Hunting in some NSW National Parks

[jackhinde]

Two bushwalk.com forum members wander into the so called wilderness for a few days.
Both take lots of great light weight gear.
This allows one member to take their camera, the other takes a rifle.
Whilst in the middle of nowhere they both get to shoot a fox, a pair of goats, a cat and three pigs.
Which member has made the greatest contribution to protecting ecosystems?

[wildwalks]

Great to hear all the good debate.

Check out http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/
We have set up a system to make it easy for those who want to write to your local member about this issue.
You just drop in your details. From you postcode work we can work out who your local member is.
And we set up a draft fully pre-populated e-mail.
You can edit the e-mail and then press send.

The more customising you can do the better. But you can be in and out in about 1 minute if you want.

I have also put up a map of the effected parks. The site is still a work in progress, there are more bits to add and the map to clean up as well.
If you have any extra stuff to contribute just email (matt at wildwalks dot com). I hope to get a bit more up in the next few hours

Thanks

Matt
(a big thanks to Geoffmallo and the NPA for there help in making this happen)

[geoffmallo]

As Matt said we've been working on a site today to help make it easier to let the relevant polies know what we think (we some of us).

Please take 1 minute to send an email to your local member, the premier and the minister for the environment. http://nohunting.wildwalks.com

You can also follow on Twitter @nohungingNP (http://twitter.com/nohuntingNP).

Cheers
Geoff

[wildwalks]

....
Whilst in the middle of nowhere they both get to shoot a fox, a pair of goats, a cat and three pigs.
Which member has made the greatest contribution to protecting ecosystems?

Hi Jackhine
A fair question to pose, and a difficult one to answer.
You might enjoy reading Tony's article mentioned earlier in the post. There is a fair bit of research that suggests that adhoc shooting like this has little benefit in most parks (with the exception of very small areas). There is evidence however that hunting like this can actually disrupt professional feral animal eradication programs.
Taking photo's can, if shared well, instil a love of wild places in people and can lead to people rethink their impact on the environment.

Matt

[forest]

Thanks for posting that Tony.

Interesting read but I still cannot get my head around how leaving the 6500 ferals in area's they shouldn't be for the better good.

Still against the NP public hunting thing but still, a dead feral is a good one. They do a lot of damage.

The government had proven it's inability to manage the introduced species in our state forests, hence the creation of the game council.
I'm not up to speed on what NSW National Parks do to control introduced species currently but from what I have seen in certain area's it falls short.

I just wish better efforts had been made to manage this in the past. I think it's a story on not enough and now Bang (literally).
The game council and it's shooters are in.

This is a bill that would never be passed if the state government didn't need a back water deal to sell off the power industry.

[forest]

There is evidence however that hunting like this can actually disrupt professional feral animal eradication programs.

That's just it. A lot of area's have a highly ineffective eradication program to start with, so what is there to disrupt ??

It just comes down to funding which has been lacking in the past. This is why the game council has been able to push there wagon as it has a lesser cost to the government but is actually doing something.

If more funding was available for eradication of introduced species maybe we wouldn't need the public to hunt in NP's

[Tony]

Two bushwalk.com forum members wander into the so called wilderness for a few days.
Both take lots of great light weight gear.
This allows one member to take their camera, the other takes a rifle.
Whilst in the middle of nowhere they both get to shoot a fox, a pair of goats, a cat and three pigs.
Which member has made the greatest contribution to protecting ecosystems?

Hi Jack,

As Matt mentioned you should do some reading of the ISC site, it has some very good scientific based information. From what I understand if a dominant fox is killed they can be replaced by several less dominant foxes, therefore causing more pressure on the local animals.

Tony

[Pteropus]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that leaving feral animals in place would be for the better good. The suggestion is that ad hoc hunting is not effective in controlling pest populations. The pest problem is really there because there is only a limited budget to throw at the issue. Of course if there was a sustained campaign of hunting, like what occurred recently on Macquarie Island with the rabbits, the pest species would be on the decline. But telling us that amateurs can pick up the slack is not really a defensible argument. Hunters want to keep hunting and so pest populations rarely decline because it is in the hunter’s interests to maintain them. Hunting can actually increase generation times and cause increases in populations by some species, especially if only one demographic of the population is targeted, e.g. big healthy males. Many pest populations are actually maintained in agricultural land surrounding National Parks (agricultural land makes up a much larger portion of overall habitat than protected areas). Smaller national parks can only maintain small feral populations when compared with large areas of farm land.

