Evidenced Based Policy no Firearms will not lead where the Gun Control Advocates would like.

In Response to:
http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/16/firearms-right-hands-right-reasons/#comment-1640541385

The NSW Greens support evidence based legislation when it come to firearms legislation?

You have got to be pulling my leg.

NO Evidence that NSW Ammo Bill could or would curtail criminal use of firearms.

NO Evidence that there had been a steady rise in non fatal shootings.

Never the less LEGISLATION went ahead supported by the Greens

BOCSAR study released in 2013 showing


"Between 1995 and 2012 there have been frequent fluctuation in the recorded number of non fatal shootings but no sustatined increase over the period."

BUT the government in acted legislation anyway
 http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb85.pdf]

No Evidence that Australian Gun Buy Back or 1996/1997 Gun Law reforms had any impact on the rate of decline in homicide by firearm.



































The favourite "Pro Gunbuy Back Study" Leigh & Neill from 2010 - The paper "has proven confusing in that its abstract suggests that the Australian gun buyback reduced firearm homicide rates by 80%, but the body of the report finds no effect" (Greg Ridgeway PHD Deputy Director of the National Instituted of Justice in the US)

Note that the Greens avoid  mention of Reuter & Mouzas 2003, Chapman et al 2006 Wang-Sheing Lee & Sandy Suardi or even the view of Don Weatherburn of NSW BOCSAR all of which agree that the 1996 NFA did not have an effect on firearm Homicide.

NO Evidence that growth in the number of legally owned firearms has lead to increase in use of firearms for criminal activity

We  have seen a growth in the number of legally owned firearms in NSW at the same time as a steadily declining criminal use of firemarms.

No Evidence that firearm registration has reduced criminal use of firearms

The RCMP in Canada were unable to convince legislator that the Firearms Registry had produced any public safety dividend for the billions spent on it. No Crimes Solved, No Lives Saved.

The UK saw a dramatic increase in the use of handguns after they banned the private ownership of handguns. They are still trying to get back to PRE BAN levels.

As an interesting aside the Australian experience was that post 1996 the use of hand guns in crime also rose dramatically - All unregistered of course and so not subject to any of the 1996 laws.

If the NSW Greens where keen on evidenced based policy, they would support moves to repeal the NFA, the NSW Ammo bill and much of the 1997 legislation, since the evidence at home and abroad says that the legislation failed to achieve Greens claimed goal of making Australia a safer place to live.


- Licenceing & Background Checks work
- Nearly all the rest is a waste of time.


And that is just for starters.

For Reference:
2003 CDC Study from the US (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

 Follow up CDC Study; http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=6

Some Commentary on it:
SLATE http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

Why it was right to shut down the Registry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/long-gun-registry_b_1520666.html
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/

Don't let this be a "Gun Law" Issue. Life in Australian Agriculture can both delight and destroy people.

I posted this comment a in response to a discussion prompted by this tragic event:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/four-dead-man-missing-at-nsw-property/story-fn3dxiwe-1227053294735?nk=51833b2fc0ffeab4b3023e4f08d22244


The situation that has occurred is a domestic murder & suicide of a farmer and his family. It is a tragic event that requires a full thorough investigation by police to understand exactly what has lead to this event.

Despite the press reports suggesting that this has come out of the blue and as a total shock to the local community, the sort of action does not just spontaneously occur with out cause.

The investigation, will no doubt uncover a series of events and circumstances which has lead a man to determine that he should take the lives of his kids and wife along with his own.

There will no doubt, in hindsight been a number of points along that course where the intervention of authorities or friends or others might (I say might) have prevented some or all of these deaths.

As an aside I say might have prevented some of these deaths, because it is beyond knowing if any one person or group of people would have been able to prevent this. Murder and Suicide are not easy things to understand or prevent, so please don't hear me saying "if only the community had done more it would have stopped this".

What I wanted to sound a warning about was the immediate focus on the fact that a firearm was used.

We need to be very wary of any solution that has its focus the firearms regulations.

I say this for many reasons, amongst them are:

1. Domestic Murder/Suicides are committed with unacceptable frequency using a variety of methods.(we have seen stabbings, drownings, fire & firearms)

2. That frequency is still very low as a proportion of all murders (which is itself quite a small number already and in decline) and suicides.

