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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this discussion on ABC radio

Radio National breakfast - Hunting in SA & Victorian National Parks

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

YANGA

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

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



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


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


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


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


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


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

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



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

List of Purchases

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

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


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


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

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










 

Some Helpful Scale reference:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In  a nutshell Two Views

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


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

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

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


THE FOLLOWING CAME FROM  Hairyman Bushcraft  - THANKS MATE!


2009 Green ideas must take blame for deaths

 Scott Gentle, the Victorian manager of Timber Communities Australia

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

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

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

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

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

2009 You can't see the danger for the trees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007 Firefighters' anger still burning

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

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

2005 Burning issue that gave fire chief his political kickstart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 WANT SOME REAL SCIENCE:

Managing fire

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

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

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

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

Some Other Reading:

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

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

YES

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

of eucalypt forest types in Southern Australia.

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.