Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[Dale]

The shooting lobby is obviously feeling threatened by the growing campaign to roll-back the decision to allow recreational hunting in NSW National Parks. In the last 24 hours one of their larger websites, http://www.shooting.com.au/ (an equivalent of bushwalk.com), has included a prominent post urging people to "flood this guys site from hunters", with a link to my blog post on the topic (http://fatcanyoners.org/2012/05/31/hunting-in-national-park/).

The specific post says: "Lets flood his posts and show him who really is the red neck loonie - him!!". Amusingly, more than half of the responses on their site have been about the photo, and they are now competing with each other to find photos of cute girls hunting, but I have had nearly 200 people click through, about 16 of which have actually written comments. One of the comments on their site was : "The blog site has a very well informed debate unfolding, I would suggest that if members wish to post, they better have the data to back it up." which is a tribute to people like Tony from this site who have put a lot of effort into researching their arguments against recreational hunting in NP's.

Interesting, unlike this site, you have to be a member to see most of the posts. I joined to have a quick look around, and it is quite worrying. It doesn't take much to find comments supporting violence against their opponents such as: "Green = Feral animal in need of culling!"

Wow - just finished reading all the comments this morning. Quite a mixed bag of rational and well articulated viewpoints through to inane illiterate ramblings.

So Fatcanyoner now you've found a foolproof way to drive traffic to your site I imagine you'll be retiring off the ad revenues ?

[Marwood]

Quite a mixed bag of rational and well articulated viewpoints through to inane illiterate ramblings.

So, a lot this this forum then?

(Just Joking)

(Ducks and runs for cover)

[Nuts]

Fat Canyoner, I'm having trouble with your posts sorting out your comments from the quoted opposition.

The focus seems on discrediting the GC and the fact that recreational hunting isn't effective feral management. I have to say that following through on some of the links they seem to be being used as mostly 'skewed for the purpose'.

A simple answer seems to be to change the management? I'm sure the parks service up there could manage hunting

The few people sticking their hands up to relate personal experience are quickly dismissed as they don't have a ready list of references to those who write more convincingly.

These topics reflect the void in finding outcomes for green issues generally. Such a rift between idealistic academia and disjointed/perhaps seemingly unrelated 'on the ground' opinion.

When politics have lost interest there will still be this large group of potential park users at odds with current (tenuous) park practices. It's not a given that parks have the model right to assure the Long term existence of wilderness, i'm sure various forward thinking park managers are not as quick to say they do.

Nobody Really believes that hunters will be happy to be part of some sort of wildcare program? Why should they be, it's not a requirement for bushwalking.

Its a shame to see such blind faith in 'research' and ready dismissal of alternative views, even if it has just been for the purpose of this argument. Disheartening.

'Thanks for your comments'?? Really??

[FatCanyoner]

So Fatcanyoner now you've found a foolproof way to drive traffic to your site I imagine you'll be retiring off the ad revenues ?

Haha. I wish. It has driven traffic, but it's meant spending all my time approving comments. I'll have to remember to be controversial more often!

So, a lot this this forum then?

I'm having trouble with your posts sorting out your comments from the quoted opposition.

I've just gone through them and made my edits italic, so hopefully that makes it all a bit clearer. Let me know if that has helped clear it up.

Such a rift between idealistic academia and disjointed/perhaps seemingly unrelated 'on the ground' opinion.

I agree. This is a hard one. I initially wrote the post as a very personal, emotive rant about something that concerned me in a way that wasn't purely rational, rather it just felt wrong. Going back to it I started to provide some extra info / research etc, because that's what people asked for. You are right that in these debates the personal is disregarded, and people only respond to the academic stuff. For me, fundamentally, I am concerned about my safety and others. I am concerned by public assets being subverted for the use of a small few. I'm also unconvinced, from my experiences, of the ability / desire of most hunters to actually eradicate pests, and am more convinced that they desire to maintain these species to provide future sport. The reality is that the government, long term, will be swayed by the science.
Also, while hunting will continue for the foreseeable future, how it is managed, and the role of the Game Council or others in doing this, is still very up in the air. Personally I do not trust the Game Council to do this appropriately. I am personally lobbying, and hope others are too, for a genuinely independent government agency to ensure recreational hunting in parks is managed properly, and its impacts assessed genuinely. Given the Game Councils origins, membership and purpose, I don't believe it can do this.

[maddog]

So Fatcanyoner now you've found a foolproof way to drive traffic to your site I imagine you'll be retiring off the ad revenues ?

Maddog concurs, but did not write (it was Dale).

[maddog]

G'Day Nuts,

The focus seems on discrediting the GC and the fact that recreational hunting isn't effective feral management.

On the issue of whether or not recreational hunting is or is not a legitimate component of effective feral (or native) management, it is the case that the GC and Shooters and Fishers have made much of the 'environmental benefit' aspect of their activities. If someone raises a proposition which is incorrect (or mere propaganda), why would objections not be raised in even the most polite of forums?

