Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[maddog]

'what else died?

Possums presumably.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Presumably?

[maddog]

Possums were the target of the baiting operation in question.

G. Nugent & I. Yockney (2004): Fallow deer deaths during aerial‐1080 poisoning of possums in the Blue Mountains, Otago, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 31:2, 185-192

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1 ... 04.9518371

Cheers

[Nuts]

Thanks

[maddog]

An interesting suggestion. Don't judge species on their origins, but on their environmental impact:

http://www.icevolution.org/_dbase_upl/N ... es2011.pdf

Cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

Well I am looking forward to hunting NP's. I also enjoy the bush as much as anyone and get satisfaction in destroying ferals as my contribution to the conservation effort.
If I kill a fox or a pig I know they won't be destroying our native flora and fauna and local livestock. If I kill a deer I know I will eat well for a while...
Should we hunt NP's? you bet we should. As the NP's service has failed miserably to keep the feral population in check why not open it up to licensed shooters. I hope they open up more areas as it looks like only a handful will be opened at this stage. Feral eradication in NP's is an industry in its own right. Do they want to see every last feral gone and have no work? something to think about..
Rec Hunters have been tagged with dispersing feral animals and making the problem worse...Has anyone seen a helicopter cull on pigs and goats? Now that is dispersion. Many animals get away and in all directions... some badly wounded with legs blown off etc.. Cruel practice.

As for the safety aspect we take more risk driving to the NP than actually being shot in one going by the record so far with hunting in State forests. Perhaps more focus should be on banning cars as there is a handful of clowns that kill people on the roads just as there will always be a handful of idiots hunting illegally in the NP's... They have been doing this already for years... they are not going to start now because the park was opened to hunting...

[maddog]

Following are summaries of a number of studies conducted by scientists addressing the issue of non-target species and baiting programs. These are in marked contrast to the fear mongering and voodoo science offerings of those most unlikely bedfellows campaigning against effective feral animal control - the self-interested shooters and their wild-eyed animal rights activist counterparts.

1080 aerial baiting for the control of wild dogs and its impact on spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) populations in eastern Australia. Gerhard Kortner, Wildlife Research, 2007. The threatened spotted-tailed quoll, the largest marsupial carnivore on mainland Australia, was considered the species most likely at risk from dog baiting. This assessment was based on the dietary habit of spotted-tailed quolls, which includes scavenging, and its high sensitivity to 1080 compared with other species. The results were that most, if not all, quolls survived the baiting trial, including those that consumed dog baits. This study followed a number of field studies showing a negligible impact of baiting on quoll species in NSW.

Aerial baiting for wild dogs has no observable impact on spotted-tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) in a rainshadow woodland. Claridge & Mills, Wildlife Research, 2007. This study investigated the short-term impact of 1080 aerial baiting for wild dogs at a woodland site in southern NSW. Sixteen quolls were trapped and fitted with radio-transmitters containing mortality sensors. Three feral cats were also radio collared. Following bait deployment, collared quolls and cats were monitored over a four week period. During this time, one quoll and two cats died. The quoll did not die from 1080 but both cats showed signs of poisoning. Whisker samples were obtained from 12 of the 15 remaining collared quolls, and 6 non-collared quolls, 5-8 weeks after baiting to determine whether they had been exposed to baits. The presence of the biomarker rhodamine B (rhB), indicated that 6 of the quolls had been exposed to the baits but survived. Of the remaining untested collared quolls - all had survived. Aerial baiting had no observable impact on the local quoll population.

Given that the dog baits used in these two studies, and many others, theoretically contained enough 1080 to have killed the quolls, their survival (as they were shown to have consumed the bait) is something of a mystery. The quolls may have only partially consumed the baits and / or ingested only sub-lethal doses. Although 1080 is often reported as being odorless and tasteless, some have speculated that many native animals are capable of detecting it through either smell or taste, or both. In another study possums refused to eat a lethal quantity of baits, or any bait at all, though they were happy enough to eat non-toxic baits. This response was attributed to the ability of at least some possums to detect the bait (Morgan 1982). A similar eversion to 1080 was found in fat-tailed dunnarts (a native mouse like marsupial), which either reduced food intake or refused to eat anything containing 1080.

