Experiences of Recreational hunting in national parks?

[Pteropus]

Pteropus,

Samanth Lee is telling blatant lies - something she is very good at.

There was NOTHING in the draft legislation that would allow the use of semi-auto rifles on public lands.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.

I just looked for the reference in the NSW Parliament Hansard transcript and I believe the section the SMH article is talking about is Roads Minister Duncan Gay's speech which included:

...I foreshadow that the Government will move an amendment to remove the provisions relating to the Firearms Act as prescribed in schedule 2. The Government believes that the issues raised in this provision warrant further consideration. Agreement has been reached about that after consultation with the Shooters and Fishers Party. It does not mean that they will be removed; it simply means that we must carefully analyse and put in place a proper process to address this issue.

This refers to the discussion regarding the Firearms Act 1996. But like you say, though there was some discussion about what these amendments might mean, including the use of higher powered rifles than currently allowed, there is is nothing that really alludes to semi-automatic rifles being allowed. So clearly the SMH article was making more out of it than what it was. And perhaps they should really put out a notice correcting that.

In an aside, reading parliamentary transcripts is fascinating and depressing at the same time (like any aspect of politics really). You really get to see how childish they can be towards each other...which is no surprise because we see it on the news quite often.

[Moondog55]

We tend to use the nomenclature SLR for the old Australian military Self loading Rifle The L1A1, this is totally different category to the rifles we used to be allowed to own and hunt with.
Those of you who do not shoot or hunt have no real appreciation of the advantage having a second shot in milliseconds gives you.
I never owned a self loader but many, many sambar hunters did and the failure to distinguish between a military self loader and a civilian huntig rifle in the legislation and firearms licensing continues to be a huge bone of contention.
In the same way I never understood why I had to give up my favourite little .22 rabbit rifle or my favourite shotgun, especially for much less than market value
( the constitution challenge on "Just cause" and "Fair compensation" was doomed to failure )
I do think that confusing the current issue with NSW parks and the established practice in Victorian parks is clouding this discussion but here in Victoria things seem to indicate the issue is a "non-issue" I hope this proves to be the case

[Ent]

SLR are not available anyhow are they?, gun club use perhaps?

Under some ancient act and quirk of the constitution military file ranges allowed for the use of SLR by civilians but this was shut down by the Federal Government. Unless you are the government having a SLR is illegal.

Unless the Federal Government does a complete u-turn with double flip the days of the semi-automatic centrefire rife are over for hunters. Actually in Australia such a firearm was not very popular unless you were left handed, suffered some dexterity disability, commercially culling, or like to get up close and personal with pigs in dense scrub. Any discussion or debate is a beat-up done purely for political stunts. Que concerned citizen followed by a cutaway to a nut cake believing that we need Gatling guns to defend us from little green martians.

Regards

[sambar358]

Things still moving along on this I see although we're a long way from where we started. I've been away for a while sambar hunting in the ANP....saw lots of sambar and shot a couple but no people encountered at all...too cold and wet most likely !

Closing NSW Parks ? Maybe & maybe not. If the your Parks people decide that a high-presence exercise is required using professional shooters to attemp either a ground bomp-up or do some helicopter gunship work then I would expect that the relevant area within that Park would be closed for the duration of the exercise and any mop-up afterwards....probably a few days or a week or so. But that'd be a government department driven initiative so they don't have to worry about the presence of visitors in that portion of the Park during this high intensity activity and that's fair enough I'd say.

If the government goes down the recreational-hunting path then I would expect that this activity would be done without any disruption to normal Park activities and would involve a low number of licenced hunters in specific and would not be an open-slather approach with unlimited numbers of hunters going where they like. The NSW Game Council has very effectively managed hunting on a large number of NSW State forest blocks for the past 10 years under a strict on-line booking system whereby only a limited number of hunters are permitted to be present on any one SF block. I would hazard a guess that this sort of model would also be likely to be applied to any future hunting in selected NSW Parks under the current proposal. I am sure that this will be a very softly softly approach like the NSW Game Council initial SF hunts were. Typically people opposed to this proposal are beating this up claiming that hunters will be running rampant in ALL the NSW Parks bombing-up everything in sight and that Parks will be closed to the general public to allow this to happen ! Most people contributing to this thread seem to acknowledge that some Parks have issues with feral animal numbers and the need for some control or eradication of them....BUT....when it comes to doing something about this then maybe the solution is less tolerable than the problem for some.

In Victoria we DO NOT close the ANP to allow feral animal reduction exercises to occur....actually feral animal hunting IS NOT permitted in the ANP....only sambar deer hunting and we certainly do not have any level of feral animal (or deer) control done by our Parks Vic people. Some occasional 1080 baiting for foxes and wild dogs and some cosmetic weed spraying in popular camping or drive-thru areas but that's about it. I don't expect this to change anytime soon. In reality the situation is much the same in NSW.....some National Parks and State Forests supporting strong and growing numbers of feral animals and looking at the big picture not a lot that can be done about eradication at all. Control maybe, containment possibly but eradication....never.....it's way too late for that ! No government has the funding to throw at these issues.....and as one senior NSW government Parks employee recently was heard to comment in regards to feral animal control : "All we've got is 2 bob and a slingshot !" that sums it up pretty well I think.