I have to say that following through on some of the links they seem to be being used as mostly 'skewed for the purpose'.

Please be more specific. Reading through many of the links as you have done, I have not been particularly struck by the alleged bias of the ISC (or other references provided). If you have any examples of factually incorrect information, or information provided by the ISC (or others) in relation to this topic that is not substantiated by evidence, why not provide them along with your reasoning (i.e. evidence)?

The few people sticking their hands up to relate personal experience are quickly dismissed as they don't have a ready list of references to those who write more convincingly.

As above, an argument should be judged on its merits.

These topics reflect the void in finding outcomes for green issues generally. Such a rift between idealistic academia and disjointed/perhaps seemingly unrelated 'on the ground' opinion.

Are you suggesting that green = academia? This has not necessarily been my experience. I have often found academics engaged in areas of environmental management to be quite dismissive of many 'green' claims. Greens on the other hand seem only to accept 'science' when it suits them. (The rejection of 'chemicals' and ready acceptance of 'organic' is one classic example of the muddle-headedness of the green movement in opposition to academia and science.)

Nobody Really believes that hunters will be happy to be part of some sort of wildcare program? Why should they be, it's not a requirement for bushwalking.

If hunters do not wish to be part of 'some sort of wild care program', then claims of 'environmental benefit' should withdrawn and the justification for the indulgence of shooting within National Parks should be on other grounds (e.g. fair access, environmentally benign, no impediment to the amenity of the area, etc).

Its a shame to see such blind faith in 'research' and ready dismissal of alternative views...

Again, the research is the evidence, and opponents of recreational hunting within National Parks should be happy to accept evidence based alternative views on its merits. But for what reason should unsubstantiated claims (such as recreational 'conservation hunting') be accepted as having the same status as opposing argument based on 'research'? Out of politeness?

Cheers

[Ent]

Fat Canyoner, I'm having trouble with your posts sorting out your comments from the quoted opposition.

The focus seems on discrediting the GC and the fact that recreational hunting isn't effective feral management. I have to say that following through on some of the links they seem to be being used as mostly 'skewed for the purpose'.

A simple answer seems to be to change the management? I'm sure the parks service up there could manage hunting

The few people sticking their hands up to relate personal experience are quickly dismissed as they don't have a ready list of references to those who write more convincingly.

These topics reflect the void in finding outcomes for green issues generally. Such a rift between idealistic academia and disjointed/perhaps seemingly unrelated 'on the ground' opinion.

When politics have lost interest there will still be this large group of potential park users at odds with current (tenuous) park practices. It's not a given that parks have the model right to assure the Long term existence of wilderness, i'm sure various forward thinking park managers are not as quick to say they do.

Nobody Really believes that hunters will be happy to be part of some sort of wildcare program? Why should they be, it's not a requirement for bushwalking.

Its a shame to see such blind faith in 'research' and ready dismissal of alternative views, even if it has just been for the purpose of this argument. Disheartening.

'Thanks for your comments'?? Really??

Well written critique Nuts.

I have no issue with a political process where people anti hunting and private firearm ownership express their view on the world order. We do live in a democracy. But do struggle with pseudo science and lack of studies being used as an argument for stopping things. Such things are tools of academic rhetoric and are largely been seen as such by a growing number of people as spin.

As for the requirement that hunters have no valid argument unless willing and capable of the complete eradication of a pest, well please state the alternatives with independently verified costing where there is a guarantee result of the complete destruction of vermin Australia wide (heck why not world wide)? See is it is easy to demand a study and standard of proof /result that is not achievable then use this as rhetoric to frustrate an opponent’s point of view

To my knowledge, this use of National Parks is a first for Australia, so by definition there are no studies. The “stop everything unless a study rhetoric” has a failsafe win every time approach as hunting cannot take place unless it has already taken place! Same as demanding to see results before supporting a theory. This is the ideal get out of free jail argument for ignoring the potential for global warming until you need waders to spend a night at the Sydney Opera House. Such tools of debate are used by all sides. Sorry, as a Tasmanian I have seen these rhetoric tool many times so no long impressed by them.

Personally I was a great supporter of lands been transferred to National Park control but now forming the strong opinion that as National Park requirements are so “limiting” that other categories such as “Conservation areas” are better. Even if it is to avoid “experts” demanding endless studies before putting in infrastructure that many people on the ground experiences strongly suggest is needed. I think we all might be amazed by the approval process to put in toilets in a World Heritage area. Here the logic is, ignore the damage and endlessly analyse the “solution”.

By all means protest but please spare me the rhetoric of nothing should happen unless it is scientifically provable. Mankind built much of its achievements based on ordinary people looking at something and coming up with means to improve it. Discounting peoples on the ground experience I think is rather disrespectful.