I even thought a bounty might be more effective, to make sure that all the population demographics are targeted, but after reading some of the website that Matt and Tony posted, the argument for bounties is thin too. Hunters will rort the system because it pays to maintain a healthy population of a pest species to keep the bounties rolling in. In fact, I have heard stories of people breeding up dingo pups just to kill and scalp them for the dog bounties in western Qld....

It would be interesting to know what hunters wanted to hunt anyhow. I doubt that cats would be high on the list, but obviously deer and pigs are. Every pig hunter I have met uses dogs, which raises other issues. The other issue I suppose is, does this mean there will be greater access by vehicles through national park fire trails? Will the hunters be monitored? Etc etc...

Anyway, it will be interesting to see the details and fine print on this announcement...

[climberman]

This is a bill that would never be passed if the state government didn't need a back water deal to sell off the power industry.

Pretty sure it wouldn't have been needed if the Greens had voted for the power selloff. There's a pretty conundrum for a Party !

[Tony]

A few bits of information I have picked up.

The sporting shooters claims that recreation hunting reduces feral animal numbers, but on duck hunting they claim that hunting make no differnence to numbers ??? hyprocrosy or what.

With recreational hunters, the best 5% of hunters kill most of the animals killed by recreational shooters.

Recreational hunting can upset a eradication program.

The claims that recreational hunting does reduce feral numbers has no scientific basis.

In one trial in one park, 65 hunters over 4 days killed a small fraction of the feral animals killed in 4 hours by a professional shooter in a helicopter.

Many of thedeer and pig populations have mixed DNA from distant populations, this is from some hunters releasing these animals to populate more areas.

+1 to Pteropus post.

Tony

[geoffmallo]

Personally I'm ok with hunting, but I want to go to a place where it doesn't happen, and that should be our National Parks. We all know the difference between a state forest and a national park, and I'd choose a NP any day. Between an overused 4wd track and dirt bikes and a walk in a wild place. I don't want to stop 4wding, dirt biking nor shooting, I just want a place where they don't happen for preservation of our wild places.

[matagi]

It would be interesting to know what hunters wanted to hunt anyhow. I doubt that cats would be high on the list, but obviously deer and pigs are. Every pig hunter I have met uses dogs, which raises other issues. The other issue I suppose is, does this mean there will be greater access by vehicles through national park fire trails? Will the hunters be monitored? Etc etc...

Anyway, it will be interesting to see the details and fine print on this announcement...

To me, recreational hunting and pest eradication are two different things with different goals. If I go hunting it would be alone or with one other, with the intention of consuming the animal I/we kill. The process of finding, selecting and tracking the prey is as much, if not more a part of the process than the actual kill. If I were to take part in a pest eradication program, then I would be looking to bag as many pest animals in as short a time as possible. So I guess it would be more akin to target shooting (loose analogy, best I can come up). There is still the finding and tracking part, but there is no real discrimination in target selection - it would basically be "pest animal" - bang!

I reckon it should be a walk in/walk out deal. You've got to be able to get into some pretty inhospitable terrain. Which is probably why a professional shooter in a chopper is so effective - they can go just about anywhere and have the benefit of an aerial overview.

It would need to be managed properly, with appropriate permits, logging and tracking of numbers of shooters in the various areas. Large numbers of people thumping all over the bush scaring everything into hiding would be counterproductive.

[wander]

Hunters kill people.

There is no reason they should be in parks except under the very strictly controlled conditions of parks managed programs. And these programs do exist using professional and recreational hunters. If recreational hunters are not aware of these opportunities they simply are not in touch with their own governing bodies. There should be no reason to ask for more access.

