Friday, 30 August 2013

Irrational Fears, Tens of Thousands are Robbed Raped & Bashed each year & you're afraid of being shot in a drive by? WTF!


That is right, tens of thousands of lives are damaged by robbery, rape and physical violence every year.

Homes, Families, Husbands, Wives & Kids, Grand Parents, Friends all suffer when a violent crime is visited upon a loved one.

In the media there is an extraordinary amount of fear being propagated about drive by shootings & gun culture.

It seems that the "We Hate Guns Lobby" has brain washed the media into thinking that GUNS are the great scourge of our city and our society.

Well the NSW Police Media Release Archives, the Australian Institute of Criminology & NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research tell a very different story.

The Crime Statistics (See graphic) tell us that Robbery, Rape & Assault are much more prevalent than Murder.

Infact the graph below has to note that Murder & Kidnapping is so low they can not put it on the chart with Robbery Rape and Assault.





Using the data on the chart you can work out that

  • 168,000+ people will be assaulted this year (800 per 100,000)

  • 21,000+ people will be robbed (100 per 100,000)

  • 21,000 people will be sexually assaulted (100 per 100,000)
In the case of sexual assault the following chart is perhaps even more disturbing.
Thats right, 1500-1600 sexual assaults every month and it is trending UP


All of those "NON GUN" Crimes on the first chart are  REAL Crimes with REAL victims.

All of these have REAL & Terrible impacts on the victims and the families of the Victim.

All of these a massively more likely to impact on you or one of your loved ones.

SO while YOU ARE terrified of "US GUN Culture" & being shot in a "Drive By".
You are missing the real threat to your personal safety and security.

Criminals are stealing from and assaulting innocent people like YOU in their thousands.

When they do a drive by they are shooting each other.

And if you do come face to face with a murderer its highly unlikely they will have gun.
Your more likely to face a knife or a blunt instrument.




YOU are being feed a bunch of bulldust about the danger to YOU from guns owned by Criminals.

BUT WORSE you are being told that the Guy/Girl next door who is a licenced firearms owner is as dangerous to you as the Drug Gang Boys. That is total BS

The Research from
  • Australian Institute of Criminology to concluded both in 2000 & 2006 that Licenced Gun Owners are the least likely people to be involved in murder! (& noted this was consistant with international findings)
  • Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published a review international data on firearm ownership and crime and came to similar conclusions. & that this finding was consistent with international research on lawful gun owners around the world.
YOUR BEING FEED BULLDUST!!



& Just in case you want to talk "Accidental Shootings"   Accidental Shootings run at less than than 20 a year.




All this information has been available for main stream media.
All this information has been shared with the main stream media.
All this information has been IGNORED by the main stream media.

YOUR GETTING CONNED.


MY REFERENCES:

The Report: Criminal use of handguns in Australia

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/361-380/tandi361/view%20paper.html

(my notes on the above: https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/update-so-how-many-licenced-firearms-owners-have-comitted-homicide-with-a-gun-th/183127978532914)

The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/2/A/%7B62AD9B59-92FB-43A1-8848-F1EFA8042F98%7Dti151.pdf
(my notes on the above: https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/so-how-many-licenced-firearms-owners-have-comitted-homicide-with-a-gun-they-own-/183042671874778)


Table 1.1 Underlying cause of death, All causes, Australia, 2011

https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/table-11-underlying-cause-of-death-all-causes-australia-2011/169249996587379

Research says - no correlation between private Guns and Crime

https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/research-says-no-correlation-between-private-guns-and-crime/160065254172520

DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER? (from Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/iii-do-ordinary-people-murder-from-harvard-journal-of-law-and-public-policy/160069814172064

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research
http://crimetool.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_onlinequeries
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_crime_stats_archived

NSW POLICE MEDIA RELEASES
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/media_release_archives

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Research says - no correlation between private Guns and Crime


First the authors do not imply a correlation (negative or positive) they establish from the review of research that a correlation (negative) does exist. The fact that a negative correlation exists, even if it is small actually does inform debate & is significant because:

Gun Grabbers/Gun Ban Types are constantly claiming that Less Privately Owned Guns = Less Crime.