Regards

[Pteropus]

The Precautionary Principle:
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is
• threatening to human life or health, or
• serious and effectively irreversible, or
• inequitable to present or future generations, or
• imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.
The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis should be ongoing so that chosen actions are subject to review. Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the bounds of the possible harm.
Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm. Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process.

...But do struggle with pseudo science and lack of studies being used as an argument for stopping things. Such things are tools of academic rhetoric and are largely been seen as such by a growing number of people as spin.

What is this ‘pseudo science’ you talk of Ent? There are studies on how recreational hunting of a given species can actually increase the numbers of a species. Most of these studies are international in origin, but population dynamics is population dynamics, and of course the feral species are foreign in origin too. There is local research such as: Moriarty, A. (2004) The liberation, distribution, abundance and management of wild deer in Australia. Wildlife Research, 31, 291-299; for example, that show how recreational hunters have deliberately increased deer herds across southern mainland Australia for their own benefit. Yet I don’t see anything published to the contrary, that recreational hunting has a negative impact on abundances of feral species. All I read and hear is 'rhetoric' from recreational hunters and their allies, that they are doing their bit to control feral animals.

It is a common ploy by people who don’t want to believe in the science to dismiss it as ‘pseudo science’ or as you say, ‘academic rhetoric’. Dare I bring up the climate change debate as an example, where there is a consensus by climate scientists on the cause of global warming and subsequent climate change, yet many people, including members of government and other decision and law makers, are quick to dismiss the science as ‘psuedo science’ or they say there is not ‘enough evidence’ or the like. Yet, no one publishes to the contrary. (AND I do not want to get into a debate about CC ...I am not going to argue here).

Another thing is that it takes a long time for the political process to embrace scientific findings. Political decisions are often NOT based on research but are based on peoples beliefs and/or for political benefit. This NSW ‘Game and feral animal control amendment bill 2012’ is the perfect example. As discussed in length here on the NSW thread and in the ‘Experiences of recreational hunting in NPs’ thread, there is plenty of research that hunting does not control, or even significantly reduce, feral species. One just has to read the NSW Parliament Hansard transcript for the passing of the bill to see that many of these arguments were used by opposing politicians. Yet most of the voting dismissed these claims. The bill's name is a mis-representation of what it's purpose is. The ammendment is written to give recreational hunters more access to public lands, specifically National Parks.

As for the requirement that hunters have no valid argument unless willing and capable of the complete eradication of a pest, well please state the alternatives with independently verified costing where there is a guarantee result of the complete destruction of vermin Australia wide (heck why not world wide)? See is it is easy to demand a study and standard of proof /result that is not achievable then use this as rhetoric to frustrate an opponent’s point of view

On that note, whether hunting in National Parks is right or wrong is irrelevant. That comes down to personal opinion. BUT saying recreational hunters can control ‘game’ or feral species is not irrelevant. The evidence suggests they can’t AND can actually cause increases in the abundances of feral species. We could see more damage to the environment rather than less. While I agree that there is no easy solution to feral animal management, this decision by the NSW Government has the potential to make things worse.

...By all means protest but please spare me the rhetoric of nothing should happen unless it is scientifically provable. Mankind built much of its achievements based on ordinary people looking at something and coming up with means to improve it. Discounting peoples on the ground experience I think is rather disrespectful.

Your comment here brings two very similar quotes to my mind:

Do you know, my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled? - Pope Julius III
Behold, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed - Axel Gustafsson Oxenstierna

Cheers
Andrew

(edit: removed pompous threat to use peer-reviewed research in anger )

Last edited by Pteropus on Wed 27 Jun, 2012 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Ent]

Hi Pteropus

Reading your post I am reminded of an event way back in WW1 when the British Admiralty was horrified when the then political head wanted to redeploy “destroyer” type vessel from their role as protector of the Grand Fleet’s capital ships to protecting merchant vessel from German submarines that they brought in their statistical expert to support their argument. The political head then asked the Admiralty’s statistical expert using current loss rates to calculate the day that Britain would be starved out of the war. Churchill got his redeployment of the vessels!

So using your own studies referred to then hunting increases animal numbers. It then appears the much malign Game Authority should be placed in charge of fisheries, save the polar bear, panda, white rhino, and World Whaling Organisation at least. Given that hunting has been blamed for the near extinction of more than a few species (just have to love school teaching), it is quite liberating to read that we should be encouraging hunting based on the studies that you refer to. Do you just not love rhetoric in debates now it has been turned the otherway?

Hopefully, the above twisting of the studies (by me in this case) highlights that quoting and referring from studies removed from the immediate issue is potentially flawed. Hence, the core of my argument that rhetoric and pseudo science (including use of studies that have not been validated to the current issue) serves no purpose other than adding to the word count.

