I say, you there having FUN, cut that out!! We wont be having that my fellow!

Dear Mr

At first I thought you really cared about public safety.

I thought that providing information & data it might be possible to help correct your faulty assessment of total risk and comparative risk.

-->Increasing legal gun ownership in Australia has not corresponded with an increase in accidental or intentional deaths by firearm (10yrs ABS Data)

-->increasing participation in hunting on private & public land has not corresponded with an increase in accidental deaths related to hunting.

-->Reality of the great safety record from NSW program you described as a farce. (even that incompetent system did not kill anyone?)

-->NCIS data on sports related deaths covering 2000-2012 providing comparative and specific data.

-->NSW Crime Statistics showing what is really hurting people.

-->the motivations to keep to the rules when hunting are the same as when driving,
choosing not to steal, choosing not to break other laws and rules.

But Then I read a couple of your comments and your true motivation becomes clear.

"What if he's drunk? You don't like beer? I think you do! "
"They're sober and safe, minimizing risk. "
"They're enthusiasts. They probably consume a fair amount of beer (c'mon, tell me I'm wrong!)."
"Some of us at least pretend to stand upright, use language & reason, breathe through our noses and not drag our knuckles on the ground. You should try it and give up the caveman thing."

Your not motivated by Public Welfare or Animal Welfare or Protecting Native Flora or Fauna.

Your just a regular garden variety wowser, you don't want the other people having fun doing something you personally don't like.

Professional Shooters Killing for profit - that's business totally wholesome.
Just try to keep the smile of your face boys, don't want people to know you like your work.
Professional Poisoners Killing for profit - never mind the  4-6 hours of fits & convulsions & foaming at the mouth, don't mention the fact trials show 9%-40% of baits get eaten by native animals. We wont look.

But you there, having fun, cut that out!

The TWO Big Misdirections the Anti Hunting Crowd Run

I have many issues with the anti hunting lobby's characterization of hunters & the argument they use to push their "Ban Hunting" agenda but here I want to focus on two

FIRST: 

  "the animal welfare issue." 

SECOND:  

 "Recreation shooting is largely ineffective compared with integrated control methods"

ANIMAL WELFARE -

In nearly all discussions the argument will be

"I am OK with professional shooters, but I am not happy with amateurs"

"skilled professionals ensure that most animals are killed swiftly and humanely but the same can not be said for all amateur hunters, my concern is for the welfare of the animals being culled"

This is the a disingenuous misdirection.

I agree that a misplaced shot is horrible & with out quick follow up leaves an animal in agony for hours before it dies.

However the anti hunting line gives a FALSE comparison of Volunteer vs Pro.

I wont get into the problems with the "professionals are better shot" deal.

I want to challenge the false suggestion that the alternative to volunteers is professional shooters.

Professional Shooters are expensive and one pro shooter by themselves will be hard pressed to provide an effective control.
That is why almost all of the Pestsmart material is about the how and why of using 1080 poison.

So when you are comparing the Humanness of Amateur Hunting as a control tool you need to compare it to the REAL alternative that NPWS and STATE FOREST rely upon the most heavily - 1080 Baits.

This is how 1080 works:

http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf

-->Time to Death 4-6hours & during those 4-6hours
--> prolonged or profuse vomiting,
--> laboured respiration often with a white froth around the mouth and nostrils
--> some pigs also exhibit signs of central nervous system disturbance
--> including hyper-excitability, squealing, manic running paralysis or convulsions

REMEMBER THAT GOES ON FOR 4 - 6 HOURS

So from an Animal Welfare assessment:

- the 1080 BEST Case scenario for an animal that is  HOURS of AGONY

can only match Shootings worse case outcome.

We have not look at:
--> what happens if the animal ingests a sub lethal dose.
-->impact on suckling young of poisoned mother.

I note that under the law as a hunter I am obligated to track the young down & put them down.
The boys laying the 1080 Baits have no such obligations.

This is why I say the animal welfare line is completely bogus.You are not presented with the TRUE Comparsion. You are presented with and idealized Professional Shooter vs Demonized Amateur (who is claimed to be incapable & unwilling to exercise discretion and skill!)

While we are on those Professional Marksmen you would do well to remind yourself of the work they did in Guy Fawkes National Park in 2000.  http://youtu.be/AL9KlLqL1bI


Which lead to the RSPCA taking legal action against National Parks.

 

RECREATION SHOOTING IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE CONTROL METHOD

This is the other deliberate misdirection used by the anti hunting groups.

"Ad hoc" Hunting is not being put forward as an "Alternative Control Method

"Ad hoc" is being put forward as SUPPLEMENTARY control method

"Ad hoc" is not really AD HOC - is not as random as they want you to believe.

We go hunting in places that FERALS have been reported. Tells us XYZ is lousy with pigs - we will happily go get some.

This is the other another deliberate misdirection used by the anti hunting groups.

We are not asking for Recreational Shooting to be a replacement of the other methods.

We are asking for it to be ADDED to the controls already in place.

This is an accumulation of control methods, not a replacement.

Our request is consistent with the advise of Bio-security in NSW and Victoria and Queensland who say time and time again to land managers:

-->EVERY method of control should be employed against Feral Animals.

-->We should seek to put as many opportunities for the Feral Pests to encounter a control method each day as possible.

-->That means Coordinated Baiting, Trapping & Shooting Programs plus

--> opportunistic hunting & trapping are part of that continum

Hunting is an additional control method.

Hunting is an alternative in areas that BAITING is not acceptable or viable or for people who think baiting is cruel.

If you have working dogs - First Aid for your Dog

There you have it:

1> animal welfare argument is bogus because they dont compare shooting with 1080 (the method they WILL use)

2> Ineffective Control argument is bogus because we are not replacing other controls, we are suplimenting

An Old story Showing what a Mess Professional Shooters can make of a Cull

Brumby Cull in Guy Fawkes National Park

Keen on letting professionals do the culling:

Have a look at some handy work from New South Wales

Guy Fawkes National Park

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL9KlLqL1bI



Government did publish their own review:

Report on the cull of feral horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park in October 2000. Executive Summary.

This report was commisioned to
1) review the policies and practices used by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to control populations of major feral animal species in national parks in New South Wales.
2) to make recommendations on the future management of fearl horses in national parks in New South Wales.
3) To develop a code of practice for the capture and transport of feral horses.
4) To make recommendations on the development of research programs to investigate the adverse impacts of feral horses in a range of haitats.

Available:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/EnglishReportFeralHorseManagement.htm

Report:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/englishReport.pdf

The DPI & NPWS Believe 6 hours of Agony before death is "Conditionally Acceptable" but resist using shooting by volunteer hunters. WTF?

