Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[wearthefoxhat]

Which rural community is that, Fox-hat?

Are you suggesting that cocky's cannot shoot pests on their own land? Some cocky's may allow recreational hunters on their land, but many don't.

Cheers

You don't Hunt. how would you have a clue? seriously how would you know this? typical BS from extreme Greens with no clue of the real world!

[wearthefoxhat]

So now we have SA np's, Vic NP's and now NSW State Forests saying that rec hunting has a positive contribution to kepping feral and game animals under control..

But you guys know better right!

I can see why the majority of people have had enough of the green movement. it is radical, illogical and just plain dumb and the greater community has had enough by evidence reflecting in the poles....

Good luck all...you are going to need it!

[Turfa]

"If it is appropriate for farmers to cull deer on their properties in any quantity, at any time of year, why do deer in state forests & NP's need to be "managed" by bag limits & restricted seasons, if not for the purpose of providing a continuing supply of target animals. It also invalidates your previous position regarding deer seasons being for the "humane" purpose of preventing orphaned young. If this is so important, why are farmers exempt ?"

I simply don't know and I am not prepared to guess either which seems to be the norn for you fellas..

"Please explain to me how setting a bag limit on deer contributes to the stated goal of reducing invasive species on public lands ?"

Bag limits are only for Hog deer I believe. I presume (but could be wrong) that they are not a direct threat to there enviroment and are also considered a game animal not a pest.

"Also, explain to me why I hear so many hunters complaining that an area has been "shot out"........ surely that is a good thing if you are truly interested in conservation of our public lands.... .... but of course from the hunters perspective is is not. However, it does quite clearly show that hunters have a desire to maintain stocks of invasive species in state forests & national parks..... "

I will presume you have just made this up because it suits your argument... The fact that it has been "shot out" shows success from rec hunting ...does it not?

You guys keep falling flat on your face. Its no wonder your arguments hold no water.... they are illogical. manipulative and bordering on plain lies.

Well thank you for accusing me of lying......... always a very classy fall back position.

And you still fail to explain why the Game Council & hunters conduct themselves in a manner that indicates a desire to maintain stocks of pest animals on our public land for their hunting pleasure.

[maddog]

You are the first on the forum to mistake me for a green fox-hat.

Cheers

[Turfa]

So now we have SA np's, Vic NP's and now NSW State Forests saying that rec hunting has a positive contribution to kepping feral and game animals under control..

But you guys know better right!

I can see why the majority of people have had enough of the green movement. it is radical, illogical and just plain dumb and the greater community has had enough by evidence reflecting in the poles....

Good luck all...you are going to need it!

I'm not sure why you think this forum is "the green movement" it is a community of bushwalkers who discuss topics of interest., which currently includes the issue of hunting in NP's.

Calling people "just plain dumb" just because you cannot get them to accept your point of view, may just as likely be due to your inability to frame a convincing argument.

You first came to this forum less than a week ago & have posted on only a single topic. You started out with quite a rational approach, but you now seem to have descended to simple name calling. It might be time to move on.........

[colinm]

As you have clearly shown poachers are already hunting in NP's illegally . This will continue no matter what.

How will it? They can pick up a license after answering 30 questions in an open book exam and voila! they're no longer illegal hunters. They are still complete failures as human beings, of course.

Legitimate hunters hate these criminals as much as you do and legitimate hunters are actively involved helping police catch them...

They'll still have the ute, the beer, the guns and the ammo. Now they'll have a license. What possible difference could that make?

I am interested ???What did you do? Did you call the police? did you take details?. I am interested to know what you did about this being it is your social responsibility after all.

Are you mad? I told you, I cowered in my tent, and I'd do it again. Drunken hoons with guns ... and I'm going to do what exactly? Face 'em down? Nah, I've stared down a couple of gun barrels in my time, and it's not a pleasant experience.

Since you're suggesting I should face armed criminals, I wonder if you'd offer your opinion on something like http://www.packrifle.com/ as an every day carry for National Park bushwalking in the possible presence of criminals? I realise it's a popgun, but it's also light, and you assure me that the risks are low. I wouldn't upgrade to something with a magazine unless the hunting population increased.