This study, which is a review of the research done on the topic says yet again that the studies conducted show time and time again that no such correlation exists. This is very significant. Why? because the foundational argument they put forward which seems "reasonable" is in fact totally unsupported by evidence. The evidence in fact ranges from No Correlation between increased Gun Ownership & Rates of Crime to a Negative Correlation. Ie More Guns either make no difference or the cause a reduction in crime. This is the result of the research time and time again. This particular study looks at studies as far back as 1991.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
2007 Paper.
"The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data
from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” 11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text: [T]here is no consistent significant positive association between
gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S.
states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12"

As the Harvard review concludes:
Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

This study came to basically the same conclusion as a similar study from 10yrs earlier referenced in the paper. In that paper the author noted:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative
finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.15



Some other views from more recent data:
MURDER: positive correlation only if USA is included.
http://www.psmag.com/culture/the-correlation-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-rate-55467/
(NB that this includes some commentary on the fact that in the analysis USA is infact an outlier and so might reasonably be excluded from the analysis, which would significantly change the correlation co-efficient result)

CRIME:
http://www.psmag.com/culture/gun-ownership-neither-increases-nor-decreases-crime-rate-55473/

2004 Study  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=2
" For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/archive/#302

Monday, 26 August 2013

Research Shows the Greens can't read research papers but does not show Ad-Hoc Hunting harms feral control!

August 26, 2013 at 7:53pm
In a recent exchange I was pointed to the research that GreensJeremy & GreenCate have referred to when saying hunting is

  •  ineffective as a control and
  • enhances breading and immigration rates

Here is GreensJeremy making the claim:



Here is GreenCate making the claim (and Bio Security NSW response)




The Paper is titled:
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL FOXCONTROL PROGRAMS
LLYNETTE McLEOD, GLEN SAUNDERS, STEVEMcLEOD AND MICHELLE WALTER
VERTEBRATE PEST RESEARCH UNIT
NSW DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
SEPTEMBER 2007

You can read it in full here:
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/365353/Effective-fox-control-programs.pdf


Here is the the section of the Report they often point to (on page 56):

Shooting is a very selective method of control (Beasom 1974), however past Australian studies have described it as an ineffective method in significantly reducing fox population numbers, particularly over the long term (Coman 1988, Newsome et al. 1989, Fleming 1997). Reasons for this ineffectiveness include the biasing towards younger, less wary individuals (Coman 1988) which, although altering the age structure of the population, is thought not to necessarily lead to a decline in the population or to the impacts these foxes cause. The compensatory effects of the culled population may also allow the remaining animals’ survival and breeding to be enhanced, immigration rates to increase, and dispersal rates to decrease (Caughley 1977). Newsome et al. (1989) report that the replacement rate of foxes was very high after an intensive shooting campaign conducted in western NSW.

Here are a couple of immediate problems:

1>Selective & biased towards younger less wary individuals = TRUE
Problem with using this as the basis for your "hunting is not effective" argument is that you have to ignore the CSIRO Study "Improving Management Strategies for the Red fox"  Wildlife Research Vol 28, 2001.

Which says - strategies that focus on juvenile and young adults will be the most effective strategies for fox control


And goes on to say that no current methods target particular age classes, but shooting is biased that way.



Now this 2001 study was available to McLeod, Saunders & co in 2007 when they wrote their report. I wonder how it slipped their mind?

2> May also allow the remaining animals survival and breeding to be enhanced

The problem is the the word MAY.
In a scientific journal I think it is reasonable to take the authors meaning to be "it is possible"

That is to say the Author does not KNOW, the Author can not prove, the Author just thinks is might be the case.

[MAY can mean "a possibility" a "permission" or "wish or hope" http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/may]


3> May also allow immigration rates to increase & dispersal rates to decrease

That is to say the Author does not KNOW, the Author can not prove, the Author just thinks is might be the case
that shooting allows immigration rates to increase and dispersal to decrease.

Now looking at the sort of results you get from a FOX DRIVE

I think when you see results like those on the left, it is reasonable to agree with the idea that removing this many foxes from the environment must have an impact on the survival rates of the foxes that are left. It is seems reasonable to think that other foxes in the area have no pressure to disperse & that foxes from other areas will be tempted to move into the area.

What is also reasonable to conclude that there has been a significant reduction in amount of predation by foxes on the wildlife. That being the case, it should improve survival rates of the animals that are food for the predators until the Fox population returns to its previous level

Therefore you would need to do regular culls like this fox drive to keep numbers down.

And indeed the paper on page 10 under 1.7 Conclusions from this study states:

"Group shooting programs can be just as successful as group baiting programs. The key to success involves incorporating as large an area as possible and conducting regular (twice a year) control programs to maximise the effectiveness."