On "automatic rifles for sporting hunters in NSW"....total BS. This will not happen....the only people who have access to "self loading" firearms are professional shooters and even then only under strict usage requirements for their work. True "automatic rifles" a-la the now well defunct SLR are the realm of the military only.....and unlicenced criminals of course ! The current beat-up in regard to the threat of hunters prowling NSW Parks armed with large capacity automatic rifles and spraying the bush with hails of bullets is just laughable but it does show you the extremes that some on the antis will go to bend public opinion their way. I did own a fine 5 shot Browning BAR self-loading centrefire and used it very effectively for sambar deer hunting having it banned, taken off me and crushed following the Port Arthur massacre (by a lunatic with an unlicenced military-style weapon) certainly didn't hamper my deer hunting outcomes and I do very nicely with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.

The bottom line here from my perspective is this : if people have a level of concern as to the building population of feral animals in Parks and State forests then just vilifying them will not cause them to go away. In reality they need to be CULLED, DESTROYED, KILLED....put it anyway you like....they will not just go away because people don't want them there and they are damaging the environment. So something needs to be actually DONE....by a government agency or via organized groups or individuals....and over a long period of time. History in Victoria with the ANP and sambar deer has shown that governments are unable to commit to any form of control and I think that this will continue to be the situation well into the future. So while some claim that recreational hunting is not effective it is none-the-less the only tactic employed in Victoria on sambar in the ANP. This can also be applied to NSW but I acknowledge that NSW does seem to do at least some feral animal control in some areas but I would think it'd be too little done too infrequently to have anything more than a token impact in small areas....we get back to the "2 bob and a slingshot" comment I guess. Every feral animal killed by a recreational hunter is one less feral animal on the planet (or in that NP). So what do you want : Fewer feral animals via some level of managed recreational hunting in NSW Parks (in the absence of any government cull programs).....or no feral animal control and more feral animals ? You can't have it both ways. Food for thought. Cheers

sambar358

[Tony]

Hi Sambar358,

Closing NSW Parks ? Maybe & maybe not. If the your Parks people decide that a high-presence exercise is required using professional shooters to attemp either a ground bomp-up or do some helicopter gunship work then I would expect that the relevant area within that Park would be closed for the duration of the exercise and any mop-up afterwards....probably a few days or a week or so. But that'd be a government department driven initiative so they don't have to worry about the presence of visitors in that portion of the Park during this high intensity activity and that's fair enough I'd say.

I would suggest that you do some reading of the latest press articles on this issue, as the Environment Minister Robyn Parker has specifically stated the parks will be closed while the recreational hunting is going on in NSW National parks, if a bushwalker or any other park user is seen in the area, it can be seen as interference and they can be arrested and can be hit with a very large fine, and as I understand, when the hunters will be allowed in will be up to the Game Council, and I can assure you the Game Council is an organisation setup to protect hunters not the national park loving public, The NSW National Parks are no longer for all of the people a they are meant to be.

The NSW Game Council has very effectively managed hunting on a large number of NSW State forest blocks for the past 10 years under a strict on-line booking system

I am sorry sambar358 but I would not call the results of 15,080 hunters hunting for 12 months only killing 14,161 animals, mostly rabbits from 2 million hectares effectively managing hunting, I would call it a complete disaster.

Every feral animal killed by a recreational hunter is one less feral animal on the planet (or in that NP). So what do you want : Fewer feral animals via some level of managed recreational hunting in NSW Parks (in the absence of any government cull programs).....or no feral animal control and more feral animals ? You can't have it both ways. Food for thought. Cheers

This is nothing but more hunting propaganda, complete garbage, I suggest you actually do some reading of the scientific research into the effectiveness of recreational hunting.

Tony

[Moondog55]

Tony please keep your cool, that was almost insulting.

[Tony]

Tony please keep your cool, that was almost insulting.

After all of the past discussion on this topic, I found Sambar358 post insulting and I make no apology for my reply.

As mentioned in one of my previous post, hunting being allowed in NSW National Parks has put the hunting lobby under scrutiny like never before and trying to push myths will not be on any more.

Tony

[maddog]

As mentioned in one of my previous post, hunting being allowed in NSW National Parks has put the hunting lobby under scrutiny like never before and trying to push myths will not be on any more.

Tony

I tend to agree with you on the scrutiny point Tony, opposition to recreational shooting in National Parks is likely to become increasingly organised, particularly as funding is directed towards the issue from environmental lobby groups ideologically opposed to hunting as a sport.

