deer control

[maddog]

G’day Sambar,

On the impact of aerial culling vs recreational hunters you may find the following interesting:

‘The relative ineffectiveness of recreational hunting for population control is demonstrated in the contrasting results of two efforts to reduce deer numbers at the 9,000 ha Gum Lagoon Conservation Park in South Australia. A 2002 trial using 65 recreational hunters in a directed hunt over four days resulted in 44 deer (18 female) shot (Anon 2004; Peacock pers. Comm.). The numbers shot were estimated to have been the equivalent of the annual population increase for Fallow Deer and one-third of the annual increase for Red Deer. In contrast, a four hour helicopter cull in the same area in 2007 using one shooter resulted in 182 deer shot, estimated to be more than 90% of the population (Peacock, pers. Comm.).’

Note - this is not an isolated example, you may also like:

800 deer destroyed in 10-day blitz - MARKSMEN shooting from a helicopter have destroyed more than 800 feral deer in the state's South-East this year.

Other than disparity in the numbers culled, it is also worthy or note that out of the 44 deer culled by the recreationalists, only 18 were female. Perhaps you would like to comment on the preference of recreational hunters for targeting stag ‘trophy’ specimens on the reproductive potential of the species?

Helicopters are widely used for purposes such as pest culling, vegetation monitoring, stock mustering, aerial patrols, shark monitoring (NSW beaches), combating bushfires, etc. The cost is certainly not prohibitive, particularly considering the results.

Where helicopters are not feasible ground shooting is indeed a useful option. From the ground it is considered that shooting from vehicles with spotlights at night is the most effective control method (Sharp & Saunders, 2004). But such techniques are prohibited (at this point in time), with deer protected as ‘game’ animals. There really is no doubt as to the true nature of the problem – a simple classification. Introduced to benefit recreational hunters over the interests of conservation and agriculture it is increasingly obvious the experiment has been a failed one. It will be changed as costs mount up.

As for the dream that more and more land will be opened up to deer hunters you really are on the wrong side of history I'm afraid. The populations of both NSW and Victoria are growing, with more and more people enjoying our public estate. In a country that lacks a gun culture, where gun enthusiasts are (increasingly) viewed with distrust and tight gun control enjoys bipartisan support, it is inevitable that unsupervised hunting on public land is increasingly restricted in the interest of public safety. As for open slather, a policy that results in the de-facto exclusion of other users, forget it.

You are aware of what has happened when we had this debate in NSW aren’t you?

Cheers,

Maddog.

[Mwill301]

Hi Wayno, its a good debate to have and as a deer hunter myself in Aus who goes over to New Zealand as often as possible to enjoy the great outdoors and hunting opportunities that abound in you're country I thought I'd say my two cents worth on the topic.

Quite often I get asked by people why I don't just shoot every deer or tahr or chamois etc etc I see. Really it boils down to two reasons...

1) I'm not going to shoot 10 deer up a valley in the alps when I plan to recover as much meat as possible all on foot. It is just wrong on my moral compass to shoot say 5, 10 or 20 animals and just leave them there to rot. I doubt members of the public like coming across a half rotten corpse either whilst out bush.

2) Many hunters are interested in conservation. The preservation of the bush and it been in a healthy state is number one in my books. However this can occur with deer and other game animals still been present in the bush. I will be first to admit when deer/tahr etc etc build up numbers to excessive levels as were once common in NZ in the 60's that environment is affected in a negative way. On a recent trip to Stewart island I spent 10 days bush with my old man and saw little sign and only one deer. Now maybe I was just been a bad hunter but deer numbers in the area are generally seen to be stable whether you talk to other hunters, DOC workers or locals at Oban. Currently recreational hunting is the only form of deer control undertaken on the island. Heading up the Ahuriri valley dad & I saw 7 deer in 6 days and shot 1 each. That's not plague proportions in my books and seems like they are in low/moderate numbers, which is causing minimal damage to the environment. At the end of the day I'm not trying to eradicate them (its unrealistic and still didn't work even when hammer by aerial shooting and 1080 for decades by the NZFS back in the day & now DOC). I and most other hunters I talk to just want game numbers at a low enough level that there are animals to hunt but so they are causing minimal damage to the environment.

