Eventually someone will DIE & then we will be RIGHT & that is the most important thing

What has not Changed after 7 years of State Forest Hunting? 

The Anti Hunting Prophecies of Death, Death & More Death!

For the last 7 Years they have run this campaign.
Before State Forest Hunting began they wailed and gnashed their teeth

The major problem with this Campaign

7 YEARS of ACTUAL HUNTING

in NSW State Forests

NO ONE DIED

I know they are really disappointed, they would love to point to the dead body of some hiker or mountain biker or camper, but alas it just has not happened

The other Problem is  12 Years of Nation Wide Data shows how rare hunting deaths are.

• 17 deaths related to firearms while hunting in the whole of Australia over 12 years.
•   2 deaths related to firearms while hunting in NSW over 12 years

NOT ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE involving R-Licenced Hunter
NOT ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE involving Hunting on Foot.

Lets get some Perspective on the "eventually there will be a tragedy" line

Sport
In the same 12 year period 1,993 people died from a sport related accident.

The table below provide the break down of sports.

The water and motor sports are at the top of the list.


You have to get down past Horse Riding and Adventure Sports before you get to the target/precision sports in which shooting is listed.
 
The data is very clear, eventually some one will die as a result of participating in a sporting or recreational activity of some sort. The nearer that activity is to water, the more likely a death is.

Farms

ON FARMS in period of 8 years 2003-2011 a total of 397 people died

• 18 Farm Workers were killed by an animal (cows kill most people)
• 35 children died on a farms
•  6  visitors to a farm where killed. 

Worth pointing out: Animals killed more people in this 8 years survey than people have been shot in hunting accidents in 12 years.

Again the data is clear, eventually some people will lose their life as a result of an accident on a farm.

Not surprisingly, Motor Vehicles & Machinery figure pretty heavily.

Accidental Deaths they do happen

In the 10 years 2001-2010 there were 34,440 accidental deaths

• 17,398 accident related motor vehicle deaths 
• 7,633 accidental poisonings 
• 2,052 accidental drownings

Yes accident happen, Yes people sometimes die as a result.

However, the fear mongering, & efforts to stir up public hysteria that the full time, professionally trained Anti Hunting lobbyists & their vote chasing friends/supporters in parliament have be promulgating that has been going on since 2006 is totally out of proportion to reality.


Yet the Band Plays on

The Song has been the same since 2006 despite ZERO deaths in 7 Years & still they sing on. Ever more loudly they wail hoping to drown out reason and prevent you hearing the truth.

Quietly, deep down, in the dark places of their hearts, they are secretly hoping that some one, some stranger, is killed, or maimed, so they can redouble their chorus of nightmares & woe & add "I told you so" to the chorus.

They have prophesied death of hikers, bikers, campers, neighbours, & natives since 2006.

They have painted scenes of bloody bodies slumped over picnic tables & worse.
They have wrapped their heads in bandaged soaked in tomato sauce while attending rallies.
They have paraded their children with signs says "Don't Shoot"

Even though such incidents have NEVER HAPPENED in NSW.
Even though such incidents have NEVER HAPPENED in Australia.
Still they sing their songs of  fear!!

They cry...NO it has not happened yet....BUT IT WILL HAPPEN
& then we shall be vindicated!


Here is a little sample of the 2006 Campaign

• http://thebegavalley.org.au/5190.html
• http://archive.lee.greens.org.au/index.php/content/view/1598/99/
• http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1996.asp?s=1
• http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/id46.html
• http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/?showtopic=3232
• http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media-releases/2006/06/allowing-shooters-newnes-and-ben-bullen-forests-would-be-destructive-and
• http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/767195/mullion-creek-residents-fear-forest-hunting-will-end-in-tragedy/
• http://www.bluemountains.org.au/documents/hutnews/archive/0705news.pdf

Here is a quick look at the current running sheet of woe:

• http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2014/01/17/risks-ignored-by-pro-hunting-premier/
• http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/
• http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/node/520
• http://www.npansw.org.au/index.php/campaigns/hunting-in-national-parks

It 2014, we have seven (7) years of actual experience.

We have seven (7) years of R-Licence Hunters in the field almost daily.
We have seven (7) years of Forests NSW Staff being in contact with R-Licence Hunters in the field almost daily across a multitude of forests.
3 times Forest NSW Staff & their union have had the opportunity to massively restrict or put an end to R-Licence Hunters in State Forests. They HAVE NOT.

We have the s the NO HUNTING crowd scouring the world and the archives l looking for terrible events overseas with which to terrorise you with.