There seems to be three central concerns raised by park users opposed to the amendment (that shooting within a limited number of National Parks and Nature Reserves is the 'thin end of the wedge' to ambitions of an open slather approach to park management, that recreational hunting poses a threat to the safety of other park users, and that the claimed environmental benefits of recreational hunting are illusory).

From reading the posts above, I remain unconvinced that any of these concerns have been addressed by the proponents of recreational hunting in a satisfactory manner.

[hikingdude]

Also, Robyn Parker has no idea what she is talking about. National Parks will not be closed off to anyone due to hunting taking place in the area.

[Tony]

Also, Robyn Parker has no idea what she is talking about. National Parks will not be closed off to anyone due to hunting taking place in the area.

More information please

[Tony]

I tend to agree with you on the scrutiny point Tony, opposition to recreational shooting in National Parks is likely to become increasingly organised, particularly as funding is directed towards the issue from environmental lobby groups ideologically opposed to hunting as a sport.

There seems to be three central concerns raised by park users opposed to the amendment (that shooting within a limited number of National Parks and Nature Reserves is the 'thin end of the wedge' to ambitions of an open slather approach to park management, that recreational hunting poses a threat to the safety of other park users, and that the claimed environmental benefits of recreational hunting are illusory).
.

Hi maddog,

I agree, this whole dirty bill has been setup to open all but few NSW National Parks to recreational hunting, the State Forest started off just a few then after short time the rest became open to hunters.

One thing that worries me more than the hunting in National Parks now the shooters and Fishers Party have had this success, the parks including wilderness areas will be open up to four wheel drives and trail bikes.

As for safety, I really hope no one will get hurt but time will tell.

From reading the posts above, I remain unconvinced that any of these concerns have been addressed by the proponents of recreational hunting in a satisfactory manner

I agree, plenty of claims but no proof.

Tony

[Nuts]

The NSW Game Council has very effectively managed hunting on a large number of NSW State forest blocks for the past 10 years under a strict on-line booking system

I am sorry sambar358 but I would not call the results of 15,080 hunters hunting for 12 months only killing 14,161 animals, mostly rabbits from 2 million hectares effectively managing hunting, I would call it a complete disaster.

Tony

See now, this is where these things fall apart, attitude. So many 'green issues' go the same way.. blinkered!
I read that^ as Sambar saying the GC had effectively managed the hunters (hunting) not feral animal control??


Even so, the numbers mean little without comparison to those for how many feral animals the management authorities dispatched in the same period?

It must be difficult for those with their life dedicated to research to keep their feet on the ground. What use is the research when it ignores the failure of public acceptance for organised culls. If research shows that one dead animal is in fact .5 of a dead animal due to a populations ecological response (ie increased breeding, reduced competition (..) so on..) who can argue with the fact that it is still better than nothing?

In fact the explosion in feral populations (not currently effectively managed) has lead to it being of any purpose as a bargaining chip to the hunting lobby..

I don't think public hunting is any answer to feral control but at the same time (again) it seems the least arguable outcome of hunting. Population control is obviously difficult (perhaps effectively impossible) and will always make room for politics and 'think tanks' but arguing that public hunting will have any Major negative impact on current practices seems as lame as saying it would.

If there is no better point of argument other than pest control/hunter bashing then it's not looking good.. U/L helmets?

Last edited by Nuts on Sat 23 Jun, 2012 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Tony]

Hi Nuts,

Thank you for your opinions,

I suggest you, sambar358, moondog55 and other BWA members reading this thread to read this document Recreational hunting NSW: claims v facts and if you have doubt about what is written in this document, I would also suggest you check the references out.

Tony

[Nuts]

ok, if you insist (for me though, i was 'talking' to You, not Spencer or Moriarty have a good weekend )

[sambar358]

Tony....some interesting stats there but the "Invasive Species Council" could hardly be regarded as an independent body and selective quoting of statistics is always handy to get a particular point of view across. While they highlight the "hidden cost" of the NSW Game Council they fail to mention the cost of government feral animal reduction exercises and the feral animal take by pro shooters....surely there must be statistics on this that can be put up for comparison purposes. And again despite all the anit-hunting rhetoric from the ISC....they fail to come up with any alternative solutions to what they clearly acknowledge is a growing feral animal problem.

You seem pretty good at digging-up facts....maybe have a look for the actual numbers of government pro-shooters who are employed to control feral animals in NSW, how many days in a year they were in the field their kill tallies & at what cost that was to the public. There would also be stats on the number of helicopter shooting forays on ferals in NSW and their kill rates and the costs involved in that too I would expect. And even these sorts of stats are open to criticism I would suggest as I doubt that any hard evidence of proof of actual field kills would be required to justify these actions.....bullets fired don't necessarily mean critters killed of course.....especially from helicopters. If we're going to quote statistics then we may as well provide as much information as possible....not just selectively quoting the stats that suit a particular view of an argument.