What do you consider a humane death for any animal?

I think most people would want the death to be as quick and painless as possible.

So if I told you that the term "Conditionally Acceptable" when applied to Humaneness Models means:

• The animal may take 4-6 hours before they no longer feel any pain from the culling method.
• The animal will experience moderate to severe suffering for those 4-6 hours.

For example in Pigs:
http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf

-->Time to Death 4-6hours & during those 4-6hours
--> prolonged or profuse vomiting,
--> laboured respiration often with a white froth around the mouth and nostrils
--> some pigs also exhibit signs of central nervous system disturbance
--> including hyper-excitability, squealing, manic running paralysis or convulsions

 How would you react?

That is exactly what  the term "Conditionally Acceptable" means when you see it in any document produced by

• DPI  (Department of Primary Industries)
• LPHA (Livestock Health and Pest Authorities.)
• NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife)
• Draft Wild Dog Action Plan

This is how the widely utilized  "Sharp and Saunders Model for Assessing Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods" allows you to assess 1080 poison.

You can read the model here:
 http://www.feral.org.au/a-model-for-assessing-the-relative-humaneness-of-pest-animal-control-methods/

Shooting is rated as "Acceptable",

So lets have a look at what makes the difference between "Acceptable" & "Conditionally Acceptable"

This is how the Model Rates Shooting vs 1080 Poison


REF:http://www.feral.org.au/animal-welfare/humaneness-assessment/wild-dog/
(At the end of this post I have some video you can see what that actually looks like)

Have a look a that again, and keep in mind that
--> 1080 Poison is rated as "Conditionally Acceptable"
--> Shooting is rated as "Acceptable"

If you have any experience with hunting or shooting I ask you:

How many animals that you have seen shot, took more than 1-2 min to die?


My Point?

• not  that 1080 poison does not work.

• not that 1080 poison should not be used.

My point is that the Sharp and Saunders Model is strongly biased against shooting, 

It chooses to use the term "conditional" to help mask the reality of the alternative to shooting.

If you have to use a word like "Conditionally" in order to get your 1080 poison method to pass the Humane Test I think you are not being honest and direct.

Other models will say outright that the poison is nasty and suffering is terrible, but it is unavoidable if you want large scale culling. (see McLeod 2007 down further)



Especially Biased against Ground Shooting

Sharp & Saunders Model enables you to assess Aerial Shooting as more humane than ground shooting.

Apparently they have concluded that bullets fired through the animals chest kill faster & with less pain if fired from a helicopter [1]

If you have any understanding of how a bullet kills, this is a ludicrous conclusion.


What have other models on Humaneness said about Poison & Shooting:

Compare that to this alternative assessment from 2007


That right, Shooting was on the 2nd highest level of Humaneness.
1080 was on the second lowest rating for humaneness.

Interesting aside - the assessment on Species Specificity for poison is not nearly as high as the Saunders Model . This McLeod Study does gel with 2011 Victorian Study on rate of non target animal victims of baiting.

Finally WARNING _ Following Videos Not for Faint of Heart.

Not sure what "Conditionally Acceptable" Looks Like.
Go to 4min 10sec on this video to see impact. 1080 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcF53Ojc3n4



Not sure what "Acceptable" looks like:
Go to 43sec in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hsP2xORt2Y

[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/bullets-fired-from-helicopters-hurt-less-kill-faster-or-why-sharp-saunders-model/206775252834853?comment_id=413582&offset=0&total_comments=1&ref=notif&notif_t=note_comment

Bullets fired from Helicopters Hurt Less & Kill Faster or Why Sharp & Saunders Model is Suspect!

Thats right, the Sharp & Saunders Model allows the following results in the following Assessments



If the shooter is FLYING a chest shot kills "Very Rapidly"
If the shooter is FLYING a chest shot gives "Mild Suffering"

If the shooter is WALKING a chest shot kills "In Minutes"
If the shooter is WALKING a chest shot gives "Moderate Suffering"

How does the addition of a helicopter increase the rate of death & reduce the level of suffering from a bullet through the chest?

NO I am not making it up, here are the assessment sheets

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pig_ground_shooting.pdf

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pig_aerial_shooting.pdf

Repeat this search for all Feral Animal Worksheet.

In all Cases, if you shoot from a Helicopter your bullets will kill faster & induce less suffering than if you stand on the ground with that very same rifle.

If anyone can explain that I would be eternally grateful

(Lifted this from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=532165443504280&set=a.510403315680493.1073741828.509281032459388&type=1&theater)

Draft National Wild Dog Action Plan - Another Plan to ignore millions of dollars of Resources available for free.

First up, let me say I am very supportive of a national plan to tackle the problem of Wild Dogs.

It is for that reason that I took the time to read the National Wild Dog Action Plan and I was keen to see how skilled shooters & hunters could contribute.

I had been looking at 2013 Game Council Public Benefit Assessment which reported that the R-Licence Hunters had removed  a couple of thousand Wild Dogs from NSW each year in the past few years. So I was expecting that we might get a mention in this plan.

No such luck!
 
The Plan is Flawed 

• because it ignores a significant resource
• because it shows an ideological bias against that resource

THE RESOURCE


It was quite a surprise to find that the draft plan seemed totally oblivious to the idea of using volunteer shooters as part of the mutltifaceted solution to the problem.

Instead I saw a plan that looks like all the other plans - BAIT BAIT BAIT was the clear inference from the document.

What a disappointment to find the Draft Wild Dog Action Plan seems to have totally ignored

• 20,000 NSW Game Licence holders, 
• 40,000 Victorian Hunting Licence Holders
• SSAA Conservation Groups (in every State)
• SSAA Farmer Assist Program in Queensland,

A closer reading of the plan and I think I see the finger prints of the people to questions about this oversight.

After all the fine words, we come to the supporting documents.

In particular

Table E1. Humaneness, Efficacy,Cost‐Effectiveness and Target Specificity of Wild Dog Control Methods adapted from Sharp and Saunders (2008).

Which appears to have been developed to focus all the control efforts on co-ordinated baiting programs at the expense of all other options & with the result that all other complementary efforts are overlooked.

When ever I see "Sharp & Saunders"  I know I am going to see SHOOTING deliberately down played as a tool for pest animal control.

I have addressed some of my issues with Sharp and Saunders elsewhere, but lets look at how this flawed assessment model sabotages the Wild Dog Action Plan.

 THE EFFICACY OF SHOOTING was rated as– Not Efficient for a broad scale problem

EFFICACY – is the ability to achieve the desired or intended outcome.

If you objective is to end the life of the wild dog/interupt the breeding cycle then I think a reasonable person would agree that shooting a wild dog dead is  quite an effective way to stop dogs attacking stock and breeding.

