Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[FatCanyoner]

Here's an unpixelated photo of the two illegal hunters. If anyone can ID them, please contact the local police and NPWS immediately!

[Nuts]

They might be hunting Hmong?
Really... silly idea these recreational permits but there seems to be few scruples in including almost any criminal with a gun. I assume you guys aren't swallowing that people with guns in parks has anything to do with licenced hunting... being a tad cheeky perhaps? Might as well relate someone lighting a fire to licenced hunting. No, not taking sides (unless 'keeping it real' is a side?)

[jonnosan]

I am genuinely unsure as to what the impact of regulated hunting will be on the frequency of illegal hunting.

On the one hand, there is an argument that by allowing a legal avenue for hunting, that will reduce the incentive to hunt illegally (which would imply that the 'demand' for hunting is relatively fixed).

On the other hand, there is an argument that by legally sanctioning some hunting, that is weakening the current social taboo that stops people from hunting illegally, Further, by creating a legal industry based on hunting, that will increase the number of people who have the equipment and desire to go hunting, and therefor both legal and illegal hunting would increase.

My 'gut instinct' is the latter situation is more likely to be true, but would be very interested to know of any relevant research on the matter.

[Tony]

Shooters in parks, no basis in science well worth a listen, dispels a lot of myths recreational hunters want us to believe.

Tony

[Pteropus]

News: Hunting to be suspended in NSW State Forests due to Game Council review. But hunting will still be introoduced to NPs in October -> http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/game-council-to ... 2pdte.html

[wildwalks]

This is a massive win

Just to be clear hunting in NSW NP will now be under very strict conditions. All will be supervised by NPWS staff and under the Parks Firearms manual. IE no kids, following a pest management strategy etc. IE business as usual and they can use volunteer shooters as long as they comply to all the same requirements as professional shooters.
Although not a perfect outcome this is massive.
In the mean time we need to be careful hunters have in the short term lost access to State Forest -- and longer term may be restricted there. They will not just sit back and take this.

Those interested in the Dunn review of the Game Council -- No wonder the government closed them.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/470452/governance_review_game_council_nsw_independent_consulting.pdf

Matt

[FatCanyoner]

Spot on Matt. It is definitely a great win.

I highly recommend people at least skim the executive summary of the Dunn Report. It is absolutely scathing not only about the Game Council, but the politics that allowed it to grow over a decade. Make no mistake, the people allegedly governing / regulating hunting were effectively a taxpayer-funded Shooters Party lobby group. The disbanding of the Game Council is a huge wind. The suspension of hunting in State Forests is also massive. There will be a strong push by staff there to get the same regulatory framework there as for National Parks. Best of all, hunters will need to be supervised by NPWS staff. There will be no rogues wandering around. They will have to operate in a tightly regulated way in just 12 parks.

All this means that means if you see anyone hunting on any public land in NSW (National Park or State Forest) they are there illegally, and should be reported. Even after October, unless the park is closed, sign posed as having hunting occurred, and has NPWS staff there, they are hunting illegally.

I would point out that the Shooters Party will be spewing about this, and won't take it lying down. We need to be vigilant that hunting isn't expanded in 12 months time. We also have to expect a serious backlash from them. They are very vindictive and will be looking at other ways to attack groups they see as "greenies". They have a genuine hatred of the National Parks model and will support anything they thing undermines it.

[maddog]

Excellent news.

If shooting is strictly supervised and controlled by National Parks staff, parks are closed to the public when recreational hunters are active, the State Forest model is abandoned, children are not involved, professional standards are required of participants, hunting does not occur during peak use periods, and the Game Council is abolished, most (if not all) of my objections to recreational hunters in NSW National Parks disappear.

I think I shall enjoy reading thru Dunn's report.

Well done to Wildwalks, Tony, NPA (and others)

Cheers

[Lindsay]

Great news However as noted the hunting lobby will not give up easily.

[maddog]

While its early days yet, the Shooters and Fishers Party must be starting to feel like political orphans. The hunting scheme is now starting to look quite reasonable. As reported by the Sporting Shooter:

It also appears to have led to the development of a program much more restrictive than was anticipated by the S&F and hunters generally.

Rather than operating independently at times of their choosing, hunters can only participate when the National Parks and Wildlife Service “calls upon the services of licensed and experienced volunteers to assist them in carrying out pest animal control,” Ms Parker said.

Initially, the program will be tested in 12 parks, and if it proves successful it will be rolled out in another 75, fulfilling the government’s commitment made when the legislation first passed.

There is no guarantee that this will happen, though.

“There will be a review and report back to Cabinet before any further roll-out of the program,” Ms Parker said.