I seem to recall a NSW state government doing a deal with a couple of independent Greens about 20 years ago for a trade-off which then resulted in the Greens getting their way with the banning of game bird hunting in NSW. Back then plenty applauded that tactic and of course quite a few felt that they'd be done-over too. And here we are now....a couple of independent MP's broker a deal with the NSW Government for yet another trade-off.....and again some see this as a positive move and others do not. Things changeth not ! Cheers

sambar358

[maddog]

Tony....some interesting stats there but the "Invasive Species Council" could hardly be regarded as an independent body and selective quoting of statistics is always handy to get a particular point of view across. While they highlight the "hidden cost" of the NSW Game Council they fail to mention the cost of government feral animal reduction exercises and the feral animal take by pro shooters....surely there must be statistics on this that can be put up for comparison purposes. And again despite all the anit-hunting rhetoric from the ISC....they fail to come up with any alternative solutions to what they clearly acknowledge is a growing feral animal problem.

You seem pretty good at digging-up facts....maybe have a look for the actual numbers of government pro-shooters who are employed to control feral animals in NSW, how many days in a year they were in the field their kill tallies & at what cost that was to the public. There would also be stats on the number of helicopter shooting forays on ferals in NSW and their kill rates and the costs involved in that too I would expect. And even these sorts of stats are open to criticism I would suggest as I doubt that any hard evidence of proof of actual field kills would be required to justify these actions.....bullets fired don't necessarily mean critters killed of course.....especially from helicopters. If we're going to quote statistics then we may as well provide as much information as possible....not just selectively quoting the stats that suit a particular view of an argument.

I seem to recall a NSW state government doing a deal with a couple of independent Greens about 20 years ago for a trade-off which then resulted in the Greens getting their way with the banning of game bird hunting in NSW. Back then plenty applauded that tactic and of course quite a few felt that they'd be done-over too. And here we are now....a couple of independent MP's broker a deal with the NSW Government for yet another trade-off.....and again some see this as a positive move and others do not. Things changeth not ! Cheers

sambar358

G'Day Sambar358,

The link provided by Tony was certainly convincing, looked well researched, and is no doubt just the start of a well organised campaign against the Game Council and Shooters and Fishers by well funded lobby groups with a proven track record of successful political campaigning.

While I note with some interest that in the ISC report provided by Tony included the concession that 'ground shooting is considered to be the most effective technique currently available for reducing deer populations'. However the statement was subject to significant caveats including: (i) 'shooting of feral deer should only be performed by skilled operators who have the necessary experience with firearms and who hold the appropriate licences and accreditation', and (ii) 'shooting should only be used in a strategic manner as part of a co-ordinated program designed to achieve sustained effective control' (Sharp T & Saunders G, 'Ground Shooting of Feral Deer', 2004).

Do you disagree with this reasoning?

On the cost of feral control, in 'Is Hunting Conservation' (2009) the ISC quoting data the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Water Resources, and provides the following in relation to recreational hunting costs:

'For the past two financial years through direct government funding for the NSW Game Council, taxpayers have paid $287 per feral animal killed in state forests, and $323 has been spent by the Game Council for each feral animal killed in the forests.
If spent on professional feral animal control programs, the millions of dollars of government funds directed to ineffective recreational hunting could have achieved substantial outcomes for conservation.
Effective fox control is very expensive, but the average $3.2 million granted annually to the Game Council for the past two years could have paid for fox control over 40 times the area of state forests ‘controlled’ by hunters. The $3.2 million is about 30 times that spent on rabbit control by the NSW government ($108,000 in 2001-02). The cost of controlling goats by aerial shooting or by mustering, the most effective methods, are also regarded as expensive, but the NSW government funding per feral animal killed through the Game Council is 10-22 times as expensive.'

Are these the cost figures you were after? It does make recreational hunting look very expensive. On the ineffectiveness of recreational hunters, the ISC provides the following:

'Feral animals are typically highly fecund and many populations are saturated with a large ‘doomed surplus’ (who would normally die due to lack of resources), which enables them to quickly replace animals killed by hunters.
Ground shooting (even using skilled shooters) is not an effective means of primary control for most feral animals and according to government standards should only be used as part of co- ordinated programs, usually as a supplement to other methods.
Hunting in NSW state forests is ad hoc with no specific environmental goals, planning or monitoring. The licencing system deliberately spreads hunters out (at most 1 hunter/400 ha) limiting their capacity to exert pressure in any one area.
Hunters often prefer to kill large trophy males, which makes little contribution to control because in polygamous species such as deer, pigs and goats the remaining males can inseminate all the females.
Hunters are often motivated to maintain feral animal populations for future hunting, leaving young and females.
Hunters have highly variable skill levels (no skills tests are conducted for licencing) – in 2010-11, each hunting day in state forests resulted on average in 0.7 feral animals killed.'

