Recreational Hunters allowed in NSW National Parks

Are there any studies to show that these recreational hunting programs are working in other states?

By the way, for anyone who thinks that poison is more humane than hunting. Do some research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yJSvAe8SXw&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLDE732F212018FD1F

Note the green deadfall around the animals - this is because they thrash around in pain while they die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlC3yLShuRI&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLDE732F212018FD1F

Check this one out for a sweet video of a possum slowly dying. Then tell me that poison is a good idea?

Nowhere did I say that there shouldn't be shooting of invasive species like you've tried to make out. I actually think there should be more of it and it should be targeted more effectively instead of people just randomly going shooting. I think it should be expanded to an open season on all deer species as well as brumbies too. I also think that state governments should expand targeted baiting and trapping.

What I find complete rubbish is that shooting in National Parks is being touted as a cure for Australia's conservation problems when in reality it falls somewhere between nibbling around the edges and totally futile.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that recreational hunting won't fix the problem?

I have evidence that it WILL fix the problem
http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we-do/publications/forest-bird-magazine/articles-archive/magazine-article-about-birds

The article mentions that at the PEAK deer culling period, cullers shot 18,000 deer annually (approximately). The New Zealand Deer Stalkers Association estimated that recreational hunters shot 50,000 deer annually in that same period. So, i'm sure you can do maths, 50,000 >> 18,000. Seems that the effect recreational hunters had was far greater than any paid control measure.

Bear in mind, those cullers were using helicopters. How would you like to be out on a tramp (or whatever it is you do in the national parks, if you even go into those parks) and have a helicopter flying around above you with a gentleman with a large assault rifle hanging out the door, waiting for something to move so he can shoot it. Hmmm. That sounds like a fun and safe thing to have. Not to mention a small helicopter cost $1000 an hour to run. So that's very cost effective isn't it.

And I'm sure there are also plenty of instances where an animal is shot and survives and thern suffers a painful death.

My main qualm with the introduction of this bill is that it was rushed in so that the government could privatise electricity in NSW. And they try to justify it by saying that the implementation of this new bill will have a significant impact on feral species population in Australia, but where is the evidence to show this?

To me it just doesn't seem as though the government has done much research as to what the negative or positive effects of recreational hunting in national parks will be, or whether there are any better solutions.

Thanks for that find, Andrew.

From personal experience and talking to a number of friends and associates in the sciences, I think hunting will be just as futile as previous initiatives in alleviating the invasive species 'problem' (though they're welcome to try). To me it's a lost cause. Perhaps concentrated efforts will help a select few of native species, but overall, I can't help but feel that invasive species are a symptom of the invasive species of humans, which probably requires a rethink on the nature of 'invasive species' and our understanding of the/our environment.

Species come and go, some through slow change, and others through sudden changes. I think it's inevitable for a number of native species to disappear. I also think most, if not all, introduced species (us included?), will become the new 'native' species in time to come, provided they learn to adapt to their environment.

This is funny because I'm a wildlife carer, and I actually do hand raise these animals and release them into areas where I know there are no hunters allowed. I've found more joeys who have failed to be killed by hunters than those who have been successfully killed by hunters. Starving to death would have been a blessing for them.

There being a whole lot less cows and sheep in the world is not a bad thing, they are environmentally devastating.

Next time I see the guy who spoke to me about this particular case, I'll ask him. I know it was in Australia because why would we have any interest in New Zealand cases...

Yes. They are a feral animal.

This is the alternative to volunteer conservation hunting: This is what happens when the 'authorities' use 'professional shooting' practices to reduce feral animal populations:

http://www.causes.com/causes/216328-stop-the-brumby-culling/actions/104831

For entertainment's sake, read the thread on organ donation:

"I have decided that I just could not donate my blood any longer to those who are not vegan, and I've taken organ donor off my driver's license. I would donate in a heartbeat to a vegan though"

"I refuse to donate my blood and organs because they might go to a meat eater and thats like helping Hitler commit genocide"

etc.

I can't understand why any so-called, self proclaimed animal libber would prefer any animal to die a long and painful, indiscriminate death through poisoning or aerial shooting. Feral animals and the indisputable destruction of native environments needs to be controlled, for the sake of native flaura and fauna. Volunteer conservation hunters operate professionally and safely, and pin point a target animal, which is dead before it hits the ground.

And before you go off on a tangent, 'Conservation Hunting' is not just a cover. Hunting clubs and associations spend hundreds of hours a year just cleaning forests, such as during clean up Australia Day, taking tonnes and tonnes of rubbish from our state and national parks. Why? Because they love the native Australian bush and want to preserve it.

I'll give you an example. Three weeks ago I was participating in such an activity. Four of us from the Hunters Club just decided to clean up a section of a forest in our area. That's right: off our own bat, no hunting, no guns, just a clean up day because we hunt there regularly and noticed a sudden increase in the dumping of rubbish. As we were cleaning up around a fallen tree, we noticed a tiny sugar glider hopping away from us near a fallen log. More noise to the left: The glider's mate, tangled in the handles of a plastic bag which was anchored under more rubbish. The four of us, looking more like a bunch of bunny hugging greenies cooed and worried over this poor little mite and soon had it free. We took photos of it on our phones as it scampered away, gliding to a nearby sappling. Every bloke there, despite their 'lumberjack' or 'redneck' appearance, was a picture of the values underpinning the essesnce of the green movement. And I couldn't help thinking: If only the bleeding hearts could see these guys now. 'Blood thirsty murderers'? Not likely. 'Killers of innocent native animals'? Nope.

My point is this: Hunters love Australian nature more than they love their guns. As a hunter I voluntarily participate in bush regeneration, clean ups and feral animal control. The feral animals I shoot are dead before they hit the ground and every part of the animal is thankfully and respectfully used in some sort of food. I know the meat that my family eats hasn't been wasted, bred in captivity to be thrown out once its gone past its use by date, or pumped full of hormones in a cage. I also know that the removal of the animal from a native environment has helped the preservation of native species. Goodness all round. I sleep very well at night, which couldn't be said if I indiscriminantly shot, poisoned or trapped feral animals as part of a professional or departmental 'solution' to the indisputable problem of feral animals in this country.