Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[colinm]

Here's a useful link http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise ... dnoise.htm

"When the noise is a one-off problem
If you are disturbed by a particular incident like amplified music, contact your local council or the local police station. They can issue a warning (see noisy domestic equipment below) or issue a noise abatement direction under section 276 of the POEO Act directing a person to stop making the offensive noise.
A noise abatement direction may be issued at any time of the day or night and can remain in force for up to 28 days from the time it was issued. A person who fails to comply with it can be issued with an on-the-spot fine of $200 ($400 for a corporation). Noise abatement directions cannot be appealed against. The police and authorised officers of councils have powers that allow them to seize equipment used to make noise (e.g. a sound system in contravention of a noise abatement direction)."

Point being that the shaggy aggressor should have gone to the law, not to strength of arms. Mind you, I too would have have felt like snotting the guy with the megaphone ... a simple accidental shoulder to the bell ... a world of dental reconstruction ... must ... resist ... temptation!!

[maddog]

Armed protesters will target Vic hunters:

Laurie Levy says his Coalition Against Duck Shooting protesters will dress in camouflage and go armed into wetlands when this year’s duck season opens in Victoria. Under new laws that keep protesters further away from hunters and hunting areas than ever before, he says this is the only way his supporters can “collect the evidence that shooters are committing acts of cruelty”. Rod Drew, CEO of Field and Game Australia, dismissed the announcement as a bluff. Levy says protesters will not be shooting, but they will have the necessary licences and permits to possess firearms and enter the wetlands. It’s not clear how anti-protesting laws would apply to licensed ‘hunters’ who were actually there to protest and disrupt hunting. Legitimate hunters are uneasy about the threat of facing armed protesters, given the criminal activities of activists in previous years.

Source:

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/snap-shots32

And also of interest: Coalition Against Duck Shooting Gallery - Past Duck Hunting Season Photos:

http://www.duck.org.au/gallery

Cheers

[Herb]

I note Armidale-Dumaresq council has supported a motion calling for an exemption to hunting in the regions national parks.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-27/hunting-in-national-parks-sparks-new-fears/4543652
I wonder if this might be a good strategy to place additional pressure on the state government to repeal the legislation. If ratepayers contact their local councils in the areas where national park hunting is to take place and express their opposition, maybe more councils will request exemptions.

[wombeyan]

I dont know what the proble is. In New Zealand they have been hunting in NP for years and only a few people have been killed

[wayno]

yes but for every death there are an unknown no of near missed shots where the people arent hit.... you can say "only" a few deaths but they are all highly preventable, i know someone who was shot at walking on a track, yes its not a massive casualty rate... but i find i do pick and choose where i tramp during the roar, i avoid the popular areas for hunters then..
it sounds like it might be easier to get a gun licence and licence to hunt in NSW than in NZ as well.

[Strider]

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,

Would be better off speaking with a someone external to the matter - this guy has a vested interest.

Personally, I can't recall such a thing as a "doomed surplus" ever coming up when I studied population ecology at uni. Perhaps it's a new concept?

[photohiker]

I dont know what the proble is. In New Zealand they have been hunting in NP for years and only a few people have been killed

I'm sure that is very comforting information for their loved ones.

With lower standards, greater population, and 12 year olds able to get a license, I guess we can expect more than 'only a few' hunting deaths in NSW.

Looking for volunteers to 'take one for the team'

[maddog]

I dont know what the proble is. In New Zealand they have been hunting in NP for years and only a few people have been killed

The culled bushwalkers are likely just part of a 'doomed surplus' anyway. Expect the Shooters and Fishers' Scientific Research Division to introduce conclusive evidence for this soon.

On the topic of doomed-surplus and populations, but in a context not directly related to the culling of bushwalkers, the linked study serves as an example of the 'doomed surplus' hypothesis applied:

Predation by introduced foxes on native bush rats in Australia: do foxes take the doomed surplus?