Here are a few links of conservation work hunters are doing in NZ for wildlife in general, all for native birds (which are protected so they are not doing it only because they want more "stuff to shoot" as some antis claim).
http://www.southlanddeerstalkers.org.nz ... s_2013.pdf
http://www.southlanddeerstalkers.org.nz ... e_2013.pdf
http://www.newshub.co.nz/environmentsci ... z3ysBt1HGl

And for me hunting is much more than just shooting things. I saw yellow eyed penguins and a leopard seal at Stewart island. I saw a NZ falcon, some rock wrens and kereru at the Ahuriri plus many more common birds like tui's. These memories will stick me for life. I deeply enjoy been bush (especially in NZ) and enjoy bird watching and learning about the local geology, climate and flora of areas I hunt in (no different to you or other bushwalkers on this site I'd assume). To me there is such a "us & them" attitude -especially over here in Aus - between hunters and other recreational users of public land. At the end of the day I want a healthy bush with some game to hunt but not in numbers high enough to cause unacceptable levels of damage. Hope this helps to break down the stigma that all hunters are gun toten rednecks who just want to swig beer & shoot stuff and couldn't give a rats *&%$#! about anything else.

Last edited by Mwill301 on Mon 01 Feb, 2016 1:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[sambar358]

Hey Maddog.....good to see that you're doing some research on all this. Obviously I won't change your approach to hunting on public land or what should be done about the deer issue so we'll probably just need to agree to disagree on this in general. But particiapting in a passionate debate is fine and hopefully what we offer in this thread will provide some food for thought for those that read it.

Yep....I'm well-aware of the couple of helicopter cull exercises that you quoted and the killing of 800 or so mostly fallow and a few reds in the SA one was a pretty good outcome. But the SE SA location was one that suited aerial culling ideally.....a big mostly flat isolated patch of bush with a high population of deer.....and a "herding deer" as well as the reds & fallow are......so found in mobs that tend to keep together and run in lines.....ideal targets for a skilled helicopter marksman. I'd be interested to see how they'd go in steep mountainous sambar country where the deer are encountered mostly singularly and the country thick, heavily timbered and very hazardous to fly in. I'm sure that trialling helicopter culling on sambar deer has been discussed by Parks but as yet it hasn't been tried....might be suitable in some of the more open alpine locations but as Parks seems to favour full carcass recovery to avoid stinking-up the Park and feeding the wild dogs I suspect it won't be a viable option for them as a regular part of the process.

All these sorts of one-offs look good on paper......800 deer is a signiicant number to take out of ONE area....but what about all the 10's of 1000's of other deer in the SE of SA.....apply that quoted exercise across-the-board over the longer term and expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.......likely not ! And much the same applies to the odd helicopter cull on the deer in NSW.....they get a few and pump the whole process up....but does it make any difference to the big picture.....hardly ? Did they go back and do these areas over again after the culls to get the left-overs (you never get them all) or were these left to breed-up to provide more targets for future one-offs. What should happen after these bomb-ups is futher efforts to get the numbers right down.....more helicopter culling or follow-up ground shooting over an extended period......hammer them hard then do the follow-ups which may be less productive but that gets the numbers right down and prevents them from springing back in a year or two's time.

Culling ? Real culling is shooting every animal encountered regarless of age, sex or location.....leaving it where it falls and then go get some more. Parks Vic seem to have failed to grasp this simple concept in their Bogong Unit sambar cull and the poor results reflect this.....too much red tape, too many OH&S rules, full carcass recovery requirement means few deer shot and hunting only takes place where they can get the carcass out whole. All this results in lots of man-hours and cost invested by both Parks and the participating hunters for very little end-result which likely will put the project in jeopardy for coming years. Simply.....too much effort and cost for little result....meaning dead sambar. The NZ deer cullers of the '60's and '70's were given very simple instructions and it worked.......simply shoot every one you come across and leave them where they fall, then go shoot some more ! Individual tallies of competent cullers were commonly over 100 animals....per day ! And they did that day after day after day for decades......and they had free reign over most of the public land in New Zealand to do so. Then when that was over then came the choppers......and they hammered the deer everywhere for decades and 100 a day tallies were the norm for the choppers a welll......but the deer are still there and in good numbers virtually everywhere.

MD....I aslo agree with your view of hunters/hunting and firearm ownership in general in this country....we are all regarded as second class citizens by the masses, we are all potential mass murderers and we are not to be trusted with our lethal weapons whether that be in suburbia or on public land. That's why I enyoy going back to New Zealand and even the western states of the US and Canada.....there the attitude to hunters and hunting is more realistic and welcoming......not like the confrontational additude of many in AU to hunters and their recreation. But I've grown up coping with that and will continue to do so and I doubt if attitudes to this will change for the better anytime soon.

