Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[Hallu]

Hallu...you said... "The risks during hunting shouldn't be only "really low" they should be null... and they're not. Many parks in the US were creating to forbid hunting in those areas, the Everglades is the most famous example. How in your mind can it seem logical to hunt inside a National Park ? It's not a NP anymore if you can hunt in it..."

Firstly it would be nice if life was without risk but it isn't. Everything we do is a risk. One of the riskiest activities we do is driving but I would bet that everyone sees that as low risk yet we do it everyday. interesting thing is that the extreme greens and others will portray hunting activities as many times more dangerous which is illogical and a plain lie

The difference between NP's in the US and NP's in Australia we will hunt introduced species only and in the US they hunt Native species. A whole different management scenario. It appears they mange their system very well now especially now they have reinstated some species back into areas that were hunted to extinction eg wolves.
I will never hunt an australian native that is my choice but it is also illegal.

Yeah they hunted them a 100 years ago. Just in the same way the Australians brought the Tasmanian Tiger to extinction. They don't now. Allowing hunting in NPs for feral management is useless and you know it. Without an organised response from the Park services, it won't do anything to dogs, cats, foxes and wild pigs populations. Besides no hunter is gonna want to shoot cats and dogs for sport, they're only here for deer...

And hunting isn't necessary, I could understand if Australians were eating a lot of game, like the Spanish or the French, but they don't...

[wearthefoxhat]

"I say leave feral animal control to the park managers, 96% of whom don't want recreational shooting in their parks."

I raally don't care what Park managers want mainly because they have failed terribly so far. We recently had a `hot shot enviromentalist visit Australia.. ( the name escapes me for now) whos comment was interesting and highly critical of National parks and their dismal record of conservation and feral control. It seems this is a worldwide perception.. It is time to do things differently..IMO

[wearthefoxhat]

Hullu...we eat all our game.

"Allowing hunting in NPs for feral management is useless and you know it."
disagree completely if you listen to the audio I posted previously you will hear that rec hunters have a large impact on ferals in SA and Victoria and that comes from NP managers mouths... in fact they go as far as to say that they could not achieve the same results if the job was not assisted by Rec hunters...
Don't take my word for it hear it from them directly...

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

[maddog]

Thanks Fox-hat. Points of difference to the NSW Game Council proposal include:

- Parks are either remote and managed, or closed to the public whilst hunting occurs
- Recreational hunters are deployed at strategic locations (specified area) as directed by NPWS
- Structured and planned program aimed at maximising benefit to the environment (SA)
- The hunting is regulated by Parks staff
- Individual program permits issued

Premier O'Farrell now seems to be hinting at something similar to this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-20/n ... al/4529166

Probably not what the Game Council were hoping for.

Cheers

[colinm]

If you drive your car to the National park you have a 64 times greater risk of killing yourself or god forbid killing a hunter who is legaly going about his business... You have just become a 64 times greater risk than that of the hunter. We could play this game all day...

So it would follow that hunting from cars will bring down the traffic toll by 98.5% ... Barry O'Farrell, get right on it.

Complete nonsense.

[Hallu]

Which ferals ? It's easy to hunt goats or camels. Harder to hunt cats, dogs, foxes (unless you use dogs lol), cane toads and rabbits... There are even feral donkeys... Having hunters try to eliminate feral species is like hiring mercenaries when you don't have an army... This is not the park managers' fault, they simply don't have the means to do it. You need a large scale eradication, just like they did with the goats on the Galapagos islands. Australia simply needs a stronger park service. More funds, more people, less useless parks. Of course hunters are doing a "better" job, there are like a thousand hunters for each park manager... Again why not copy the Americans ? They have about 50 NPs, and a lot of reserves where hunting is permitted. And a lot of the money paid by hunters for licenses and park fees goes to general conservation, maintaining NPs, paying park service men... it's as simple as that. I would definitely support a solution where you reduce drastically the number of National Parks, creating strong regulations in them (total and permanent ban on hunting, logging, mining), and transform the lesser demoted NPs to reserves where hunters pay a fee that will support the bigger NPs... How's that for a solution ?

In Victoria I can think of several changes that should be made : we could have bigger NPs, for example merging Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne, maybe even with Wyperfeld and make a big Mallee NP, just as they did with Alpine NP. On the other hand, many don't qualify for NP status : Churchill, Alfred, Lake Eildon (it's an artificial lake for God's sake...), Brisbane Ranges (beautiful but no better than State Parks such as Lerderderg or Cathedral Ranges)... I mean even the popular Dandenong Ranges shouldn't be one, there's so many constructions, towns, shops... By that standard all the forested hills could be NPs.