...Errington's (1946) doomed surplus hypothesis on the impact of fox predation was upheld for the populations of bush rats in Namadgi, with short-term (22 months) intensive fox control providing little conservation benefit for this native prey species. This result suggests that where predation pressure is low, not all predation mortality will be additive to prey populations even if it results from a predator introduced to the ecosystem. Hence, short-term control of introduced predators is unlikely to produce uniform benefits to all the native species they prey upon, and may well have adverse ecological costs (Banks, Dickman & Newsome 1998). During this study, fox control also led to dramatic increases of another introduced pest species (outside bush rat habitats), the European rabbit Oryctolagus cunniculus Lilljeborg, for which subsequent control measures had to be taken (Banks, Dickman & Newsome 1998). Thus, feral predator control should be targeted to particularly vulnerable species known to be limited by feral predators or to species whose persistence is threatened by any mortality.
...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 463.x/full

Cheers

[wayno]

I dont know what the proble is. In New Zealand they have been hunting in NP for years and only a few people have been killed

as i've said before theres a lot of hunters in nz with a lot of experience hunting in the bush and they pass that experience on.. if they were all just starting out hunting in the parks id expect a much higher casualty rate... people who dont realise how easily you can misidentify a person as game...

[Rob A]

..

[Lindsay]

Armed protesters will target Vic hunters:

Laurie Levy says his Coalition Against Duck Shooting protesters will dress in camouflage and go armed into wetlands when this year’s duck season opens in Victoria. Under new laws that keep protesters further away from hunters and hunting areas than ever before, he says this is the only way his supporters can “collect the evidence that shooters are committing acts of cruelty”. Rod Drew, CEO of Field and Game Australia, dismissed the announcement as a bluff. Levy says protesters will not be shooting, but they will have the necessary licences and permits to possess firearms and enter the wetlands. It’s not clear how anti-protesting laws would apply to licensed ‘hunters’ who were actually there to protest and disrupt hunting. Legitimate hunters are uneasy about the threat of facing armed protesters, given the criminal activities of activists in previous years.

Source:

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/snap-shots32

And also of interest: Coalition Against Duck Shooting Gallery - Past Duck Hunting Season Photos:

http://www.duck.org.au/gallery


Cheers

Interesting how the hunters in these pictures all seem to be dressed up as soldiers. Although there are claims made that camouflage makes it harder for the game to spot the hunter, the state of some of these outfits seems to indicate some sort of military wannabe fantasy more than anything else.

[colinm]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/duck- ... 1c1ih.html

''Apparently a 14-year-old shooter fired at a bird on the water and we believe the bullets ricocheted off the water into Julie's face.''

[forest]

Not great odds for the protesters.....
Going of a pure ration of hunter / protesters fined that particular day 1.2% of hunters were fined but more concerning is the 36% of protesters were fined.
I don't support duck hunting but I'm sorry, anyone (protester) running around in a swamp when clearly they have been ordered not to be there is a fool.
I'm having trouble trying to figure out what this has to do with the discussions on this forum.

We have been talking about getting accidentally/innocently injured/killed whilst bushwalking. Or are people going to purposefully place themselves 25 meters infront of a hunter aiming a weapon ??
I think not as that's just so far into the extreme end of the hunting/animal cruelty debate.

Mr Drew said shoot rules stipulated that Ms Symons was not supposed to be in the water until after 10am. Mr Drew said about 2000 hunters were at Lake Buloke

the 43-year-old female volunteer was struck by shotgun pellets about 9am after they ricocheted off the water.

2000 hunters at one area, clear rules. Protester gets shot in breach of the rules. Who's in the wrong.
I shoot clay targets and trust me, your eye is just on the clay, nothing else. That's why you have clear fields to fire into at a range.
Surely they try to achieve the same thing duck hunting and with that amount of DSE staff regulating things I would suspect so.
Remember too that shotguns have a very short lethal range.
Guns and people don't mix. Add in fast moving targets and just don't put yourself there, period.

[wayno]

people being injured or killed bushwalking is relevant, its a worry people have expressed,
As i've pointed out, what happens in nz, some hunters (some of them extremely experienced hunters) have misidentified humans as game and shot them, year in year out. you dont have to go looking for a hunter to get shot...

[Nuts]

They weren't bushwalking, we aren't talking about NSW here, are any of these wetlands actually in National Parks? Putting oneself behind a hunted duck is kind of extreme?