It is true that this is not ad-hoc hunting.

However,  it is difficult to see how ad-hoc hunting between the twice yearly Group Shooting Programs/twice yearly baiting programs can be detrimental to the pest control effort?

The advice from DPI VIC:
 "Effective fox management utilises all the available control measures that are feasible on your property."

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/pest-animals/invasive-animal-management/established-invasive-animals/integrated-fox-control-for-rural-and-natural-landscapes

Indeed the NSW report says (in its conclusions)

"1080 ground baiting is generally more cost effective than shooting in terms of the cost per fox killed. Although shooting by both recreational and professional shooters, can be a successful alternative in areas where foxes will not succumb to baiting, 1080 baiting is not feasible, or is not the preferred option "
(again note if you are paying professional shooters baiting may be cheaper, but not if using volunteers & BAITING DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK!!!)


If you only read this far, I think you can see that the research is not the "PROOF"  the Greens say it says.

Co-ordinated culling by volunteers does work & is as effective as baiting.

Ad-Hoc Hunting is not proven to "increase feral numbers"

Pest control requires us to use EVERY TOOL AVAILABLE. Volunteers doing ad hoc hunting = another opportunty for the Feral to come in contact with a control tool. The more encounters the more likely Mr Fox, Pig, Goat, Dog, Rabbit is to be controlled.






Since your still reading:

THIS STUDY HAD ANOTHER ISSUE

The assessment of shooting as a tool for control set out in this document is based on 40 responses to a survey + some face to face interviews responses

40 people out of Nearly 300,000 licenced shooters who had "Hunting/Primary Producer" on their licence.
The response rate was heavily biased to recreational hunters.

"40 fox shooters (3 farmer / rural occupiers, 36 recreational and 4 professionals), documenting 169 separate forays from the period of March to August 2006. This was an extremely poor response considering the number of fox shooters in NSW is estimated to be in the thousands."

"Because of the poor response, a short face to face interview was conducted with ten fox shooters from the Orange area who did not respond to fox questionnaire."

The researchers then say:
"Because of the low number of responses, particularlyfrom the primary producers themselves, the data collected from the survey can not be used to assess any trends in foxshooting across agricultural lands in NSW."

then go on to draw conclusions anyway.



Some further reading:
CASE STUDY: Coordinated fox shooting program
 http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PSCS2_fox_SthCstNSW.pdf

EVALUATION OF THE 2002/03 VICTORIAN FOX BOUNTY TRIAL
http://redcard.net.au/doc/Fox_Bounty_Report_Vic_2003.pdf

They conclude that it is a failure for various reasons. Thats for another post.

Never the less it has some excellent background information
A good summary of resilience to control
Restates the age bias of shooting
Talks about the habitat restrictions of shooting
Covers the Phillip Island test of Shooting and the sole method of control.

I can not let the "IT FAILED" go with out comment:

From the Report:

First:
Then they make this statement:
Bounties are paid on all animals of the target species taken. This results in large numbers of younger, inexperienced animals being removed, while more elusive, older animals escape. Older animals are the most likely to breed successfully and hence they are important targets for control

Remember this is despite the CSIRO Paper I mentioned earlier & the DPI Paper provides NO REFERENCE for their claim. (so I smell a bias!)

ALSO:
Bounty schemes have tended to focus on reducing pest population size as opposed to attempting to
minimise the damage caused by the pest population. Their objective is to kill as many pests as possible rather than considering alternative management options to reduce the level of damage. This approach also means there are no set objectives or targets such as reducing populations by a certain proportion. Without defined objectives, no measurement of success can be made.

As there is no accurate method available to measure fox abundance there is a clear deficiency in
our ability to measure the success of fox control. There is a clear need to develop techniques to
permit fox abundance to be measured (page 27)

So
- they measured how many foxes where removed by bounty claims.
- they estimated how many foxes there were per sq km
- they concluded not enough foxes were taken by shooting to impact the "estimated" density of foxes

The conclude it failed.

At no point do they asses this program as an adjunct to the strategic baiting and other control measures.

This is what we see time and time again. "SHOOTING ALONE DOES NOT WORK" like I said last time. NO SHIT!

Sunday, 25 August 2013

Hunting Feral Animals HELPS not HINDERS other Control Programs.

Hunting Feral Animals HELPS not HINDERS other Control Programs.

