Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[maddog]

Hunting incident kills start of park shooting:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6580672519

[wearthefoxhat]

I am not having much luck with this report although I have a guy in the states that thinks he knows where to find it but it won't be till later.
The report was on sporting deaths and injuries as a whole and on a per capita basis. It wasn't hunting specific.
Injuries and deaths were right down near the bottom of the list compared to most other sports.
It was contrary to what many would have you believe that hunting is a dangerous sport.

As for the "doomed surplus theory" I found this which backs my comment previously..

http://gamebird.forestry.uga.edu/fors57 ... 2notes.pdf

The doomed surplus theory is only relevant where the population is running at maximum density which we know is not the case in Australia.
If it got to this stage we would be in a very bad way.

Quote

"Density Dependence
• Although seemingly a subtle difference. The real answer is density dependence.
• In a simple example--there is enough habitat to support 10 pheasants through the winter. There are 12 pheasants--2 will die--this is doomed surplus.
• Density dependence says that there is habitat for 10 pheasants and 12 in the population. The mortality risk of each of those 12 will be higher where there are 12 than there are 10--and likely lower if there are 9."

The theory of "doomed Surplus" has absolutely no relevance to our topic of conversation.

[Tony]

The theory of "doomed Surplus" has absolutely no relevance to our topic of conversation.

I would suggest you do a bit more reading.

While you a are at it can you tell me how successful the Game Councils current hunting program has been in the NSW State forests can you let me know how many feral animals are killed each year in State Forests per Game Council hunter, and how many feral animals are killed each year per hunting permit and can you put those numbers into perspective, eg a break down of what types of feral animals killed, could you estimate how many feral animals of each type there are in State Forests, and what % of each animal that are needed to be culled to reduce the populations.

Tony

[wayno]

hunters kill masses of animals in nz. doesnt make a great difference. unless it's a particularly small park, its just a black hole. you just dont dent enough of the population to make much of a difference. you might hammer an area and the animals just move in from another area...

[wearthefoxhat]

"I would suggest you do a bit more reading."

Tony what have I missed?

"While you a are at it can you tell me how successful the Game Councils current hunting program has been in the NSW State forests can you let me know how many feral animals are killed each year in State Forests per Game Council hunter, and how many feral animals are killed each year per hunting permit and can you put those numbers into perspective, eg a break down of what types of feral animals killed, could you estimate how many feral animals of each type there are in State Forests, and what % of each animal that are needed to be culled to reduce the populations."

Most if not all these answers are available on the Game council website.. http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/porta ... wsArchives

This is early days for Game council hunting and some see it as unsuccessful while others see the opposite. I hope one day we will be as successful as the example I gave earlier on the removal of deer in Alpine park Vic.
National parks Victoria disagree that rec hunters don't have a positive impact towards feral control in fact they go as far as to say they couldn't achieve the same result if left up to themselves to do the job.
I believe this will also be the case in NSW going by that example but it will take time. There is a huge feral problem out there and its not going to be fixed over night. National Parks have failed terribly so far its time to employ new strategies!
Please listen to this audio..

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

[wearthefoxhat]

hunters kill masses of animals in nz. doesnt make a great difference. unless it's a particularly small park, its just a black hole. you just dont dent enough of the population to make much of a difference. you might hammer an area and the animals just move in from another area...

Hi wayno...

What would happen it rec hunting stopped in NZ today?

[wayno]

not a lot would happen if rec hunting stopped today they kill a small percentage of the total no's, animals like deer, thar, chamois proliferate massively, let alone rabbits

this is a rabbit hunt, impact on the population? zero. rabbits will replace those lost no's in weeks...

http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/alexandr ... bunny-hunt

[KylieGrey]

Dear Crankybugger,

Kylie Grey from "The World" program on ABC News 24 here. Hoping to get in touch after reading your insightful blog posts.
You can email a contact number to grey.kylie@abc.net.au and I'll get straight back to you.

Many thanks,
Kylie Grey

[wearthefoxhat]

not a lot would happen if rec hunting stopped today they kill a small percentage of the total no's, animals like deer, thar, chamois proliferate massively, let alone rabbits

this is a rabbit hunt, impact on the population? zero. rabbits will replace those lost no's in weeks...

http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/alexandr ... bunny-hunt

Only if you stop hunting though. This is where pro hunting may have its flaws as they only do small areas at a time.