It is equally true that giving a dog a leathal dose of 1080 poison is also quite effective.

The objective of the Wild Dog Action Plan is to do the above in such numbers as to significantly reduce the impact of wild dog predation on agriculture.

To Say that shooting not able to do the job is not really true. ( I not arguing most efficient, or best choice)

So perhaps, Shooting does not work as the only method of control in a multi property setting.

That is not quite right either a study of a coordinated fox shooting program shows that shooting CAN be used in a multi property fox control program. Maybe wild dogs are different but nothing is put forward in the comments to address that.

Shooting does in fact have the desired effect on the dog - it kills the dog and stops it breeding.
Shooting can be used as the only tool for a dog problem.

So SHOOTING IS ABLE to do the Job, therefore is EFFICACIOUS

The assessment avoid that conclusion by talking about its efficiency.
Thus it answer a question that was not asked & so fails to properly assess shooting.

Before I go to Cost Effectiveness, a quick comment on Baiting:
Setting Baits is ONLY effective control on a "Broad Scale Problem" when you have a sufficient number of property owners participate in the baiting program.

The whole reason the the Coordinated Fox Shoot Study was run was because they had a significant number of land holders who would not allow baiting on their land.

You see - Me Setting Baits on my property when very few other people are baiting DOES Nothing to control the Fox or Dog population.

So

• ad hoc shooting on its own does little for the dog control plan, just as 
• ad hoc baiting does little for dog control or 
• any ad hoc control effort.

 No other Control Method on the list is assessed as if it is going to be an Ad Hoc Effort.


The COST EFFECTIVENESS of shooting was assessed as -  Expensive

This is a new approach to getting people to look away from shooting.
Previous DPI assessment of shooting as a control method said shooting was inexpensive if you did not count labour costs.

In many instances you did not count labour costs because the Farmer themselves was doing the shooting/pest control. A fact borne out by the latest Landcare survey [2]

The other reason you would exclude labour costs is if you had ready access to a pool of volunteers who undertake the work for free.

NB: Baiting Cost Effectiveness assumes ground baits not buried baits (see latter note)

So in the preparation of  Table E1 the assessment has assumed that no such pool of free labor exists and that land owners must pay some one to do the shooting.

This is clearly not true.

Look at the participation rate in the Victorian Fox Bounty Scheme.
Look at

• 20,000 NSW Game Licence holders, 
• 40,000 Victorian Hunting Licence Holders
• SSAA Conservation Groups (in every State)
• SSAA Farmer Assist Program in Queensland, 

Clearly there is a pool of volunteers that might be mobilised for this task.

The assessment works of a false assumption and comes to a false conclusion.

Shooting is not EXPENSIVE, but rather range from FREE to EXPENSIVE.


This week the National Landcare Survey[2]said Farmers spend $25,000 a year on Pest Control.
 
How can a plan that claims to be seeking to get best result from resources available ignore thousands of potential volunteers hours & still claim to be achieving its objectives?

Remember the shooters would provide their own firearms, ammunition, fuel, food etc
No only do the do the work for Free, they bring money into the rural area suffering from the dog problem...

 
The TARGETSPECIFICITY of shooting was assessed as  - HIGH
The TARGET SPECIFICITY of Baiting was assessed as - HIGH

Again, I find the assessment of Baiting to be a little dubious after looking at the 2011 Victorian DPI study [3] which using trail cameras showed showed that 44% of Surface Baits were taken by native animals. Namely Wombat and Ravens. (Burrying the bait made a big differnce reducing that to 9% of  baits were taken by native animals Wombats again).

However, the "Cost Effectiveness" assessment of baiting program does not allow for the labour required to bury the baits.  I make this note to remind you that you are not getting a like for like comparison on Table E1

Given NPWS, NSW Forestry, are likely to do aerial baiting,  I dont see how 66% Hit Rate = HIGH for Baiting over the National Parks and State Forests is "Species Specific" control.


The HUMANENESS of shooting was assessed as - ACCEPTABLE
The HUMANENESS of baiting was assessed as - CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE

This one is the most baffling.

BAITS  = Conditionally Acceptable

• takes HOURS to kill the animal
• inflicts moderate to severe suffering during the process by the Sharp & Saunders Model [6]

SHOOTING = Acceptable

• instantaneous  to minutes to kill the animal
• inflicts moderate suffering for those minutes [4] [5]

This is perhaps the most blatant fudge in the whole deal.

Conditionally Acceptable seems to be code for UnAcceptable.

I don't know anyone who would say - Torture the animal for Hours is OK under any Conditions.

On the other hand I can find plenty of people who will agree that (even though they hate killing) shooting the animal is kinder than poisoning the animal.

The arguement will be made that shooting is only humane if done by skilled shooters.
I agree. Good Shot placement of appropriate caliber at appropriate range is crucial for humane kill.

Proper Dose of  Poison is also required to achive the Sharp and Saunders "Conditionally Humane" kill.

A proper dose of poison will cause as much pain and suffering to an animal as a misplaced shot

If I misplace my shot, I can take a follow up shot, I can track the animal and shoot again.

If I have not got the poison dose correct for the size of dog that eat the bait - what is the suffering visited upon the dog then? There is no follow up dose.

The way this Plan has been constructed:

1. Misrepresents the efficacy of shooting
2. Misrepresents the cost of shootinging
3. Misrepresent the Humanness of Baiting making it appear almost as humane as shooting
4. Misrepresents the Accuracy of Baiting suggesting it is as targeted as shooting when research shows it is not.
5. Assess shooting using assumptions & criteria that it does not apply to baiting. (ie labour costs & impact of short dose vs poor shot placement
6. Total ignores the issue using hunters/volunteers for - co ordinated activities, ability to contribute to the overall number of animals that can be shot opportunistically

As a result it will take options of the table that should be available & continues to misinform land managers and distort decision making in ways that reduce our ability to deal with the problem of wild dogs in the most effective combination of control approaches and tools.








[1]Assessing the safe and effective use of aerial baiting for the control of wild dogs inVictoria 2011 – Arthur Rylah Institute for Enviromental Research TechnicalReport Series No 217

[2] http://www.landcareonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Preliminary-2013-NLF-Survey-Results-Pests-and-weeds.pdf

[3]Assessing the safe and effective use of aerial baitingfor the control of wild dogs in Victoria 2011 – Arthur Rylah Institute forEnviromental Research Technical Report Series No 217

[4] http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wild_dog_ground_shooting.pdf

[5] http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wild_dog_ground_shooting.pdf

[6] http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wild_dog_1080_baiting.pdf

[7] www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/humaneness-model-pest-animals.pdf

National Parks Association - Press Statements vs Submissions show true colours

The National Parks Association is not your Friend if you want to use your national parks.

