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.
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.
-->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.