I don't intend to engage you in a debate about gun control apart from this......no amount of regulation of legal & law abiding firearms owners will ever prevent terrorist acts, gun-related crime or murder by firearm as history has show virtually all the perps of these events are unlicenced and do their deeds with unregistered and illegally obtained firearms. But we as firearms owners and hunters are always easy targets for the media and the antis I guess.....banning citizens from hunting and owning firearms will not solve gun-related crime.......and I'm sure you know that. To me....."gun control is a steady hand !"

And finally yes.....I agree with you that it would be doubtful if our state governments openened-up more of the public estate to hunting to address the deer build-up issue but I seriously doubt whether they'd committ to your suggestion of "supervised hunting" for pest animals across-the-board either. A few small trials here and there maybe which again are simply feel-good exercises but wide-reaching efforts that could possibly make a real difference....I think not. Quite frankly the Vic and NSW state governments really don't have a clue in regards to what's really out there, where they are and how many of them there are. Our governments are very-much cost-driven......and the cost to get the deer at the very best in some areas "under control" even in the short term will be high, very high if using government agencies, professional shooters and large-scale aerial culling is seen as the way to go. And then of course it needs to be on-going for years, decades and even longer.....a huge task that I doubt that any state government would be prepared to undertake.....but of course things may change but I doubt it.

So again.....a complex issue....with no simple solution. But I'm sure it will sooner or later the deer will be an issue that will need to be addressed with some level of seriousness by state and likely federal govenments and I would hope that recreational hunting will be part of that solution......however I've never stated that hunting is THE SOLUTION......but I hope most would agree that recreational hunting should form part of the strategy set that is used to address the build-up of deer we have experienced in recent years. Cheers

s358

Last edited by sambar358 on Mon 01 Feb, 2016 8:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[maddog]

G’day Sambar,

My argument has been that a simple in classification of deer from ‘game’ to ‘pest’ animal would allow these animals to be subject to appropriate control measures that would be more likely to result in their control and / or elimination in areas where this is necessary. To oppose such a change is to oppose conservation and agriculture – quite simple.

Recreational hunters can argue that hunting represents their ‘heritage’; that their sport is a legitimate; that hunters should have some access to public land to pursue their interest and that hunting is not incompatible with conservation aims (in much the same way as bushwalking is not). All of these arguments are reasonable. But it is not reasonable to support laws that prevent the meaningful control of a pest species whilst simultaneously claiming to positively contribute to conservation and agricultural outcomes. Such a oxymoronic position is farcical.

On the public view of gun enthusiasts in Australia, this is an observation not an opinion, more a statement of fact if you like, and one that we agree on. It is something that was forgotten in NSW by the Shooters with all their hubris after gaining the balance of power. And it is also a fact that any future involvement of recreational hunters on public land will have to be designed with this in mind. Again we agree.

Personally, I am not necessarily opposed to recreational hunters playing a role in the culling of pest species on public land, as long as it is directed and supervised in a manner that ensures the right species are targeted, in areas where control is a priority, where results are measured and public safety is not put at risk. I’m sure such sentiments would be widely supported within a bushwalking forum, as well as across the wider community. It beggars belief that such caveats would be opposed.

To ensure the right species are targeted in the locations where they are causing problems is a decision best made by the manager (e.g. Ranger, Forester, etc.). Results can be measured against predefined goals and cost-benefit analysis. The easiest way to ensure public safety during culling programs is to close the park or reserve in question – not a particularly expensive thing to do (prior notification, signage, etc.). As noted this was the outcome in NSW, an outcome accepted across the broader community.

In considering the mechanics of pest control, technology is likely to increasingly influence our success in locating and culling pest species throughout Australia making the coordination of culling programs more important than ever. While few doubt the efficacy if helicopters, you may be interested in the adaption of military drones for such purposes. At this point in time such aids would be illegal in NSW if employed by private landowners / managers for the control of deer, but the potential is obvious. It surely represents the future.



Cheers,

Maddog.

[maddog]

Gday Cauchs,

You don’t have to look very hard to find evidence of the contribution of hunters to the spread of feral deer in Australia. Try, for example, Moriarty (2004). The liberation, distribution, abundance and management of wild deer in Australia

From the abstract:

This paper is evidence of where some people think deer came from, nothing more.
If you read the actual paper you would find that the estimates for the number of wild deer herds and their origins were determined by sending out a survey form to land managers (farmers and rangers mostly) asking them for their opinion on where the deer came from. Opinion has never been a very solid base on which to build knowledge and Andrew Moriarty regularly bemoans the fact that his work is misrepresented as the definitive statement on where deer come from.