Moderation: "Hunters kill people" is offensive to several people here as reported to the moderation team and a warning has been issued. Note that the people who found it offensive are against shooting in national parks as far as I can tell.

A small article on the subject herehttp://www.investigatemagazine.com/jul03hunt.htm, perhaps it is a topic for another thread.

[forest]

Hunters kill people

That's just unfair and uncalled for.

It should be "irresponsible hunters have killed people"

As I have stated, I'm a hunter but against NP access for the hunting puplic.
I agree with everything else you have written.

[Tony]

The majority of Hunters are law abiding people but as with everything you get the few that are not, this story appeared in my local paper this morning and certainly does not give me confidence that once hunting is allowed in NSW NP's I will be safe.

Shooting arrest: Detectives investigating a shooting incident in the state’s south earlier this year have arrested and charged a man.

Shortly before 9pm (Saturday 10 March 2012), police were called to a home on Flora Place, Royalla, 20km south of Queanbeyan, after a shot was fired through a front window of the home.

A 37-year-old man, 36-year-old woman, and four children – aged two to five – were home during the incident, however, were not injured.

Officers attached to Monaro Local Area Command attended and began an investigation into the alleged incident.

Following inquiries, a 21-year-old man was arrested in Royalla today (Thursday 31 May 2012).

Police believe the shooting was not targeted and was hunting at the time.

He was taken to Queanbeyan Police Station where he was subsequently charged with dangerous use of firearm and possess firearm while unlicensed.

He’s been bailed to appear at Queanbeyan Local Court on 25 June 2012.

http://www.facebook.com/nswpoliceforce/ ... 2014651185
2

[wildwalks]

Hi Guys
It seems that NPWS rangers are speaking out against this policy.
ABC radio reports that the rangers unions are suggesting that their members stop proving information to support the Minister of Environment out of protest of this policy decision.
ABC says they will be live with the interview soon.

Stream live to ABC 702
http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/programs/listenlive.htm

Matt

[forest]

I hope the rangers do speak out and have the bill trashed.

Just to note though that the "Invasive Species Council" is not a government body but a private lobby group.

Dr Carrol Booth is associated with strong anti gun and anti hunting loobies. I just cannot get my head around some of the comments made on hunting being ineffective.
I have seen first hand from what I have done on private farms the reduction of introduced pest species. If for every dog fox I have shot was replaced with 5 other males I'd be broke from buying ammo. I cannot believe that claim one bit.

I cannot feel that her reports are biased in not correct. But hey, I'm just a regular guy though with no qualifications in this stuff. Just a lot of first hand experience.

[Pteropus]

Carol has a PhD in biochemistry and environmental philosophy -> http://www.invasives.org.au/page.php?na ... r=ourstaff
Tim Lowe is an ecologist too.

I might as well declare that I too am an ecologist.

As far as reducing numbers, of course if there is a sustained and concentrated pressure from hunting, there will be a reduction in population numbers. But the issue here is that it is doubtful the hunting would be sustained and concentrated on a particular area and species. It seems that a proposal to allow the hunters to hunt in NPs will not be big organised hunts with the intention to eradicate a pest species, but just shooting the odd deer or fox here and there, which will not really impact on a pest population. That is my major issue with this plan because, as I have said in other posts, it gives hunters the incentive to maintain feral populations.

I have attached two papers from European studies into game harvesting, one on deer and the other on wild boar. Both studies found that, though hunting is the leading cause of mortality in game populations, they do not control these populations, and indeed the populations are able to increase. Of course it comes down to the life history traits of a species as to the extent of that growth and every species is different.

EDIT I have unatacthed the two papers Milner et al 2006 and Sevanty et al 2011. If anyone would like a copy please pm me. Cheers, Andrew

[Tony]

Dr Carrol Booth is associated with strong anti gun and anti hunting loobies. I just cannot get my head around some of the comments made on hunting being ineffective.
I have seen first hand from what I have done on private farms the reduction of introduced pest species. If for every dog fox I have shot was replaced with 5 other males I'd be broke from buying ammo. I cannot believe that claim one bit.