3. The mental state of the person at the time of committing this type of crime will be very unlikely to be the the mental state they have been in during the whole of their life. In particular it is unlikely in the extreme that they will have had murderous intent when they applied for their Motor Vehicle, Boat, Firearms, explosives or 1080 permit or other license.

4. It already a legal requirement for a number of professions to communicate with the Police about the mental condition /deterioration of that condition of patients if they believe that the person owns or has access to firearms.

5. It is already quite straight forward to have action taken to have a persons firearms removed from them. Police and Family Members can both.

6. We have seen in the case so recently promoted by "Gun Control Australia" that the very strict waiting period and training requirements and probationary period around NSW Pistol License where not a sufficient hindrance to an already mentally ill person with a determination and plan to kill her father. In hindsight we see that murder was planned well before she joined the pistol club.

7. We have strong evidence that people intent on using a firearm to commit murder have no qualms about obtaining the weapon illegally, through theft or black market purchase. (see SA case of Christopher Robert Mieglich)

8. It is a classic "Gun Control Australia/Gunsense" tactic to take situation like that above and make it about the firearms ownership and licensing laws. 

This is a gross & disingenuous misdirect the public & policy makers seeking to prevent them evaluating what is a complex problem. The GCA type want to push a "simple view/fix" on problem that is often a complex long running interplay of financial/family dynamics/family law/alcohol/drugs/mental health & other factors.

That is were I finished my original post, so here is a post script

There is no law or regulation that can be written that will put an end to murder or suicide.

There is no law or regulation that can be written that will prevent people finding themselves in situation which to them are so hopeless that they come to believe that murder or suicide is the only viable answer.

This story I believe will be revealed as a tragedy of the land, borne of years of drought, of the stress of working a farm and caring for wife injured in a serious car accident and more that we have little knowledge of.

We must not let the fools in "Gun Control Australia" turn Australia's mind away from the real issues facing Aussie Farmers in GCA & coys pushing of their own agenda.

Tighter regulations on LAFO's wont fix or prevent this situation.

Neither will LAFO's letting GCA types turn it into a "Gun Law" issue.

Who do you believe? Why do you believe them? (The National Firearms Agreement)

Its a good question to ask yourself in any debate.

Who do you believe?

Equally important is to ask 

Why do you believe them?

I would hope that you would believe the people you believe because they have proven themselves accurate, reliable and truthful in the past.

For your consideration I share the following:

National Firearms Agreement 1996

Claim: NFA caused dramatic decline in homicide

Till Next Time.

The TWO Big Misdirections the Anti Hunting Crowd Run

I have many issues with the anti hunting lobby's characterization of hunters & the argument they use to push their "Ban Hunting" agenda but here I want to focus on two

FIRST: 

  "the animal welfare issue." 

SECOND:  

 "Recreation shooting is largely ineffective compared with integrated control methods"

ANIMAL WELFARE -

In nearly all discussions the argument will be

"I am OK with professional shooters, but I am not happy with amateurs"

"skilled professionals ensure that most animals are killed swiftly and humanely but the same can not be said for all amateur hunters, my concern is for the welfare of the animals being culled"

This is the a disingenuous misdirection.

I agree that a misplaced shot is horrible & with out quick follow up leaves an animal in agony for hours before it dies.

However the anti hunting line gives a FALSE comparison of Volunteer vs Pro.

I wont get into the problems with the "professionals are better shot" deal.

I want to challenge the false suggestion that the alternative to volunteers is professional shooters.

Professional Shooters are expensive and one pro shooter by themselves will be hard pressed to provide an effective control.
That is why almost all of the Pestsmart material is about the how and why of using 1080 poison.

So when you are comparing the Humanness of Amateur Hunting as a control tool you need to compare it to the REAL alternative that NPWS and STATE FOREST rely upon the most heavily - 1080 Baits.

This is how 1080 works:

http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf

-->Time to Death 4-6hours & during those 4-6hours
--> prolonged or profuse vomiting,
--> laboured respiration often with a white froth around the mouth and nostrils
--> some pigs also exhibit signs of central nervous system disturbance
--> including hyper-excitability, squealing, manic running paralysis or convulsions

REMEMBER THAT GOES ON FOR 4 - 6 HOURS

So from an Animal Welfare assessment:

- the 1080 BEST Case scenario for an animal that is  HOURS of AGONY

can only match Shootings worse case outcome.

We have not look at:
--> what happens if the animal ingests a sub lethal dose.
-->impact on suckling young of poisoned mother.