My point was though what happens if you stop hunting ferals. My guess is we would be over run in a few years.

[wayno]

in nz most of the parks are too big for the no's of hunters to possibly get enough coverage to have an impact
you. if you cant absolutely hammer the population throughout a park you've got no hope..
in big parks, there are areas that dont get hammered if there are any areas at all that do get thorough coverage by hunters at all...
the population remains healthy in enough areas and the extra animals quickly move into any area cleaned out by hunters...
you'd virtually need as many hunters as possible agreeing to get together to blanket a park from end to end and roam right across it killing everything feral they come across it. leave any areas out and you'll get ferals fleeing into that area and moving back when the hunters leave the area... with time animals in parks where hunters frequent become more shy... deer are nocturnal in nz to avoid hunters. you can see plenty of evidence of deer but you can still struggle to find them, and nz hunters just focus on the roar to be able to get them because they prefer to hide in the thickest bush the rest of the year...
i've only seen deer a couple of times in the wild and that was in very remote areas.

[wayno]

i'm not aware of anyone who was shot in the nz bush being shot on a track,
one lady was recently shot in a campground by spotlighters spotlighting illegally,
but its almost always hunters shooting hunters in thick bush, off track, i've walked places where you can hear guns going off reasonably regularly and there are no casualties... well not human ones....
mind you, nz's hunters have had time to gain experience, young hunters can go with the more experienced to show them how not to do stupid things...
can't say i'd be too keen to be walking in nsw when the hunters get let loose to start with.... i would expect fatalities and injuries to start with due to lack of experience hunting in parks.. but i wouldnt expect massive no's of people being shot... should still be pretty low for the no of hunters...
hunters need to remember at all times that , that object they see moving through the bush they are sure is a feral animal may not me, they need to make sure they can see enough of the animal to clearly identify it an not just shoot at a small patch of what looks like a pelt through the bush....
clothing can look an awful lot like a pelt...
i do like the thought of wearing bright colours when i'm in an area i know hunters are operating.... but even people wearing hi vis gear do get shot.... low light is a classic time for people to get shot... you'd think people would be more wary, but a lot of animals are out at dawn and dusk and so are hunters... you can't see clearly, maybe your brain just tries to join the dots of the vague shape thats moving and you're sure its a feral animal... or is it?

[tastrax]

If folks are really serious about eradication then they need to get serious about what is required. Macquarie Island eradication (of rats, mice and Rabbits) is a good example of what can occur with good planning, $$ and commitment of professionals doing the job.

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=13013

Now expand that to parks with neighbors, bigger pests and thousands more visitors and the problems go up exponentially - not to mention the $$ required.

Folks are kidding themselves if they think a few amateur hunters will do anything but have a good time, get a few trophy's and some rump for the barbie.

[Tony]

Hi

"I would suggest you do a bit more reading."

Tony what have I missed?

If you really do believe that doomed Surplus feral animals has nothing to with this debate then I would suggest you contact Brian Boyle and the Invasive animal scientist and tell them that they have it all wrong, I am sure Brian would listen to you at least.

Most if not all these answers are available on the Game council website.. http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/porta ... wsArchives

This is early days for Game council hunting and some see it as unsuccessful while others see the opposite.

Thanks for the link to the Game Councils news letter archive. I have done a lot of reading of Game Council site, the Game Council hunting program has been going for about 8 years, amongst many other documents I have read all of the annual reports, and done some stats on them and the kill rate per hunter per year has been steady for all of those 8 years, I am not sure how manymore years the program will need to be effective, I also note that the Game Council claim outstanding success every year in removing feral animals from public land by conservation hunters, but not once has the Game Council tried to quantify the results, there might be some hunters who think 18,485 feral animals removed from public land might be outstanding but if the number is not put into some perspective to a lot of us it means nothing, as a concerned National Park user I want to know what percentage of rabbits, deer, pigs, foxes, goats, cats, dogs, etc are culled by the Game Council from State Forests each year and I also want to know what % of feral rabbits, deer, pigs, foxes, goats, cats, dogs need to be culled to reduce their populations, surely an organisation as big as well resourced as the Game Council can come up with at least some numbers.