[maddog]

Hallu,

One could argue we already have such a system in place. The good ones are designated 'World Heritage' or 'Wilderness'. Areas surrounding those so designated, often acting as protective buffers and linking corridors, are the residual National Parks and Native Forests (Forestry).

The benefit of a buffer protecting an vulnerable communities from edge exposure, and the linking of isolated fragments, no doubt justified the incorporation of many a forestry plantation into the national parks system in NSW.

I do agree that the pay-for-prey idea should be more fully explored by Government. Revenue raised from hunters, and administered by NPWS, could fund substantial conservation projects.

Cheers

[Hallu]

No Australia doesn't have that system, the World Heritage system is a UNESCO one, it's worldwide. It doesn't have any legislation over the country it's in. If you don't take care of a World Heritage nominated National Park, the status is simply removed, but that's it. There's no fine, nobody is fired or anything. This is what the UNESCO is currently reviewing for the Great Barrier Reef. The Queensland government is doing such a poor job at taking care of it (and the site isn't only the reef, but the coast as well) that they're considering removing it from the list of WH sites.

There's a paradox in Australia : conservation is quite poor, and yet there are a great number of WH sites and NPs. This is simply because there weren't enough people to destroy/exploit them, or because they couldn't because of the harsh climate. In the US, they destroyed almost all the wildernesses on the Eastern half of the country, apart from a pocket in the smokies and the everglades. That's when they realized something had to be done for the rest of the country, and that's why 90% of the NPs are in the West. Australia never had that wake-up call, except maybe in Tasmania with all the logging and the dams, and in patches in the mainland after destructive mass grazing from sheep and cattle. I think that's why the legislation in Australian NPs is so weak.

[maddog]

Australia, after the US, was the second Country in the world to designate land as national park (in it modern sense). The UNESCO threat is a hollow one.

There is little benefit flowing from your suggestion of severing areas from the national park system, that we do not enjoy already in having a graded system of national parks value. The downside would be the isolation and exposure of geographically fragmented high value conservation areas.

Cheers

[Allchin09]

I think the idea of having a large number of National Parks in Australia is so the area that the encompass is protected from being greatly disturbed from it's original form. Areas such as the Wollemi or Gardens of Stone NP could be thought of as just preventing the land from being developed. The NPWS don't necessarily have to do anything to the land to achieve that goal other then to deny any further development in the area.

I honestly don't see any harm in having so many NP and reserves throughout Australia, even if they aren't world class, at least the area with they protect is being saved.

[wearthefoxhat]

Maddog...I agree with you ..it probably isn't what the game council would have prefered. I suspect they would have prefered to have run it under the same system as the State Forest hunting system which seems to be adequate..

I am getting the feeling that the NP's may just want to complicate this process to the point that hunters can't be bothered with the hoops they have to jump through.
I hope I am wrong here but NP's have been very vocal on not being cooperative with hunters.

A stark contrast to hunting in NZ where the dept of Conservation staff bend over backwards to help hunters and fishers. A country where hunting is embraced not scorned
The economic advantages are real and a resource is exploited in a positive way...

cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

Hallu.. you said "Which ferals ? It's easy to hunt goats or camels. Harder to hunt cats, dogs, foxes (unless you use dogs lol), cane toads and rabbits..."

Hunters take all these species and more. Open up a hunting mag at the local news agent and you will get the idea. I know some fellas who have shot 6 and 7 foxs in a day.

[photohiker]

Regarding the double speak here justifying hunting on the basis of comparisons of other known risks:

We have to remember that Hunting ADDS to the risk for non-hunters in National parks. These are not either-or options.

If your risk from injury while camping is 0.01% (1 in 10,000) then we ADD the injury from hunter risk of 0.05% (5 in 10,000) to equal 0.06% (6 in 10,000)

So there is a sixfold increase in the risk to a camper of injury when we add hunters to the equation.

Madness.

I agree that if we actually needed this (and I don't think we do) then the best option would be to close the parks for short periods and let the hunters in - at least they would then take on their own risks, not some unsuspecting individual trying to enjoy the serenity. Might even clean up the gene pool a bit.

[Hallu]

Do you know any who've shot more than 5 cats or dogs in a day ? Those are the hardest to shoot.

I think the idea of having a large number of National Parks in Australia is so the area that the encompass is protected from being greatly disturbed from it's original form. Areas such as the Wollemi or Gardens of Stone NP could be thought of as just preventing the land from being developed. The NPWS don't necessarily have to do anything to the land to achieve that goal other then to deny any further development in the area.