I note that under the law as a hunter I am obligated to track the young down & put them down.
The boys laying the 1080 Baits have no such obligations.

This is why I say the animal welfare line is completely bogus.You are not presented with the TRUE Comparsion. You are presented with and idealized Professional Shooter vs Demonized Amateur (who is claimed to be incapable & unwilling to exercise discretion and skill!)

While we are on those Professional Marksmen you would do well to remind yourself of the work they did in Guy Fawkes National Park in 2000.  http://youtu.be/AL9KlLqL1bI


Which lead to the RSPCA taking legal action against National Parks.

 

RECREATION SHOOTING IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE CONTROL METHOD

This is the other deliberate misdirection used by the anti hunting groups.

"Ad hoc" Hunting is not being put forward as an "Alternative Control Method

"Ad hoc" is being put forward as SUPPLEMENTARY control method

"Ad hoc" is not really AD HOC - is not as random as they want you to believe.

We go hunting in places that FERALS have been reported. Tells us XYZ is lousy with pigs - we will happily go get some.

This is the other another deliberate misdirection used by the anti hunting groups.

We are not asking for Recreational Shooting to be a replacement of the other methods.

We are asking for it to be ADDED to the controls already in place.

This is an accumulation of control methods, not a replacement.

Our request is consistent with the advise of Bio-security in NSW and Victoria and Queensland who say time and time again to land managers:

-->EVERY method of control should be employed against Feral Animals.

-->We should seek to put as many opportunities for the Feral Pests to encounter a control method each day as possible.

-->That means Coordinated Baiting, Trapping & Shooting Programs plus

--> opportunistic hunting & trapping are part of that continum

Hunting is an additional control method.

Hunting is an alternative in areas that BAITING is not acceptable or viable or for people who think baiting is cruel.

If you have working dogs - First Aid for your Dog

There you have it:

1> animal welfare argument is bogus because they dont compare shooting with 1080 (the method they WILL use)

2> Ineffective Control argument is bogus because we are not replacing other controls, we are suplimenting

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)

Shootings in NSW actually increased after 1996 Gun Laws came in & stayed above 1996 levels for a number of years.

Graph of all recorded incidents of Shootings in NSW 1990-2012 - interesting it goes up after 1996.

October 8, 2013 at 2:45pm

SOURCE http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb85.pdf

Is there an increase in shootings?
Much of the discussion around shootings relates to whether the problem is increasing or whether we are seeing a ‘record’ number of shootings. Figures 1 to 4 below show the monthly number of incidents recorded from January 1995 to December 2012.

Figure 1 shows the total number of non-fatal shooting incidents in each category combined (shoot with intent, discharge firearm into premises and unlawfully discharge firearm). The shaded line is the actual number of recorded incidents. The solid line shows the average number of incidents in the five months around the reference month – the moving average. The moving average in




CONCLUSION - NO Not really, there is no statistical up or down trend in shootings.

(Just goes to show the Headline can be very misleading!! )



MAP OF INTEREST

Crime Stats for NSW - June 2013 - Assaults 62,500, Sexual Assaults 10,600, Break & Enter 38,600 - But Media focus is on Guns?

Crime Stats for NSW - June 2013 - Assaults 62,500, Sexual Assaults 10,600, Break & Enter 38,600 - But Media focus is on Guns?

October 8, 2013 at 2:16pm

Update on the NSW Crime States from BOCSAR

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/mr_rcs_jun13.html

Just so you have some sense of what the real risk to you and your family is here are June Qtr Crime Stats for NSW.


Domestic Violence Assaults        27,932
Non Domestic Violence Assaults 34,622
Sexual Assault                            4,546
Indecent Assault                         6,084
Robbery with out firearm             4,042
Robbery with firearm                      277
Break & enter(dwelling)              38,669
Murder                                            73
Attempted Murder                            30
Manslaughter                                     2

I don't just make these numbers up:


You can drill down much further and see by your region and suburb




5 year Trend

Crime is mostly stable or trending down over 2 & 5 years.
Since the introduction of the Ammo Bill - NOTHING changed in relation to Robbery with a Firearm or Drive By Shootings.