(a fuller view on my last post)

I am getting tired of hearing the the refrain :
"There is no scientific evidence that recreational Hunting is an effective way to manage pest species"

Well no SHIT Sherlock!

Here is what I will say in the following note (but with a lot more pictures and word)

- There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that ad hoc hunting HARMS or DETRACTS from the effectiveness of other control programs in place.


- Shooting is one of the tools needed to control pests
- Shooting done by Volunteers makes pests just as dead as the ones shot by Professionals.
- Volunteers can work in co-ordinated way (eg fox drives) for large area purge/reduction to great effect.
- Volunteers alone or in small groups engaging in ad hoc opportunistic shooting/hunting provide an excellent adjunct to the other control programs in place. Every Hunter in the field represents another opportunity for pest animal to encounter a pest control tool. (Qld DPI)
-To talk about the "death of the hunted animal" in isolation from the deaths of the animals victims (animal & human) is deceitful, manipulative & cruel.
- To talk of the cruelty of hunting in isolation from the effectiveness or actual effects of other control methods on the animals is also deceitful, manipulative & possibly evidence ignorance.

What does BIO SECURITY NSW HAVE TO SAY About HUNTING & Other Control Methods:
Few if ANY control Techniques have Scientific Studies to support Effectiveness
Few if ANY control Techniques have Scientific Studies to support Effectiveness

We do not have any scientific studies at this point that demonstrate reduced impacts.(of Hunting)
BUT in saying that, its difficult to do that for a whole range of techniques.For techniques that people are using to reduce numbers of #feral #animals it is challenging to get good measures of impact
Mr Tracy to NSW Inquiry into Public Land Use

Did you catch that: They don't have any scientific studies for the effectiveness of most of the the techniques!!!

What else did Mr Tracey and other from BIO SECURITY NSW have to say to GreenCate & Others at the Inquiry:


FERAL PEST CONTROL is EVERYONES RESPONSIBLITY

Bio Security - Everyones Responsibility. Game Council Contributed
Bio Security - Everyones Responsibility. Game Council Contributed

WE DONT CARE IF ITS PRO SHOOTERS OR AMAETUR - We just want Ferals Gone

Bio Security is about RESULTS.
IT is not concerned with who does the work.
Bio Security is about RESULTS. IT is not concerned with who does the work.


On GreenCates Comment re fox hunting" "I think again its is not realistic"

Greens Know Shooting works.
 Bio Security strongly advocate integrated pest management.
 Bait-Trap-Shoot
Greens Know Shooting works. Bio Security strongly advocate integrated pest management. Bait-Trap-Shoot


WHAT IS IT YOU DONT SEE:

Feral Pest Kill Natives

Cat vs Shooter
Alas  Bilby met the Cat First
Cat vs Shooter Alas Bilby met the Cat First

Not just the birds and small natives Even Wallaby & Roos
Not just the birds and small natives Even Wallaby & Roos

Not great for Budgie

These Correllas meet a cat and it did not go well
These Correllas meet a cat and it did not go well

If you TRAP, NEUTER & RELEASE - which of the above events will NOT occur again during the life of the CAT/DOG/FOX that you released back into the wild?



Feral Pest Kill Farm Animals

A nights work for #Feral Dogs
A nights work for #Feral Dogs

Lama
http://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/sheep-grazing-go-unless-wild-dogs-are-contained/1923751/
Lama http://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/sheep-grazing-go-unless-wild-dogs-are-contained/1923751/




Cattle http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/baiting-wild-dogs-a-matter-of-urgency/1128932/
Cattle http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/baiting-wild-dogs-a-matter-of-urgency/1128932/

AGAIN: If you TRAP, NEUTER & RELEASE - which of the above events will NOT occur again during the life of the CAT/DOG/FOX that you released back into the wild?



These Images are DAILY event  around Australia.

Ask yourself IS IT OK to wake up to this Once a week? Once a Month? EVER?
Ask yourself IS IT OK for the farmers KIDS to wake up to this?

I often read from the "anti hunting" crew  that I am damaging my Son and Daughter by taking them hunting.
Ask yourself, what sort of damage is being done to the Farmers Sons & Daughters waking up to find another half eaten lamb, a ewe still alive but with its guts hanging out & seeing their parents grief & stress!