Aerial baiting with 1080 to control wild dogs does not affect the populations of two common small mammal species. Fenner, et al, Wildlife Research, 2009. This study investigated the effect of aerial baiting with 1080 to control wild dogs in north-eastern NSW on populations of southern bush rats and brown entechinus. 1080 baits were again marked with rhB. It was found that neither mammal population decreased in size after baiting, nor was their any increase in turnover or changes in movement patterns. Furthermore, no trapped animal tested positive for rhB. It was speculated that the brown antechinus and bush rats might detect and reject poison baits. The results, and those of several other studies, suggest relatively low mortality rates of non-target species assessed, and a negligible impact on their population levels.

Trends in the activity levels of forest-dwelling vertebrate fauna against a background of intensive baiting for foxes. Claridge, et al, Forest Ecology and Management, 2010. In a study of three areas over 10 year period (two subject to intensive fox baiting and one un-baited area acting as a control) it was found that within the baited areas the activity of foxes and cats decreased, the number of dogs remained stable, and the activity of native omnivorous mammals that ordinarily fall prey to foxes (bandicoots, brushtail possums and lyrebirds) increased. In contrast, at the study area where foxes were not baited, the activity of bandicoots, brushtail possums and lyrebirds either did not change or diminished. A similar study in East Gippsland, VIC, (Dexter & Murray, 2009) noted population increases in southern brown bandicoots and long nosed potoroos in areas subject to intensive baiting of foxes.

Population responses of small and medium sized mammals to fox control at Jervis Bay, southeastern Australia. Dexter, et al, Pacific Conservation Biology, 2007. Here the population response of small and medium sized mammals was measured in the face of an ongoing fox-baiting program. The resulting recovery of small-medium sized animals within the baited areas provided a convincing case that there has been a major increase in abundance of Common Ringtail Possums, Long-nosed Bandicoots, and Bush Rats.

Effects on Non-target Animal Populations of a Rabbit Trail-baiting Campaign with 1080 Poison. McIIroy & Gifford, Wildlife Research, 1991. This study addressed concerns that rabbit poisoning campaigns with 1080 might be deleterious to non-target animals, particularly native species. Previous laboratory based research conducted by McIIroy had indicated that rabbit poisoning campaigns could affect individuals of between 50-62 species, particularly small macropodoids and wombats. The results showed that rabbits were the only species definitely directly poisoned during the campaign (numbers decreased by 90%), the population of foxes in the area decreased by 75% (eating the dead rabbits and secondary poisoning may have contributed to the decline). It was concluded that the populations of rabbits are reduced greatly by baiting (pellets of 1080), without any apparent, major effect on non-target animal populations. The question was also raised of whether evaluations of risk faced by non-target animals from rabbit poisoning campaigns, based on laboratory testing of their sensitivity to 1080 and susceptibility to baits (McIIroy, 1986), are realistic.

Cheers

[Tony]

Hi maddog,

Many thanks for doing the research on 1080 and posting some of your results, I did some reading on 1080 last year and found that it is a very highly researched poison and is a lot safer to the native animal population than the hunting lobby likes us to believe, the Invasive animals CRC has a very large data base on 1080, I have read some of the papers you have posted, one paper that I found interesting is this one SODIUM FLUOROACETATE RESIDUE IN FERAL PIG (SUS SCROFA) CARCASSES – IS IT A SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY POISONING HAZARD? this paper has how much carrion a native animal has to eat to die from 1080.