G’day jindydiver,

Sorry, with all the excitement I almost missed your comment.

I assure you I have read Moriarty’s paper and if you read my post a little more carefully you will notice that I took pertinent points as quotes from the abstract and body while also providing a link to the paper. A little difficult to misrepresent the author’s views in such a manner no? Or are you perhaps suggesting that Moriarty disagrees with his own findings?

Also, if you read the paper a little more carefully yourself you would realise that farmers were not included in the survey – in the Methods section it is clearly explained it was a survey of ‘government agency land managers in all Australian States and Territories during January-June 2000’. And on review, I’m sure you will agree, they are very specific questions.

In the discussion section, rather than question his own methods or data, the author provides:

‘Over half the wild deer herds in Australia appear to have been translocated illegally…The lack of hunting opportunities for deer species is thought to be the main reason for the release of deer…'

The author is not necessarily opposed to recreational hunters playing a role in pest control, but is mostly concerned with the control of ‘newly established wild herds or herds shown to cause significant impacts’, which he believes should be ‘eradicated or controlled by the most efficient and effective methods available’. In other cases he opines there may be a role for the recreationalists within 'controlled' programs. He also suggests that recreational hunters could contribute to the funding of research on ‘deer distribution, abundance, ecology and impacts through the use of licence and hunting fees’

Well there you have it.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[sambar358]

MD......some good points from you again and I'll agree with most that you've said. Governments already have the mechanism to manage so-called "game" animals well outside the parameters that recreational hunters are required to operate under. Methods deployed for the Bogong/Falls Creek sambar cull included spotlighting and the use of night-vision equipment...both of which are prohibited by law for recreational hunters. So government agencies or their sanctioned contractors are certainly permitted to use a broader range of control measures than we as recreational hunters are.....if they decide to embrace them. And that's my point really.....things need to happen......talk-fests and hand-wringing won't reduce the deer numbers.....things need to be done ! Our government wildlife autorities can also write permits for individuals or approved agencies to cull otherwise protected wildlife as evidenced by permits to cull kangaroos and wallabies and other native animlas (and deer in NP's like the recent Prom hog deer cull)......so no need to declare a particular type of wildlife as "feral" to manage their numbers. The Vic govt. has also significantly relaxed the regulations governing the control of deer on private land a few years ago enabling private propery owners or their approved agents to shoot deer on their land with little regulatory requirements apart from the use of appropriate calibres for deer.....no game licence required, spotlighting OK too.....get 'em any way you can.

If hunters won't be getting access to some NP for deer hunting and its got a strong or building deer problem.....then if Parks or the land manager are really concerned about the deer then let's see them do something apart from trying to just blame hunters for putting them there in the first place. This is the stumbling-point and always has been.....it's easy-enough to identify a problem and point the accusing finger.....but far harder (and more expensive) to actually do something about it. I'll go back to the Bogong unit ANP sambar......when the ANP was declared 30 years ago the Bogong unit was not approved for sambar hunting for various reasons despite the fact that sambar were there in low numbers and probably back then manageable or even possibly capable of being eliminated via some serious culling. Thirty years (and no hunting) later Parks "suddenly" come to the conclusion that there are a few sambar getting about, causing damage here and there and maybe something should be done about them. Too late.....now there are likely 1000+ deer in that area and nothing short of a nuclear strike will eliminate them ! Last year Parks embarked on a culling program in some areas of the unit using accredited hunters from ADA and SSAA.....despite the best efforts of these hunters and Parks staff over 5 or 6 organised 3-4 day culls using various hunting methods (day and night) I think the total sambar taken was around 6 or 7......very few for probaby 100's of man-hours and lots of expense and effort by all involved. Not knocking those who participated.....just highlighting the magnitude of the so-called problem.

Example 2 : Parks Vic has been conducting a faecal pellet study of deer presence in the upper Snowy River area on the Vic/NSW border around Willis....again a no-hunting area but one where deer (sambar, fallow and reds) are now present along with a good number of feral pigs and wild horses. ADA members have been involved over the past 7 or 8 years assisting Parks with this research setting-out and walking transect lines doing pellet-drop counts and noting the evidence of deer along the transect lines and in the area in general. It was concluded that deer numbers were quite low in comparison to the numbers of pigs and wild horses so Parks have shelved the pellet counts for the next 5 years (I think) as it was felt that there was insufficient need to continue to monitor what was in-fact relatively few deer in the area. Now, deer start to colonise new areas a few animals at a time of course........they don't suddenly appear en-masse overnight......it's a gradual build-up over some years (like the Bogong sambar).....a ripple that eventually turns into a tidal wave and that's when they start to become obvious to all.....and again.....by then we've already got to the "too late" stage of coiurse !

