...and death by cardiac failure' rather than the 'central nervous system disturbances' observed in carnivores. Interestingly, the LD50 for deer species ( 0.5 mg kg-1), is a dose sufficient to kill dogs, cats, pigs and rabbits. But not wallabies, possums, rats, ducks, or toads (Easton et al, 2010).

Cheers

[Nuts]

'a population' do you mean? what else died? It is odd that Deer are managed, ensuring their survival (as happens in Tas: http://www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/ ... 6A73G?open ) I guess parks can manage recreation hunting given the motivation, it's just in the method? The irony of course in making such a deal of feral control reaches its height in seeding wild places with trout, I guess it doesn't leave much to justifying conservation in the debate.. less fear of being hooked by an errant fly, yes!?