There will be two hunting methods employed, according to whether the operation is occurring in areas zoned either A or B.

In Zone A, “volunteers will be part of the NPWS team and working shoulder to shoulder with experienced NPWS staff,” Ms Parker said.

In Zone B, she said, “experienced and trained volunteers are supervised by NPWS staff. This will include induction and daily safety briefings. Detailed reporting, data collection and debriefing requirements will also apply. Site specific shooting plans with detailed maps will direct operations, with these being approved by NPWS regional managers consistent with regional pest strategies.”

Similar programs have been used in Victoria and South Australia, often with good results against feral animals.

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... test-rules
http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... me-council
http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... -bastardry

[wildwalks]

good summery Mad dog
We are still working on ensure that this will be followed and seeing how the legislation allowing ad-hoc hunting can be repealed -- but here is another summery -- it is very long sorry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The objective of our campaign was to ensure there would be no recreational hunting in NSW National Parks - and the announcement by the O’Farrell government is win.

This is a very long post - sorry but please try to stick with me

So lets look at what is not happening then I will explain the new policy.
In NSW national parks there will be;
* no ad-hoc or solo hunting.
* No children will be allowed to hunt
* No use of bow and arrow
* No use of black powder guns
* No shooting in parks open to the public.

So what will happen now?
* 12 park park trail from October (down from the 79)
(the full list of 12 parks is yet to be finalised - it will be a cross section of the 79)
* All parks closed during shooting programs (as are now)
* NPWS will be in total control of the program.
* Any shooting programs will be based on the needs of the parks (not dictated by hunters desires)
* All volunteer shooters need to go through the same training and reach the same standards as NPWS shooters do now.
* The same protocols used now by NPWS will apply to the volunteers

There will be two Zones with slightly different protocols will apply. Parks can either be just Zone A or B -- or can be a mix of both depending on an assessment (yet to be completed).

Zone A: Volunteers will be part of the NPWS team and working shoulder to shoulder
with experienced NPWS staff.

Zone B: Experienced and trained volunteers are supervised by NPWS staff. This will
include induction and daily safety briefings. Detailed reporting, data collection and
debriefing requirements will also apply. Site specific shooting plans with detailed maps
will direct operations, with these being approved by NPWS regional managers
consistent with regional pest strategies.

So what does this mean for park visitors?
Well no notable change - hopefully less feral animals.
Since the program will be following the same systems that NPWS use now, but including volunteers there will be no notable change to visitors. No volunteer shooting programs will take place during school holidays.

So what does this mean for hunters?
It means that people with R-licences can receive training from NPWS staff and work closely with them on true feral animal control programs. This will ensure public and staff safety as well as higher standards for each volunteer.

What does this mean for our National Parks?
The only downside I can see that the moment is the cost of implementation and if their will be drain of resources. But this will be part of the trial - if the program proves to be a cost effective way of reducing the impact of feral animals then it makes sense to use it. Only time and careful study will tell. The best bit is that this policy is now driven by science and not political whims.

So now what?
Lets see. We want to see how the Shooters and Fishers party react as to the changes. We want to see how the program will be trialed and peer reviewed. We want to see if if the reallocation of money and time will have a negative impact on other environmental program. But with this huge turnaround from the Government I hold great hope that this will play out well.

The Game Council
As a side effect of this campaign the Game Council was closed yesterday and all hunting on public land has been suspended. The Game Council role will now be managed by the DPI and a safety and other audits conducted before hunting in State Forests can continue.

[Lindsay]

Excellent summary Matt. Seems like a good result all round. We will now see if the sporting shooters are really interested in feral animal reduction or not. If they are they will sign up to the NPWS scheme, but if all they wanted was to be allowed free reign to hunt as they please they will begin to lobby against the decision.

[jonnosan]

I found this http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/ne ... -bastardry interesting, to understand the hunters perspective on this.

Don’t get me wrong, I reckon those programs are great and I want to get involved, too. But it’s not hunting in its purest sense, it’s not being alone in the bush to do your own thing, it’s not recreational hunting.

While I personally have no interest in killing animals (and yes, I am a hypocrite as I will happily eat animals other people killed for me) that comment about 'being alone in the bush to do your own thing' did resonate with me a bit.

But anyway- boohoo rednecks, sucks to be you.

[Nuts]

A commissioned report finding that 'hunting may be dangerous', another to recommend that someone hold their hands. A 'trial' i'm sure will be made as ineffective as possible... This is just funny NSW..