Am I correct to assume by your user name and writing style that you have a strong interest in biological sciences (bats?) or am I reading too much in? The only valid study is one that looks at an actual series of National Parks, their pest, and the restrictions on and the numbers of hunters. Given that does not exist then no sound conclusions can be drawn without pulling to pieces and examining other studies as different environmental and probably more importantly political regulation with overriding policy imperatives played a major role in the reported results. If the controlling body is seeking a stable and strong population (as appears to be with deer in Tasmania) then it should not be surprising that hunters will largely seek to do this. Criticising them for their own success is rather rich/rhetorical.

It is often neglected by anti-hunting groups that hunters are by definition are indoctrinated in conservation as with out what they hunt they cease to be hunters. Over fish trout and flyfisher themselves will seek to moderate fishing pressure, or as at least this has happened in Tasmania. Sadly, this appears not to happen with many commercial fisheries. I believe that the most vulnerable animal is one that is not hunted, nor looks cute on conservationist posters, especially ones with habitat is near a population centre.

My personal opinion is the success or failure of animal population control will heavily depend on the policies and directions imposed by the controlling body and how the hunters see their social responsibility role. I cannot see Sambar hunters (just as one group for example) converging on mass to shoot and leave a trail of carcass to rot unless that they accept that is their social responsibility to control an animal population. Frankly, would not surprise me if some hunters come up with innovative ways to avoid what their hunting belief would consider is wanton waste.

As for the climate debacle. It has shown up the best and worst side of all players. It is a wake-up call for scientist to get their house in order as more than a few climate sceptics’ claims on scientific impropriety has a basis in fact. It would be a tragedy if such impropriety results in the whole issue not acted upon, but looks like what will happen. I wonder how long before financial advisors will be instructing their clients to sell beachside property? Science done with a political motivation is in my opinion poor science, whether the political motivation is by Nazis or Concerned Citizens pushing their agenda. And also never under estimate the contribution that can be made by people on the ground looking at issues. To discount them because letters are missing after their name is elitism.

I find it ironic that a Pope (holder of infallible judgement) makes such a comment and that you quote him. Was he referring to the organisation that he headed or the scientist that were “dealt” with? We all know (or should know) how much some Popes have encouraged open scientific thought over the ages, not! Also we live in a democracy where the unwashed mass vote count. Something that until recently many Popes would have struggled with (divine right of kings and such concepts).


Regards

[Tony]

I am to busy at the moment to type much of a reply, but an email I received this morning about a new word which describes this hunting in national parks bill, Ineptocracy, an explanation below.

image00111.jpg (94.54 KiB) Viewed 15991 times

[Pteropus]

Hi Ent

The British Admiralty, or indeed, the Air Ministry and War Office (not to mention the later Ministry of Defence!) for that matter, were often (but not always) slow to embrace new ideas and fast to hold on to traditions...one just has to look at their infighting and lack of agreement that lead to poor development of aircraft for their navy, the lack of interest in Frank Whittle’s jet engine or perhaps the lack of development in modern arms and armour for their army in between the wars...

But I don’t quite see the analogy between my post and Churchill getting his way over the Admirals through the use of statistics.

One might argue that holding onto the idea that recreational hunting can actually help conservation is an anachronistic way of thinking, just like the British Admirals of your tale? And on the U-boat front the Brits did learn their lesson and had developed dedicated anti-submarine escorts by the Second World War, and it was the USA who was slow to learn against the U-boats due to one Admiral King’s reluctance to take up a British idea that had already been learnt the hard way.

I disagree with you that the use of studies that have not been validated to the current issue serves no purpose. We can learn from studies that have already been conducted elsewhere and valid studies are not necessarily ones that are carried out in one or a series of National Parks. There is no point reinventing the wheel, and one could argue that studies at the local scale are not relevant at greater scales, such as one at which management occurs. Are you then suggesting individual, case by case studies? I think you and I would both agree that is not practical. I think we have learnt a lot about biological systems, and yes, there is still much more to learn too. And yes, I do have some interest in the biological sciences, including bats, among other things.

So using your own studies referred to then hunting increases animal numbers. It then appears the much malign Game Authority should be placed in charge of fisheries, save the polar bear, panda, white rhino, and World Whaling Organisation at least. Given that hunting has been blamed for the near extinction of more than a few species (just have to love school teaching), it is quite liberating to read that we should be encouraging hunting based on the studies that you refer to. Do you just not love rhetoric in debates now it has been turned the otherway?

Actually, to some instances, yes, but not necessarily with the species you mentioned. I have already mentioned that this idea is argued for conservation of say elephants in places like Zimbabwe. Hunters want to hunt an elephant and will pay a lot money to do so. The government want that money so they will protect the elephants from poaching.
The problem is, sustainable hunting on the elephant model I mentioned doesn’t work for all species because all species have different life histories. And that elephant model would need to be monitored, to ensure births at least equalled deaths. But species that become feral tend to have high birth rates and can also increase generation times if say, mature males and females are taken out of populations. But a species that has just one young a year will be unlikely to proliferate and is more likely decline due to hunting pressure.