Take a good hard look a the slaughter of those ewes and lambs and calves.
I put up the "clean photos"
NOW CLOSE YOUR EYES and imagine that is what you FACE walking out in to your work place in the Morning

They are not sleeping
They are not sleeping

VOLUNTEER HUNTERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Foxes Feast
Foxes Feast
Fox Drive Results
Fox Drive Results

Yep that last photo was a Co Ordinated Fox Drive run by volunteers.
But you say that is different to a couple of guys with rifles walking around.

What about these two Hunters

A Nights work
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200165655416127&set=o.204449656299875&type=3
A Nights work https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200165655416127&set=o.204449656299875&type=3



In NSW 20,000 R-Licenced Hunters did this:



There are thousands more guys and girls just helping out on private properties

But right now nothing is being done on any of the 10,000,000 Hectares of NSW  State Forest/National Parks.

What about South of the border:

VICTORIA:
Agriculture and Food Security Minister Peter Walsh said the bounty was a key election commitment that had received an overwhelming response from farmers and hunters since commencing in October 2011.
"Over 15 months, collection centres have received more than 133,000 fox scalps and 400 wild dog pelts, and the total of bounties paid now exceeds $1.3 million," Mr Walsh said.
"These collection figures show that the bounty continues to play an important role in the Government's integrated approach to fox and wild dog control, in combination with other control methods such as trapping and ground baiting.
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/5795-victorian-fox-bounty-tops-133000-scalps.html


SOUTH AUSTRALIA

For 20 years SSAA Hunters have been the biggest "friends of the National Parks" & winning awards.




QUEENSLAND might be coming around too?

"Something needs to be done and controlled conservational hunting could be the answer."
A method which aims to reduce the number of pest species in Australia, conservational hunting is generally undertaken by trained wildlife workers.
"These farmers just need a solution," Mr Foley said.
http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/tackle-pest-problem-with-controlled-hunting-mp/1145251/

Biosecurity Queensland senior wild dog officer Clynton Spencer, of Stanthorpe.
Mr Spencer outlined strategies for best controlling and managing wild dogs in the region.
He said landholders needed to work together to combat wild dogs.
"There needs to be more communication and ownership of the problem," Mr Spencer said.
"Properties can get reinfested continually when neighbours do nothing.
"Any pest management activities must be co-ordinated, by integrating tools across the landscape (baiting, trapping and shooting by everyone)."
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/mistakes-fatal-for-wild-dogs/1989909/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer7283e&utm_medium=twitter



SHOOTING (Hunter main tool) is HUMANE, SPECIES SPECIFIC, SAFE for Environment & HIGHLY AFFORDABLE when you us Volunteers - NSW DPI even acknowledges this:

Highly Affordable Humane Species Specific
Highly Affordable Humane Species Specific

Yes it requires experienced skilled & responsible shooters. The very thing Hunting Clubs and #Game #Council was promoting and encouraging and running hunter ED course to achieve.

Recent Study on Aerial Shooting:
"The average time to death was eight seconds and 58 per cent of those 2000-odd horses died instantaneously," he said.
Sam Rando says the shooters aim for three target areas, the cranium, thorax and neck.
"The vet recorded that 97 per cent of the animals were shot in one of those three target areas," he said.
"There's never been any evidence to date about the humaneness of different control methods.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-13/animal-welfare-horse-culling/4873726/?site=alicesprings

Yes I know they were pro and good shots. That is the point, Good Shooting = Humane Outcomes.

What does Game Council advise? What is my Hunting Club constantly telling us - Focus on Good Shot Placement.
Go for heart lung (Thorax) its quick and clean and much lower risk of error than head shot.

Let me just finish with a look at the alternatives that Anti Hunting Groups remain quite about:


Baiting
- be clear 4 hours to a few days to die from this method.


First here are some results from a trial of buried and surface baits & some trail cam pictures.
Buried Baits still kill wombats.
Surface Baits Kil 3 x morel wombats than burried.
Buried Baits still kill wombats. Surface Baits Kil 3 x morel wombats than burried.