I hope one day we will be as successful as the example I gave earlier on the removal of deer in Alpine park Vic.
National parks Victoria disagree that rec hunters don't have a positive impact towards feral control in fact they go as far as to say they couldn't achieve the same result if left up to themselves to do the job.
I believe this will also be the case in NSW going by that example but it will take time. There is a huge feral problem out there and its not going to be fixed over night. National Parks have failed terribly so far its time to employ new strategies!

I have been reading up on Deer, Proceedings of the National Feral Deer Management Workshop 2005, Agricultural impacts of wild Deer in Victoria 2008, The liberation, distribution, abundance and management of wild deer in Australia 2004, and some more, and feral deer numbers are increasing rapidly in Victoria I can tell you that many land managers/farmers do not think much of deer, the biggest problem Victoria has in controlling feral deer numbers in Victoria are the hunters themselves.

Tony

[maddog]

Only if you stop hunting though. This is where pro hunting may have its flaws as they only do small areas at a time.

My point was though what happens if you stop hunting ferals. My guess is we would be over run in a few years.

The number of rabbits required to be culled annually to stop population growth has been estimated as 87%. For foxes the estimate is 65% (across all regions of Australia).*

Only baiting, which the shooters oppose, can achieve these numbers. While a well co-ordinated follow-up shooting program aimed at a residual population may be of benefit if bait-shyness becomes an issue, this is not what is proposed. The Game Council's ad-hoc recreational hunting proposal is not a conservation initiative, it is a pointless and expensive sideshow.

Cheers

*Hone, J., On rates of increase (r): patterns of variation in Australian mammals and the implications for wildlife management. Journal of Applied Ecology; Oct99, Vol 36 Issue 5, p709-718.

[Tony]

Here is a transcript of an interview with JOHN MUMFORD, CHAIRMAN, GAME COUNCIL OF NSW, JIM PIRIE, CUDGEGONG VALLEY HUNTING CLUB and CATE FAEHRMANN, NSW GREENS Are bushwalkers in danger from National Park hunting system? a must read just to realise what some Game Council employes and some hunters get up to.

Tony

[wearthefoxhat]

Interesting that many people think or believe that recreational hunting has little or no effect on decreasing the feral population and manage to produce many weird and wonderful papers and reports to support their theories including the crack pot theory of the "Doomed Surplus" but I have covered that previously and would welcome a debate with Brian Boyle on this but I expect Brian has probably been taken out of context on this as so often happens with the anti hunting lobby.

Also how is it that when you hear from the horses mouth ie:- national park managers of Victoria and South Australia, that recreational hunters have made a valuble contribution to the control of Game/feral animals and these facts are ignored! I am not sure but I think they probably have a better handle on what goes on in their areas than all of us put together.
Also in my experience and speaking for many R licence holders who I am proud to say are mates and are very good honest people who will kill from 2 to 10 times more game on private property than in state parks. Many hold R licenses and never hunt state forests, there are also many more hunters who don't need licensing to hunt private property and their positive contribution will never be measured..
Maybe I have spent too much time in the bush or maybe talk to farmers too much to get a realistic view on this matter. Unlike all these uni grads who sit behind a computer with their PHDs who seem to know it all and spend half their time trying to figure out how too weasle another research paper pay check out of some government agency.
I can't wait to present the "doomed surplus" theory to my farmer mates..it will be good for a laugh or they will think I have dropped my marbles one of the two ...lol..

[wearthefoxhat]

Only if you stop hunting though. This is where pro hunting may have its flaws as they only do small areas at a time.

My point was though what happens if you stop hunting ferals. My guess is we would be over run in a few years.

The number of rabbits required to be culled annually to stop population growth has been estimated as 87%. For foxes the estimate is 65% (across all regions of Australia).*

Only baiting, which the shooters oppose, can achieve these numbers. While a well co-ordinated follow-up shooting program aimed at a residual population may be of benefit if bait-shyness becomes an issue, this is not what is proposed. The Game Council's ad-hoc recreational hunting proposal is not a conservation initiative, it is a pointless and expensive sideshow.