And it is not actually hunting that is actually the main cause of extinction of most species. It is habitat loss and fragmentation. So the polar bear loses ice caps and seal hunting grounds; panda’s lose bamboo forest; rhino’s compete for pasture. And whales are not one species but many. Some are fine, others have been hunted heavily, and all are competing with humans for decreasing resources (fish and krill). Hunting is then an extra pressure that comes on top of all that.

If the controlling body is seeking a stable and strong population (as appears to be with deer in Tasmania) then it should not be surprising that hunters will largely seek to do this. Criticising them for their own success is rather rich/rhetorical.

It is often neglected by anti-hunting groups that hunters are by definition are indoctrinated in conservation as with out what they hunt they cease to be hunters. Over fish trout and flyfisher themselves will seek to moderate fishing pressure, or as at least this has happened in Tasmania. Sadly, this appears not to happen with many commercial fisheries. I believe that the most vulnerable animal is one that is not hunted, nor looks cute on conservationist posters, especially ones with habitat is near a population centre.

If the controlling body is seeking a stable and strong population AND the hunters are seeking to do this, why dress their amendment to the bill as 'Game and feral animal control'? They should call a spade a spade and tell it like it is. And yes, I agree your statement that many hunters are 'indoctrinated in conservation as with out what they hunt they cease to be hunters'. This is the crux of my argument, and I have brought it up in both threads on hunting. Hunters want to hunt. Therefore they will maintain sustainable prey populations (which is why the protection of elephants by allowing paying hunters could actually work). Hence, their intention is not to 'control' feral animals but to 'sustain' them. So how does sustaining feral populations, knowing the damage they do, sit with National Parks and their users?

But I actually think that many recreational hunters themselves believe they are making a difference. But ones beliefs and reality are two different things. And I am sure that many don't actually care one iota about the environment. I won't just single recreational hunters out there because I am sure there are bushwalkers who are not paying that much attention to their environment...we see that every time we see rubbish deep in the bush.

My personal opinion is the success or failure of animal population control will heavily depend on the policies and directions imposed by the controlling body and how the hunters see their social responsibility role. I cannot see Sambar hunters (just as one group for example) converging on mass to shoot and leave a trail of carcass to rot unless that they accept that is their social responsibility to control an animal population. Frankly, would not surprise me if some hunters come up with innovative ways to avoid what their hunting belief would consider is wanton waste.

I totally agree. It is unfortunate that there are what has been described as 'unresolvable conflicts of interest' in the NSW Game Council, the Government body that is supposed to regulate hunting in the state. Basically, the members are hunters themselves, with vested interests. Isn't there some story/fable about a kid being put in charge of a lolly jar?

Science done with a political motivation is in my opinion poor science

Science done with political motivation can be biased science. Same with science done with commercial motivation. But science has to be generally robust before it will be published and it is not easy to get published.

I find it ironic that a Pope (holder of infallible judgement) makes such a comment and that you quote him. Was he referring to the organisation that he headed or the scientist that were “dealt” with? We all know (or should know) how much some Popes have encouraged open scientific thought over the ages, not! Also we live in a democracy where the unwashed mass vote count. Something that until recently many Popes would have struggled with (divine right of kings and such concepts).

I don't think that the fact a pope that spoke the words is relevant. A pope is just a man after all. But the words are relevant to the way the world is governed or ruled. Or can we only use famous quotations or perhaps use historical examples in the context they were spoken/occurred...perhaps we can go back to talking of Churchill

(Just Joking)

Cheers
Andrew

[Ent]

Hi Pteropus

We looks like we will have a real life study in the areas of the specific species. As unplanned and unstructured this may be I will be interested in the results. Assuming that unobtainable degrees of proof are not demanded by the anti lobby.

It is up to the parties involved to perform. Worthy of my traditional betting limit of one dollar on the outcome.

I live next to a semi bushland reserve and noticed when the gun laws came in a steady increase in wallabies. It has now got to the point that every desirable plant has been consumed and my lawn is covered in droppings. Given I have a very Darwinian approach to gardening this does not concern me greatly but does makes setting up a tent to dry out a challenge.

I personally know people that further up the reserve that would claim a free feed or two from shooting them but with the gun laws no longer do. It has taken nearly twenty years to reach this level.

Now this fails the scientific approach but is the case. The ultimate proof is people further up the street approached me to lobby the council to do something. The growth in numbers and consumption of feed is resulting in bolder wallabies This is the experience that gets ignored and replaced by some study done in another country with another species simply because it is published.

A lot of natural findings came from people without degrees watching with an observant eye. Indeed Darwin himself relied on the work of such people. I hope such observations are not discounted. Also hope that NSW Parks has at least some means of objectively examining the impact.

In say two years time some trends might emerge. My guess the results will be patchy with location and specie explaining much of this. Assuming no strange controls or requirements are imposed.

Until then only words and opinions will exist.