I agree, perhaps it's time to start splitting the topic? Some time ago I waded through an epic hunting thread on a US forum that brought out all sorts of emotion and vaguely related heated argument. There were some 'extreme' views from both sides to say the least. Do we really want such an endless topic here? Anything goes to support (perhaps underlying) agendas? Dilute the key issues maybe (for either side) (though it seems to be a fairly one-sided debate on here..)

maddogs

...Errington's (1946) doomed surplus hypothesis on the impact of fox predation was upheld for the populations of bush rats in Namadgi, with short-term (22 months) intensive fox control providing little conservation benefit for this native prey species. This result suggests that where predation pressure is low, not all predation mortality will be additive to prey populations even if it results from a predator introduced to the ecosystem. Hence, short-term control of introduced predators is unlikely to produce uniform benefits to all the native species they prey upon, and may well have adverse ecological costs (Banks, Dickman & Newsome 1998). During this study, fox control also led to dramatic increases of another introduced pest species (outside bush rat habitats), the European rabbit Oryctolagus cunniculus Lilljeborg, for which subsequent control measures had to be taken (Banks, Dickman & Newsome 1998). Thus, feral predator control should be targeted to particularly vulnerable species known to be limited by feral predators or to species whose persistence is threatened by any mortality. Cheers

For the general topic, it would be worth pointing out that this is a study based on an intensive 1080 poisoning trial..

Occurs to me maddog that you could just suggest a google search (rather than all these selected snippets)?

[colinm]

They weren't bushwalking, we aren't talking about NSW here, are any of these wetlands actually in National Parks? Putting oneself behind a hunted duck is kind of extreme?

Oh, I think it's relevant because a 14 year old kid was behind the shotgun and fired it when it was clearly inappropriate (unless they mistook an idiot protester for a duck?)

In the relevant legislation, in NSW, 12 year old kids can get licenses to shoot guns in national parks.

Seems apposite to me. People and guns are an explosive mixture. Keep 'em away from my National Parks, please.

[gayet]

I believe the duck hunting protester incident is stretching it a bit.
The injured party was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The injury could not have occured if she had not been in the water at 9am. 10am was earliest regulations permitted. Doesn't mean she deserved to be hit, but a little bit of personal responsibility would have gone a long way to avoiding the incident.

I do have a question over the shooter firing at a duck on the water. I have no idea of the rules etc, and in my ignorance, I assumed only birds on the wing were permissable targets? Please correct me if I am wrong.

It seems a risky option to fire, at low trajectory, with pellets, when ricochets are highly likely. Surely an informed, adequately trained hunter would take that into consideration? So a 14 yr old did not, and those supervising an under age shooter (? again I am ill informed on the age limits) also appear not to have ensured a safe environment for other hunters. Ricochets are somewhat unpredictable after all.

[gayet]

I do not disagree with you Rob. The protester has no cause for complaint as she was in the wrong.

My question is more about the shooting birds on the water, and the dangers inherent in that, specifically from shot gun pellets ricocheting off the water surface. And secondly, if a 14yr old should have had some form of supervision in the activity or not. If there is no requirement for supervision and its perfectly OK to shoot birds on the water, under licensing regs or otherwise, then my questions are answered.

Edit: What happened to Robs comment?

[maddog]

For the general topic, it would be worth pointing out that this is a study based on an intensive 1080 poisoning trial..

Occurs to me maddog that you could just suggest a google search (rather than all these selected snippets)?

G'day Nuts,

The study was conducted during an intense 1080 baiting campaign, but it was not a intensive 1080 trial. The study was based on testing the hypothesis of a 'doomed surplus'. If you had spent a little more time on reading the snippet, the papers Summary, the paper itself, or even just its title (a link was helpfully provided), you would have understood this point. You would also have comprehended that the snipped in no way misrepresented the findings of the study, though it did rather accurately encapsulate them.

The concept of a doomed-surplus is central to the case that ad-hoc recreational hunting as proposed by the Game-Council is not conservation hunting, and was a subject of discussion in a previous post:

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,

Would be better off speaking with a someone external to the matter - this guy has a vested interest.

Personally, I can't recall such a thing as a "doomed surplus" ever coming up when I studied population ecology at uni. Perhaps it's a new concept?

It was this post that motivated my own. The snippet, and the link to the study, thus was not introduced to support an underlying agenda, as the study is not partisan in nature. But it does demonstrate the application of the 'doomed surplus' hypothesis in an ecological study quite well.

Or do you think that a discussion of the validity of this hypothesis dilutes a key issue?

Cheers

[forest]

Oh, I think it's relevant because a 14 year old kid was behind the shotgun and fired it when it was clearly inappropriate (unless they mistook an idiot protester for a duck?)

Without full facts that's not really fair. The lady could have just been on the other side of some thin water reeds and not known to the hunter.
He was probably thinking with all the laws, reg's and DSE staff that it was safe (and so he should be able to), additionally I'd bet he was under his fathers direct supervision so it's not really "clearly inappropriate in this case. How is he to know some crazy is wandering around out there purposfully looking for trouble. The 10am curfew was in place, lead would fly. All knew this to be the case. But she still in breach of the cerfew ventured into the zone. Just dumb.