So Parks don't seem to be learning from past experiences.....IMO the Willis deer should be pressured while they were low in numbers and suppressed or possibly eradicated even for a short time while there were just a few.......and a "few" is like a 100 or so.....not a mere handful. But no......the same old....."we'll wait and see what happens" attitude prevails once again. And of course all this is all cost-driven.....pro shooters cost money, Parks staff over-time costs money.....working out and administering culling management plans all costs money......and usually money that Parks don't have. I'm sure that the same scenario is played-out in many Parks all across the deer range....."yep, we've got a deer problem.....now what ?" So my question is : if recreational deer hunting is not going to be acknowledged as a viable means of at least putting some pressure on our building deer numbers outside the currently permitted deer hunting zones......what's Plan B ? And I suspect the answer will be : "We have no Plan B ......but we'll convene a meeting and talk about it some more !"

MD....just noticed your reply to JindyDiver on Moriarty's paper which I believe included a lot of annecdotal information sourced directly from deer hunters....so that alone could put a bit of a question mark over his conclusions I guess.....us deer hunters are renowned for manipulating the facts to suit our own agendas as I keep getting told. But I digress......Moriarty's paper is over 10 years old now and while he may have identified all these satellite deer herds allegedly put there by deer hunters illegally back then, I wonder what action was taken by our govenment agencies to attempt to follow his recommendations and nip them in the bud while those deer were few in number and likely vulnerable. And we both know the answer to that of course.....absolutely nothing ! And that essentially proves my point.....talk is cheap.....it's time for some action ! Intersting times ahead me-thinks. Cheers

s358

[puredingo]

I just had me a lovely venison casserole from deer harvested not far from my place. You couldn't buy meat that tasty from any butcher. Succulent!!

[stry]

I just had me a lovely venison casserole from deer harvested not far from my place. You couldn't buy meat that tasty from any butcher. Succulent!!

Or as clean and as free of chemicals and added hormones.

[maddog]

The NSW Natural Resources Commission has recently conducted a State-wide review of pest animal management. In relation to deer, the draft report states the issues as follows:

Current Status.
• In NSW deer are classified as a game animal. As a game animal there are restrictions placed on their control, such as requiring shooters to be licensed under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002, shooting only in daylight hours, in certain seasons and not from vehicles.
• Although these restrictions support deer as a recreational hunting resource, they restrict the management of them as a pest.
• Recreational hunting is generally only effective as a pest management technique when part of an integrated pest control program.
• As a game animal deer are generally not a focus of integrated pest animal control programs run by the Local Land Services. Pest animal resources are directed to declared pests such as wild dogs, rabbits, foxes and pigs.
• As a game animal there are also no mechanisms available to compel landholders to control deer on their land where this may be required to meet control objectives.

Draft Recommendations.
• The status of all species of feral deer should be changed from game to pest animal, by removing them from the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002.
• All species of deer should be included in a regulation addressing pest animals under the Biosecurity Act 2015, and managed using a variety of control techniques.

Summary here
Also as reported in the SMH

On recreational hunting, and the (potential) contribution of recreational hunters, the Commission provides:

Recreational hunting is a valid and valued recreational pursuit and is widely used to hunt several pest species (particularly foxes, dogs and pigs). While recreational hunting can be a valuable part of a pest management program, population control is not the primary purpose of most recreational hunters.

During the regional tours conducted by the Commission for this review, many landholders raised issues with recreational hunting. These included illegal hunting practices, trespassing and anti-social behaviour. All contribute to a loss of trust between landholders and hunters.

Animal welfare is another concern. For example, the RSPCA favours shooting by professional marksmen over poisoning, as it is considered more humane, but does not support recreational hunting. In the limited circumstances where shooting does comprise a pest animal management program, the RSPCA believes marksmen have been more effective in achieving animal welfare outcomes than recreational hunters (RSPCA, 2015).

Shooting on its own is rarely an effective population control method. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) and the Australasian Wildlife Management Society state that shooting is ineffective in significantly reducing pest animal densities and impacts, particularly over the longer term.