SEPTEMBER 2010  MEDIA STATEMENT
- The day the Government invited Public Submission on Mountain Bikes in National Parks.

The National Parks Association of NSW had this to say

The National Parks Association, a staunch defender of parks as havens of conservation, said it would cautiously support a network of bike trails if there was no impact on ecosystems.

REF: http://bit.ly/19GKNqM

AUGUST 2011 REPORT

Summary of public submissions National Parks and Wildlife Service
Cycling Policy Review and Sustainable Mountain Biking Strategy Discussion Paper
(NB 803 personal + 20 Group Submissions in Favor of Bike Tracks)

REF: http://bit.ly/168YKkj

PAGE 3: NPA are in the group that

"specifically seek the cessation of/did no support provision of mountain bike experiences"



They submitted that Mountain Biking would "erode the conservation value of the park system." page 4

DELAY Tactic

They wanted Trials to be assessed before any further expansion

DELAY Tactic

Suggest a whole-of-government, cross-tenure planning approach to providing mountain biking in NSW.

YES but not in our NATIONAL PARKS (Tactic)Supported  alternatives in areas managed by other agencies such as regional parks, crown recreation reserves, state parks, state forests and local councils (page 6)

Submission from:
NPA-Exec National Parks Association of NSW, Executive Officer
NPA-CV NPA Clarence Valley Branch
NPA-H NPA Hunter Branch
NPA-SH NPA Southern Highlands Branch
NPA-SS NPA Southern Sydney Branch
NPA-TV NPA Three Valleys Branch


OCTOBER 2011  MEDIA STATEMENT

http://bit.ly/15G7Hze

The National Parks Association of NSW, which has vigorously opposed people building ad hoc trails through the bush, said it would not oppose mountain-bike riding in designated areas if it stopped illegal activity.

Notice that:

Will not Oppose (but they already did actively oppose) IF (conditional) it stops illegal activity (which it never can).

Very cleverly worded statement that says

- YES WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS UNTIL YOU PROVE NO ONE IS DOING IT ILLEGALLY.

JUNE 2012 - They bring it up again:

& Finally note that in Submission on Horse Riding in National Parks in June 2012 (http://bit.ly/GXwPZp) they say:

"we did not support the outcomes of the consultative process around mountain biking in national parks"

READ the statements by these guys and girls very carefully.....

PS Read the Various Submissions as well, you will see interesting things....



Here are some Policy Items you might like to know about as well

A most frustrating discussion at work about Hunting on Public Land.

Back in July I had the following  discussion at work about Hunting on Public Land.

Guy comes up and says so what happened to hunting in national parks?
I said - its going ahead but with some unnecessarily onerous rules and restrictions.

He then proceed to lecture me on how if you want to hunt in National Parks you should have to :

1. Get a special licence to prove you know the rules
2. Register with the police or NPWS every time you are going to go into NP so they know where & when you are going to be hunting.(like lodge maps of the area)
3. Your permission should be for specific day and specific part of the national park
4. You should have to carry some sort of written permission to show Rangers/others
5.You should have to fill in a report on what you shot and submit it after each hunt so NPWS can collect information on what was shot.

So after listening to this, I said you mean:
1. Like this licence (showing my R-Licence) & the Hunter Ed Handbook
2. A written permission document like this one (showing my last State Forest Hunt Permission)
3. With maps like this? and explained the exclusion zones etc.
4. Fill out a post hunt report like this?

So it turns out he thought that the NP hunting was going to be free for all. I explained that what I had just shown him was the ONLY way you can hunt on public land legally. That this has been the law for nearly 10 years in State Forests & that they were asking for this to be applied to National Parks.

Then we got into the A B & C Zones. I had to explain that what I had just shown him was the bare minimum and only for Zone C. The A & B Zones had tighter rules.
I then had to explain that Zone C was going to be areas with less people than currently use State Forests.

Response - Fuck they did nt say any of that in the paper.!

I have subsequently had a few similar conversation in person and on twitter .....

Here are some useful links to share with people if you are talking about what is possible:

And this discussion on ABC radio

Radio National breakfast - Hunting in SA & Victorian National Parks

Yanga - From Farm to National Park - or How to strip Income from regional NSW for conservation.

YANGA

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkHome.aspx?id=N1137

Prior to it becoming a national park it was a working farm.
Farm income was around $2.49 million with expenditure of $2.33million & employed 14 people..



The park was purchased in 2005 for $25.5 million Dollars
It appear to have direct annual costs of $1.2 million it was unclear if this was including the wages for 8 Staff.


It has 19,000 visitors per year based on data collected from traffic counters.


The current visitor numbers are less than 40% of the projected 50,000 visitors a year.


So how involved is the local community? Well over the past 7 years the number of volunteers has grown to 10.


Impact on Region:
1. Local Councils have lost over $500,000 in Rates over the 7 years since the Park was created
2. Regional Business revenues have declined by over $8.3 million over the 7 years since the Park was created


A quote from local Council Member reported in a recent press article:

"People can't comprehend they (the NSW Government) don't have enough money to build a hospital, but they've got enough to buy a property that we don't see the benefits in tourism from."



Yanga is only one of the purchases in the Riverina.
There are some purchases, like Darcoola has virtually no visitors since it was opened and others that have not yet open.

List of Purchases

If Yanga is indicative of the impact of converting private land to National Park, you have to say that the arrival of national park in your region is going to be an economic disaster.

In the case of Yanga, $25.5m spend to purchase plus $1.2m a year in running cost is all for the benefit of just 19,000 people a year.


Most of this information has been taken from the following submission to the NSW Parliment Enquiry into Public Lands Management, with some further information/comment from the article "No Love for NSW National Parks"


Link to Submissionhttp://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/f87e068690f56fd2ca257a7800040573/$FILE/0332%20NSW%20Government.pdf

Link to Article
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/03/12/452561_national-news.html










 

Some Helpful Scale reference:

 

Global Warming might contribute to Bushfires, but its FUEL on the Ground we can impact NOW

UPDATE:: http://bushfirefront.com.au/impacts-of-bushfires/occasional-papers

Two myths have emerged about climate change and bushfire management and are beginning to circulate in the media and to be adopted as fact by some scientists:

1.     Because of global warming, Australia will be increasingly subject to uncontrollable holocaust-like “megafires”.

 2.     Fuel reduction by prescribed burning must cease because it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus exacerbating global warming and the occurrence of megafires.

Both statements are incorrect. However they represent the sort of plausible-sounding assertions which, if repeated often enough, can take on a life of their own and lead eventually to damaging policy change.