So which of these claims by the ISC would you like to contest on the grounds of bias. And on what evidence?

Last edited by maddog on Sat 23 Jun, 2012 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Tony]

Hi sambar358,

Thank you for your reply.

You seem pretty good at digging-up facts....maybe have a look for the actual numbers of government pro-shooters who are employed to control feral animals in NSW, how many days in a year they were in the field their kill tallies & at what cost that was to the public. There would also be stats on the number of helicopter shooting forays on ferals in NSW and their kill rates and the costs involved in that too I would expect. And even these sorts of stats are open to criticism I would suggest as I doubt that any hard evidence of proof of actual field kills would be required to justify these actions.....bullets fired don't necessarily mean critters killed of course.....especially from helicopters. If we're going to quote statistics then we may as well provide as much information as possible....not just selectively quoting the stats that suit a particular view of an argument.

You have brought up a very good point in comparing government pro-shooters stats to recreational hunting stats, and I will see what I can find out.

What is obvious during this debate is the total lack of facts to support recreational hunting in state forests and National Parks. While you have challenged me to find information regarding Government pro-shooters statistics I challenge you find factual information regarding what I consider a hunters myth,

Every feral animal killed by a recreational hunter is one less feral animal on the planet (or in that NP)

And also could you tell me where the Shooters Party got these statistics from The Game Council has overseen the removal of hundreds of thousands of feral animals from State Forests using volunteers as the fact is the Shooters and Fishers Party controlled Game Council statistics show only 55,000 feral and game animals removed over six years.

I would also suggest you read the Shooters and Fishers Party website and tell me they are not an extremist organisation.

Tony

[Moondog55]

"PERHAPS" the Shooters and Fishers is a little to the right I don't know as I live in Victoria, but if they are it is as a result of the extreme views of those to the very far left in the green movement who simply have phobias about ( amongst other things ) fires, firearms and hunting.
Perhaps the Shooters and Fishers stance is a direct overreaction; as I stated earlier; to John Howards stupidity and cynical short term political manoeuvring.
Extreme stances and points of view one one side of a debate always lead to extremes points of view on the opposite side.

[maddog]

G'Day Moondog,
Thanks for the response to one of the questions. I look forward to the other questions asked of Sambar358 being answered.

"PERHAPS" the Shooters and Fishers is a little to the right I don't know as I live in Victoria, but if they are it is as a result of the extreme views of those to the very far left in the green movement who simply have phobias about ( amongst other things ) fires, firearms and hunting.

Not sure I would describe the National Parks Association as an organisation with extreme views though.

Extreme stances and points of view one one side of a debate always lead to extremes points of view on the opposite side.

They can Moondog, and watch the reaction to recreational shooting in National Parks as it comes. Over time, the over-reach of the Shooters and Fishers may well see them out of State Forests too.

Anyway, off walking for the weekend, so have a good one yourself.

Cheers

[Moondog55]

You see that's the thing, we already have ( as Sambar 358 has stated so well ) recreational hunting in Victorias Alpine National Park and it is a non-issue here in Victoria.
Sambar hunting ( anywhere ) has so many regulations and restrictions placed around it that you really have to be dedicated and disciplined to hunt.
Little niggly things like not being allowed to have Dolphin torch in your possession or having a flood light mounted on the roof-rack to illuminate your cooking and camp site

[Tony]

Little niggly things like not being allowed to have Dolphin torch in your possession or having a flood light mounted on the roof-rack to illuminate your cooking and camp site

Hi Moondag55,

Many thanks for putting this debate into some perspective, I can really understand your frustrations, not being allowed to have a dolphin torch or a flood light on my roof rack when I am bushwalking would frustrate me too.

I suppose this makes being locked out of NSW National Parks while some recreational hunters think they are culling feral animals insignificant.

Tony

[Pteropus]

You see that's the thing, we already have ( as Sambar 358 has stated so well ) recreational hunting in Victorias Alpine National Park and it is a non-issue here in Victoria.
Sambar hunting ( anywhere ) has so many regulations and restrictions placed around it that you really have to be dedicated and disciplined to hunt.
Little niggly things like not being allowed to have Dolphin torch in your possession or having a flood light mounted on the roof-rack to illuminate your cooking and camp site

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it only sambar and other deer that you are allowed to hunt in the Victorian NPs? I know I read the laws somewhere but I can't remember the details. If this is the case, would general hunting in NPs be a non-issue to sambar hunters, who clearly need a little more skill and knowledge of their prey than your average hunter needs when heading into the bush for game, if Victorian NPs were thrown open to other hunters? From what I can gather, mainly from sambar358's posts, hunting sambar is (almost) a specialised skill that takes patience, and then extracting the meat from the bush takes even more dedication. The average hunter is probably not really into that. If there was a sudden increase in general hunting, then perhaps it would become more of an issue? I am sure you would see more conflict across the board because there would be people who have different ideas on how to conduct themselves and the bush might become too crowded. Like surfers dropping in on each other.
Plus, some hunting is an issue on welfare grounds, such as duck hunting, because it is on the news each year due to the protests.
Anyhow, food for thought.