The trial poisoned 4 wombats.
The surface baits poisoned 8 non target animals and got 10 Target Animals that means it missed 44% of the time.
The Buried baits poisoned 1 non target and got 10 target animals so only missed only 9% of the time.
Notice for Surface baits only 42% where taken
Notice for Buried baits only 25% where taken

I would also like to draw your attention to this (remember shot animal will take 8-30 seconds to die)

Mode of action

Although animals vary widely in their sensitivity to 1080 (discussed in the following sections), the basic mode of action of the poison is the same in all animals. 1080 acts by disrupting the “Krebs cycle”, the complex metabolic pathway that breaks down food providing energy for cells to function. Once the energy reserves are depleted, death occurs fairly quickly from heart or respiratory failure. Possums become lethargic and usually die within 6-18 hours from cardiac failure. This is the most common cause of death in herbivores poisoned by 1080. Carnivores experience central nervous system disturbances and convulsions as their energy supplies are exhausted, and then die of respiratory failure. Animals that eat sub-lethal doses may show mild signs of poisoning, but the 1080 is metabolised and excreted within one to four days and the animal recovers. All traces of 1080 are, therefore, likely to be eliminated within one week9.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/the-use-of-1080-for-pest-control/4-information-about-1080/4_1-key-facts/

For Pigs it is about 4 hours for some poisons, but up to 10-14 days per COP-Feral-Pigs (ref below)

Trapping:
- be clear the animals are confined until you come back & shoot them.
- The need food water and shelter until you come back for this to be humane
Trapping of pigs can be a humane method of control when traps are inspected at least once daily and they are set up to provide shade and shelter. Pigs have poor thermoregulation and can suffer greatly when exposed to extremes of heat and cold.

The trap should be constructed in a way so as not to cause injury from loose wire, sharp edges or malfunctioning gates. Also, a smaller mesh size should be used to prevent injuries to the pigs’ snouts if they charge at the trap when attempting to escape. Trapped pigs must be destroyed by shooting as quickly and humanely as possible. If lactating sows are caught in a trap without their young, efforts should be made to find dependent piglets and kill them quickly and humanely.

Although pig traps are designed for the capture of feral pigs, there is still a risk of capturing other species. Use of a pig-specific gate trip mechanism minimises the risk of catching some species eg. cassowaries and wallabies, whilst the placement of a steel post across a funnel trap entrance at a height of 1 metre above the ground will prevent cattle from entering. Non-target animals that are caught but not injured should be released at the trap site. If they are injured, but may respond to veterinary treatment, such treatment should be sought. Severely injured non-target animals should be destroyed quickly and humanely.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/cop-feral-pigs.pdf

TRAPS = Being SHOT
TRAPS = Being separated from young until shot (potential)
TRAPS = Potentially injured due to poor trap constructions
TRAPS = Risk of not target species being caught/injured/fatally injured
TRAPS = Require daily visits, good construction, appropriate location, food & water to be HUMANE.



TRAP NEUTER RELEASE/STERILIZATION
-The only native animals saved are the ones not being killed while you neuter the animal.
-if you use an injection rather than surgery ?
- Is not considered viable by any DPI in Australia or Bio Security

For Cats
For a more balanced view http://www.ccac.net.au/issues/Trap_Neuter_Release

For Herbivores
There is a mix of research. Clearly surgical sterilization is grossly impracticable.
This leaves some form of ballistic ally delivered drug (that means we shoot it into them)
From the reading I have done you need to cover about 30+% of all hinds in the first sweeps and then maintain steady rate of sterilization.

So in Australia  - SHOOTING - TRAPPING - POISON are the 3 main tools.

 SO JUST IN CASE YOU GOT THIS FAR:
Here is what I said

- There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that ad hoc hunting HARMS or DETRACTS from the effectiveness of other control programs in place.


- Shooting is one of the tools needed to control pests
- Shooting done by Volunteers makes pests just as dead as the ones shot by Professionals.
- Volunteers can work in co-ordinated way (eg fox drives) for large area purge/reduction to great effect.
- Volunteers alone or in small groups engaging in ad hoc opportunistic shooting/hunting provide an excellent adjunct to the other control programs in place. Every Hunter in the field represents another opportunity for pest animal to encounter a pest control tool. (Qld DPI)
-To talk about the "death of the hunted animal" in isolation from the deaths of the animals victims (animal & human) is deceitful, manipulative & cruel.
- To talk of the cruelty of hunting in isolation from the effectiveness or actual effects of other control methods on the animals is also deceitful, manipulative & possibly evidence ignorance.






Photos have been attributed where I can & were publicly available.
If I have used a photo of yours and you would prefer I did not please let me know and I will remove it from the note. AI.

Controlling Feral Animals by any and all methods is GOOD for the Environment & our Native Flora & Fauna.

I am getting tired of hearing the the refrain :
"There is no scientific evidence that recreational Hunting is an effective way to manage pest species"

- There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that ad hoc hunting HARMS or DETRACTS from the effectiveness of other control programs in place.

