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

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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

WHAT IS IT YOU DONT SEE:

Feral Pest Kill Natives

Cat vs Shooter Alas Bilby met the Cat First

Not just the birds and small natives Even Wallaby & Roos

Not great for Rosella
http://glasstire.com/2012/12/12/novel-houston-art-classes-survive-through-cunning-brew-of-edu-tainment/model-of-feral-cat-with-rosella-from-gondwanaland-sanctuary-brisbane

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

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/

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

VOLUNTEER HUNTERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Foxes Feast

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

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

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.

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 humaneTrapping 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

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

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

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/

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

VOLUNTEER HUNTERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Foxes Feast

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

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

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.

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 humaneTRAPS = 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.