I honestly don't see any harm in having so many NP and reserves throughout Australia, even if they aren't world class, at least the area with they protect is being saved.

This is precisely my point : NPs are not protected enough right now. The Great Barrier Reef isn't being saved at all, Queensland is only making money off of it... Having the biggest uranium mine in the world right in the middle of the biggest NP in Australia (Kakadu) is also nonsense to me. Rules in an NP should be simple but strict : no hunting, logging, mining, living in, giant phone antennas (the Grampians), high voltage power lines (right in the middle of Churchill NP, like a spinal cord) or motorsports (a tradition in Australia : I saw dirt bikes in Little Desert NP or Lake Eildon, jetskis in Wilsons Prom', etc...).

By those rules you could demote almost all the NPs in Australia... And that's exactly my point : these aren't saved, they just have the strongest conservation status you can have in Australia, but the problem is, it's more like the less weak... So ok, they're not logging or poaching in them (well, at least on land), but that's not enough. There's nothing of value to poach here anyway, since the number 1 reason for poaching, traditional Asian medicine and the Asian market in general, doesn't care much about marsupials.

So I'm not exactly saying there should be less NPs in Australia, I'm saying the rules should be strengthened, resulting in the diminishing of the numbers of NPs since so many of them don't qualify. This doesn't mean the demoted parks won't be protected : they will have the same protection as before, they'll just be called State Parks instead of NPs, while the real NPs will gain better protection. And this better protection would be partly financed by hunters paying fees in reserves (not NPs). That's what just about every country in the world having NPs is doing...

[wearthefoxhat]

'Might even clean up the gene pool a bit. " lol

cut loose those "Extreme Greens" in the National Park and we could clean up the gene pool completely...lol

[Turfa]

No I won't lay bates. My brothers dog died a digusting death from taking a bait many years ago and I would never impose that on any animal not even a feral.

I am about conservation. I spend many hours clearing lantana locally with the ambition of regenerating local flora and and hopefully this will encourage our native friends back.
I have recently assisted in the relocation of endangered flaura from a highway development to a secure site. I do ongoing maintanance here. I also participate although not as regularly as I would like with native forest replanting.
Keeping the lantana at bay is a tough job but after 5 years we are seeing positive results with native grases and ground covers getting well established and rustic plums among others making a comeback...this is voluntary work.. Oh and I also hunt feral animals.

What do you do?

Good on you for contributing (and I mean that sincerely)

But you perfectly proved my point. You could not discuss your hunting hobby without referencing conservation. Why is it that hunters cannot just come out & say " I enjoy shooting animals" ?

[maddog]

Fox-hat,

The Game Council represents an extremist position, which will be rejected by the general public. Conservation, green, and animal rights groups are politically savvy, experienced campaigners. They run relentless campaigns against their quarry, have large budgets and many dedicated volunteers. They also have a history of achieving some absurd results, while achieving high levels of public support and approval for the same.

While hunters where undoubtably euphoric at the prospect of hunting in National Parks, they should remember pride also comes before a fall. Hunters would be well advised to accept sensible regulation, and an attitude of co-operation, if they wish to hunt in National Parks. As part of an integrated and properly co-ordinated pest-control scheme, they may well make a positive contribution to conservation outcomes, with little risk to the public. But they should also remember that NSW government, which has recently distanced itself from CSG miners because they were politically expensive, will likely do the same with shooters if the Game Council do not pick up their act.

Cheers

[wearthefoxhat]

turfa...I enjoy hunting... no I love hunting... I love the whole process. the preparation, the practice, I love the learning curve , the chellenge. the improvements I gain from it mentaly and physically, the camping, the camp cooking, the campfire, a few beers, comradeship, sleeping in 10 degrees below, I love the bush and watching the native animals, I enjoy the teaching and the solitude, self dependance and I love the peace. I love stalking my prey and the satisfaction of a clean kill. I love eating my catch. i love it when others enjoy my catch...I love the fact that most of my meat does not have to edure the horrific slaughterhouse prodedure. I love it that farmers appreciate what I do...

Yes I love hunting...

[Hallu]

Hunters are usually conservationists, there's no denying that. The most famous example is Theodore Roosevelt, who maybe did more than any other American president for conservation in his country. And yet he was an avid hunter, collecting head trophies, hunting big game. He just didn't know much about conservation, he thought protecting the land would be enough, and that there would always be enough game. He got enlightened after talking to people such as John Muir and helped create many NPs thanks to the wonderful Antiquities Act. This illustrates a problem still present today : hunters are conservationists in their hearts, but they don't know much about modern conservation, or scientific biology in general. This is why there should be a collaboration with the so called "greens" who usually carry that knowledge. They just don't seem to see eye to eye, as that "gene-pool" discussion shows.