They must of course do this because they must:

Prevent you seeing the clear evidence that R-Licence Hunters in NSW have an impeccable safety record.


Prevent you seeing the clear evidence that R-Licence Hunters in NSW have the confidence of Forest NSW field staff.

Prevent you seeing the clear evidence that Australian Hunters in every state have a fantastic safety record.

They must make sure you do not hear that the Forests NSW Workers are not afraid.

They are not afraid because they know the facts, they have seen us in the field:

• 86,000 days of hunting (that is 236 years)
• ZERO fatalities
• ZERO Injuries to other Forest Users
• 2  injuries to hunters right at the start of the program none since.
• 3 Times the Forest NSW Staff have been given the opportunity to say NO MORE, 3 Times they have said "OK"

We did all this despite the claims we are cowboys, yahoo's, rednecks, drunken louts with guns, city gun slingers and generally totally ignorant of firearm safety & hunting safety

"EVENTUALLY SOME ONE WILL DIE"

YES Eventually someone will die, the statistics tell the tale. Alas they will die

• Fishing
• Swimming
• Driving a car
• Riding a Horse
• Riding a mountain bike
• Sitting on the couch
• From a dodgy meal made from left overs
• climbin a ladder
• on the list goes.

If you are afraid to go down to the forest, it should not be fear of the hunters!
You would be wiser to be afraid of the drive there...


TABLES/REFERENCE

 REFERENCE:
NCIS Report: http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/docs/Report-NCIS-2012.pdf
Farm Injuries:http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/759/Work-related-injuries-fatalities-farms.pdf 
ABS Data :http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3303.02011?OpenDocument

I say, you there having FUN, cut that out!! We wont be having that my fellow!

Dear Mr

At first I thought you really cared about public safety.

I thought that providing information & data it might be possible to help correct your faulty assessment of total risk and comparative risk.

-->Increasing legal gun ownership in Australia has not corresponded with an increase in accidental or intentional deaths by firearm (10yrs ABS Data)

-->increasing participation in hunting on private & public land has not corresponded with an increase in accidental deaths related to hunting.

-->Reality of the great safety record from NSW program you described as a farce. (even that incompetent system did not kill anyone?)

-->NCIS data on sports related deaths covering 2000-2012 providing comparative and specific data.

-->NSW Crime Statistics showing what is really hurting people.

-->the motivations to keep to the rules when hunting are the same as when driving,
choosing not to steal, choosing not to break other laws and rules.

But Then I read a couple of your comments and your true motivation becomes clear.

"What if he's drunk? You don't like beer? I think you do! "
"They're sober and safe, minimizing risk. "
"They're enthusiasts. They probably consume a fair amount of beer (c'mon, tell me I'm wrong!)."
"Some of us at least pretend to stand upright, use language & reason, breathe through our noses and not drag our knuckles on the ground. You should try it and give up the caveman thing."

Your not motivated by Public Welfare or Animal Welfare or Protecting Native Flora or Fauna.

Your just a regular garden variety wowser, you don't want the other people having fun doing something you personally don't like.

Professional Shooters Killing for profit - that's business totally wholesome.
Just try to keep the smile of your face boys, don't want people to know you like your work.
Professional Poisoners Killing for profit - never mind the  4-6 hours of fits & convulsions & foaming at the mouth, don't mention the fact trials show 9%-40% of baits get eaten by native animals. We wont look.

But you there, having fun, cut that out!

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

An Old story Showing what a Mess Professional Shooters can make of a Cull

Brumby Cull in Guy Fawkes National Park

Keen on letting professionals do the culling:

Have a look at some handy work from New South Wales

Guy Fawkes National Park

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL9KlLqL1bI



Government did publish their own review:

Report on the cull of feral horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park in October 2000. Executive Summary.

This report was commisioned to
1) review the policies and practices used by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to control populations of major feral animal species in national parks in New South Wales.
2) to make recommendations on the future management of fearl horses in national parks in New South Wales.
3) To develop a code of practice for the capture and transport of feral horses.
4) To make recommendations on the development of research programs to investigate the adverse impacts of feral horses in a range of haitats.

Available:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/EnglishReportFeralHorseManagement.htm

Report:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/englishReport.pdf

The DPI & NPWS Believe 6 hours of Agony before death is "Conditionally Acceptable" but resist using shooting by volunteer hunters. WTF?

What do you consider a humane death for any animal?

I think most people would want the death to be as quick and painless as possible.

So if I told you that the term "Conditionally Acceptable" when applied to Humaneness Models means:

• The animal may take 4-6 hours before they no longer feel any pain from the culling method.
• The animal will experience moderate to severe suffering for those 4-6 hours.