[wearthefoxhat]

Excellent summary Matt. Seems like a good result all round. We will now see if the sporting shooters are really interested in feral animal reduction or not. If they are they will sign up to the NPWS scheme, but if all they wanted was to be allowed free reign to hunt as they please they will begin to lobby against the decision.

Hi Lindsay,

They will do both. Recreation hunters have been active in these events previous I don't see why that will change but they will still push for hunting in NP's.

After the initial shock of the events in the past few days and much discussion with fellow hunters I am now enthusiastic about the transition of the Game Council to the DPI. Using the successful example DPI run hunting in Victoria will be an advantage to the pro hunting group NSW... DPI have successfully overseen hunting on Crown land and National parks in Victoria with no or insignificant incidence. I think the situation may just get a whole lot better for NSW hunters as we also have a perfect record for hunting public land.
The glass is now half full.

[wearthefoxhat]

Great news However as noted the hunting lobby will not give up easily.

You are right. What this event has done it seems is encouraged many "she will be right" people to get involved with many calls to sign up to the Hunters and Fishers party. Their membership would have taken a spike yesterday by reports I am getting...

Also of interest in the Dunn report was a comment that conservation hunting under the GC was a success. It was there compliance that let them down.

Food for thought, have a good day..

[maddog]

I agree Foxhat.

The DPI are the appropriate body to be running pest control programs on public land other than National Parks. The DPI are experienced land managers, and have some credibility in the management of pest species, unlike the GC. While ideologically DPI employees are quite comfortable with shooting, the influence of S&F to manipulate policy will be limited. For example, in relation to feral deer, the DPI will manage these from the perspective of agriculture. In some cases the push will be total elimination, rather than population maintenance for the purposes of sport, as part of a campaign to control cattle ticks.

The supplementary pest control program within National Parks, managed and controlled by the NSW NPWS, also looks like it has been well designed, with input from key stakeholders.

In regards to the S&F, their overreach has damaged their cause. They find themselves political orphans and the party is over.

Cheers.

[wearthefoxhat]

I don't know of any mob of deer that has been irradicated by the DPI. If the DPI has been active in the eradication of feral and game animals then they have been about as effective as NPs which is bordering on dismal.
If the DPI adopt the Victorian example which in time I expect they will there will be less control over hunting than the system that was in place under the Game Council. No booking of forests and filling out harvest forms etc and no limit of hunters in any one forest.
Interesting times ahead!

[photohiker]

If the DPI adopt the Victorian example which in time I expect they will there will be less control over hunting than the system that was in place under the Game Council.

So the DPI will allow children who have never fired a gun to hunt too?

[wearthefoxhat]

If the DPI adopt the Victorian example which in time I expect they will there will be less control over hunting than the system that was in place under the Game Council.

So the DPI will allow children who have never fired a gun to hunt too?

This was an interesting play on words that the anti hunting lobby used to pull emotional strings of the naïve. I am sure it probably worked on some city folk that have no idea.
12 years of age was the minimum age you could hunt under the Game Council scheme.
These "children" as you quote had to be licenced and under supervision of a licenced adult. The reality of a child hunting without ever firing a shot in practice was nil IMO.
A little different than the scenario painted by the greens/antis which portrayed groups of young children wandering National parks shooting anything that moves...Just as they lied about licenced hunters will be shooting native animals in NP's..But then that's what we expect from them , the problem is some people get sucked into the lies and run with it.

The minimum age to hunt under the DPI in NP's will be 18. So far I can't see under 18s being able to hunt public land under the supervision of a licenced adult. This will isolate parents who want to take a kid hunting to private land. Unfortunately there where families who used the State forests who will miss out. On saying that the State forest hunting is now in the process of being handed over so we will know all the rules in 3 months or so.

Just some food for thought... R licenced hunters have been stood down from hunting State forests for 3 months while the transition to the DPI is completed. In that 3 months a fox would have killed up to 6 native birds and eaten many marsupials and other natives plus possibly conceived in that time, same for feral cats and dogs.A sow could have given birth to 6 piglets while other sows conceived also causing havoc on our native flora and fauna. Also in this 3 month period Rusa deer will come into season and be mated. We will never be able to quantify the positive effect this down time will have on ferals and game animals population but they are sure getting a leg up going into next year...

Tonight I will be cooking a whole chargrilled marinated fallow doe rump with a few baby potatoes and some greens. Who wants to come for dinner?

[wearthefoxhat]

I agree Foxhat.

The DPI are the appropriate body to be running pest control programs on public land other than National Parks. The DPI are experienced land managers, and have some credibility in the management of pest species, unlike the GC. While ideologically DPI employees are quite comfortable with shooting, the influence of S&F to manipulate policy will be limited. For example, in relation to feral deer, the DPI will manage these from the perspective of agriculture. In some cases the push will be total elimination, rather than population maintenance for the purposes of sport, as part of a campaign to control cattle ticks.