Few if ANY control Techniques have Scientific Studies to support Effectiveness

We do not have any scientific studies at this point that demonstrate reduced impacts.(of Hunting)
BUT in saying that, its difficult to do that for a whole range of techniques.For techniques that people are using to reduce numbers of #feral #animals it is challenging to get good measures of impact
Mr Tracy to NSW Inquiry into Public Land Use

Did you catch that: They don't have any scientific studies for the effectiveness of most of the the techniques!!!

Bio Security is about RESULTS. IT is not concerned with who does the work.Greens Know Shooting works. Bio Security strongly advocate integrated pest management. Bait-Trap-Shoot

WHAT IS IT YOU DONT SEE:

Feral Pest Kill Natives

Cat vs Shooter
Alas  Bilby met the Cat First
Cat vs Shooter Alas Bilby met the Cat First

Not just the birds and small natives Even Wallaby & Roos
Not just the birds and small natives Even Wallaby & Roos

Not great for Budgie
Not great for Budgie


These Correllas meet a cat and it did not go well
These Correllas meet a cat and it did not go well

If you TRAP, NEUTER & RELEASE - which of the above events will NOT occur again during the life of the CAT/DOG/FOX that you released back into the wild?



Feral Pest Kill Farm Animals

A nights work for #Feral Dogs
A nights work for #Feral Dogs

Lama
http://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/sheep-grazing-go-unless-wild-dogs-are-contained/1923751/
Lama http://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/sheep-grazing-go-unless-wild-dogs-are-contained/1923751/




Cattle http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/baiting-wild-dogs-a-matter-of-urgency/1128932/
Cattle http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/baiting-wild-dogs-a-matter-of-urgency/1128932/

AGAIN: If you TRAP, NEUTER & RELEASE - which of the above events will NOT occur again during the life of the CAT/DOG/FOX that you released back into the wild?



These Images are DAILY event  around Australia.

Ask yourself IS IT OK to wake up to this Once a week? Once a Month? EVER?
Ask yourself IS IT OK for the farmers KIDS to wake up to this?

I often read from the "anti hunting" crew  that I am damaging my Son and Daughter by taking them hunting.
Ask yourself, what sort of damage is being done to the Farmers Sons & Daughters waking up to find another half eaten lamb, a ewe still alive but with its guts hanging out & seeing their parents grief & stress!

Take a good hard look a the slaughter of those ewes and lambs and calves.
I put up the "clean photos"
NOW CLOSE YOUR EYES and imagine that is what you FACE walking out in to your work place in the Morning

They are not sleeping
They are not sleeping

VOLUNTEER HUNTERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Foxes Feast
Foxes Feast
Fox Drive Results
Fox Drive Results

Yep that last photo was a Co Ordinated Fox Drive run by volunteers.
But you say that is different to a couple of guys with rifles walking around.

What about these two Hunters

A Nights work
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200165655416127&set=o.204449656299875&type=3
A Nights work https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200165655416127&set=o.204449656299875&type=3



SHOOTING (Hunter main tool) is HUMANE, SPECIES SPECIFIC, SAFE for Environment & HIGHLY AFFORDABLE when you us Volunteers - NSW DPI even acknowledges this:
Highly Affordable Humane Species Specific
Highly Affordable Humane Species Specific

Yes it requires experienced skilled & responsible shooters. The very thing Hunting Clubs and #Game #Council was promoting and encouraging and running hunter ED course to achieve.

Let me just finish with a look at the alternatives that Anti Hunting Groups remain quite about:


Baiting
- be clear 4 hours to a few days to die from this method.


First here are some results from a trial of buried and surface baits & some trail cam pictures.
Buried Baits still kill wombats.
Surface Baits Kil 3 x morel wombats than burried.
Buried Baits still kill wombats. Surface Baits Kil 3 x morel wombats than burried.

For Pigs it is about 4 hours for some poisons, but up to 10-14 days per COP-Feral-Pigs (ref below)

Trapping:
- be clear the animals are confined until you come back & shoot them.
- The need food water and shelter until you come back for this to be humane
TRAPS = Being SHOT
TRAPS = Being separated from young until shot (potential)
TRAPS = Potentially injured due to poor trap constructions
TRAPS = Risk of not target species being caught/injured/fatally injured
TRAPS = Require daily visits, good construction, appropriate location, food & water to be HUMANE.