For example in Pigs:
http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf

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

 How would you react?

That is exactly what  the term "Conditionally Acceptable" means when you see it in any document produced by

• DPI  (Department of Primary Industries)
• LPHA (Livestock Health and Pest Authorities.)
• NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife)
• Draft Wild Dog Action Plan

This is how the widely utilized  "Sharp and Saunders Model for Assessing Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods" allows you to assess 1080 poison.

You can read the model here:
 http://www.feral.org.au/a-model-for-assessing-the-relative-humaneness-of-pest-animal-control-methods/

Shooting is rated as "Acceptable",

So lets have a look at what makes the difference between "Acceptable" & "Conditionally Acceptable"

This is how the Model Rates Shooting vs 1080 Poison


REF:http://www.feral.org.au/animal-welfare/humaneness-assessment/wild-dog/
(At the end of this post I have some video you can see what that actually looks like)

Have a look a that again, and keep in mind that
--> 1080 Poison is rated as "Conditionally Acceptable"
--> Shooting is rated as "Acceptable"

If you have any experience with hunting or shooting I ask you:

How many animals that you have seen shot, took more than 1-2 min to die?


My Point?

• not  that 1080 poison does not work.

• not that 1080 poison should not be used.

My point is that the Sharp and Saunders Model is strongly biased against shooting, 

It chooses to use the term "conditional" to help mask the reality of the alternative to shooting.

If you have to use a word like "Conditionally" in order to get your 1080 poison method to pass the Humane Test I think you are not being honest and direct.

Other models will say outright that the poison is nasty and suffering is terrible, but it is unavoidable if you want large scale culling. (see McLeod 2007 down further)



Especially Biased against Ground Shooting

Sharp & Saunders Model enables you to assess Aerial Shooting as more humane than ground shooting.

Apparently they have concluded that bullets fired through the animals chest kill faster & with less pain if fired from a helicopter [1]

If you have any understanding of how a bullet kills, this is a ludicrous conclusion.


What have other models on Humaneness said about Poison & Shooting:

Compare that to this alternative assessment from 2007


That right, Shooting was on the 2nd highest level of Humaneness.
1080 was on the second lowest rating for humaneness.

Interesting aside - the assessment on Species Specificity for poison is not nearly as high as the Saunders Model . This McLeod Study does gel with 2011 Victorian Study on rate of non target animal victims of baiting.

Finally WARNING _ Following Videos Not for Faint of Heart.

Not sure what "Conditionally Acceptable" Looks Like.
Go to 4min 10sec on this video to see impact. 1080 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcF53Ojc3n4



Not sure what "Acceptable" looks like:
Go to 43sec in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hsP2xORt2Y

[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/bullets-fired-from-helicopters-hurt-less-kill-faster-or-why-sharp-saunders-model/206775252834853?comment_id=413582&offset=0&total_comments=1&ref=notif&notif_t=note_comment

Bullets fired from Helicopters Hurt Less & Kill Faster or Why Sharp & Saunders Model is Suspect!

Thats right, the Sharp & Saunders Model allows the following results in the following Assessments



If the shooter is FLYING a chest shot kills "Very Rapidly"
If the shooter is FLYING a chest shot gives "Mild Suffering"

If the shooter is WALKING a chest shot kills "In Minutes"
If the shooter is WALKING a chest shot gives "Moderate Suffering"

How does the addition of a helicopter increase the rate of death & reduce the level of suffering from a bullet through the chest?

NO I am not making it up, here are the assessment sheets

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pig_ground_shooting.pdf

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pig_aerial_shooting.pdf

Repeat this search for all Feral Animal Worksheet.

In all Cases, if you shoot from a Helicopter your bullets will kill faster & induce less suffering than if you stand on the ground with that very same rifle.

If anyone can explain that I would be eternally grateful

(Lifted this from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=532165443504280&set=a.510403315680493.1073741828.509281032459388&type=1&theater)

Draft National Wild Dog Action Plan - Another Plan to ignore millions of dollars of Resources available for free.

First up, let me say I am very supportive of a national plan to tackle the problem of Wild Dogs.

It is for that reason that I took the time to read the National Wild Dog Action Plan and I was keen to see how skilled shooters & hunters could contribute.

I had been looking at 2013 Game Council Public Benefit Assessment which reported that the R-Licence Hunters had removed  a couple of thousand Wild Dogs from NSW each year in the past few years. So I was expecting that we might get a mention in this plan.

No such luck!
 