Tony

[Tony]

Well I am looking forward to hunting NP's. I also enjoy the bush as much as anyone and get satisfaction in destroying ferals as my contribution to the conservation effort.
If I kill a fox or a pig I know they won't be destroying our native flora and fauna and local livestock. If I kill a deer I know I will eat well for a while...
Should we hunt NP's? you bet we should. As the NP's service has failed miserably to keep the feral population in check why not open it up to licensed shooters. I hope they open up more areas as it looks like only a handful will be opened at this stage. Feral eradication in NP's is an industry in its own right. Do they want to see every last feral gone and have no work? something to think about..
Rec Hunters have been tagged with dispersing feral animals and making the problem worse...Has anyone seen a helicopter cull on pigs and goats? Now that is dispersion. Many animals get away and in all directions... some badly wounded with legs blown off etc.. Cruel practice.

As for the safety aspect we take more risk driving to the NP than actually being shot in one going by the record so far with hunting in State forests. Perhaps more focus should be on banning cars as there is a handful of clowns that kill people on the roads just as there will always be a handful of idiots hunting illegally in the NP's... They have been doing this already for years... they are not going to start now because the park was opened to hunting...

Hi wearthefoxhat,

Thank you for your views, but your views are nothing we have not had on this forum from the hunting lobby many times, I would suggest that you fully read this thread and the other no hunting threads on bushwalk Australia (BA), you will find out that many BA numbers have a very good understanding on the subject of feral animal control, telling us that you think recreational hunting will reduce feral animal numbers or trust me I am a hunter and I know better is not acceptable.

After reading his thread if you have any new information proving that recreational hunting will reduce feral animal numbers in National Parks then we would love to read it, I have done a lot of research over the last 6 months and I have not found one article research paper or anything at all that proves recreational hunting will have even the slightest effect on feral animal numbers in NSW National Parks and no pro hunting posters have ever posted any proof, maybe you can.

On the issue of safety can you 100% guarantee that no other park user will ever be injured or killed by a hunter in NSW National Parks.

Tony

[wearthefoxhat]

"On the issue of safety can you 100% guarantee that no other park user will ever be injured or killed by a hunter in NSW National Parks."

Of course not just as I couldn't guarantee that for any sport, recreation or work place. What I can say from reports from the US is hunting is right down on the list as a risk sport. It is considered a very low risk sport in the US and that is a country with a very high gun ownership and strong hunting culture.

"I am a hunter and I know better is not acceptable."

I never said that!. I am voicing my opinion.

"I have not found one article research paper or anything at all that proves recreational hunting will have even the slightest effect on feral animal numbers in NSW National Parks "

It's quite simple and logical IMO. If I remove 1 feral animal that is one less feral that will continue to devastate the environment not to mention its offspring. If I remove 20?
Recreational hunters reduce feral populations on private land and have done since farming began.. you will never find a "research paper" on these positive results though..
How can killing a feral animal not be a contribution to the environment?

I am not claiming Rec hunters are the solution to the problem but IMO can certainly be part of it. To what degree will depend on the continual growth and participation of R license hunters.

There is a huntable state forest north of where I live which is regularly hunted for pigs and sometimes they are successful as I see some photos from time to time... One of my clients is in state forest management and when i put the question to him about why the State forests don't initiate a feral cull programme in that area the reply was the numbers of feral pigs is low and not at a problem stage.
Now this leads me to believe that quite possibly the local hunters are keeping the pig numbers at a minimum level and I think logically this would be a fair assumption? If these pigs where left alone for 5 years? We all know the answer to that!

Hunting has been a major contributor to animal extinction over the centuries yet now it is claimed by a few that hunting cannot have a detrimental effect on a certain feral animal populations! Go figure!
Talk to crop farmers and large land holders about feral animals residing in NP's and eating their crops at night. I have not met one yet who doesn't appreciate the contribution of rec hunters on his land. it saves him time and money considering NP's service is failing badly at this level maybe hunters could be given a little more credit and not branded by the naive as "drunken yobos shooting anything they can out of the back of a ute"

[maddog]

Hi maddog,
I have read some of the papers you have posted, one paper that I found interesting is this one SODIUM FLUOROACETATE RESIDUE IN FERAL PIG (SUS SCROFA) CARCASSES – IS IT A SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY POISONING HAZARD? this paper has how much carrion a native animal has to eat to die from 1080.