Regards

[Pteropus]

Hi Ent

Has anyone conducted any surveys on your local wallaby population? Perhaps wallaby numbers are increasing, but the observant eye has given away to quantitative analysis. Culls are generally only carried out if necessary.

Back to NSW, a study in NPs on the effectiveness of recreational hunting would be ideal (social studies on users on NPs would be good too). Of course different species in different locations will respond differently. But what will be most interesting will be to see if, given the opportunity, the governing body (NSW Game Council) and hunters remove feral species from an area. Or will they leave enough animals to allow a population to recover like it seems they do in Victoria?

Until then only words and opinions will exist.

Of course. And that is why we are here at this forum

Cheers
Andrew

[Tony]

post removed

Last edited by Tony on Thu 28 Jun, 2012 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Nuts]

Tony, as someone working in science you surely embrace the prospect that you can only ever be 95% sure. Stands to reason that you would excited about the chance that conclusions (and especially recommendations) from research can be wrong. 'Excited', not offended.

I picture whether your shirt would suit best a 'recreational' hunter, a park manager or a bushwalker. I'd say none of them but perhaps it would fit as a frustrated outburst of someone living near a national park.Perhaps it would also suit those working at practical conservation but with all levels of management in mind?


There are some good recent posts here, lets hope that the numbers change the politics at some stage in the future eh. I don't think using population ecology to project future results is a sound debating point (personally) and can see an easy out with a change of managers... That would be good enough for some (perhaps having parks manage hunters), I don't see how it would be any better a proposition myself...

[Ent]

Dear Tony

You seek to find offense whenever people disagree with your view yet are happy to post articles that have Woodstock type comments. If you look you will find there was impropriety in the research by some scientists. This was seized upon by the skeptics. Also a rather innocent graph was beatened up out of all proportion with a small group of scientist being bombarded with freedom of information request designed to keep them away from research by skeptics.

I never hold nor stated every climate scientist is deceptive. In fact the number involved in the impropriety is small. The trouble is the science community handling is very poor of the debate.

Tony I have walked around your issues like on egg shells but time for you to rethink your post and its style. It is wrong and counter productive to your position.

For the record I am a believer on climate change and find the political and business maneuvering counter productive to sensible action.

Regards

[Pteropus]

I don't think using population ecology to project future results is a sound debating point (personally) and can see an easy out with a change of managers... That would be good enough for some (perhaps having parks manage hunters), I don't see how it would be any better a proposition myself...

I think that population ecology is an important aspect of this issue. Well, it should be anyhow, particularly since they (the government) are calling it a 'game and feral animal control' bill. I assume they are referring to controlling populations. Of course it will be difficult to model without baseline data anyhow. Who knows how many feral animals of each species? And we don't know what the deal will involve yet either, such as how many hunters, what they can hunt and when. I guess one of the main worries is that parks managers will lose whatever control of feral management they currently have, to some haphazard form of so-called control. For example, crankybugger's post.

[Nuts]

Yess, i'd agree, it must be difficult stuck in the middle (like C/bugger) tbh, what i find surprising is how easily regulations can be traded... (have you all been living beyond your means )

Pteropus, regardless of the effect of rec hunting, collective research findings have obviously already been ignored?

[maddog]

G'Day Ent

You seek to find offense whenever people disagree with your view

Is this a 'you have offended my sensibility defence'? If so, you seem quite willing to use it yourself:

Discounting peoples on the ground experience I think is rather disrespectful

Moving on to your next subject:

If you look you will find there was impropriety in the research by some scientists. This was seized upon by the skeptics. Also a rather innocent graph was beatened up out of all proportion with a small group of scientist being bombarded with freedom of information request designed to keep them away from research by skeptics.
I never hold nor stated every climate scientist is deceptive. In fact the number involved in the impropriety is small. The trouble is the science community handling is very poor of the debate.

The graph to which you refer was Michael Mann's 'hockey stick', which was popularised by Al Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth', and was adopted by the IPCC. The 'hockey stick' was the projection of an exponential increase in temperatures as a result of the activities of mankind, based on modelling (tree rings of a small number of bristlecone pines), and loosely correlated with a highly unreliable branch of science in an infant stage of development (which has proven to have as little predictive value as the related prophecies of Tim Flannery). The deception to which you refer is now popularly referred to as 'climate-gate', which raised serious questions regarding that branch of science, the integrity of those involved, and their motivations. The freedom of information requests were made in order to allow the testing of the scientific findings of Mann et, al., as is the usual practice in science (it allows replication of results - i.e. checking / audit of results). These FOI requests were required only because necessary data was withheld from public analysis by these scientists, and justified on the basis that public money had been spent on the 'science'.

However, whatever be the merits of 'Anthropogenic Climate Change Science' is quite unrelated to ecology in its current context of this debate - the use of the term 'conservation hunting' as applied to the activities of recreational shooters, unless you are alleging similar bias and impropriety within the field of population ecology in the context of the control of feral populations? If so, perhaps you would be good enough to do what Anthony Watts did in 'climate-gate' and provide some proper basis for those allegations?