Oh by the way, just for the sake of cutting risks, how about a simple solution enforcing the use of tranq guns instead of regular guns ? They may be more expensive if you need the same range as a regular rifle, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about killing someone...

[Nuts]

Good on you for contributing (and I mean that sincerely) But you perfectly proved my point. You could not discuss your hunting hobby without referencing conservation. Why is it that hunters cannot just come out & say " I enjoy shooting animals" ?

Bushwalkers don't seem to be able to come out and say that they just oppose hunting because they are scared
It's been my experience that no group is conservation oriented by default. Bushwalkers are likely to care as much about themselves, their rights as anyone. Quick grab education for the purpose of supporting any argument. Taken to extremes (perhaps not so extreme given precedents of locking people out of parks seen with recent fires), talk of areas protected from bushwalkers (pure conservation) would meet stony silence?

Either way, that gene pool 'dagger' is just silly... geneologists as well?

[wearthefoxhat]

You are quite right of course.
It was always a shame that hunting in NPs through recognition of its own attributes was never achieved but it was achieved through a political deal,
It is now up to us to do the right thing..do it safely and do it well. Hopefully the NP's won't make it too hard and destroy it for well meaning hunters through red tape.
But then they do have an industry to protect so they don't want it to succeed IMO.
Will NP's be cooperative? I really don't think so. Not for some time at least.

[wearthefoxhat]

my above post in reply to maddog

[wearthefoxhat]

Hi hullu
"Oh by the way, just for the sake of cutting risks, how about a simple solution enforcing the use of tranq guns instead of regular guns ? They may be more expensive if you need the same range as a regular rifle, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about killing someone..."

funny you should mention this but we talked about doing just that. We have plenty of experience in darting animals and have all the gear. Their effective range is much like a compound bow which adds to the hunt as your stalking abilities will be tested as a bow hunters is ...and being that your shots will be under 40 mtrs you will have the thrill of the hunt without killing the animal. truth is most will not even get within 100 mtrs without being busted but hey thats hunting...
could we call it Eco hunting....greenies would have convulsions over that idea lol...
lots of camp fire talk that will probably never happen lol

[juxtaposer]

"I say leave feral animal control to the park managers, 96% of whom don't want recreational shooting in their parks."

I raally don't care what Park managers want mainly because they have failed terribly so far. We recently had a `hot shot enviromentalist visit Australia.. ( the name escapes me for now) whos comment was interesting and highly critical of National parks and their dismal record of conservation and feral control. It seems this is a worldwide perception.. It is time to do things differently..IMO

So a "hot shot environmentalist" said our parks are a failure? It would be interesting to know why this person is the good judge that you think he is, Wearthefoxhat. There was another worldwide hot shot environmentalist who came out here from the UK in the 1970's, who declared our parks to be nothing but "useless mongrel scrub." His name was Kenneth Melanby, and he was perplexed as to why our national parks weren't full of happily grazing sheep and cows with strategically placed villages where one could retire to the fireside with a good ale after the end of each days tramp, just like back in good old England. Our parks fell well short of his high standards. Worldwide perception indeed, and the idea that recreational shooters can do better the complex job of park management tyhan our rangers currently do is ludicrous. Park rangers have many responsibilities, of which feral animal control is but one. It seems that some recreational shooters are after the blood of a lot more than rabbits and goats.

[Hallu]

Well if you guys already have the gear you should put this idea further. I'm guessing it's also quieter that regular guns. There is such a thing as sustainable hunting, after all that's why hunting roos is permitted, to control their numbers. Wallabies and pademelons are also regularly killed in Tasmania when their population gets too high (and then at that particular period you can buy wallaby meat from the market for example which is delicious). But it should be done in controlled areas, or in hunting seasons, not while bushwalkers are exploring the area. The key to having hunting is to collect money that will help conservation, but I'm not sure NSW's government understood that, they merely responded to some political pressure...

[wearthefoxhat]

fair call juxta...it seems we have the same admiration for these academic types.

I do believe that if done correctly conservation hunters can contribute to a positive impact on feral control...