How many people did these poachers hurt or kill on this particular night of terror? did they shoot anyone?

Not as far as I know. As far as I know they didn't shoot any feral animals either.

As for the rest of your post I suggest you go over my previous posts as it is covering old ground and I can't be bothered repeating my self.

I must have missed the post where you explained why the general public should pay for the recreation of hunters, and where it's not simply the hunters being selfish.

[Nuts]

hmmm well, how things move on in a day here

..Not many Tony, Iv'e found a better place to walk. I do have family still there and get up from time to time. I'm not obsessed with discrediting your posts though, clearly no alternative perspective will bring satisfaction. I have some personal experience, some theoretical knowledge but your correct, not enough personal cost.. so if you feel this way i'm happy to back off.

I for one think Foxhat has (relatively, mostly) held his frustration in check well enough?...I hope he stays the course and continues to add the more positive slant of his contribution to the forum.

I like your suggestions for a better approach by the game council and for improved standards for licencing in general Turfa.

(can say that the licencing for me to drive 12 bushwalkers into a park sounds Very similar to the R licence standards.. but then as has been said, this is 'necessary'.. so we can dismiss comparative safety speculation)

I call for a royal commission (ok..jj) to work out whether there is any possible way we can include this user group in parks without upsetting bushwalkers. Perhaps also (as I thought Mad Dog suggested) to provide a financial excess so as to satisfy conservationists who believe their contribution also needs to be positive (above that of other user groups). Conservation might be enshrined in lofty ideals but 'people' very much are at the heart of perpetual protection of wild areas (for better or worse, access is written into every park management plan iv'e ever seen )

[jackhinde]

i quite like going for armed bush walks, and would love to do so in some national parks (i already do so in state forests with the r licence). I don't believe it will happen though.

It seems I may be incorrect in my statement back on page one, I really might get to shoot in a park after all.

As someone who considers himself an extreme green, and is a shooter of ferals, I find much of this thread amusing.
The game council is of course a bit of a joke in regards to being concerned with conservation, but I could just as easily argue that the NPWS in NSW are a greater joke in the same regard.
This all ties in nicely with that other long thread on wilderness. We have a landscape that needs to be managed and shared, not locked up.

If I shoot a fox or a goat or a pig when walking, no matter how small you may argue the effect to be, I have still done something more positive than a walker who did not shoot a fox or a goat or a pig.

[maddog]

Fox-hat,

You first stormed in, with all guns blazing, declaring the NP's service has failed miserably to keep the feral population in check, though you seemed unable to grasp even the most elementary principles of population dynamics. You expressed the wish they open up more areas as it looks like only a handful will be opened at this stage, but were unable to explain why it is a good idea to open even one to recreational hunters.

You then started your somewhat paranoid campaign against those more informed than yourself, asking the rhetorical question do they want to see every last feral gone and have no work? You continued with your campaign, suggesting that in professional culling practices many animals get away and in all directions... some badly wounded with legs blown off etc.. Cruel practice.. But you fail to appreciate that killing for no greater purpose than pleasure, is considered by many the cruellest practice of all. And then your absurd campaign against the car...and later still volleyball...

The very first post, a positive contribution indeed.

Any fool can play the man fox-hat, but that will not win an argument.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Oh, c'mon Maddoggy! I haven't re-read but You seem to have successfully left out every mitigating sentence in order to what? Play the man??

[photohiker]

Oh, c'mon Maddoggy! I haven't re-read but You seem to have successfully left out every mitigating sentence in order to what? Play the man??

Oh come on Nuts, you know maddog is an extreme green, you have to cut him some slack! After all we bushwalkers are all a pack of greenies.

[Nuts]

haha hah You'll have to be careful calling yourselves a 'pack' from now on ; )

[Lindsay]

Interesting article here: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3693098.htm The sensible members of the hunting fraternity speak out.

[maddog]

If I shoot a fox or a goat or a pig when walking, no matter how small you may argue the effect to be, I have still done something more positive than a walker who did not shoot a fox or a goat or a pig.

Other than reward yourself with a warm inner glow, what have you done that is positive?

Cheers

[tom_brennan]

I was thinking that the debate had gone on relatively civilly, and was going to weigh in on the misuse of statistics, but it does seem to have collapsed in the last day or so!