Maybe the weather is getting hotter and dryier because of Global Warming.
Maybe we can do something about that. Maybe we should.
This is an issue that requires local, national & international action.

The challange that was put up on Twitter was - SHOW ME that the GREEN have opposed back burning.
Well as always, the GREEN Party is careful to avoid such out right claims.
But what I can show you is a history of people complaining about environmental activists interfering in the management of fuel load in National Parks & other areas.

In  a nutshell Two Views

THE GREEN VIEW
The extent of green opposition to hazard reduction was clear in the days following the Canberra tragedy. The NSW Nature Conservation Council on January 21 denounced the practice as "futile" and a "knee-jerk reaction". The NCC chairman, Rob Pallin, said: "People who claim that hazard reduction burning is a cure- all for bushfire risk are either fooling themselves or deliberately trying to fool the public."


THE CSIRO VIEW
The CSIRO's principal research scientist, Phil Cheney, Australia's foremost bushfire researcher, also blames the intensity of the fires on the fact that, "for the last 30 years there has been a continuing decline in operational prescribed burning". He said yesterday the January fires were "a truly historic event [producing] probably the most extreme, widespread and continuously burnt area in living history".

And the reason history was made? "Really the only thing that has changed is burning practices." The gradual removal of grazing stock from mountain areas had also allowed undergrowth to build up, he said.

The above views came from 2003 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/07/1052280321826.html


THE FOLLOWING CAME FROM  Hairyman Bushcraft  - THANKS MATE!


2009 Green ideas must take blame for deaths

 Scott Gentle, the Victorian manager of Timber Communities Australia

Gentle complained of obstruction from green local government authorities of any type of fire mitigation strategies. He told of green interference at Kinglake - at the epicentre of Saturday's disaster, where at least 147 people died - during a smaller fire there in 2007.

 Dr Phil Cheney, the former head of the CSIRO's bushfire research unit and one of the pioneers of prescribed burning, said yesterday if the fire-ravaged Victorian areas had been hazard-reduced, the flames would not have been as intense. 

Goonoo 2007 volunteer firefighters bulldozing a control line were obstructed by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees who had driven from Sydney to stop vegetation being damaged.

 The poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria is highlighted by the interactive fire map on the website of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Yesterday it showed that, of 148 fires started since mid-January, 120 started in state forests, national parks, or other public land, and just 21 on private property. 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html#ixzz2i20ig38q

2009 You can't see the danger for the trees

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/you-cant-see-the-danger-for-the-trees-20090516-b6jn.html

So fearful are many Blue Mountains residents at the prospect of a catastrophic bushfire to rival Victoria's February disaster that their MP, Phil Koperberg, has had to call two public meetings next week to address their safety concerns.

 "People used to say 10 tonnes of ground fuel per hectare was excessive," says Don Nott, 66, a Springwood real estate agent, life member of the Winmalee fire brigade and former group captain of the Blue Mountains Rural Fire Service (RFS). "Here we have 30 tonnes per hectare. We're living on a time bomb."

 He says authorities and green groups pay only lip service to allowing local brigades to light controlled fires in the cooler months to burn off ground fuel - a process known as "hazard reduction" or "prescribed burning".

"Over the years the whole process of getting approval has become so bureaucratic and convoluted … with so much paperwork and so many restrictions about when you can light or can't light, it has made it virtually impossible."

At the royal commission into the Black Saturday fires, counsel assisting, Jack Rush, has acknowledged the importance of burning off ground fuel. 

 Whether or not you go along with the green view that global warming played a crucial role in the fire intensity, what we do know is we aren't going to stop global warming before summer. We have control only over ground fuel. 

2007 Firefighters' anger still burning

Two weeks ago, as a bushfire was raging through the Goonoo Community Conservation Area, an angry showdown between Rural Fire Service volunteers and National Parks and Wildlife Service employees threatened to derail firefighting efforts.
The streets are abuzz with the story of how, at the height of the blaze, greenie NPWS workers drove their vehicles in front of a bulldozer driver trying to clear a firebreak in order to stop him damaging any more vegetation.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/firefighters-anger-still-burning/2007/01/27/1169788740783.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

2005 Burning issue that gave fire chief his political kickstart

 Green ideology - opposed to any human interference with nature, such as systematic hazard-reduction burning - has increasingly obstructed proper bushfire management. 

Bushfire brigade volunteers who once efficiently managed their patch of turf were emasculated. 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/burning-issue-that-gave-fire-chief-his-political-kickstart/2006/11/05/1162340090516.html

2003 - CSIRO Said Hazard reduction did not prevent fires, but it kept them manageable.

The CSIRO's principal research scientist, Phil Cheney, Australia's foremost bushfire researcher, also blames the intensity of the fires on the fact that, "for the last 30 years there has been a continuing decline in operational prescribed burning". He said yesterday the January fires were "a truly historic event [producing] probably the most extreme, widespread and continuously burnt area in living history".

And the reason history was made? "Really the only thing that has changed is burning practices." The gradual removal of grazing stock from mountain areas had also allowed undergrowth to build up, he said.
The amount of fuel on the ground had a quantifiable effect on the speed and intensity of a fire, combined with weather and slope variables, said Cheney. If ground fuel was kept under control, with regular cool, controlled burns in winter, a fire would usually peter out in a eucalypt forest. Hazard reduction did not prevent fires, but it kept them manageable.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/07/1052280321826.html

2002 The bushfire disaster inquiry seems intent on hearing only a limited range of views.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/08/1019441520631.html

 The parliamentary inquiry into the Christmas bushfire disaster is in danger of becoming a farce designed to exclude anyone with a view contrary to the Government's. Submissions blaming inadequate hazard reduction by NSW authorities have been mislaid, committee members remain in the dark and major players in land management, such as State Forests, which advocates prescribed burning, have been ignored.

 One committee member said yesterday that until a forester called him to ask why he had not been asked to appear at the inquiry, he was not even aware that State Forests had submitted a detailed, thick, bound report setting out the scientific case for regular hazard reduction to minimise bushfire devastation. What's more, he has had no say in who the committee has called as witnesses. 

 Price said yesterday he did not expect a submission from Cheney and had not invited one, as federal organisations such as the CSIRO would not be expected to participate in state inquiries.