Cheers

*Hone, J., On rates of increase (r): patterns of variation in Australian mammals and the implications for wildlife management. Journal of Applied Ecology; Oct99, Vol 36 Issue 5, p709-718.

How is a recreational hunter shooting rabbits or foxes an expensive sideshow?..the only cost is too the hunter

[Tony]

How is a recreational hunter shooting rabbits or foxes an expensive sideshow?..the only cost is too the hunter

The Game council receives around $2.5 million state funding each year, and for that we get only 18,485 feral animals removed from Sate Forests, it was supposed to be self funding.

Tony

[wearthefoxhat]

Here is a transcript of an interview with JOHN MUMFORD, CHAIRMAN, GAME COUNCIL OF NSW, JIM PIRIE, CUDGEGONG VALLEY HUNTING CLUB and CATE FAEHRMANN, NSW GREENS Are bushwalkers in danger from National Park hunting system? a must read just to realise what some Game Council employes and some hunters get up to.

Tony

Interesting that Mumford was cut off when about to answer the question.... Is it possible to get an R license without getting a gun license?

Why do you think they did that? hmmm

The answer is ..off course you can have an R license without getting a gun license. For bow hunters and doggers this is obvious as you don't need a gun license. You can hold a R license for rifle or black powder but unless you hold a gun license it is effectivly worthless as you cant use it.
Perhaps if Mumford was given a chance to say this he may not have been portrayed as a naughty caught out school boy. Unfortunately the media love attention grabing by feeding the naive rubbish... Is it any wonder the game council is reluctant to talk to the media. I wonder how much more of this article was manipulated?

[wearthefoxhat]

How is a recreational hunter shooting rabbits or foxes an expensive sideshow?..the only cost is too the hunter

The Game council receives around $2.5 million state funding each year, and for that we get only 18,485 feral animals removed from Sate Forests, it was supposed to be self funding.

Tony

Possibly the cheapest government department I know but anyhow perhaps we abolish the Game council but retain hunting in NPs.
Works very well in Victoria for 40 odd years with no casualties I believe! That would suit me paying no fees and I could hunt a NP without signing the book so to speak...That would certainly be preferable.

[wearthefoxhat]

[quote="maddog"]Don't be disappointed Nuts, I read the lot.

In regards to the value of current shooting programs. I was recently talking to a shooter contracted to Parks, and a good and genuinely conservation minded bushman. He had spent a few days hunting cats in a National Parks reserve on the North Coast of NSW. It was wet, and apparently cats are hard to shoot in the wet. They shot 3 cats on their expedition. The thought crossed my mind - why bother? And why expand on, and pay more for, such failure?

These are pretty expensive cats Tony...

Who is costing us more money I wonder...How many time do parks pay contractors for such a bleak result?
Contractors are profesional hunters the same ones that apparently leave some animals to regenerate and secure more work.

[photohiker]

How is a recreational hunter shooting rabbits or foxes an expensive sideshow?..the only cost is too the hunter

The Game council receives around $2.5 million state funding each year, and for that we get only 18,485 feral animals removed from Sate Forests, it was supposed to be self funding.

Tony

Wow. I make that $135 per feral. (no, I don't mean the members, I mean the animals shot)

[maddog]

Unlike all these uni grads who sit behind a computer with their PHDs who seem to know it all and spend half their time trying to figure out how too weasle another research paper pay check out of some government agency.

As you play the man and drop the ball fox-hat, you overlook the fact that much of the research available to guide academics and land managers is a product of applied theoretical knowledge and field work. A combination more reliable than a hunch. Even if you really believe it, and share with a cocky.

How is a recreational hunter shooting rabbits or foxes an expensive sideshow?..the only cost is too the hunter

Others have answered your question. Not enough culled, at too great a cost. So yes, fox-hat, an expensive sideshow.


Cheers

[maddog]

Here is a transcript of an interview with JOHN MUMFORD, CHAIRMAN, GAME COUNCIL OF NSW, JIM PIRIE, CUDGEGONG VALLEY HUNTING CLUB and CATE FAEHRMANN, NSW GREENS Are bushwalkers in danger from National Park hunting system? a must read just to realise what some Game Council employes and some hunters get up to.