[jackhinde]

well by taking out a fox I just saved a whole lot of small vertebrates and invertebrates... and by small I mean up to the size of a brush tailed rock wallaby, which incidently live in a colony about 400 metres from my house and only exist due to a pair of local fox shooters, a fact recognised by the NPWS mob I previously maligned, leading them to encourage with money said shooters.

gives me a warm inner glow too.

[wildwalks]

OK everyone - Breath in - Hold it - breath out - and........ relax

Before you press that submit button - Please re-read your posts and ask yourself "Does this add to the the debate Or does it attack a person?"
(For S.Covey fans - "HABIT 5: SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND, THEN TO BE UNDERSTOOD")

Now lets get back to learning from each other.

Matt

[wildwalks]

well by taking out a fox I just saved a whole lot of small vertebrates and invertebrates

Hi Jackhinde
Do you know of any research that says this is correct?

"After analysing the data on recreational hunting, we have concluded that it is not an effective tool for dealing with introduced animals. If the number of animals shot is too small to impact on populations, the killing of animals, often in cruel circumstances, simply cannot be ethically justified.
Research shows that to reduce the density of pigs, for example, 70% of the population must be killed in order to start seeing an overall decline over time. Recreational hunters are simply not getting those kind of figures,” said Dr. Ramp.

Now this is a guy who has dedicated a large chunk of his life to better understand feral animal reduction.

What he is saying is that by killing that one feral - you have just created a vacuum that will be filled very quickly filled by either another a fox or worse a cat resulting in no net benefit. This is why research is important - we might think we are doing a good thing, but it is not till later we see the damage. It is possible that killing ad hoc like this we are making things worse for our native friends - the research so far just says no net benefit.

Matt

[Nuts]

A vacuum possible in theory, in an area where feral population is approaching carrying capacity (he likely means)? Possible in application, in a world where conservation is properly funded and such funding is not underpinned by politics (you mean)?

[forest]

Okay so I'll weigh in again and try to be positive. I've been watching this thread with interested for the last few days. Sad it's reached the level it has from some members.

So first up we will not reverse this new NP hunting bill. People may try but it's just a dirty political deal that will impact many people.

If all the evidence and theory etc is saying that ad hoc hunting doesn't reduce numbers, okay. I can sort of see where people are comming from but understand it's hard for me to see that as a hunter myself. Yes I have seen the reduction of feral's on many properties I hunt. But as I have learned that's not just from me. It's more a combined effort through trapping, baiting and shooting.
I can also see that an effort like this will never be achieved in a NP as everyone is just running in there own direction. NP rangers, Game council, underfunding etc.

National Parks seem to be doing what they can make it hard for the game council. Fair enough as it's there turf. I guess the govournment it just looking at using a tool that they believe works (ie: game council)
It's already set-up and they have certain noisy pollies saying how they have done this and that. All *&^%$#! but hey, what pollie isn't just trying to make his boat the only one that doesn't sink.

As a R license holder myself I have a bit of an idea on how this game council system works. (but I have no intention of hunting in a SF or NP, My R license is just so I can hunt deer on private land)
Currently in SF's you can just log on and pick where you wanna hunt, what SF, what block etc.

If it is possible for hunters to contribute towards a reduction in feral animals using a legit reduction plan (ie; baits traps and shooting) I believe that the option on where to hunt should be managed better.
We all know that certain area's and NP's contain high density level's of ferals. Maybe if the body that managed the private hunters (ie; current R license holders) more effiecently a better impact could be made by them.
Why can't the hunters just all be pointed at a few select area's or NP's at a time when the need is there.
I can see where the game council gets off by saying free hunters etc. Yeh I guess that's true other than the money the GC filters off to fund itself....
If the "free" hunters were more specifically pointed towards key area's instead of just a "go where you like and shoot stuff" attitute maybe an improvement could be seen in feral reductions.

The current SF system just bascally gives hunters options to hunt where they please to suit how far they wish to travel, what area and game etc.
That's wrong and it should be where they can hunt to make the biggest difference.
If one hunter shoots a fox they will feel like they have contributed, even though that might not be the case as a whole.
But if another hunter does that in a targeted area, and then another, and another. Now we might see a difference.