I cannot feel that her reports are biased in not correct. But hey, I'm just a regular guy though with no qualifications in this stuff. Just a lot of first hand experience.

Hi Forest,

This is a very good well conducted debate and I hope it stays this way.

Confession: I did some hunting with guns a very long time ago and I do trout fishing now. Trout are an invasive species, they have done untold damage to aquatic systems and are one of the few feral species that have some protection (Bag limits).

I am all for eradicating feral animals from NP's but from what I have read it is not as simple as letting a few shooters loose in a NP, as you would have read in some eradication programs recreational hunting can compliment the program but in most programs recreation hunting does nothing or very little and can even be counter productive.

As mentioned before on BWA, I have had a pistol pointed to my head by a so called responsible member of the local gun club, so I have experienced nutters with guns, I am anti guns.

Dr Booth has as least referenced her information sources, can you show us some or any scientific research that proves she is wrong, I am sure if the gun lobby could prove that recreational hunting does reduce feral animal numbers the gun lobby would fund such research.

Tony

[forest]

I think this is a good debate also.
One thing stands though, we are all united in not wanting rec hunters in our NP's. That's the main thing.

Time pending I'l have a dig for info on what your chasing.

As mentioned before on BWA, I have had a pistol pointed to my head by a so called responsible member of the local gun club, so I have experienced nutters with guns, I am anti guns.

I'll pay that. Must have been terrible. There are noobs in all walks of life eh, But gees noobs with guns are a worry.
Irrisponsible gun ethics and behavior is as bad as drink drivers.

[wildwalks]

Tony what a horrible experaince. I expect that most hunters are responsible to know that behaviour is just not on. But it does raise the point that it does only take one person to do something stupid, either on purpose or accidentally.

Forest - loving your input into this debate, really helping me better understand the issue.
A farm and a National Park are very different environments. This research focuses on larger tracks of land, where eradication techniques will be very different for smaller spaces. So no debate here that hunting can have an impact on farms, I don't have any research either way there.

Also lets remember that this is not a policy with the goal of feral animal eradication. It is a policy to firstly allow the sale of power stations and secondly allow people to participate in recreational hunting. The feral animal control angle is (IMHO) simple a 'green wash' to make this feel more palatable.

I am curious as well for peoples ideas here. There is some talk about the humane killing of animals. Animals such as deer. It seems that government policy here looks to either trapping or aerial shooting. It seems that from ground based shooting, that if the animal is not killed with the first shot that there is not always the chance of a second clean shot. So an animal may take hours or days to die. With aerial based shooting there is a much greater chance of getting a second kill shot in.
It was not long ago that NPWS was given a very hard time for shooting wild horses in KNP, and the human treatment of feral animals was high on the agenda then.

Thanks

Matt

[Dale]

Thanks to everyone who has posted useful links and information, it's great to have an informed debate. Whilst there may be some questions on the motivations of the source material, at a minimum it has cast significant doubt in my mind on the efficacy of ad-hoc feral hunting as a means of population control.

Like most sports, I imagine the large majority of hunters are careful, respectful and considerate in their conduct - they don't bother me. It is the few percent who may be less careful that's an issue. In most sports, you participate in the full knowledge of potential injury or worse, in this scenario innocent bystanders are at potential risk.

Lastly, when we consider the origin of this legislation it was not created after careful consideration of the best way of dealing with feral population control, but rather through political expediency.

[wildwalks]

Interesting story on Lateline last night
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3515694.htm
Watch the minister for environment dig her self a big hole.

It is ok though, because there is a new $2.5m NPWS website. That should fix it.
(BTW a nice looking website, a little user hostile, and lacking most of the content on the old website).

Matt

[Greenie]

I might as well declare that I too am an ecologist.

I might as well declare that I am a Greenie

Really and waiting by my radio to listen to Matt on the radio. He will be on 92.5 ABC Central Coast shortly.

I hope Barry is also listening

[Tony]

[quote="forest"]I think this is a good debate also.
One thing stands though, we are all united in not wanting rec hunters in our NP's. That's the main thing.
[quote]

Hi Forest,

You have brought up a very good point regardless of our views we must stay united in not wanting rec hunters in our NP's.