Tony

G'day Tony,

The toxicity tables are derived from McIIroy's data obtained from extensive laboratory trials. It is interesting to note that the evidence from field trials (including his own), has led McIIroy and others to question whether the evaluation of risk to non-target native species based on laboratory trials is realistic, due to the apparent ability of many native species thought to be at risk to detect and reject, etc, the 1080 baits.

Cheers

[maddog]

Plan to let minors shoot in parks:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/plan-to-let-m ... 2el79.html

[photohiker]

Plan to let minors shoot in parks:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/plan-to-let-m ... 2el79.html

Fits the profile.

Kids, especially boys, are enchanted by guns and bows and arrows. I know I was, and so were my boys despite the best attempts of SWMBO.

Expecting 12 year olds to have the emotional maturity to be 100% responsible with lethal weapons is wishful thinking IMO

[wayno]

it takes a lot of experience to get a hunter to not be impulsive when the adrenaline is flowing,
ie they can end up shooting at movement or shapes without correctly identifying their target, even experienced people can prone to doing that...
i was hunting with dad once and we hadnt discussed moving around with a rifle. i had the rifle and he ended up in front of me while i was pointing the loaded weapon, he crossed my line of site while i had my finger on the trigger and the safety off.
you have to have the weapon pointed in a safe direction all the time when you're not aiming at a target and not get lazy about where you point it or leaving the safety off or having a round in the chamber
theres a bit you have to go through with kids in hunting scenarios to avoid a nasty accident...
there's little comparison to target shooting and hunting
in nz people are shot dead every year hunting, due to needless mistakes that could have been avoided if more care and attention had been taken in the way the hunt was executed.

[wearthefoxhat]

Plan to let minors shoot in parks:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/plan-to-let-m ... 2el79.html

Agree 12 years old is far to young IMO. I think it should be lifted to 16 years under supervision untill 18 when they can then be tested for a full license.

[Tony]

Hi wearthefoxhat,

Of course not just as I couldn't guarantee that for any sport, recreation or work place. What I can say from reports from the US is hunting is right down on the list as a risk sport. It is considered a very low risk sport in the US and that is a country with a very high gun ownership and strong hunting culture.

Can you post a link to your sources please.

It's quite simple and logical IMO. If I remove 1 feral animal that is one less feral that will continue to devastate the environment not to mention its offspring. If I remove 20?

This is a common myth that hunters like to push around, most feral animals have doomed surplus that die anyway, the breeding allows for this, if a dominant animal is killed one of the doomed animals takes over, if a doomed animal is killed, they where going to die anyway, what the recreational hunters take is such a small proportion of the overall feral population and culling a few animals makes no difference.

I am not claiming Rec hunters are the solution to the problem but IMO can certainly be part of it. To what degree will depend on the continual growth and participation of R license hunters.

I agree with you here but add hoc hunting that is currently happening in NSW State Forests does not work, for recreational hunting to have any effect the hunters will have to work with other feral animal reduction programs like they do with the Operation Bounce Back in SA.

Hunting has been a major contributor to animal extinction over the centuries yet now it is claimed by a few that hunting cannot have a detrimental effect on a certain feral animal populations!

I am not sure hunting has wiped out that many species, I think habitat destruction whether it be natural or man made is far worse.

considering NP's service is failing badly at this level

I think this is due to NPWS having a very small budget, for the money they spend on feral animal control I think they do a very good job.

Tony

[photohiker]

Hi wearthefoxhat,

Of course not just as I couldn't guarantee that for any sport, recreation or work place. What I can say from reports from the US is hunting is right down on the list as a risk sport. It is considered a very low risk sport in the US and that is a country with a very high gun ownership and strong hunting culture.

Can you post a link to your sources please.