Juxta...not sure what you mean here. could you please elaborate..
"It seems that some recreational shooters are after the blood of a lot more than rabbits and goats." ????

cheers
foxhat

[juxtaposer]

Wearthefoxhat, that last statement of mine refers to your statements that because national park rangers "have failed terribly" and their "dismal record of conservation" it is "time to do things differently." That sounds a lot like a huge vote of no confidence in a very dedicated group of people whom I believe we should be thankful to have in our public service. To dump on them like that sounds to me like you do "have them in your sites" so to speak. But I wonder, other than that they currently won't allow you to shoot in the national parks, what is your problem with them?

[maddog]

But then they do have an industry to protect so they don't want it to succeed IMO.
Will NP's be cooperative? I really don't think so. Not for some time at least.

Fox-hat,

Feral animals are like weeds. There is no need to protect an industry, because the job will never be done. It is control and damage minimisation, not eradication, that is the aim of the conservationist. If shooters actively campaign against effective feral control programs, and those that implement them, conservationists will oppose recreational hunters and benefit from the campaigning skills of activists. If shooters aid conservation, and become part of a well co-ordinated and integrated pest control program, recreational hunters will be defended by them.

It may take a time for trust to develop, but your reference to South Australian and Victorian examples, supports the proposition that trust can be earned. If the Game Council have a role to play in the scheme, they have a lot of work to do in regaining credibility.

Cheers

[Spartan]

Hi, all.

I'm not a big fan of hunting in general, and I'm downright against it taking place in areas where people (like me) might wander. For example, National Parks. Before anyone accuses me of being uninformed about firearms, or the risk that they do or do not pose, my occupation involves regular training with, and the regular employment of, firearms. I've also personal experience with using them in Somalia, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. Consequently, from my perspective to compare, for example, injury statistics for pasttimes like volleyball with hunting is downright 'stoopid'. A twisted ankle hardly compares to a sucking chest wound. Factor in that more people play volleyball more often than they hunt, and I begin to question the legitimacy of making statistical comparisons in any case.

Of concern to me is that hunters like to dress in camouflage clothing, and they invariably use rifles that are chambered for .223 calibre rounds upwards. So they're not all that easy to see, and they're armed with weapons that have a lethal zone that extends out to 1.5km. As Wayno pointed out earlier in this thread, hunters use ammunition that is intriniscally more lethal than what ordinarily is used in the military. Under the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, modern Armies are (largely) restricted to the employment of full-metal jacketed bullets, bullets that do not expand greatly on impact. Cavitation is, therefore, much less than what applies to equivalent calibre hunting rounds. However, anyone who has personal experience observing what happens to a human body when struck by a 5.56mm (.223) or 7.62mm (.308) military round will attest that what results ain't pretty. And unlike what passes in the cinema, the human body cannot continue to function when it absorbs the kinetic force these projectiles impart. If the person was fortunate enough to survive the impact, and if they were equally fortunate enough to receive immediate aid from someone trained and competent in battlefield wound management, then the victim has about an hour to be evacuated and receive surgical intervention before s/he dies. So, riddle me this. How many bushwalkers: (a) carry HF radios with them? (b) Have wound dressings, IV kits/saline, and combat torniques in their comprehensive first aid kits? (c) Have rotary wing AME standing by, waiting for the call? And, (d) have trauma surgeons prepped and ready to go, just-in-case? Not too many, I'd wager.

I've been shot at a number of times, and I've never found it to be a particularly pleasant experience. However, I expected to be shot at given the places I was in, and the jobs I was doing. I don't expect to be shot at whilst hiking through an Australian National Park.

Ian

[juxtaposer]

Good on you for contributing (and I mean that sincerely) But you perfectly proved my point. You could not discuss your hunting hobby without referencing conservation. Why is it that hunters cannot just come out & say " I enjoy shooting animals" ?

Bushwalkers don't seem to be able to come out and say that they just oppose hunting because they are scared
It's been my experience that no group is conservation oriented by default. Bushwalkers are likely to care as much about themselves, their rights as anyone. Quick grab education for the purpose of supporting any argument. Taken to extremes (perhaps not so extreme given precedents of locking people out of parks seen with recent fires), talk of areas protected from bushwalkers (pure conservation) would meet stony silence?

Either way, that gene pool 'dagger' is just silly... geneologists as well?

What areas do you think bushwalkers should be prohibited from, if any, Nuts? This has been debated in the past by bushwalkers, notably for the Kosciusko State (National)Park in the 1940's and 50's. A group of bushwalkers led by Marie Byles wanted no go areas designated, whilst others were very opposed to the idea. The issue certainly wasn't met with stony silence. As far as I can recall the idea was rejected on the advice of a government appointed scientific committee which considered that there were extensive areas in the park that were so remote they were never likely to receive much in the way of visitation anyway, and so did not need to be designated as no go areas.