The supplementary pest control program within National Parks, managed and controlled by the NSW NPWS, also looks like it has been well designed, with input from key stakeholders.

In regards to the S&F, their overreach has damaged their cause. They find themselves political orphans and the party is over.

Cheers.

The Dunn report acknowledges the positive contribution the GC has had on pest control!
Lets not forget the 100% safety record. While the Dunn report was scathing towards their governance and compliance the practical application of the model was commended by the Dunn report.
This fact has gone unnoticed by the media probably because it is not much of a headline and won't sell papers.

The government bureaucratic red tape and the fact that the GC were for the most part not bureaucrats was there undoing also their budget wasn't large enough to accommodate all the red tape requirements..
I seriously wonder how much of this bureaucratic bs is necessary and what does it cost the country especially the NSW people.

[maddog]

If the DPI adopt the Victorian example which in time I expect they will there will be less control over hunting than the system that was in place under the Game Council. No booking of forests and filling out harvest forms etc and no limit of hunters in any one forest.
Interesting times ahead!

Foxhat,

At what point do you think that the average recreational shooter will loose faith and question the direction of the S&F party?

According to the SMH:

Hunting in state forests is likely to be permanently curtailed under a government shake-up.

New rules will be imposed that are likely to restrict volunteer shooters to participating in supervised culls of feral animals, with tougher training requirements.

The NSW Forestry Corporation is contacting 600 hunters with permits allowing them to shoot independently in 400 state forests, to advise them hunting has been suspended until a risk assessment is done.

A spokeswoman for Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson said this would be modelled on the process that resulted last week in the imposition of strict controls on a trial basis for shooting in national parks.

Under the national park rules, amateur hunters would need training equivalent to that of a parks officer, and would either work shoulder-to-shoulder with parks officers or be supervised in culling operations.

While the details for state forests were yet to be worked out, the government wanted a ''tenure-neutral'' approach to pest control, with one set of rules across national parks, state forests, Crown land and private property.

Interesting times indeed.

Cheers
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-forest- ... z2YIYmfR00

[wearthefoxhat]

It looks like the ability to hunt SFs is pretty well gone.
This is looking more and more like a political screw over. Obviously the proven track record of the previous years under the game council has no relevance in the bureaucratic maze and ego joust unfortunately.

"At what point do you think that the average recreational shooter will loose faith and question the direction of the S&F party?"

On the contrary action groups are organising now and reinforce the S&F party. I will be canvasing all our club members today and they are *&%$#! angry...As I said previously membership to S&F looks to be spiking.
I am not sure why we would question the direction of the S&F party.

On the upside for hunters who hunt private property adjacent to SF's and NP's is feral and game populations are now going to explode. The environment is what suffers the most. These parks have the capacity to hold many times more game and pest species than they currently do so logic would say they will increase dramatically with no check.

SF's do no eradication in the areas I hunt, it was left to R licence hunters. SF's don't have the money or the inclination to properly execute a pest eradication programme state wide. We can already foresee an explosion in pig and deer numbers in some areas but also dispersal into less populated areas looking for food and territory..

As Tim Flannery said Australia NP's has a dismal record for keeping pests and weeds under control. After today it just got a whole lot worse. Its a sad day for Australian flora and Fauna.

That's it from me for a while. I will now rally the troops and fight the draconian NSW bureaucrats..

All the best.

PS on an interesting note I notice the Dunn report gave no credibility to the "Invasive species council" submission...was it any wonder

[photohiker]

If the DPI adopt the Victorian example which in time I expect they will there will be less control over hunting than the system that was in place under the Game Council.

So the DPI will allow children who have never fired a gun to hunt too?

12 years of age was the minimum age you could hunt under the Game Council scheme.

...

The minimum age to hunt under the DPI in NP's will be 18.

Well, that sounds like MORE control to me, not LESS. Even your own IMO suggests that the likelihood of young unsupervised inexperienced shooters is less under the DPI.

[maddog]

Foxhat,

The average hunter may question the direction of the S&F party as they appear to have made some fundamental miscalculations. It is these that are responsible for the position the shooters find themselves. Foremost amongst the miscalculations was the decision to alienate key stakeholders with an extreme position in relation to ad hoc recreational hunting within National Parks. The rhetoric was paranoid, their science flawed, and the personal attacks on dissenters ugly.