You don't need sources for that Tony. In the US, going into remote areas reduces your chance of getting shot - you go from the city with 1000+ guns per acre to the bush with less than 1 gun per acre.

Of course, if hunters and recreational walkers share the same space disasters will result. In the UK, deer season creates risks for hillwalkers, they manage it by having a phone setup where walkers can ring in to find out where the shooters are. Without that level of organisation its just a matter of time. (I think they still have the odd accidental shooting though)

[maddog]

Increase in hunting licences for children

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/increase-in-h ... 2enhv.html

Are bushwalkers in danger from National Park hunting system?

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3693098.htm

[wearthefoxhat]

"Can you post a link to your sources please."

Unfortunately while I read a lot of information I don't save it all but I am trying to track that report down now.

"This is a common myth that hunters like to push around, most feral animals have doomed surplus that die anyway, the breeding allows for this, if a dominant animal is killed one of the doomed animals takes over, if a doomed animal is killed, they where going to die anyway,"

All due respect but you can't seriously believe this. If this is the case then ferals would never be a problem because their population would never increase. The only time this crazy theory would have any credibility is when the land was holding maximum capacity of ferals. Can you imagine the landscape then! Have you seen the explosion of pigs out west currently...did someone forget to tell the pigs about this crackpot theory...

"what the recreational hunters take is such a small proportion of the overall feral population and culling a few animals makes no difference."

As I said is a contribution not the entire solution but used in conjunction with other methods will still play a part and I use the example above in my previous post of pig hunting in the state forest near where I live... also remembering the growth of R license hunters should increase the number of kills.

"I am not sure hunting has wiped out that many species, I think habitat destruction whether it be natural or man-made is far worse."

Hunting has wiped out many species and sent many to the brink. Some species may not have been wiped out as a whole species but wiped out in their respective areas. for example wolves and deer in some states in the US. Considered pest animals at the time. I could spend all day researching examples of this but don't have the time..

"I think this is due to NPWS having a very small budget, for the money they spend on feral animal control I think they do a very good job."

How do you know they do a good job? I suspect they leave enough animals to ensure they have another " job on" later down the track. Pro hunters have been accused of this for decades. Why would the NP's be any different? there is a whole industry around feral eradication and people feathering their own nests. I suspect the NP service may see rec hunters as a threat to their own position... If NP's where doing a good job we would not be here now!
The country is crawling with ferals with many living in the sanctuaries called National parks. I have seen it first hand on a property I hunt in the lower Hunter. Deer and Pigs make there way off the farm and into the NP every morning as I believe they know they will not be pressured there. Hopefully soon we may hunt that NP and I know the farmer will be happy about that.

[wayno]

hunting appears to have wiped out many species. the last animal of a species may be killed by a hunter but often their numbers were on the decline because of declining habitat and the hunters just finished them off,
its easy to hunt an animal to extinction when it has a small habitat...
also introduction of other animals that may have competed for food or predated on those animals can contribute

[wearthefoxhat]

G'day Wayno,

I am sure you are right in some instances of animal extinction but let’s take an example of the extinction of animals between the 14th century (Maori and Moriori settlement) and European settlement in mid 19th century in your neck of the woods in Beautiful New Zealand.

I use this era to highlight the fact that it is not always habitat destruction that is the main driver of a species to extinction as we know the Maori where not major destroyers of habitat but in these cases it was hunting and interestingly introduced ferals that were responsible for the extinction of many natives in NZ. In fact nearly twice as many species were driven to extinction in the time after Maori settlement but prior to European settlement.. Remembering the Maori were minimal clearers of land..

Although habitat reduction contributes to extinction of species history shows that man is quite capable of hunting species to extinction without habitat destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex ... ew_Zealand

[Tony]

Classic Quote: John Mumford, Chairman of the Game Council

[wayno]

G'day Wayno,

I am sure you are right in some instances of animal extinction but let’s take an example of the extinction of animals between the 14th century (Maori and Moriori settlement) and European settlement in mid 19th century in your neck of the woods in Beautiful New Zealand.