For the record I am a believer on climate change

A point well made by the prominent Australian geologist and climate sceptic Ian Plimer, it is religion (and environmentalism) that are founded on 'belief' not science. Science requires evidence, and we are still waiting for evidence to be provided that recreational hunting has any basis in conservation.

Cheers,

Last edited by maddog on Thu 28 Jun, 2012 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

[forest]

I just have a few questions for all the statistical critic's that will never except first had experience.

1: What "should" we be doing then if this bill is flawed ??

2: Why has that not been done already as last I looked the feral populations haven't just mystically appeared overnight ??

3: How much will this optimo grand plan for feral animal complete erradication cost the NSW tax payer ??

I still think this is a flawed bill but maybe, just maybe it's at least 1 step in the right direction possibly to start doing more to reduce feral animals. At least it's possibly raising the feral issue with the general bill and jane that don't experience this via a first hand nature experience.

Or it was just a dodgy deal to seal the sale of state owned power stations ?? With little regard for the enviroment other than smoke and mirrors.....

[Tony]

My apologizes Ent,

I have removed my post.

Your post, made me very angry, and I do not agree with some of what you wrote, and found some of it offensive, this is a debate on recreational hunting in NSW National parks and I am not going to debate Climate Change on it.

Overnight I had thought about your post, what would have happened if I had written a no-hunting post with the same meaning, I just re-wrote it with a few words changed.

As for the hunting in NSW National Parks debacle. It has shown up the best and worst side of all players. It is a wake-up call for hunters to get their house in order as more than a few hunting sceptics’ claims on recreational hunting impropriety has a basis in fact. It would be a tragedy if such impropriety results in the whole issue not acted upon, but looks like what will happen. I wonder how long before financial advisors will be instructing their clients to sell their National Park adjacent properties? Hunting in National parks being allowed with a political motivation is in my opinion poor judgment, whether the political motivation is by Nazis or Concerned Citizens pushing their agenda.

And also never under estimate the contribution that can be made by scientists on the ground looking at the science. To discount them because they have letters beside their name is elitism.

Tony

[Pteropus]

...Pteropus, regardless of the effect of rec hunting, collective research findings have obviously already been ignored?

Yes, and it’s not the first time that research has been ignored for political gain.

Overnight I had thought about your post, what would have happened if I had written a no-hunting post with the same meaning, I just re-wrote it with a few words changed.

As for the hunting in NSW National Parks debacle. It has shown up the best and worst side of all players. It is a wake-up call for hunters to get their house in order as more than a few hunting sceptics’ claims on recreational hunting impropriety has a basis in fact. It would be a tragedy if such impropriety results in the whole issue not acted upon, but looks like what will happen. I wonder how long before financial advisors will be instructing their clients to sell their National Park adjacent properties? Hunting in National parks being allowed with a political motivation is in my opinion poor judgment, whether the political motivation is by Nazis or Concerned Citizens pushing their agenda.

And also never under estimate the contribution that can be made by scientists on the ground looking at the science. To discount them because they have letters beside their name is elitism.

I think this is quite a reasonable response. Especially that last line.

I don’t want to get into further debate about the CC topic, and maybe I should have known better than to mention it. I was just using that as the best and most publicised example of where good science is discarded because it doesn’t fit some peoples beliefs or political and commercial agendas. And now people are discussing the ins and outs of that here, which was not my intention AND I hope people refrain from adding their 2c on the CC science on this thread (start a new thread by all means).

One thing about science and the ‘people on the ground’ who have ‘experience’. It is more likely than not that scientists on the ground ARE the people with experience. Research isn’t necessarily done by people in laboratories or by people sitting at computers all day. Before the laboratory and computer stage there is often extensive field work. Ecologists for examples often spend years in remote areas, surveying. And before they do their field work they conducted extensive literature reviews on their topic. And they never stop reading. One of the points of research is to build on knowledge. I know one researcher who radio tracked feral cats and foxes. Radio tracking requires long periods away from family and friends, and requires dedication at irregular hours in all kinds of weather. I am willing to bet he has more knowledge of how to find and hunt cats and foxes than most hunters.

Often local ‘experts’ are consulted. And there are ways to incorporate their knowledge into studies too. However, there is often bias or scale issues. And many of the ordinary people who came up with mankind’s achievements were scientist, not some local expert. We wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are today without research.

I just have a few questions for all the statistical critic's that will never except first had experience.

1: What "should" we be doing then if this bill is flawed ??

2: Why has that not been done already as last I looked the feral populations haven't just mystically appeared overnight ??

3: How much will this optimo grand plan for feral animal complete erradication cost the NSW tax payer ??

I still think this is a flawed bill but maybe, just maybe it's at least 1 step in the right direction possibly to start doing more to reduce feral animals. At least it's possibly raising the feral issue with the general bill and jane that don't experience this via a first hand nature experience.