If the shooters had been more measured in their demands and been prepared to listen to and compromise with the key stakeholders they would enjoyed greater support. As things stand, the result within National Parks is reasonable, and within State Forests and other public lands of their own making. In regards to the latter, it is the extremists leading the Shooters Party that the average hunter can thank. For the future I would suggest building bridges, rather than burning them. It was not just 'extreme greens' who objected:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/damning-r ... 2pigo.html

Also reconsider the material of the ISC. Understanding basic population ecology is important if recreational shooters are to play a positive role in a supplementary pest control program, as part of a greater integrated pest management strategy. It is after all, within an integrated strategy that any supplementary program must fit. Ad hoc just doesn't work.

Cheers

[Tony]

Foxhat wrote

On the upside for hunters who hunt private property adjacent to SF's and NP's is feral and game populations are now going to explode.

Foxhat, I suggest you have a listen to this radio interview Shooters in parks, no basis in science clearly dispels the myths like yours above that recreational hunters try and portray.

Tony

[wearthefoxhat]

The average hunters that I know certainly aren't questioning the S&Fs. They are questioning O'Farrell

"The rhetoric was paranoid, their science flawed, and the personal attacks on dissenters ugly."

Hmmm For a second I thought you were talking about NP's and the Greens..

Can you give me an example of this please? What science was flawed?

"Also reconsider the material of the ISC."

Yes interesting theories this crew.. eg "shoot a ferals and 5 more will take its place"
or the real cracker "the doomed surplus theory" very flawed theories bordering on the ridiculous.

Perhaps someone should do an investigation on the accusations that this group has connections to 1080 manufacturing.
I contacted them and asked for an overview of their specific accomplishments in their apparent field of expertise. There was no reply.
Sure I understand they do submissions but we can all do that. They claimed that the GC had no effect on the contribution to control yet the Dunn report disagreed... I am not sure anyone takes these guys seriously and for good reason.

Recreational hunting does work as recognised by the Dunn report. It has never claimed to be the sole solution to the problem but complimentary.

[wearthefoxhat]

Foxhat wrote

On the upside for hunters who hunt private property adjacent to SF's and NP's is feral and game populations are now going to explode.

Foxhat, I suggest you have a listen to this radio interview Shooters in parks, no basis in science clearly dispels the myths like yours above that recreational hunters try and portray.

Tony

Sorry Tony it does not.

I have spent enough time around academics, Doctors and Professors to know that some get it right and some don't.

The doomed surplus theory is flawed and he all but admitted that when agreeing that a farmer will have to shoot a fox if it killing his lambs. The doomed surplus theory says that if the farmer shoots the fox 5 more foxes will take its place.
See how ridiculous this is. I suggest that if the farmer doesn't shoot that fox he will certainly get 5 new foxes turn up and the next year he will get 25..then 125...until such time that the land can't carry any more foxes.

What this fella neglects to tell you is the "doomed surplus theory" is only relevant when the land is at maximum carrying capacity which we know is not the case in Australia. If it was it would be a wasteland.
Because he neglected to give the whole picture encourages me to think he is just anti hunting full stop.

He also suggests that if a farmer kills a feral animal that it will take a toll on him emotionally.. I know many farmers and if this was the case they would all be in institutions by now lol. This UTS fella needs to spend some time on a farm and see the damage a wild dog will do by ripping the *&%$#! out of a calf and leaving it for dead then tell the farmer its a waste of time shooting the dog...

Seriously I don't believe people fall for this rubbish . No offence intended...

[Nuts]

I don't think the 'doomed' surplus/ carrying capacity theory translates to indicators for recreational hunting either. At the same time, neither do discussions about farmers and their situation on lands fringing national parks (lands where the bulk of feral species hang out).

I'm curious about recreational hunting as it will happen, i don't know much about deer and gather that overall they are the desired target, the stuff of dreams, at the heart of wanting to hunt deep into park lands?

So.. these 'recreational' hunters chase deer as a trophy target which apparently, traditionally, results in very few suitable animals actually being found in any given season?

Surely, as a serious hunter, taking pot shots at any feral that moves (the best approach for any chance at 'feral management') wouldn't be the desired approach to getting that target would it? So who are these 'hunters'? will they be expected just to want to kill pretty much anything, even more rarely the target animal they would rather shoot? This will be the cornerstone of hunters being 'useful' long term..

Just trying to picture the types of people who would do this, jump through hoops, do it year in/out- the sincerity of their desire to play a role in feral management, how this will work for deer stalkers... or is it conservationists applying for R licences?.. or whether 'conservation hunting' is a ruse... will it attract the most bloodthirsty...? or do the 'hunting' lobby offer just a crock of bs as well?

[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...

I am hoping the above explains why I hunt..