Quick Reminder about a Factual correction issued by BOCSAR

Shootings in Public Places Release date: 6 March 2013 The claim by the Prime Minister that shooting offences in public places in NSW have soared over the last 15 years is incorrect, according to the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
The claim was reportedly made by the Prime Minister last Sunday when announcing various measures to tackle organised crime in NSW and other States.
According to the Director of the Bureau, the total number of non-fatal shooting offences in NSW peaked at a six-month average of over 40 incidents a month in November 2001 and then began to fall.
By December last year the six-monthly average number of non-fatal shooting incidents had dropped to around 25 a month.REF:http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/mr_20130306.html

Is the Legal Gun Market Fueling the illegal gun market? Samatha Lee says Yes, but Research is not really that conclusive.

''Both the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission have stated that there is very little evidence to prove that guns are coming in illegally across the border,'' Ms Lee said. ''The legal gun market is fuelling the illegal gun market.''

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/suburban-shootings-tied-to-rise-in-handgun-thefts-20130727-2qr8k.html


REALLY? is that what the Australian Institute of Criminology said?:

As usual dig a little and the Absolute Statements of some are based on nuanced conclusions and statements by the actually researchers.

First - Australian Crime Commission rely heavily on the Instituted of Criminology's research and reading the ACC papers they all point back to AIC so its not two independent sources agreeing on a fact, its one report being commented on by two people.


Here is what I can FIND from the Australian Institute of Criminology:

Sources and conduits

Illegal importation, theft, illicit manufacture (albeit small), the activities of some corrupt dealers, and legacy legislative and procedural loopholes all represent recognised methods by which firearms, firearm parts and ammunition have been or currently are trafficked into or within Australia (ACC 2011, 2009, 2008; Kerlatec 2007; Mouzos 1999; Qld CMC 2004).

Illegal Importation

"In the same period (2010-2011), ACBPS recorded the detection of 5,922 undeclared firearms/airguns, parts and accessories,"

"The servicing of the current illicit market through illegal imports is not an unproven channel but may not be as important a trafficking route as some commentators expect or assert (eg see ABC 2011) and despite more recent high-profile cases (eg see AAP & Davies 2012). This may be because the process of illegal importation is possibly perceived as a less reliable option for firearm acquisition due to increased surveillance from the ACBPS, in combination with police agencies, and thus a greater chance of detection (Project stakeholders personal communication 28 November 2011; 7 December 2011)."

THEFT

Firearms from just 12–14 percent of reported theft incidents between 2004–05 and 2008–09 were recovered by police in the 12 months following the report of the theft (Borzycki & Mouzos 2007; Bricknell 2011, 2009, 2008a; Bricknell & Mouzos 2007), indicating a sizeable, annual contribution of stolen firearms to the illicit market.

I have commented on that in another note that adding 0.5% to the Stock of existing Grey/Illegal Firearms is hardly fueling a stock pile.

SO the RESEARCH says

 - Illegal Imports are a source, but might not be as large as some assert.
 - Police failure to recover stolen guns is suggests that stolen guns are a "sizable" contribution.

We know 1,000 guns a year stolen and not recovered.
We know that the Police/Customs have uncovered criminals engaged in illegal importation of hand guns
We know that the Police have uncovered illicit firearms manufactures supplying criminal gangs.

We don't know how many guns are imported illegally (as parts/in full)
We don't know what the stock pile of illegal guns is (but the only published guess is 260,000+)

The researchers think stolen guns represent a sizable contribution to the stock pile of illegal guns.
The researchers don't quantify what the they mean by "sizable". (Sizable means Fairly Large)
The researchers did chose "sizable" when terms like  'most', 'majority', 'predominant','principal' might have been used if they thought them appropriate.
The researchers did NOT say that their was "very little evidence" that guns were coming in illegally.
In fact the researchers list all the reports of  illegal imports that appeared in the media.
They did not say "little evidence" they said, they thought the role of illegal imports might not be as great as people believed base on media reports.




REF: AIC Report
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/07_characteristics.html

Why are we beating up LAFO about theft of 1000 guns a year when there are 260, 000 Illegal Firearms in Circulation & Police recover 14% of Stolen Guns?

Aust Institute of Criminology says that of the 1500 firearms a year stolen the police recover around 14%.

Lets assume that the 14% recovered is only from the 1200 or so Long Arms stolen and that they never recover any of the pistols.

That means each year 1100 long arms are added to the 250,000 illegal long arms guns the Aust Crime Commission Says are already out there. That is less than 0.5% of the existing stock pile.

In the case of hand guns the 90 a year that is being added to the Crime Commissions 10,000 estimate represents 1% of the existing stock pile.