There's a whole lotta a NP out there though and what's getting managed currently with the feral's needs improvement. Doesn't matter what way you look at that it costs a lot of $$$ to do so.
Would that cost more that the GC running costs P/A. ?? That's a good question and one I'm not going to start researching.

And before people slam me just remember I'm dead against this bill even though I'm a hunter. But I'm still a hunter and yes, I enjoy killing feral animals. Why is that so hard for some hunters to say.

A better effort needs to be made in our NP's on feral animal reductions. Under any current system I'm yet to see a good impact in our state. I don't think this new bill is it either by a long shot.
But once hunters are in the NP's a solution should be made that can make a better impact on feral reduction.
No point in flogging a dead horse. There's some smart people here, why not come up with a better idea to make this work. NP hunting sadly doesn't seem to be going anywhere for the next little while anyway.

Oh and all these stories of blokes hunting without permission on both public and private land. They are called POACHERS and are the low scum of the earth.
Please don't confuse regular, feral hate'in hunters for these illegal fools. Just makes me shake my head in shame that some poachers are so dumb. Please crawl back in the hole you came from as it's gives good honest people/hunters a bad name.
I know a heck of a lot of good honest hunters. Very sad it is that such a small number of poachers can give a larger number a bad name. But that's just what happens.
I do honestly believe that having more "legit" registered hunters out and about will reduce the poachers. There's just more chance of them being dobbed in and caught. And that's a good thing.

[Spartan]

Foxhat,

I've noticed your tendency to label anyone who disagrees with you a 'Green'. Argumentum ad hominem? Or argumentum petitio principii?

Apparently I'm like many here, who find themselves disagreeing with your various points-of-view. But my reasons for doing so aren't based on anything approaching a 'Green agenda'; far from it, they largely centre on safety concerns. Call me simple, but I fail to see how very poorly trained and completely unsupervised people roaming around in public spaces with firearms constitutes a 'good' thing.

As an aside, back in the early 1990s I was posted to an Infantry battalion in Brisbane. The Reconnaissance Platoon and Sniper Cell were deployed to SW Queensland for a few weeks, to cull a plague of feral cats. Whilst we were successful in culling hundreds of these animals, it was later found that shooting wasn't a particuarly efficient method of population control, despite the fact that each person engaged was a marksman who hit their targets more often than they missed them. You've attempted to make mileage out of the value 'recreational hunters' will provide in controlling such populations. As one who has 'been there, done that' I harbour doubts.

Anyway, a friend and colleague of mine is a hunter. However, he doesn't 'kill-for-thrill' (i.e. 'recreationally'); my colleague eats what he hunts, and hunts only what he plans on eating. And he seems perfectly content to do so on private property.

Go figure.

Ian

[colinm]

For what it's worth, I haven't got much against hunting. As far as I'm concerned it's a reasonable pursuit.

It's just that hunting has no place in national parks.

Oh and all these stories of blokes hunting without permission on both public and private land. They are called POACHERS and are the low scum of the earth.
Please don't confuse regular, feral hate'in hunters for these illegal fools. Just makes me shake my head in shame that some poachers are so dumb. Please crawl back in the hole you came from as it's gives good honest people/hunters a bad name.
I know a heck of a lot of good honest hunters. Very sad it is that such a small number of poachers can give a larger number a bad name. But that's just what happens.
I do honestly believe that having more "legit" registered hunters out and about will reduce the poachers. There's just more chance of them being dobbed in and caught. And that's a good thing.

All the people who forest now calls "POACHERS" because they hunt illegally in National Parks can be magically transformed into "recreational hunters" with terrible efficiency at the stroke of a pen. You can't blame people for confusing the two, when there's really nothing objective to distinguish them.

My kids just got their P plates. They had to undergo over 130 hours of supervised instruction and several written and practical tests before they could get 'em. Yet they could wander around carrying a deadly weapon with no more than an open book exam.

It's a glaring disparity, and it's clear evidence of a corrupt government.

Make your hunters undergo 130 hours of supervised training, then we can talk about responsible hunting.