 WANT SOME REAL SCIENCE:

Managing fire

If we want to reduce fire intensity and make fire suppression safer and easier we need to accept that it is the dry undergrowth and dead leaf, bark and twig litter that provides the fuel for bushfires, and use prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads.

http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem-Sciences/BushfireInAustralia.aspx

How does prescribed burning reduce fuel loads and fire hazards? CSIRO's Project Vesta studied the characteristics of the behaviour and spread of high-intensity bushfires in dry eucalypt forests under dry summer conditions.
Project Vesta found that reducing fuel loads by prescribed burning reduces the rate of spread, flame height and intensity of a fire, as well as the number and distance of spot fires, by changing the structure of the fuel bed and reducing the total fuel load.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/Victorian-Bushfires-QA#a11

Some Other Reading:

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/

SPECIFICALLY www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/...6522.../EXP.018.001.0002‎ 

YES

a. Prescribed burning is always effective in reducing fuel loads,  and thus mitigating bushfire risk, for  a minimum of 3--‐5 years following its application to the majority

of eucalypt forest types in Southern Australia.

Australian Citizenship: Our Common Bond (A good reminder to All of Us)

The following information was taken from the document all people applying for citizenship are required to study & be tested on.

I think it does a pretty good job (not perfect) of setting out how I would like Australia to be.

Have a read, have a think about where the "ideal" set out here is at odds with reality.

Our democratic beliefs
Parliamentary democracy
Australia’s system of government is a parliamentary democracy. This means that all Australians are involved in how the country is governed. The power of the government comes from the Australian people because Australian citizens regularly vote for people to represent them in parliament. Only parliament has the power to make and change the laws that govern the country.
In a parliamentary democracy, the representatives in parliament must answer to the people, through elections, for the decisions they make.

The rule of law
Australia’s laws are important for all people living in Australia. Australians recognise the value of laws in maintaining a peaceful and orderly society. All Australians have the right to be protected by Australia’s laws.
Everyone must obey Australia’s laws. If they don’t obey the law, they may be arrested by the police and have to go to court.

Respect for all individuals regardless of background
People come to settle in Australia from countries all around the world. Many people have a different cultural heritage with different beliefs and traditions. In our democratic society, we are all free to follow and share these beliefs and traditions as long as they do not break Australian laws.

Compassion for those in need
In Australia, there is a spirit of ‘mateship’. This means we help and receive help from each other in times of need. A mate is often a friend, but can also be a total stranger. A mate might take a meal to an elderly neighbour, drive a friend to a medical appointment or visit someone who is lonely.

Our freedoms
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression
Freedom of speech allows people to say and write what they think and to discuss their ideas with others.
Freedom of expression allows people to express their views through art, film, music and literature.
In Australia, we are free to say and write what we think, privately or publicly, about any topic. However,
we cannot harm others.

We cannot make false allegations, encourage others to break the law or damage another person’s reputation.
Freedom of association
Australians are free to join any legal organisation, such as a political party, trade union, religious, cultural or social group. People can also decide not to join. Australians can gather with others to protest against a government  action or an organisation. However, all protests must be within the law. This means they must be peaceful, and must not injure any person or damage property.

Freedom of religion and secular government
Australia has a Judaeo-Christian heritage, and many Australians describe themselves as Christians. Australia
has public holidays on Christian days such as Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.
However, the government in Australia is secular. This means that there is no official national religion.
People in Australia are free to follow any religion they choose, as long as its practices do not break Australian laws. In addition to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and many other religions are practised freely in Australia.

Australians are also free to not follow a religion. The government treats all citizens equally, whatever their religion or beliefs.

Responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship

Responsibilities – what you will give Australia
As an Australian citizen you must:
• obey the law
• vote in federal and state or territory elections,and in a referendum
• defend Australia should the need arise
• serve on a jury if called to do so.

Privileges – what Australia will give you
As an Australian citizen you have the right to:
• vote in federal and state or territory elections, and in a referendum
• apply for work in the Australian Public Service or in the Australian Defence Force
• seek election to parliament
• apply for an Australian passport and re-enter Australia freely
• receive help from an Australian official while overseas
• register children born overseas as Australian citizens by descent.


THE PLEDGE

From this time forward, under God,*
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

* A person may choose whether or not to use the words ‘under God’.

Taken from Australian Citizenship: Our Common Bond 
all the information you need to help you pass the citizenship test.
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/test_resource/_pdf/our-common-bond-2013.pdf

For Reference: The Australian Constitution
http://www.peo.gov.au/publications/2012_Australian_Constitution.pdf

ABC Catalyst program on Hunting - Expert might not have read the recent research papers

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3852511.htm

ON TV IN SEPTEMBER 2013
Dr Euan Ritchie
As an example, if you kill foxes, cats will increase because foxes actually are very effective control method for cats, and so when you're managing species, you have to actually think of all the species in that system, and you actually have to manage them at the same time, and it's very difficult to do that as a hunter. It's very difficult to go in there and say, 'Let's shoot pigs, foxes, cats, all these species at the same time.'

BUT RESEARCH PUBLISHED IN JULY 2013

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/feral-cat-goanna-dingo/1957993/

THE culling of dingoes in Australia to protect livestock does not open the way for other predators to take their place, new research found.

The research results have been published in BioMed Central's open access journal Frontiers in Zoology by the Invasive Animals CRC in Australia.

The research found that while culling dingoes and red foxes are temporarily suppressed, feral cats and goannas are not affected.

Invasive Animals CRC and Biosecurity Queensland's Benjamin Allen, who led the study, said the results suggested planning of culls around calving time to save livestock from attacks should not harm other animals in the ecosystem.
Mr Allen said top predators like dingoes were often culled to protect livestock.
It had been suggested this practice could lead to increased numbers of next level predators such as red foxes, feral cats and goannas.

A brief list of Feral Dog Reports on the North Coast 2008-2013 (DPI has it under control right?)

Camera traps monitor wild dogs in bid to protect koalas

12/07/2013  -http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/wild-dogs-on-camera/1941960/

Family shattered after wild dogs go on killing frenzyhttp://www.northernstar.com.au/news/wild-dogs-on-killing-frenzy/1778704/
5/03/2013
TWO wild dog attacks in three days have all but wiped out an Eatonsville family's flock of sheep.

Wild dogs wipe out farmer's sheep flock

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/wild-dogs-wipe-out-farmers-sheep-flock/856413/
23/05/2011
“In two nights they killed 48 sheep,” he said.

By the time Mr Mulligan had found a replacement for his old sheep dog it was too late, the flock had been wiped out – some for food, most for sport.

Farm ravaged by wild dogs

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/dogs-defeat-sheep-breeder-farm-wild-ravage-lismore/824934/
15/04/2011
BOB KERLE has fought tirelessly during the past few years trying to combat the increasing number of wild dogs that ravage his property and animals almost weekly.
But it was a long-running battle he recently and regrettably lost.
Mr Kerle, who lives at Wilsons Creek, used to have 30 to 40 sheep, but is now down to 11 due to wild dog attacks on his stock.