Or it was just a dodgy deal to seal the sale of state owned power stations ?? With little regard for the enviroment other than smoke and mirrors.....

As to what to do if the bill is flawed, then we whinge here on bushwalk.com haha just kidding. There are no good answers that I can think of other than people power. Make it an issue at future elections? It is a political decision after all and not a particularly well thought out decision (imho).

As to why hasn’t anything done about feral species already, I think most of us agree that there is no hard fast solution. But the evidence, both here and overseas, shows that recreational hunting can make the problem worse than it is. It has already been discussed at length. And i don’t think anyone suggested an ‘optimo grand plan’ for complete eradication of feral species. I think we are all falling into the trap of reading between the lines with each other’s posts on these hunting threads.

I like the debate and it has been an interesting one. But as Ent pointed out, until there is a study done or whatnot, only words and opinions exist. And I am of the opinion that there is no right or wrong in this debate, but there is the potential of making the feral animal problem worse than it is. And it’s really only the residents of NSW who can attempt to make a difference on this one anyhow by taking the matter up with a local MP. After all, the decision was purely political.

Cheers
Andrew

[Ent]

Hi Tony

Thanks for that. As for the "rewording" well that is debating tactic and as done in a transparent way it proves people's own words with small changes can be turned to have a very different meaning. Hence, well all need to be mindful when reading the use of other people's work.

Maddog

Thanks for the references on climate change as that is what I was referring to. My understanding of the graph was rather different. Someone merely wanted it to look less cluttered so removed some labeling. In hindsight not a smart move. The conspiracy theories that this has launched has all the hallmarks of the grassy green knoll.

As for belief. Well as Nuts correctly points out a lot of science conclusions are based on a confidence level so have no absolute yes/no answers. To me accepting confidence levels equals believe and it is semantics to differentiate. Socrates was I believe famous for strangling a debate by demanding endlessly that his opponents define their terms. History indicates that his opponents won the last debating game using politics.

Studies on living organism is almost certain to have statistical error so findings will have a confidence level. Political processes are not scientific and spin means one statistical error or anomaly is used to discredit a volume of work. One pleasing thing is the great unwashed masses are waking up to this tactic.

Does anyone know if anyone is studying the effects of the changing practices? Or will the debate endlessly rage based on "extrapolation" of studies done else where liberally sprinkled with opinion?

Cheers

[Pteropus]

Does anyone know if anyone is studying the effects of the changing practices? Or will the debate endlessly rage based on "extrapolation" of studies done else where liberally sprinkled with opinion?Cheers

I am not sure if they require a study because it isn’t something that involves threatened species or the like. But I am sure there are more than a few researchers who will look into it. There is plenty of research on various feral species though.

[Ent]

Hi

More interested to see the impact of this specific change in law/practices. It is a huge change that its success or failure will have long running impact on how National Parks are used/managed.

Basically, if it fails then pressure should build for alternative control strategies. It would be great if the damage by feral animals is quantified and more importantly accepted by the powers that be. If the changes in law works then great but it would be sad that after the anti- hunting parties to celebrate the failure of hunting as an effective control nothing else happens.

We see in Tassie smiling faces when National Parks are extended but not much in the way of funding to Parks to deal with the increased area. If the NSW parks are so badly compromised by feral animals then all parties should be factoring into their budgets control mechanisms.

No issue if the money can not be raised or allocated due to other pressures but we as the public at less deserve to know what is the cost of action or inaction. From that we can lobby and compete for funds with health, education, etc.

As you may gather I am rather tired of political games where those in opposition beat an issue up and when in power bury it.


Cheers

[Pteropus]

A study of social impacts and implications for National Parks users and managers in the affected parks would be handy as well (or was that what you meant?)

[Tony]

Some interesting news reports

shooters-jump-gun-in-pushing-for-hunting-in-more-national-parks

Protesters take aim at gun law

[Ent]

A study of social impacts and implications for National Parks users and managers in the affected parks would be handy as well (or was that what you meant?)

More interested in the feral control aspects. Social impact studies involve people and that means politics.

Cheers

[Pteropus]

Funny that. Without people and politics we wouldn't be having this discussion

[maddog]

Some interesting news reports

shooters-jump-gun-in-pushing-for-hunting-in-more-national-parks

Protesters take aim at gun law

Thanks Tony,

I particularly like the first one:

'Shooters and Fishers MP Robert Borsak said hunting would ''eventually'' be declared in 751 of the 799 national parks in NSW. He later told the Herald he only hoped this would be the case...But Mr O'Farrell effectively ruled out Mr Borsak's hope yesterday. ''I can't envisage any circumstance in which more parks will be added,'' Mr O'Farrell said. ''Mr Borsak is clearly expressing a hope. I have a hope, which is one that they won't have control of the upper house..."'

Even O'Farrell is uncomfortable with his deal with the Shooters and Fishers.

Cheers