Tony

Is it any wonder the game council is reluctant to talk to the media..?

I hope we do hear more from Mumford. A very interesting program that one.

The Game Council would be better served trying to get on with others, and fit in with existing conservation programs. If they adopted this approach, perhaps they would attract more support for their cause. Their current belligerent strategy of attacking the NPWS, research scientists, and media outlets (amongst others) appears to be self-defeating.

Cheers

[maddog]

Hunting plan to cost taxpayers at least $19m

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunting-plan- ... 2eplj.html

[wayno]

in nz, the real answer to pest control has been 1080 poisoning first trapping helps but its not the answer. shooting only when you have a limited size area to control..

[wearthefoxhat]

Hunting plan to cost taxpayers at least $19m

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunting-plan- ... 2eplj.html

Why did the state forests not need $19 million to kick off hunting in in their parks? .. Are the NP's milking this for all it's worth?
Why don't NP's follow the example of the Alpine park Victoria example who need minimal supervision with no casualties (40 years)
40,000 deer removed from this park in one year ..agood result..

I will say it again... over paid bureaucrats with degrees will line their pockets on this as well. They have seen an opportunity and are going for the jugular.

[maddog]

[wearthefoxhat]

How is a recreational hunter shooting rabbits or foxes an expensive sideshow?..the only cost is too the hunter

The Game council receives around $2.5 million state funding each year, and for that we get only 18,485 feral animals removed from Sate Forests, it was supposed to be self funding.

Tony

Wow. I make that $135 per feral. (no, I don't mean the members, I mean the animals shot)

According to the game council their public benefit analysis is 1.9 in theory a good outcome however I do believe the Game Council should be able to at least match or better the cost per feral removed by National parks service which from memory was close to $50 per animal (I may stand corrected on this figure). The Game council is aware of the gap and is endeavouring to close it.... This may happen with more hunters and more areas to hunt as quantity of scale kicks in.
Currently the availability of State land to hunt is quite small IMO. with the opening of a few National Parks in theory should increase the cost benefit ratio and I hear R license has been in greater demand so an increase in license revenue should follow.
Perhaps they are overweight in management or maybe anal red tape that NSW is famous for but I agree they need to get this under control.

I applaud the Game Council for the work they have done so far in education and achievements in opening state forests and for hunting in NP's soon to be on the list.
As I hunt for food and feral eradication (not a trophy hunter) I would love to have access to NP's as I think it is my sovereign right to do so and we know some NPs are lousy with game...These game animals belong to everyone not exclusively to any government department. The public should have access to this resource on public land IMO.
The Game Council is the only vehicle we have of getting there currently. Perhaps in the future the game council will be phased out as the general public see that hunting is a very safe and healthy recreation. Hopefully we (NSW) adopt the Victorian and NZ examples..

[maddog]

I do believe the Game Council should be able to at least match or better the cost per feral removed by National parks service which from memory was close to $50 per animal (I may stand corrected on this figure). The Game council is aware of the gap and is endeavouring to close it.... This may happen with more hunters and more areas to hunt as quantity of scale kicks in.
...

The cost of conventional control techniques provides a useful benchmark with which to compare the cost to the taxpayer of the recreational hunting scheme. In Queensland, a 2003 study:

examined the control and cost effectiveness of three feral pig management techniques (trapping, aerial shooting and aerial baiting) in the dry tropical savannah of north Queensland. In total, 203 pigs were controlled over a two month period; 81 by trapping, 65 by aerial shooting and 57 by aerial baiting. Estimated population reductions of 74%, 64% and 59% were achieved for trapping, aerial shooting and aerial baiting respectively. Aerial shooting was the most cost effective at a cost of $25.90 / pig controlled. Aerial baiting was ranked next ( $34.19/ pig) and trapping was the least cost effective ($62.90 / pig).

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uplo ... 3/9243.pdf

One would expect some variation in the relative costs and kill rate according to factors such as the target species, location, landscape, etc. However, it is worth noting of the three techniques considered in the study, only aerial shooting met the 70% kill rate required to achieve population reduction of pigs:

http://www.invasives.org.au/documents/f ... vfacts.pdf

Cheers