That adds argument though to the whole current game council model for NP hunting. Clearly the stupid protester was in complete breach of the rules and laws. However if no major restrictions are placed upon hunters in our NP's this could be an incident that easily occurs with a walker just out of sight. This incident occured due to a different nature of intent, even under full guidance from DSE. Are hunters going to be under that kind of direct supervision in our NP's. NO they won't and that's my point. As a fully "open to the public" NP no one know's who's where.
Oh maybe that's not true. I'm sure they will place a sign at the park gate stating hunting underplace. Yeh that'll fix it.......NOT.

People and guns are an explosive mixture. Keep 'em away from my National Parks, please.

That's a fine statement but what do you propose to do regarding the feral animal control issue ?
The current system just isn't working so something must be done.

I assumed only birds on the wing were permissable targets? Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm 99% sure that's correct. Not really a large part of the argument but possibly he overswung the target. Or he could have shot at a landed bird. Who knows.

Surely an informed, adequately trained hunter would take that into consideration? So a 14 yr old did not, and those supervising an under age shooter (? again I am ill informed on the age limits) also appear not to have ensured a safe environment for other hunters. Ricochets are somewhat unpredictable after all.

That's a pretty fair call but shotgun pellets don't have a huge amount of energy over range, less after ricocheting. No excuse though.

[Nuts]

maddog, how would I have known it was a 1080 campaign unless I had read Believe it or not I used then deleted/ swapped the word 'campaign' for 'trial' as for the purposes of the study the campaign was a 'trial' ( and no, it's obviously a response to a question.. while it may give some weight to the in-effectiveness of 1080 'campaigns' I'm sure we both know it is much further from being directly transferable to hunting) it demonstrates the concept of 'doomed species' - yes!

All I said in relation to this post and your link was that it may be relevant to the debate to also point out that it was based on 1080 poison baits ( in case someone mistakenly thought that it had implications for hunting)

[colinm]

Oh, I think it's relevant because a 14 year old kid was behind the shotgun and fired it when it was clearly inappropriate (unless they mistook an idiot protester for a duck?)

Without full facts that's not really fair. The lady could have just been on the other side of some thin water reeds and not known to the hunter.

Yep. If you can't see where the bullet's going, open fire. Sounds like a lot of fun, if you're on the right side of the trigger.

He was probably thinking with all the laws, reg's and DSE staff that it was safe (and so he should be able to), additionally I'd bet he was under his fathers direct supervision so it's not really "clearly inappropriate in this case. How is he to know some crazy is wandering around out there purposfully looking for trouble. The 10am curfew was in place, lead would fly. All knew this to be the case. But she still in breach of the cerfew ventured into the zone. Just dumb.

True - the moving target (aka protester) should not have been anywhere near the shooters. I certainly wouldn't go anywhere I knew 12 year olds with rifles (or 14 year olds with shotguns) were likely to be blasting away.

So I guess that means we have to close entire national parks whenever there might be shooters abroad. Sounds fair, that's what national parks are for, after all ... places for people to play with rifles.

People and guns are an explosive mixture. Keep 'em away from my National Parks, please.

That's a fine statement but what do you propose to do regarding the feral animal control issue ?
The current system just isn't working so something must be done.

I can see the sense of closing a NP to allow professional hunters to kill feral animals in industrial quantities, which is not what we're talking about here.

I can't see the sense of closing a NP to allow a handful of people in camo to get in touch with their manly side(s) and that is precisely what we're talking about here.

As mentioned, if this passes, I'm getting my R license just so I can book an entire NP for my private birthday party. WITH GUNS.

Colin.

[Rob A]

... if this passes, I'm getting my R license just so I can book an entire NP for my private birthday party. WITH GUNS.

Seems like an overkill to me. Just take your kit down to Queen Street and you can book The Mall all to yourself on the spot. Even have the event recorded, free.

[maddog]

maddog, how would I have known it was a 1080 campaign unless I had read Believe it or not I used then deleted/ swapped the word 'campaign' for 'trial' as for the purposes of the study the campaign was a 'trial' ( and no, it's obviously a response to a question.. while it may give some weight to the in-effectiveness of 1080 'campaigns' I'm sure we both know it is much further from being directly transferable to hunting) it demonstrates the concept of 'doomed species' - yes!