The Plan is Flawed 

• because it ignores a significant resource
• because it shows an ideological bias against that resource

THE RESOURCE


It was quite a surprise to find that the draft plan seemed totally oblivious to the idea of using volunteer shooters as part of the mutltifaceted solution to the problem.

Instead I saw a plan that looks like all the other plans - BAIT BAIT BAIT was the clear inference from the document.

What a disappointment to find the Draft Wild Dog Action Plan seems to have totally ignored

• 20,000 NSW Game Licence holders, 
• 40,000 Victorian Hunting Licence Holders
• SSAA Conservation Groups (in every State)
• SSAA Farmer Assist Program in Queensland,

A closer reading of the plan and I think I see the finger prints of the people to questions about this oversight.

After all the fine words, we come to the supporting documents.

In particular

Table E1. Humaneness, Efficacy,Cost‐Effectiveness and Target Specificity of Wild Dog Control Methods adapted from Sharp and Saunders (2008).

Which appears to have been developed to focus all the control efforts on co-ordinated baiting programs at the expense of all other options & with the result that all other complementary efforts are overlooked.

When ever I see "Sharp & Saunders"  I know I am going to see SHOOTING deliberately down played as a tool for pest animal control.

I have addressed some of my issues with Sharp and Saunders elsewhere, but lets look at how this flawed assessment model sabotages the Wild Dog Action Plan.

 THE EFFICACY OF SHOOTING was rated as– Not Efficient for a broad scale problem

EFFICACY – is the ability to achieve the desired or intended outcome.

If you objective is to end the life of the wild dog/interupt the breeding cycle then I think a reasonable person would agree that shooting a wild dog dead is  quite an effective way to stop dogs attacking stock and breeding.

It is equally true that giving a dog a leathal dose of 1080 poison is also quite effective.

The objective of the Wild Dog Action Plan is to do the above in such numbers as to significantly reduce the impact of wild dog predation on agriculture.

To Say that shooting not able to do the job is not really true. ( I not arguing most efficient, or best choice)

So perhaps, Shooting does not work as the only method of control in a multi property setting.

That is not quite right either a study of a coordinated fox shooting program shows that shooting CAN be used in a multi property fox control program. Maybe wild dogs are different but nothing is put forward in the comments to address that.

Shooting does in fact have the desired effect on the dog - it kills the dog and stops it breeding.
Shooting can be used as the only tool for a dog problem.

So SHOOTING IS ABLE to do the Job, therefore is EFFICACIOUS

The assessment avoid that conclusion by talking about its efficiency.
Thus it answer a question that was not asked & so fails to properly assess shooting.

Before I go to Cost Effectiveness, a quick comment on Baiting:
Setting Baits is ONLY effective control on a "Broad Scale Problem" when you have a sufficient number of property owners participate in the baiting program.

The whole reason the the Coordinated Fox Shoot Study was run was because they had a significant number of land holders who would not allow baiting on their land.

You see - Me Setting Baits on my property when very few other people are baiting DOES Nothing to control the Fox or Dog population.

So

• ad hoc shooting on its own does little for the dog control plan, just as 
• ad hoc baiting does little for dog control or 
• any ad hoc control effort.

 No other Control Method on the list is assessed as if it is going to be an Ad Hoc Effort.


The COST EFFECTIVENESS of shooting was assessed as -  Expensive

This is a new approach to getting people to look away from shooting.
Previous DPI assessment of shooting as a control method said shooting was inexpensive if you did not count labour costs.

In many instances you did not count labour costs because the Farmer themselves was doing the shooting/pest control. A fact borne out by the latest Landcare survey [2]

The other reason you would exclude labour costs is if you had ready access to a pool of volunteers who undertake the work for free.

NB: Baiting Cost Effectiveness assumes ground baits not buried baits (see latter note)

So in the preparation of  Table E1 the assessment has assumed that no such pool of free labor exists and that land owners must pay some one to do the shooting.

This is clearly not true.

Look at the participation rate in the Victorian Fox Bounty Scheme.
Look at

• 20,000 NSW Game Licence holders, 
• 40,000 Victorian Hunting Licence Holders
• SSAA Conservation Groups (in every State)
• SSAA Farmer Assist Program in Queensland, 

Clearly there is a pool of volunteers that might be mobilised for this task.

The assessment works of a false assumption and comes to a false conclusion.

Shooting is not EXPENSIVE, but rather range from FREE to EXPENSIVE.


This week the National Landcare Survey[2]said Farmers spend $25,000 a year on Pest Control.
 
How can a plan that claims to be seeking to get best result from resources available ignore thousands of potential volunteers hours & still claim to be achieving its objectives?