Native wildlife under attack

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/native-wildlife-under-attack-ballina-pets-domestic/743796/
14/01/2011
BALLINA has taken out the dubious title of the suburb with the highest attacks recorded on wildlife by domestic cats and dogs on the Northern Rivers.
A total of 14 attacks by cats and 11 attacks by dogs occurred in the past year, according to statistics collected by the Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES).
“These figures only represent those animals reported to WIRES,” Northern Rivers spokeswoman Katy Stewart said.
“They do not include ... the animals which die or go unreported and they do not include feral cats and dogs that are more likely to eat their prey.”

Feral dogs attack again

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/feral-dogs-attack-again/514465/
22/04/2010
Mr Walbaum said he had only seen the dogs alone, or sometimes in pairs, and assumed they were domestic animals just running around in the scrub for the day.
That changed about three weeks ago when he was taking his three dogs on one of their regular walks through the property.
One of the dogs, Sparky, got a bit ahead of the group and disappeared around a corner. Moments later, Mr Walbaum heard the dog yelping and screaming and his other two dogs raced off after it.
When he rounded the corner, yelling as he ran, Mr Walbaum said he saw the feral pack fleeing into the bush while Sparky was ‘ripped into pieces’.

Feral dog attacks continue

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/feral-attacks-dog-coast-north-livestock/496822/
27/03/2010
THE killing of livestock by wild dogs continues along the North Coast.
“More (animals) have died, but nothing has changed,” said Katy Stewart, WIRES carer and farmer of The Pocket.
This week, two sheep were killed at a home near the village of Crabbes Creek, and householders were kept awake at night on both sides of The Pocket valley by the howling of packs of dogs.

Feral dogs kill two alpacas

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/calls-for-hunting-party-after-dogs-kill-two-alpaca/479107/
2/03/2010

TWO alpacas worth about $1500 each have been killed and another three seriously injured in an attack by feral dogs at The Pocket, triggering calls for hunters to be allowed in to track down and kill the dogs.
Farmer and WIRES carer Katy Stewart said the alpacas were mauled overnight between Sunday and yesterday in the latest in a string of attacks on livestock and native animals at Mullumbimby, The Pocket, Middle Pocket and Yelgun.
While rangers for the Livestock Health and Pest Associations have previously said feral dog activity had dropped off around The Pocket, Ms Stewart said it continued unabated.
However, many property owners had ‘given up’ reporting the attacks in frustration over the organisation’s failure to fix the problem.


and even back in  2008 & using Guardian Dog!!

Wild dogs make farmers' lives hell

16/04/2008
http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/wild-dogs-make-farmers-lives-hell/20114/

NORTHERN Rivers farmers are being driven to their wits end by wild dogs carrying out vicious attacks on their stock.

Sue Riley, of Wilsons Creek, has been breeding cashmere goats for 20 years and in the past couple of years got the flock up to a standard that was generating an income.

Since Christmas she has lost about 30 goats.

"Even with my Maremma guard dog and electric fences I am losing goats every week," Ms Riley said.

Shootings in NSW actually increased after 1996 Gun Laws came in & stayed above 1996 levels for a number of years.

Graph of all recorded incidents of Shootings in NSW 1990-2012 - interesting it goes up after 1996.

October 8, 2013 at 2:45pm

SOURCE http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb85.pdf

Is there an increase in shootings?
Much of the discussion around shootings relates to whether the problem is increasing or whether we are seeing a ‘record’ number of shootings. Figures 1 to 4 below show the monthly number of incidents recorded from January 1995 to December 2012.

Figure 1 shows the total number of non-fatal shooting incidents in each category combined (shoot with intent, discharge firearm into premises and unlawfully discharge firearm). The shaded line is the actual number of recorded incidents. The solid line shows the average number of incidents in the five months around the reference month – the moving average. The moving average in




CONCLUSION - NO Not really, there is no statistical up or down trend in shootings.

(Just goes to show the Headline can be very misleading!! )



MAP OF INTEREST

Crime Stats for NSW - June 2013 - Assaults 62,500, Sexual Assaults 10,600, Break & Enter 38,600 - But Media focus is on Guns?

Crime Stats for NSW - June 2013 - Assaults 62,500, Sexual Assaults 10,600, Break & Enter 38,600 - But Media focus is on Guns?

October 8, 2013 at 2:16pm

Update on the NSW Crime States from BOCSAR

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/mr_rcs_jun13.html

Just so you have some sense of what the real risk to you and your family is here are June Qtr Crime Stats for NSW.


Domestic Violence Assaults        27,932
Non Domestic Violence Assaults 34,622
Sexual Assault                            4,546
Indecent Assault                         6,084
Robbery with out firearm             4,042
Robbery with firearm                      277
Break & enter(dwelling)              38,669
Murder                                            73
Attempted Murder                            30
Manslaughter                                     2

I don't just make these numbers up:


You can drill down much further and see by your region and suburb




5 year Trend

Crime is mostly stable or trending down over 2 & 5 years.
Since the introduction of the Ammo Bill - NOTHING changed in relation to Robbery with a Firearm or Drive By Shootings.



Quick Reminder about a Factual correction issued by BOCSAR

Shootings in Public Places Release date: 6 March 2013 The claim by the Prime Minister that shooting offences in public places in NSW have soared over the last 15 years is incorrect, according to the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
The claim was reportedly made by the Prime Minister last Sunday when announcing various measures to tackle organised crime in NSW and other States.
According to the Director of the Bureau, the total number of non-fatal shooting offences in NSW peaked at a six-month average of over 40 incidents a month in November 2001 and then began to fall.
By December last year the six-monthly average number of non-fatal shooting incidents had dropped to around 25 a month.REF:http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/mr_20130306.html

Is the Legal Gun Market Fueling the illegal gun market? Samatha Lee says Yes, but Research is not really that conclusive.

''Both the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission have stated that there is very little evidence to prove that guns are coming in illegally across the border,'' Ms Lee said. ''The legal gun market is fuelling the illegal gun market.''

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/suburban-shootings-tied-to-rise-in-handgun-thefts-20130727-2qr8k.html


REALLY? is that what the Australian Institute of Criminology said?:

As usual dig a little and the Absolute Statements of some are based on nuanced conclusions and statements by the actually researchers.

First - Australian Crime Commission rely heavily on the Instituted of Criminology's research and reading the ACC papers they all point back to AIC so its not two independent sources agreeing on a fact, its one report being commented on by two people.


Here is what I can FIND from the Australian Institute of Criminology:

Sources and conduits

Illegal importation, theft, illicit manufacture (albeit small), the activities of some corrupt dealers, and legacy legislative and procedural loopholes all represent recognised methods by which firearms, firearm parts and ammunition have been or currently are trafficked into or within Australia (ACC 2011, 2009, 2008; Kerlatec 2007; Mouzos 1999; Qld CMC 2004).