Recreational hunting does have a place as a control technique when used in combination with tools and techniques which maximise its effectiveness, namely if it is:

 in the right sequence (in relation to other control methods)
 at the right time (diurnal, seasons)
 undertaken by suitable operators in the right geographic location and for the right species
 coordinated across tenures.

Recreational hunting is mostly valuable as a complimentary pest control tool when used in combination with primary control mechanisms. Recreational hunters are knowledgeable regarding the distribution and behaviour of pest animals, and should be actively engaged in the regional pest management planning processes to achieve agreed outcomes.

And recommends:

The NSW Government should...engage recreational hunters in the preparation of regional pest management plans and include recreational hunting resources in management programs.

I'm finding it difficult to disagree

Cheers,

Maddog.

[photohiker]

For once, I agree. I have always regarded feral Deer as a pest animal.

Its taken a long time for them to be seen in that light in Australia, but if you ever visit places like the Scottish Highlands, it is impossible to consider them as anything but a pest animal. Mind you, the Scot landowners would disagree...

[north-north-west]

For once, I agree. I have always regarded feral Deer as a pest animal.

+1

[wayno]

bushwalkers may be more at risk of getting shot in NZ
this guy was on a tramping track when he was shot...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/ne ... hine-range

[Mwill301]

bushwalkers may be more at risk of getting shot in NZ
this guy was on a tramping track when he was shot...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/ne ... hine-range

It really is a tragedy and my thoughts go out to the victim, his friends and family. Until people start taking on board one of the major firearm safety rules is to identify your target beyond ALL doubt these tragedies will continue to happen

In my own opinion two things need to change and the first is the prevailing thought by some (defiantly not all) hunters of one having to shoot a deer in the roar to be considered "successful". Its really is not make or break that you go into the roar and not shoot anything. The main point is a enjoyable time is had by all and that all users of the forest return home from their activities safely. Add onto this that hunters should assume all noises, movements and sighting of objects within the bush are human until proven otherwise is also a great rule to follow imo, as it makes the mind expect to see a person, rather than to see a deer. This coupled with using binoculars and not a scope to 100% positively identify your target (not just seeing a ear, hind leg, bit of fur or antler) is also imperative before one even thinks about cranking a round up the spout.

My second point is whilst there has been great improvement in the firearm safety rules being advertised to hunters and a general reduction in firearm fatality's - in the 60's it averaged one hunter shot or killed per week - http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/too-lat ... sorry-1966 (in saying this every death is one too many and their is no excuse for people being accidental shot at all). I would be most supportive of a campaign in a similar manner to the ones we have seen over the years for drink driving or speeding. A series of ads to be shown on TV, radio and in newspapers showing unsafe practices and what can go wrong plus what one has to lose when these accidents happen - lets be real here, no one wins as we have someone killed with his family and friends grieving for the rest of their life's, a person who made a a grave error (not an excuse for them) and has to live with the repercussions of killing someone for the rest of their life, plus hunters in the community fearing a backlash towards the vast majority, who follow the rules to the letter and do not take such stupid risks plus other members of society, now questioning their safety within the parks we all so love to visit.

I should add that so far I have only mentioned the carrot in a so called carrot and stick approach - I do feel those who have broken such fundamental firearm safety laws should have their firearm licence revoked up conviction of the offense. Jail time? Well I can see both arguments for and against it but I will leave that as something for the courts and others to decide.

[wayno]

the overwhelming feedback from experienced hunters and trampers in NZ is the overall standard of safety of a lot of young hunters in NZ has gone into a nose dive, lots of young inexperienced people hanging out with other similar people and being very blase about it. you've got hunters scoping out potential targets with a loaded rifle instead of a dedicated glassing device now.... every year without fail in NZ in the roar one or more hunters shoots a person dead.

[Mwill301]

Education is key to changing this. And if people continue to play up and take stupid risks/break the law such as spotlighting, drinking grog and carrying on with a rifle etc then strip them of their firearm license if they have one. Whilst I have no doubt that there are some 'cowboys' out there, one should also take a step back and note that there are 230 000 plus firearm owners in NZ. And whilst not all of them are hunters per say, there are many more hunters now than there was in the 60's & 70's where, as the link provided in my last posts goes on to show that one hunter was shot or killed per week back then. Accidental shootings have decreased drastically since those days fortunately, but still has a way to go as every death is one to many.

[wayno]

you now have more hunters with loaded firearms in huts, ammo scattered around huts, even on cooking benches, and shooting from huts and near huts so they dont have to walk too far from the booze supply, it may get worse before it gets better.