Firstly, I don’t think there is a right or wrong in the issue of hunting or hunting in National Parks per se and everyone can have their say. However, I personally don’t agree with the idea of amateur hunters having access to National Parks, for the reasons I have stated in previous posts to this thread. I do not think that using the reason that recreational hunters are going to help manage feral populations is a reasonable or legitimate excuse to allow hunters into National Parks.
Just because ‘thousands’ of feral animals are being killed, it doesn’t mean that recreational hunting is having a negative impact on their populations. Another issue is that species targeted are most likely going to be game such as deer or pigs, but rarely cats or foxes. Sure, one or two people might have a passion for removing cats and foxes too, such as jackhinde
stated, but I am sure most hunters are more interested in game, such as matagi, who
stated that the idea is to consume the animal he kills. I have no problem with that aspect of hunting, however that is not a form of population control and shouldn’t be used as an excuse for recreational hunting in National Parks. Unless a concentrated effort is made on taking out animals across the demographics of their populations, recreational hunting most likely won’t make a dint.
There is also the safety aspect, which I think many people are worried about and I don’t think it is irrational for users of National Parks to have a fear of recreational hunters. I am sure 99 out of 100 hunters use their fire arms safely. However, you just have to type ‘hunting accidents australia’ into Google to find stories like:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-01/b ... nt/3926152http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-26/m ... ent/919774http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/bo ... 5858132739A mate of mine who hunts and also shoots at a rifle range also said that he has seen some terrible shooters at the range and hopes they never get into a National Park with a gun. I have driven through State Forests such as the Pilliga and seen road signs shot up and camp sites with bullet casings everywhere. Sure, maybe that was done by the 1 irresponsible hunter in 100, but how can that type of behaviour be policed in a National Park? I am not lumping all hunters into the one basket either, but we all know the consequences of the actions of the irresponsible few will be devastating, whether to humans, wildlife or the reputation of hunters in general.
Lastly, comparing State Forests and National Parks with each other is like comparing apples and oranges. A State Forest is managed for harvesting timber and not so much for the conservation value (though SFs are recognised for their conservation value). National Parks are managed for their conservation value alone. That is why many recreational activities such as mountain biking have been banned on most single track throughout the countries National Parks. The conservation comes first before the user of the park. Well, that is how it is supposed to be. I think that the control of feral species should be left up to the professionals, not the amateurs. Simple as that. Sure, the professionals might not get it right all the time, and that is because they are working on limited budgets. But I will say again, letting recreational hunters in will not take up the slack in reducing populations feral animals.
So what I want to know is, with a plethora of areas to hunt in, WHY do recreational hunters want this access to National Parks anyhow?