I use this era to highlight the fact that it is not always habitat destruction that is the main driver of a species to extinction as we know the Maori where not major destroyers of habitat but in these cases it was hunting and interestingly introduced ferals that were responsible for the extinction of many natives in NZ. In fact nearly twice as many species were driven to extinction in the time after Maori settlement but prior to European settlement.. Remembering the Maori were minimal clearers of land..

Although habitat reduction contributes to extinction of species history shows that man is quite capable of hunting species to extinction without habitat destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex ... ew_Zealand

you're joking,

My friend did a PHd which proved that vast areas of the central and eastern side of the south island ws covered with beech forest that was all burned down post arrival of maoris and pre arrival of europeans, maori's detroyed vast areas of forest that were the habitat of the moa by burning the forest down at least in part to flush the moa out of the forest to catch them, they destroyed the habitat of the food of the moa even if the maori's didnt kill the moa they were doomed to extinction primarily by removal of habitat...
the island has a layer of carbon under the surface that is all burnt down beech forest.
if they didnt destroy the habitat its debateable there would have been enough maori in the island to ever be able to hunt the moa to extinction. burning the forests down brought about the downfall of the moa faster than the rate at which the maori's were killing them...
shrinking the habitat area made it easier for the maoris to kill them

maoris only gave a stuff about the environment after the reaslised they were starting to starve in the south island because htey had destroyed so much of their food sources through destruction of the habitat of the animals they ate.

your statements are trying to completely rewrite history.
its not something that gets aired a lot publicly of the damage that was done by the maori's. my friend Dr John Russell was severely criticised by Maori scholars, but he had established scientific proof of when the forests were destroyed. he spent eight years on his thesis, someone commented to me there was enough information in it for two thesis, it was nothing if not thorough.
i dont have any reference to the thesis, it was done decades ago...
if there were any maori's after the europeans arrived further clearing of the habitat pushed them to extinction. its debateable when the last moa died, there is the odd claim of europeans sighting them. but there was little if anything left of them being alice by the time europeans arrived...

have a read of this, you can't tell me that this didnt largely cause the extinction of moa...

"What is remarkable is that small mostly subsistence-based groups of people were able to burn large tracts of forests throughout the relatively large South Island (151,215 km2) in only a few decades," McWethy said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151417.htm

[wearthefoxhat]

Thanks Wayno,


That is very interesting and certainly challenges everything I was taught many years ago. I was taught that the Maori were more custodians of the land but I questioned this as they were responsible for many extinctions too.
Certainly goes to show what influence man can have over nature and I stand corrected on the South Island Maori and the extinction of the Moa.
However after some quick reading it seems that these same tactics were not employed by north Island Maori and many species were wiped out through hunting or predation from ferals… including the Moa..
Perhaps this was a likely scenario/outcome for the South Island too (without using fire) as the humane population grew the demand for protein grows too and you could expect the same outcome as the North Island?. We will never know!

No matter what the argument humans have the ability to wipe out a species one way or another.

[wayno]

maori culture goes on about how the maoris went into teh forest to pray to tane mahuta before cutting downa tree and they would only cut down a tree for essential purposes.
it's debateable that this was teh case when the maori's first landed
maoris may have burned forests just about anywhere they could, except the forest in the south island were dry enough to burn quite nicely compared to most of new zealand.

nz beech forest just couldnt recover from those fires, they arent like some australian plants that have evolved to survive a regular cycle of fire...
forests gone, moisture taken out of the eco system. not enough natural raiinfall left for regeneration of the forest and other vegetation took over instead.... when europeans arrived on the eastern south island, those forests were long gone and vast tracts of the island were devoid of trees....

[photohiker]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-19/g ... ed/4525736

When thousands of hunters are let loose with guns in the state's national parks next month, their competence will be assessed by the Game Council.

But questions have been raised about the close links between the Council and the shooting lobby.