Illegal Importation

"In the same period (2010-2011), ACBPS recorded the detection of 5,922 undeclared firearms/airguns, parts and accessories,"

"The servicing of the current illicit market through illegal imports is not an unproven channel but may not be as important a trafficking route as some commentators expect or assert (eg see ABC 2011) and despite more recent high-profile cases (eg see AAP & Davies 2012). This may be because the process of illegal importation is possibly perceived as a less reliable option for firearm acquisition due to increased surveillance from the ACBPS, in combination with police agencies, and thus a greater chance of detection (Project stakeholders personal communication 28 November 2011; 7 December 2011)."

THEFT

Firearms from just 12–14 percent of reported theft incidents between 2004–05 and 2008–09 were recovered by police in the 12 months following the report of the theft (Borzycki & Mouzos 2007; Bricknell 2011, 2009, 2008a; Bricknell & Mouzos 2007), indicating a sizeable, annual contribution of stolen firearms to the illicit market.

I have commented on that in another note that adding 0.5% to the Stock of existing Grey/Illegal Firearms is hardly fueling a stock pile.

SO the RESEARCH says

 - Illegal Imports are a source, but might not be as large as some assert.
 - Police failure to recover stolen guns is suggests that stolen guns are a "sizable" contribution.

We know 1,000 guns a year stolen and not recovered.
We know that the Police/Customs have uncovered criminals engaged in illegal importation of hand guns
We know that the Police have uncovered illicit firearms manufactures supplying criminal gangs.

We don't know how many guns are imported illegally (as parts/in full)
We don't know what the stock pile of illegal guns is (but the only published guess is 260,000+)

The researchers think stolen guns represent a sizable contribution to the stock pile of illegal guns.
The researchers don't quantify what the they mean by "sizable". (Sizable means Fairly Large)
The researchers did chose "sizable" when terms like  'most', 'majority', 'predominant','principal' might have been used if they thought them appropriate.
The researchers did NOT say that their was "very little evidence" that guns were coming in illegally.
In fact the researchers list all the reports of  illegal imports that appeared in the media.
They did not say "little evidence" they said, they thought the role of illegal imports might not be as great as people believed base on media reports.




REF: AIC Report
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/07_characteristics.html

Why are we beating up LAFO about theft of 1000 guns a year when there are 260, 000 Illegal Firearms in Circulation & Police recover 14% of Stolen Guns?

Aust Institute of Criminology says that of the 1500 firearms a year stolen the police recover around 14%.

Lets assume that the 14% recovered is only from the 1200 or so Long Arms stolen and that they never recover any of the pistols.

That means each year 1100 long arms are added to the 250,000 illegal long arms guns the Aust Crime Commission Says are already out there. That is less than 0.5% of the existing stock pile.

In the case of hand guns the 90 a year that is being added to the Crime Commissions 10,000 estimate represents 1% of the existing stock pile.

I dont know about you, but when I see a 0.5% increase & 1% increase in anything, I do not think of adjectives like fueling the market.

If this is the major source of guns into the illegal market, the market must be pretty small or a very mature market in economic/business terms.

If the Institute of Criminology figure of only 3% (47) of stolen firearms end up being used in a crime.

It is no wonder that the boys have turned to Aust Post and Importing of parts to make guns (also noted by Institutes as a source of illegal guns).

I know the cry "But one gun in the hand of a criminal is one too many" will go up.

I agree that a gun in the hands of a criminal is a gun in the wrong hands.

If we were serious about removing guns from the hands criminal, shouldn't we be trying to locate the 260,000 guns the Crime Commission believes are out there already?

Shouldn"t we be putting the acid on the police to find out WHY they only recover 14% of the guns stolen each year?

There are only 600 or so thefts per year.
That means they solve 84 of 600 Thefts involving theft of a firearm.

But instead of asking
-- Why have the police made so little progress on the stock pile?
-- Why have the police had so little success in catching guys stealing the guns?

We have the media letting Gun Control Australia asking why people are allowed to own the guns.

--They are questioning the victim of the robbery to give up the right to own things worth stealing?

If we just took the valuable things away from them, then the bad men would not steal them.
Then the busy police would not have to look for them & it would make things so much safer.

2.8 million Firearms, only 1500 or less 0.005 of 1% get stolen each year.
Leading to maybe 1200 making it to the black market.

A black market that has a warehouse containing 260,000 firearms.
and Gun Control Australia's Solution to that is Take Away the Legally Owned 2.8m cause that is easier than finding the 260,000 already available to the criminals

Nobody believes that less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will mean less guns in the hands of criminals. Not the Police, not the Crime Stat Boffins, Not the Politicians, Not even Gun Control Australia or the Australian Greens.

If you believe it works go have a look a the UK.

Hand guns are illegal, and the bad guys have more now than they did before they were banned. You are dreaming.

Stolen Guns feeding Criminals? only 3% of Stolen Guns used in Crime - so says report

Firearm Theft in Australia 2008-2009
(one of the Reports Samantha Lee likes to refer to)


ON THE FIREARMS OWNERS SIDE

1,570 Firearms Stolen
91.0% of Guns Stolen were registered
60.0% where Category A
27.0% of time Ammo was stolen with the gun.
6.0% where Handguns (not hand held guns!!)


ON THE POLICE SIDE

13.0% of Thieves were apprehend
14.0% of Firearms Stolen were recovered by police (that is 220 of 1,570)
 55% of the time the Theft was part of general break enter & steal.

ON THE CRIME SIDE

3.0% (ie 47) of the 1,570 Firearms Stolen where later used in Crime/found in possession of some one charged with a criminal offense.

1 case of manslaughter.
2 cases of dangerous conduct
2 cases of in possession of a drug dealer
1 case of found in possession of outlaw bike gang member


SO WHAT?

Gun Control people point to 1500 guns stolen and cry horror and mayhem.

I read a report that says Police are lucky find 1 in 10 of the criminals who stole the guns.

I read a report that says Police are lucky to recover 1 in 10 of the stolen items.

I read a report that says, even then, less than 50 of the stolen guns end up used in a crime.

This level of theft is also less than half the level of thefts in the previous decade.


Where is media focus? not on Police Failure, but on #LAFO??? What the?
2007-2008 Report
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/D/4/E/%7BD4E4005C-13BC-4664-B53F-5F78589C057F%7Dmr16.pdf


2002 Report
http://aic.gov.au/documents/b/9/7/%7Bb97bf8dc-96f3-4f4c-abca-12cd608dc2dd%7Dti230.pdf