All I said in relation to this post and your link was that it may be relevant to the debate to also point out that it was based on 1080 poison baits ( in case someone mistakenly thought that it had implications for hunting)

Nuts,

You are correct that the culling of foxes was largely achieved with the use of 1080. This baiting program was successful in reducing fox numbers within the study areas subject to baiting, from up to 3.4km^-1 to 0.5km^-1 in in six months, to almost zero over the next twelve. But the method of culling was not important to the study as baiting, trapping, shooting, or even employing the considerable skills of Andrew Ulcles would do, so long as it achieved a comparable result. That 1080 baits were used suggests only that the researcher considered it to be an effective method of fox control.

The fact that the native bush rat population did not rebound, despite the success of the fox-culling program, is what is of interest to this debate, not your preoccupation with 1080. The researcher concluded that rats preyed upon by foxes were part of a doomed surplus, and the culling program was of no benefit to the rat population. This finding justified, amongst other things, the statement that:

…indiscriminate control of introduced predators is unlikely to produce uniform benefits for all the species they prey upon. Feral predator control should therefore be targeted for native species known to be predation limited or for species where any mortality threatens persistence.

The implications for the recreational hunting program as proposed by the Game Council are obvious.

Cheers

[Nuts]

The implications are equally obvious for the scope and long term success of any baiting program.

Personally, I feel that given the past efforts of feral control someone should just admit that the results have been and will be largely cosmetic (of course it follows that this reality would diminish preoccupation (here) with discrediting the game council). Then again, that is personal opinion, the NSW parks service and land managers could deserve unbridled faith they didn't in my experience, or that iv'e been hearing since. They would need adequate funding for these wide ranging mass poisonings, perhaps they have that also (to make action from such theory)

[ULWalkingPhil]

Talking about fox baiting? Let me tell you what fox baiting has done for us.

Fox baiting has been very successful here. Foxes where eating majority of the sea turtles eggs along our coastline in particular the critically endangered Loggerhead Turtles that man have almost eliminated from this world. We could not let this continue, so something had to be done.

Human race have done some stupid things in the past, and it looks like they never learn. Luckily we have saved the number of nesting sea turtles along our coast for now, cant say the same for other rookeries around the world. What the future holds for our sea turtles I don't know, but at least along our coastline its looking more promising apart from, Development. Development is a huge concern for the future well being for these wonderful creatures of the sea.

We need our national parks protected. I don't think having your average Joe blo waving a gun around is a good idea. I know a lot of you hunters out there are responsible and do the right thing, but there are many out there that are not, we need to keep them out of our national parks with guns, otherwise there is a very high risk, innocent people get shot for doing something in a so called protected area.

But, yes fox baiting is very successful if done correctly. Ive seen first hand the impact this has placed on our wildlife for the better.

[maddog]

The implications are equally obvious for the scope and long term success of any baiting program.

I couldn’t agree with you more Nuts.

In the paper previously referred to, if the aim of the fox-baiting program had been to benefit the native bush rat population, it would have been a failure. On the other hand, if the fox-control program had been to benefit the rabbit population, it would have been a great success (their numbers grew over the 18 month period by at least 650%):

http://www.southwestnrm.org.au/sites/de ... ontrol.pdf

But this does not necessarily negate the efficacy of baiting (or other) programs, it just reinforces that legitimate pest control requires a pre-defined aim, that existing scientific evidence be studied, unintended consequence be considered, that the animal welfare ethics are justifiable, and that results be measured against pre-defined goals.

As the Game-Council’s recreational hunting program fails to meet such criteria, we may safely conclude that legitimate pest control is not a sport.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Ha, well you have me there Phil! I imagine predation on those few mainland hatcheries is a perfect fit for a baiting program ( I don't like the baiting option, but no, i'm not preoccupied with this dislike) At the same time I'd imagine it would also not be the most difficult instance to control by other methods but no doubt Mr Limpus has considered the options, the guy is a legend in the turtle world

Some would consider economics, politics, the trade offs that inevitably occur with conservation. Passion is fine too Phil, as good a reason as any. Local success on a small scale aside the debate gets complex, people have the passion to stand in the field of fire, I guess they have their reasons. But I do like local examples, perhaps someone familiar with definite local baiting successes in NSW could add something. At least it narrows that side of the scope of the topic to measurable outcomes?