An investigation by the ABC's 7.30 program has found evidence that two councillors on the independent body have distributed political material promoting hunting and blocking other methods of controlling feral animals - a key regulatory task.

Even some senior gun owners believe the Council's licensing system is so inadequate it would be possible to be accredited to shoot in national parks without having fired a gun.

They fear bushwalkers may be shot.

Jim Pirie has been hunting for 60 years and is a self-confessed gun nut.

He is the president of his local hunting club in Mudgee, in central west New South Wales, and a one-time candidate for the Shooters and Fishers Party.

Mr Pirie is bracing himself for an onslaught of amateur hunters heading for the state's national parks.

"You don't know what they'll shoot, they might shoot your sheep or shoot anything, or themselves," he said.

Mr Pirie also owns the local gun shop

He says most of his customers agree that shooting in national parks is a bad idea.

"It'll come back to haunt all of us, if a young child was to be shot with a heavy calibre rifle then probably the first thing they'll be screaming for will be cut out heavy calibre rifles," he said.

"It's not a nice thing to talk about but we can't ignore the possibility."

I'd suggest bushwalkers in NSW stay away from National Parks until this gets sorted. What a crazy setup!

[wearthefoxhat]

Don't beleive everything you read photo hiker..

"When thousands of hunters are let loose with guns in the state's national parks next month,"
"Mr Pirie is bracing himself for an onslaught of amateur hunters heading for the state's national parks."

Either Mr Pirie has no idea or the media have twisted his comments to sensationalise a story...
Every park will have a limited number of hunters permitted to hunt that park in any one day depending on the size of the park and I think location. There will be no "onslaught"
Going by the state parks the number allowed can be as low as 2. average looks to be between 8 and 12. There will not be thousands.

[wearthefoxhat]

Some proof that Rec hunters can have a positive impact on feral animal populations in National parks.

The comments from Ron Waters (manager compliance Parks Victoria) are more relative to this discussion..
He believes Rec hunters have achieved much more than the NP service could with the removal of 40,000 deer from the Alpine NP Vic 2010/2011 and with extremely low incidence...

an audio 5 feb 2013

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... ks/4500984

[Tony]

Hi wearthefoxhat,

"Can you post a link to your sources please."

Unfortunately while I read a lot of information I don't save it all but I am trying to track that report down now.

I found that in the US there are around 100 firearms/hunter deaths per year and around 800 or so firearms/hunter injuries per year, not a great a safety record.

The reason I wanted to know your source of your claims is that I did some research and found one article with the same claims, but I have some problems with the claims as they compared the injuries from other sports to the injuries involving firearm by hunters, the author failed to include all injuries suffered by hunters while hunting as they did with the other sports, I also found an article questioning whether all of the firearm/hunting related injuries are reported and suggested the number might be much higher than 800.

"This is a common myth that hunters like to push around, most feral animals have doomed surplus that die anyway, the breeding allows for this, if a dominant animal is killed one of the doomed animals takes over, if a doomed animal is killed, they where going to die anyway,"

All due respect but you can't seriously believe this. If this is the case then ferals would never be a problem because their population would never increase. The only time this crazy theory would have any credibility is when the land was holding maximum capacity of ferals. Can you imagine the landscape then! Have you seen the explosion of pigs out west currently...did someone forget to tell the pigs about this crackpot theory...

Yes, if you not not believe that there is a doomed surplus then have a talk to the CEO of the NSW Game Council, Brian Boyle, he was on the radio yesterday and mentioned how the GC hunters will be targeting the doomed surplus, 12 year olds with a licence to kill which to me is a bit of a waste of time.

Tony

[wayno]

i don't use the us as an example considering they have fully automatic weapons freely available... and there is very poor vetting of firearms owners... just about any nutcase can get an arsenal....
in nz you've only got a handful of injuries and deaths a year. despite large no's of hunters.. they are vetted here and can only use bolt action weapons...
theres still some nutters out there with weapons but a lot smaller percentage of the population than in a place like nz..