[Moondog55]

Sambar 358 and I are hunters, not shooters although I also shoot when I can afford it, just part of the broad spectrum of the firearms owning community and there are far more of us now than you might think.
As for having a "Niggle" yes, it is an inconvenience to have to take out of the car one of my primary safety tools.
One of the reasons for having a Dolphin torch in the car is that it just happens to be rugged and reliable and most of us carry one as part of our in-car kit. When I was active in the CFA we all carried a "Dolphin" as a matter of course as well as our helmet mounted torches.
But the regulations regarding sambar hunting ban the use on any mobile light source greater than 4.5Volts and it is illegal to have one in your possession or in your car when in " Recognised Deer habitat" it is just a small example of the hoops we have to jump though.

[sambar358]

Pteropus....yes, we can hunt only sambar in the ANP but at the moment the Vic Game Regs are going thru their normal 10 year review process and it is expected that the "sambar only" clause will be widened to include "all deer" as there are pockets of red & fallow deer emerging within certain sections of the Park and it would be advantageous to apply some pressure to these of course to prevent their numbers quickly building. So likely a good move there.

When I'm off deep in the bush sambar hunting I see very few other animals really....the odd rabbit, maybe a fox, a wild dog, a feral cat, an emu or 2 or maybe a 'roo or wallaby....but most days none of these and believe me I'm creeping about and really paying attention. So in general terms I doubt if much of the ANP would hold a lot of appeal for the small game hunter after a few bunnies or a fox and I'd expect that they'd be more successful hunting these on private land or some of the lower country where they may be more common and the hunting is easier and potentially more critter-productive. Lots of new-chum sambar hunters who get into it for "the shooting" soon become disillusioned and give it away because there isn't much shooting....but plenty of hunting if you get my drift.

Personally I think that opening up the ANP to small game and feral animal hunting would compromise the values of the Park as potentially it could become a shooting gallery for anyone with a .22 or a shotgun who wanted to take a few pot-shots at something in the Park...feral or native. At the moment in the ANP it's seasonal deer hunting by stalking only (Feb 15-Dec 15) by licenced deer hunters using a minimum calibre of 270W. No dogs, no other firearms permitted, no other animals to be shot.....so it is clear to all users groups (or should be) what is permitted to be undertaken and what is not. Open that out to an "anything-goes policy" on firearms for ferals and it's open slather and things could quickly go pear-shaped....there is plenty of public land for small game hunting as unlike NSW we in Victoria have always had open access to public land for hunting. I'm certain no one visiting the ANP wants their experience to be diminished by excessive gunfire but most seem OK with the presence of sambar hunters because we fire just the odd shot and most of these are far-removed from popular locations hence the general ignorance that we are even there and hunting sambar deer with most visitors to the ANP.

Overcrowding ? Not really an issue in the ANP for sambar hunting really as we have a vast area to disperse through and I really can't recall meeting other deer hunters in a particular gully or bit of country that Iwas hunting in. Certainly if the regs were widened to include other forms of small game hunting in the ANP then there may be instances of potential conflict but as sambar are a quite secretive species that prefers the more remote of locations it's not likely that hunters other than those seeking sambar would venture out to these types of areas. How we differ from some NSW Parks is that we generally do not have a high presence of feral animals in the ANP apart from foxes,rabits, cats & wild dogs....but no goats & wild pigs which seem to be the main problem species (along with deer) in NSW. So it's a bit hard to make comparisons between what we do in the Vic ANP with sambar and what is likely to happen under the NSW Parks proposal where it certainly won't just be deer that will be the sole target animal.

Like many who have expressed concerns here closing-off sections of various NSW Parks to allow (I suspect) short-term feral animal control exercises to occur, this seems to be excessive but if these activities are going to be of the short term "saturation bomb-up" type either by ground hunters or aerial efforts then it wouldn't be much fun wandering around in that area anyway during these activities I guess. It does however seem a bit heavy handed and I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed here....but I guess that the model is yet to be fully determined and I expect that a fair bit of negotiating will be done considering the ground-swell of interest and protest that this has generated so far. The alternative to using recreational hunters as a tool for feral animal mitigation exercises is to beef-up efforts via professsional shooters and other methods both in Parks and on public and private land. And again even going down the "professional shooter" road would likely involve similar Park closures to those that are muted under the current proposal. Kitting-up for large-scale professional shooting would be a huge task and would require a serious committment from successive Governments for funding, finding and paying suitable hunters, training them and then resourcing them over an extensive period of time. It would be interesting to know how many pro shooters are actually currently in the empoy of the NSW Government to control feral animals in NSW Parks...I would suspect a mere handful and certainly not an "army". I did meet a bloke a few years ago who worked for NSW Parks in the southern section of the Kosi Park around Khancoban and he was working alone attempting to cull goats, pigs and an emerging population of deer, I doubt if things have changed much since he retired. Back to the old "2 bob and a slingshot" comment of my previous post I think. Cheers

sambar358

[north-north-west]

This thread is sending me schizoid.