Foxes really are an amazing animal, I like them. They are not by nature similar to any other feral pest that iv'e encountered, feral cat perhaps (just as nimble, iv'e seen one cross a barbed fence wire from one post to another, adaptable, robust) but they are an even more deserving predator. For those in Tassie who have never met one imagine something close in nature to a quoll. The have a wild 'edge' iv'e not seen in other domesticated feral or native animals. Unlike quolls, even if reared from cubs they are never really close to 'tame'. You can always see 'thought' (at some level), not so much fear as the cunning they are famous for, left without close attention they quickly revert to almost completely wild state and very quickly. There is no trust, quite advanced in the animal kingdom.

You don't realistically 'hunt' foxes, (unless talking about horses n hounds), the way to 'shoot' them in any numbers is under spotlight. I saw the effect on population as the pelt price topped out in the eighties. Local 'shooters' would drive further distances. Iv'e seen ute loads brought in from public roads and parks through Kosciusko and down into Victoria but everyone knew that the parks weren't the best hunting. The biggest numbers are in rural areas especially on fringing farm land with the sanctuary of a reserve..

Did foxes figure amongst the numbers from state forest hunts? I'd be surprised! There is certainly no way I'd bother with an R licence just for them. A careful 'hunter' may get a sighting early morning, about the only blemish in their evolution is a habit of sometimes themselves being preoccupied with prey (just as likely crickets, bugs, carrion) it would be very rare just to happen across one while your moving, a flash or glimpse. They will (even more rarely) come to a whistle, if they do, and you have seen (or smelt) one before they do you then it might be a quick look before they're gone. The only time iv'e managed to whistle one (without a sighting) during the day, it all happened so fast and we were both so surprised that it was gone before I moved. If they glimpse back at all it would normally be from a long way.

Hunting foxes on foot in daylight just makes no sense at all. Unless subject to a bounty what reason would there be to even bother (under any form of recreational permit)? What iv'e seen (assuming that we are civil enough despite the references to imagine the word 'hunters' is not interchangeable with 'criminals') would lead to a conclusion that fox hunting (in practice) could almost be null to the recreational hunting debate. I'd almost offer that bounty myself lol

I suspect that it's deer, something that iv'e never hunted, that would draw people very far into parks. Iv'e hunted other feral species in NSW (aside from foxes), some are so predicable that there would be no real need for the hunting area to not be closely defined and restricted. Good luck chasing pigs on foot and goats can be like fish in a bowl. Rabbits are probably already best served by their own exclusive brush with science. If deer are the real motivation for park access and are in numbers where parks become a haven for them, why shouldn't they be subject to a significant fee (beyond the trophies) to fund other conservation operations? Perhaps even a requirement to employ a guide

PS. I'm no longer a hunter Phil

[ULWalkingPhil]

I agree foxes are beautiful. Its a shame we had to do what we had to do, but the lively hood of our nesting sea turtles along our coast was more important and there major threat had to be removed. During our record breaking floods late January, I witnessed a fox swimming across the swollen Burnet River in waters that looked like rapids. A apx 8 years ago I helped patrol our nesting beaches and documented the destruction along our coast to our nesting turtles and Foxes was a very big threat at the time.

Nuts, I to used to be a hunter.

Mr Limpis, his a legend and certainly knows a few things about turtles, I work with Col Limpis for 3 months per year with his Turtle Research team for the past 13 years as a volunteer Turtle Researcher.

[Tony]

In 1994-99 on (100km sq) Phillip Island in Victoria there was a Fox control program which involved intense spotlight shooting and day hunts with foxhounds, 50% of the fox population was taken each year, the scientific evaluation concluded, Evaluation of the 2002/2003 Victorian Fox Bounty Trial

Phillip Island has ideal conditions for the application of conventional control largely through either spotlight or day shooting techniques. A closed population of foxes subjected to intensive control using conventional methods has not declined and each year fox reproduction easily replaces the number of animals killed. If an annual reduction in fox numbers cannot be achieved on a small (100 km2) closed island population through coordinated shooting by skilled and motivated persons, it is unrealistic to expect that this can be done in an open population in a much greater area (section 4.3).

In 2006-2011 there was another fox control program, this time the focus was on Island wide 1080 poisoning which was supported with other techniques including: spotlight shooting, trapping, den fumigation and destruction, and hunting with dogs. The fox population was reduced from 150–200 individuals in the early 2000s to 20–30 individuals in 2011.

CASE STUDY: Foxes on Phillip Island

Tony