TRAP NEUTER RELEASE/STERILIZATION
-The only native animals saved are the ones not being killed while you neuter the animal.
-if you use an injection rather than surgery ?
- Is not considered viable by any DPI in Australia or Bio Security

So in Australia  - SHOOTING - TRAPPING - POISON are the 3 main tools.

 SO JUST IN CASE YOU GOT THIS FAR:
Here is what I will say in the following note (but with a lot more pictures and word)
- There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that ad hoc hunting HARMS or DETRACTS from the effectiveness of other control programs in place.


- Shooting is one of the tools needed to control pests
- Shooting done by Volunteers makes pests just as dead as the ones shot by Professionals.
- Volunteers can work in co-ordinated way (eg fox drives) for large area purge/reduction to great effect.
- Volunteers alone or in small groups engaging in ad hoc opportunistic shooting/hunting provide an excellent adjunct to the other control programs in place. Every Hunter in the field represents another opportunity for pest animal to encounter a pest control tool. (Qld DPI)
-To talk about the "death of the hunted animal" in isolation from the deaths of the animals victims (animal & human) is deceitful, manipulative & cruel.
- To talk of the cruelty of hunting in isolation from the effectiveness or actual effects of other control methods on the animals is also deceitful, manipulative & possibly evidence ignorance.






Photos have been attributed where I can & were publicly available.
If I have used a photo of yours and you would prefer I did not please let me know and I will remove it from the note. AI.

Friday, 23 August 2013

So how many Licenced Firearms Owners have comitted homicide with a gun they own? (2000 Research)

The short Answer is:

6 Murders of 117 committed using a firearm where by Licenced Firearms owners.
None of those used a Handgun.

**addendum - I had previously reported 11 of 17 but on reading http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_violence/PDFs/Reuter_Mouzos_2003.pdf  it turns out that only 6 where by the Licenced Firarms Owner, 5 were shot with their own gun****

Less than 1 in 4 murders involve a firearm.

" In other words, licensed firearms owners were not responsible for the majority of firearm-related homicides. These findings are consistent with international research."

SOURCE DATA & COMMENTARY

The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/2/A/%7B62AD9B59-92FB-43A1-8848-F1EFA8042F98%7Dti151.pdf


Between 1 July 1989 and 30 June 1999, just under 1 in 4 homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Although most homicides in Australia are not committed with a firearm, a number of events have sparked public outcry and have led to significant changes in the regulation of firearms. One such event was the Port Arthur incident
in which 35 people lost their lives to semi-automatic firearms

This paper seeks to examine the licensing and registration status of firearms used to commit homicide.







the following analyses will focus only  on firearm-related homicides committed on or after 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999.

An analysis of the licensing and registration status of firearms used in homicide between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1999 reveals that the overwhelming majority of these firearms were not registered and the offenders of homicide
were not licensed firearms owners (Figure 6)

Of the 117 homicide offenders who used firearms to commit homicide, only 11 (9.4%) homicide offenders were licensed firearms owners with registered firearms (Figure 6). In other words, licensed firearms owners were not responsible for the majority of firearm-related homicides. These findings are consistent with international research.

In the few cases where licensed firearms owners used a registered firearm to kill, 80 per cent of the registered firearms used were Category A or B firearms. Not one handgun used in homicide was registered.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/2/A/%7B62AD9B59-92FB-43A1-8848-F1EFA8042F98%7Dti151.pdf

Its not all our way, these guys then go on th say:

Storage of Firearms One of the main methods of illegal acquisition of firearms by individuals is through theft from
gun dealers, owners, or others (Mouzos 1999). Although this study did not specifically examine whether the firearms used to commit homicide had been stolen from licensed owners.

My challange to this Claim is based on:

- Not one of the hand guns in this 2000 paper were registered - so no guns stolen from LAFO in the period of the study turned up as  murder weapon.

- AIC studies show less than 100 Hand Guns a year are stolen in Australia from #LAFO.
- AIC studies show that only about 50% of the stolen hand guns are Semi Automatics. (that put 50 on the market)
- News reports in past 18 months have noted that a number of Illegal Firearms Importing operations have been busted. With number of firearms in the 100's. {ref to be added}
- The ACC estimated that 10,000 hand guns are already in the illicit market. adding 50 a year is not a major source. (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/crime-profile-series/illicit-firearms)



http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/116/rpp116.pdf

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


2008-2009

Characteristics of stolen firearms

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/16/04_characteristics.html




While we have stories of 200+ handguns imported in a 3 month period in NSW.