We have pro-hunting people saying that, on the one hand shooting is an effective means of reducing unwanted animal populations but, on the other hand, there aren't that many hunters and they don't shoot anything very often.
Can you please make up your minds? Either you kill enough animals to be an effective method of pest reduction, or you hardly ever fire a shot. You can't have it both ways.

ps: Moondog, you're being highly illogical (again).
Let us say that, for instance, I want to kill you. If I don't have a weapon or any way of constructing a trap, I have to do it with my bare hands. That puts me at some considerable personal risk. Give me a lump of wood I can use as a club, and it makes it easier. Give me a proper sized rock to throw and I can knock you out from a distance and it's easier again. Give me a blade and I can keep my hands off you. Give me a stick to use as a shaft and I can use that blade from a greater distance. Give me a bow and I can use a properly mounted blade from even further.
Each of those things makes it easier for me to kill you and, therefore logically makes me more dangerous to you.
Give me a gun and ammo and I can do it sitting in my car without the slightest bit of personal risk to myself and without even raising a sweat. Makes me a great deal more dangerous.

Make me a hunter who doesn't know there's a campground nearby, or one who thinks that the laws about spotlighting near that campground are silly, or one whose prey is startled by a passing off-track walker just as I pull the trigger so that the bullet misses the animal and hits the hitherto unseen walker, and that ignorance, carelessness or bad luck has just killed someone. Without the gun the rest of it is irrelevant because I can't do any damage to anyone. Therefore, the gun makes me more dangerous.
(And remember, people HAVE been killed in just these ways by shooters.)

If you can fault that logic, please explain how.

[Tony]

Hi sambar358,

Thank you for your last post, it was an excellent post and I enjoyed reading it.

Like many who have expressed concerns here closing-off sections of various NSW Parks to allow (I suspect) short-term feral animal control exercises to occur, this seems to be excessive but if these activities are going to be of the short term "saturation bomb-up" type either by ground hunters or aerial efforts then it wouldn't be much fun wandering around in that area anyway during these activities I guess. It does however seem a bit heavy handed and I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed here....but I guess that the model is yet to be fully determined and I expect that a fair bit of negotiating will be done considering the ground-swell of interest and protest that this has generated so far. The alternative to using recreational hunters as a tool for feral animal mitigation exercises is to beef-up efforts via professsional shooters and other methods both in Parks and on public and private land. And again even going down the "professional shooter" road would likely involve similar Park closures to those that are muted under the current proposal. Kitting-up for large-scale professional shooting would be a huge task and would require a serious committment from successive Governments for funding, finding and paying suitable hunters, training them and then resourcing them over an extensive period of time. It would be interesting to know how many pro shooters are actually currently in the empoy of the NSW Government to control feral animals in NSW Parks...I would suspect a mere handful and certainly not an "army". I did meet a bloke a few years ago who worked for NSW Parks in the southern section of the Kosi Park around Khancoban and he was working alone attempting to cull goats, pigs and an emerging population of deer, I doubt if things have changed much since he retired. Back to the old "2 bob and a slingshot" comment of my previous post I think. Cheers

With your last paragraph, you are correct in that the details of recreational hunting in NSW National Parks have not been worked out yet, if the model is closing the parks for a short time and the recreational hunters work with the professionals on an intensive hunt then this might have some impact and would not be too disruptive to the other park users for some possible benefit, as mentioned before I would support this and if this model is chosen, I would like to see some proper research done by scientist to see if this model would have any actual impact on feral animal numbers. But from reading some of the hunting websites and forums I get the impression that the local hunters think they will be getting a bit more access that just a short period once or twice a year, one thing is for sure the devil will be in the details.

I know you are dismissive of the Invasive Species Council, but while searching for information last night I came across a blog post by Tony Peacock, who at the time was (since retired) a Professor of feral stuff at the University of Canberra and (was) Chief Executive of the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. In 2010 Professor Peacock won the Australian Museum Eureka prize, the blog post was written in 2009 and is about the ISC and Game Councils media flareup over whether deer were feral of game, it is well worth a read. Invasive Species Council's argument deserves more than an "up yours" from the Game Council.

Tony

Edit, I would like to add that I think the Game Council has gone backward since Tony Peacock blog post.