Tony

[phan_TOM]

Top work to Matt (wildwalks),

and the others who are actively involved with stopping this, I know theres a lot of apathy out there so its a relief to see someone being proactive and doing their bit to try and stop this ludicrous deal going ahead. I used the letter alluded to in a previous post (http://nohunting.wildwalks.com) in an attempt to do my own bit, I also sent the link to everyone in my address book (ha! I have now becoe one of the spammers that I so hate ) and urged them to also send in their own letter and forward the link on to everyone they know. I'm a political pessimist but you never know!

[forest]

Interesting story on Lateline last night

Gees she has instilled me with confidence...
Is it just me or can we not trust any politicians in this age.

I have also sent emails to both shooters party members and also Robyn Parker (Who happens to be my local member)

For me as much passion as I have for the general outdoors I cannot help thinking that the NP hunting thing is a smoke screen for the privatisation of state owned electricity.
If that's the plan, damn. It seems to be working. Let's not loose sight that privatisation will be bad and permenant. Even if this bill gets through it can be changed at the whim of goverment. Once sold they will not be able to afford to buy back state owned assets. Once sold.... It's sold. This country will be owned by OS companies and investors just like that.

One of those sad deaths in NZ was by a poacher using a spotlight.
Spotlighting isn't allowed under the current game council "R" licence system. Only daylight hunting.

If someone is stupid enough to do the wrong thing that could happen now just as easily with a poacher in a NP with a spotlight. Afterall they are poachers and have no regards for the laws.
BUT, Our NP's now should have no hunters in them currently. Period. (Other than the pro's or the odd erradication program run by NPWS)

Allowing hunting access even in daylight will lead to the sad few that will break rules and be tempted to spotlight. I don't care what the game council says, there are allways the few that give all a bad name.
It's the rule breakers that bother me as they are in all activities. It's just this particular activity involves dangerous weapons.

I will state again seeing everyone else is that I'm a......
Hunter (I have family on the land)
Bushwalker (I think I have been bushwalking more that shooting lately)
Lover of our natural enviromnet.
I am a steak eater (Not a Vegan)..... mmm T Bone

[jackhinde]

I think this is a good debate also.
One thing stands though, we are all united in not wanting rec hunters in our NP's. That's the main thing.

I acknowledge and appreciate all your concerns...
But in the unlikely event that it becomes legal, I will be walking out my front door and in to the morton national park with a rifle, with the express aim of destroying every goat, deer or other feral animal near my home.
To those who made assumptions and suggested I visit a certain site due to lack of knowledge, thanks for the wry smile I have now. It has been about twenty years since my first state sanctioned execution of a feral goat on a NPWS reserve.

[phan_TOM]

Gees she has instilled me with confidence...
Is it just me or can we not trust any politicians in this age.

It's a worry isn't it, but have we ever really been able to trust them... I wonder what they're going to do when there is nothing left to sell, just walk away and hand over the reins to private business?

and I think your spot on with the rest of your post.

I'm an Environmental Scientist but have no real issue with hunting, especially if its done for the meat. I have much more respect for people that hunt their own meat than people who collect it wrapped in plastic from the supermarket with no idea of where it came from... I see your T-bone and raise you an eye fillet!

[forest]

I didn't want to stir the pot with the T bone comment as I respect Vegitarians and Vegans (I have two sister in law's, one of each). It's there choice. I wrote that being a bit cheeky.
BUT, You started it.

I'm having 3 couple friends over for dinner tomorrow night for marinated venison fillet steaks. (Yes, hunted personally and taken ethically three weekends ago)
They love it and support what I do. They are also the guys (And there partners) I normally bushwalk with and not one is a shooter.
Too put it as one mates wife flaunts to friends with what it is when the screw up there noses "Think of it as organic as it can be"
Venison is very good lean meat.
I take the whole animal. Nothing goes to waste. Even my two spoilt border collies like it when I go deer hunting.

Anyway off to pack for tomorrows bushwalk.

Happy discussions and I enjoy it. Just wish the topic was more positive but sadly it isn't.