I dont know about you, but when I see a 0.5% increase & 1% increase in anything, I do not think of adjectives like fueling the market.

If this is the major source of guns into the illegal market, the market must be pretty small or a very mature market in economic/business terms.

If the Institute of Criminology figure of only 3% (47) of stolen firearms end up being used in a crime.

It is no wonder that the boys have turned to Aust Post and Importing of parts to make guns (also noted by Institutes as a source of illegal guns).

I know the cry "But one gun in the hand of a criminal is one too many" will go up.

I agree that a gun in the hands of a criminal is a gun in the wrong hands.

If we were serious about removing guns from the hands criminal, shouldn't we be trying to locate the 260,000 guns the Crime Commission believes are out there already?

Shouldn"t we be putting the acid on the police to find out WHY they only recover 14% of the guns stolen each year?

There are only 600 or so thefts per year.
That means they solve 84 of 600 Thefts involving theft of a firearm.

But instead of asking
-- Why have the police made so little progress on the stock pile?
-- Why have the police had so little success in catching guys stealing the guns?

We have the media letting Gun Control Australia asking why people are allowed to own the guns.

--They are questioning the victim of the robbery to give up the right to own things worth stealing?

If we just took the valuable things away from them, then the bad men would not steal them.
Then the busy police would not have to look for them & it would make things so much safer.

2.8 million Firearms, only 1500 or less 0.005 of 1% get stolen each year.
Leading to maybe 1200 making it to the black market.

A black market that has a warehouse containing 260,000 firearms.
and Gun Control Australia's Solution to that is Take Away the Legally Owned 2.8m cause that is easier than finding the 260,000 already available to the criminals

Nobody believes that less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will mean less guns in the hands of criminals. Not the Police, not the Crime Stat Boffins, Not the Politicians, Not even Gun Control Australia or the Australian Greens.

If you believe it works go have a look a the UK.

Hand guns are illegal, and the bad guys have more now than they did before they were banned. You are dreaming.

Stolen Guns feeding Criminals? only 3% of Stolen Guns used in Crime - so says report

Firearm Theft in Australia 2008-2009
(one of the Reports Samantha Lee likes to refer to)


ON THE FIREARMS OWNERS SIDE

1,570 Firearms Stolen
91.0% of Guns Stolen were registered
60.0% where Category A
27.0% of time Ammo was stolen with the gun.
6.0% where Handguns (not hand held guns!!)


ON THE POLICE SIDE

13.0% of Thieves were apprehend
14.0% of Firearms Stolen were recovered by police (that is 220 of 1,570)
 55% of the time the Theft was part of general break enter & steal.

ON THE CRIME SIDE

3.0% (ie 47) of the 1,570 Firearms Stolen where later used in Crime/found in possession of some one charged with a criminal offense.

1 case of manslaughter.
2 cases of dangerous conduct
2 cases of in possession of a drug dealer
1 case of found in possession of outlaw bike gang member


SO WHAT?

Gun Control people point to 1500 guns stolen and cry horror and mayhem.

I read a report that says Police are lucky find 1 in 10 of the criminals who stole the guns.

I read a report that says Police are lucky to recover 1 in 10 of the stolen items.

I read a report that says, even then, less than 50 of the stolen guns end up used in a crime.

This level of theft is also less than half the level of thefts in the previous decade.


Where is media focus? not on Police Failure, but on #LAFO??? What the?
2007-2008 Report
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/D/4/E/%7BD4E4005C-13BC-4664-B53F-5F78589C057F%7Dmr16.pdf


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Using the data on the chart you can work out that

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

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

• 21,000 people will be sexually assaulted (100 per 100,000)

In the case of sexual assault the following chart is perhaps even more disturbing.
Thats right, 1500-1600 sexual assaults every month and it is trending UP


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

The Research from

• Australian Institute of Criminology to concluded both in 2000 & 2006 that Licenced Gun Owners are the least likely people to be involved in murder! (& noted this was consistant with international findings)

• Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published a review international data on firearm ownership and crime and came to similar conclusions. & that this finding was consistent with international research on lawful gun owners around the world.

YOUR BEING FEED BULLDUST!!



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




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

YOUR GETTING CONNED.


MY REFERENCES:

The Report: Criminal use of handguns in Australia

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

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

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

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

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

Research says - no correlation between private Guns and Crime

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

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

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

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

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

Research says - no correlation between private Guns and Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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.