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