[forest]

I'll agree whole heartedly that a NP is no place for a hunting. I've said that from the first page of this debate.
But what I don't think is fair at all is comparing hunters to poachers. There's a massive difference. No its not just a stroke of a pen. Poachers are criminals. These type of people will continue to undertake illegal activities. They will not obtain an R license as that means putting there name on something and making themselves identifiable to criminal prosecution if they caried on with any illegal activities within a NP or SF.
Sadley confusing the two is all to common and this is a shame.
Saying the two are alike is akin to labelling peace full bushwalkers and trespassing dirt bikes as brothers in arms.....

More intense R license testing should definitely occur before hunters are allowed in NPs. Watch it though. Nothing will change and that's why this is all a joke.
I'm not overly excited about a walk in Barrington Tops and hearting a gunshot not knowing what direction it may have been aimed in.

That's one major rule on all private land I hunt on. Always know who is where and when. If anyone is active in a certain area we just don't shoot there. That's not because I can't hit anything and there's shots flying everywhere. It just safe practice as guns and people are two very dangerous things. Safety is paramount.
Knowing this information on any public land is just a roll of the dice. All the individuals roaming freely around as they should. Someone's going to get hurt one day. There's just nothing stopping anyone being just out of sight but well within rifle range behind that treeline or bush just past the pig/goat/fox or deer.

[maddog]

O'Farrell deal on hunting still a misfire:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 2ewqg.html

[wayno]

in regards to forests comments about being aware of where other hunters are
in nz as long as you have a gun licence you can pretty much hunt anywhere thats allowable in national parks any time without telling anyone
so different hunting parties can be oblivious to the presence of other parties especially in thick forest... and almost all gunshot wounds in nz are hunters shooting hunters, either in their own group or a hunter outside their group...
and what we don't know is for every hunter shot, how many near misses are there... ten or a hundred near misses for everyone shot?
i know a bushwalker who was shot at walking on a track, he never saw the hunter, he yelled out to him. but the hunter never said anything or appeared to him,
he said he heard the bullet pass close by to him, he was experienced enough for me to belive him... there was no way for him to find out what hunters were in the area at that time...
i wonder if hunters should get transponders like the skiiers wear for avalanches. that tells you when you are near another hunter.
you could get a decent battery life if you just turn it on from time to time or when you are considering to shoot a target....
i've grown up with acceptance, if i walk into the bush most places then i'm in a hunters free fire zone

[Nuts]

Sounds like a good compromise? Better still to also have designated areas (/times) well away from popular walking tracks? If the dates/maps were posted it would be as simple as checking a weather report. Anyone hunting outside those areas/times would be as 'illegal' as they are now.

[maddog]

Sounds like a good compromise? Better still to also have designated areas (/times) well away from popular walking tracks? If the dates/maps were posted it would be as simple as checking a weather report. Anyone hunting outside those areas/times would be as 'illegal' as they are now.

On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible suggestion Nuts. The merits or otherwise of this plan will become apparent in the coming weeks. Premier O'Farrell suggests that we reserve our judgment until the plan is released.

I suggest however that the term compromise would, in the current context, be more accurately described as appeasement. In a submission to a Senate Committee on 'The Effectiveness of Threatened Species and Ecological Communities Protection in Australia' , the Australian Deer Association recommend:

'That the relevant legislation be amended to enable accredited conservation hunters to control feral animals in all national parks, wilderness areas, world heritage areas, conservation areas and other protected areas in Australia. .

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ ... ssions.htm

Submission 83, pg 8.

In the next dirty deal, what will the Shooters ask for?

Cheers

[maddog]

Police to deal with fights over hunting:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-to-dea ... 2ey70.html

[Spartan]

Great. So there's apparently a proposal afoot that will see us having to contend with armed children traipsing about in our favourite hiking areas?! This nonsense just keeps getting 'better', doesn't it?

I'm starting to wonder if the 'Shooters and Fishers Party' presents as a more dangerous and whacky SIG than the Greens!

Ian

[Nuts]

maddog, I had in mind Forest (as a hunter with insightful posts) and Wayno (as a bloke living with such a situation and with a possibly interesting idea (though I imagine bushwalkers would also need some electronic device)). I had temporarily forgotten politics (and the media).