[sambar358]

NNW.....yep I understand your confusion re my suggestions that recreational hunters can play a role in feral animal control and and then I describe a typical sambar deer situation were only a few animals are shot per hunter each year despite often a significant effort. To try and clarify a bit : at the moment in the ANP in Vic sambar are classed as a "Game" animal and we are not permitted to shoot feral animals if we come across them. The elusive nature of the sambar and their natural wariness (they evolved being hunted for food by the Tiger) makes them a very hard animal to hunt even for experienced and competent hunters so in my view they would be a difficult animal to reduce in numbers by bush shooting. So when we hunt sambar few shots are fired a year...this is the nature of the animal really....they are there but seldom seen.

In NSW under the Game Council set-up all non-native animals seem to be classed as "feral" and there are few if any take restrictions on them in their SF hunting blocks and under the current access arrangements I believe that GC SF hunters are not compelled to bomp-up every animal they come across as this is not conditional of their access to these areas. Certainly the GC via their literature encourage huntes to take animals but this is not always done or in many cases I suspect hunters takes an animal or two to utilize the meat, horns, skin etc and then declines further opportunities for the rest of the trip on the grounds of wastage. So in reality NSW GC hunters are not being conscripted by the GC as unpaid Government feral animal cullers under the current SF access arrangements....but that is not to say that it cannot be so in the future.

At the moment no one really knows what sort of model the NSW Govt is going to try with ther Parks hunting proposal...but if they approach it from the point of view of using recreational hunters to target specific populations of problem feral animals in certain areas of some Parks then I would think it'd be under the banner of "search and destroy" rather than "hunters choice". Obviously this would be very difficult the manage and would virtually require a Parks employee with each hunter to ensure compliance and this won't happed I think. It was tried in Victoria some years ago in a NP close to me where a moderate number of feral goats were in need of extermination and PV decided that each hunter needed direct supervision but this failed miserably. The "supervisors" weren't bush fit, didn't know the country, couldn't hunt and didn't want to be there and the goat eradication exercise was a total disaster and they are still there in the 100's today but the could have been totally eliminated with the right approach. The bottom line was that PV did not trust the hunters but they didn't have the skills or resources to do it themselves and now they have a goat problem that will likely be there forever.

Professional shooters are different of course.....they are doing the "search & destroy" missions but at the moment they are way too few and each has far too much country to work. I do know several Parks professional shooters and have met a couple of others while trout fishing in southern NSW and they are good, keen & dedicated blokes but they all tell you that they have a huge job and are really only scratching the surface. So this sort of program needs some help....a massive amount of funding and an injection of a lot more competent hunters to join the ranks of the few pro's currently working in NSW. This will come at a very high cost of course to the Government and I suspect that this is a cost they are not prepared to embrace....using "free" recreational hunters is the easier and more cost-effective option regardless of their effectiveness compared to a couple of 1000 well-trained, properly resourced and competent professional shooters. That's my slant on all this anyway.

I certainly do still maintain my position that recreational hunting can be part of the answer to feral animal control but it is only part of the solution....Governments need to devote realistic funding & resourcing to these matters and commit long-term to projects that might have a positive outcome. Short term bomb-ups in small areas that kill a couple of 100 goats, pigs or deer are really only feel-good exercises....it's a big country out there and unfortunately 90% of it is inhabited by feral animals and introduced species and most of them will not be going away....eradication is long-gone, containment for most also...so what are we left with ? Management I guess.....basically trying to stem the tide and reducing populations & their impact by means that have some longer-term effect, are not threatening to other wildlife and have to a degree a minimal impact on those who use these areas for recreation. A big ask really. Cheers

sambar358

[Moondog55]

I keep wondering what this irrational fear of firearms and shooting is caused by?
Is it and was it the actions of a few deranged persons engaged in an unlawful actor is it just that we have lost touch with our past and think that firearms have no place in our future?
People do not seem to be able to separate the fear from the actual risk

[Tony]

I keep wondering what this irrational fear of firearms and shooting is caused by?

Port Arthur massacre

People do not seem to be able to separate the fear from the actual risk

I question this statement as irrational and it is treating the general public a stupid, barely a day goes by that gun crime is not in the news.

I it is far to easy for nutters to own guns, I have had a gun pointed at my head as a joke by an ex work colleague and a member of the local gun club, when this person left my work place many people mentioned to me that they were quite worried about his fascination with guns and obvious metal instability and were relieved when he left, BTW he used to tell me stories about some of the weird people he used to meet at the gun club. I think the gun laws need to be tightened up even further.

Tony

[Moondog55]

The Port Arthur massacre was a tragedy, it should not have happened, but penalising a huge number of law-abiding citizens for the act of a single unstable individual was and is a mistake.
Gun crimes are in the news because it sells papers.
You don't like firearms I am fine with that there is no pressure on you these days to do so or compulsory National Military Service .
I asked why you fear them so much and not really dangerous stuff like antibiotic resistance bacteria or drunk drivers