Remember the shooters would provide their own firearms, ammunition, fuel, food etc
No only do the do the work for Free, they bring money into the rural area suffering from the dog problem...

 
The TARGETSPECIFICITY of shooting was assessed as  - HIGH
The TARGET SPECIFICITY of Baiting was assessed as - HIGH

Again, I find the assessment of Baiting to be a little dubious after looking at the 2011 Victorian DPI study [3] which using trail cameras showed showed that 44% of Surface Baits were taken by native animals. Namely Wombat and Ravens. (Burrying the bait made a big differnce reducing that to 9% of  baits were taken by native animals Wombats again).

However, the "Cost Effectiveness" assessment of baiting program does not allow for the labour required to bury the baits.  I make this note to remind you that you are not getting a like for like comparison on Table E1

Given NPWS, NSW Forestry, are likely to do aerial baiting,  I dont see how 66% Hit Rate = HIGH for Baiting over the National Parks and State Forests is "Species Specific" control.


The HUMANENESS of shooting was assessed as - ACCEPTABLE
The HUMANENESS of baiting was assessed as - CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE

This one is the most baffling.

BAITS  = Conditionally Acceptable

• takes HOURS to kill the animal
• inflicts moderate to severe suffering during the process by the Sharp & Saunders Model [6]

SHOOTING = Acceptable

• instantaneous  to minutes to kill the animal
• inflicts moderate suffering for those minutes [4] [5]

This is perhaps the most blatant fudge in the whole deal.

Conditionally Acceptable seems to be code for UnAcceptable.

I don't know anyone who would say - Torture the animal for Hours is OK under any Conditions.

On the other hand I can find plenty of people who will agree that (even though they hate killing) shooting the animal is kinder than poisoning the animal.

The arguement will be made that shooting is only humane if done by skilled shooters.
I agree. Good Shot placement of appropriate caliber at appropriate range is crucial for humane kill.

Proper Dose of  Poison is also required to achive the Sharp and Saunders "Conditionally Humane" kill.

A proper dose of poison will cause as much pain and suffering to an animal as a misplaced shot

If I misplace my shot, I can take a follow up shot, I can track the animal and shoot again.

If I have not got the poison dose correct for the size of dog that eat the bait - what is the suffering visited upon the dog then? There is no follow up dose.

The way this Plan has been constructed:

1. Misrepresents the efficacy of shooting
2. Misrepresents the cost of shootinging
3. Misrepresent the Humanness of Baiting making it appear almost as humane as shooting
4. Misrepresents the Accuracy of Baiting suggesting it is as targeted as shooting when research shows it is not.
5. Assess shooting using assumptions & criteria that it does not apply to baiting. (ie labour costs & impact of short dose vs poor shot placement
6. Total ignores the issue using hunters/volunteers for - co ordinated activities, ability to contribute to the overall number of animals that can be shot opportunistically

As a result it will take options of the table that should be available & continues to misinform land managers and distort decision making in ways that reduce our ability to deal with the problem of wild dogs in the most effective combination of control approaches and tools.








[1]Assessing the safe and effective use of aerial baiting for the control of wild dogs inVictoria 2011 – Arthur Rylah Institute for Enviromental Research TechnicalReport Series No 217

[2] http://www.landcareonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Preliminary-2013-NLF-Survey-Results-Pests-and-weeds.pdf

[3]Assessing the safe and effective use of aerial baitingfor the control of wild dogs in Victoria 2011 – Arthur Rylah Institute forEnviromental Research Technical Report Series No 217

[4] http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wild_dog_ground_shooting.pdf

[5] http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wild_dog_ground_shooting.pdf

[6] http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wild_dog_1080_baiting.pdf

[7] www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/humaneness-model-pest-animals.pdf

National Parks Association - Press Statements vs Submissions show true colours

The National Parks Association is not your Friend if you want to use your national parks.

SEPTEMBER 2010  MEDIA STATEMENT
- The day the Government invited Public Submission on Mountain Bikes in National Parks.

The National Parks Association of NSW had this to say

The National Parks Association, a staunch defender of parks as havens of conservation, said it would cautiously support a network of bike trails if there was no impact on ecosystems.

REF: http://bit.ly/19GKNqM

AUGUST 2011 REPORT

Summary of public submissions National Parks and Wildlife Service
Cycling Policy Review and Sustainable Mountain Biking Strategy Discussion Paper
(NB 803 personal + 20 Group Submissions in Favor of Bike Tracks)

REF: http://bit.ly/168YKkj

PAGE 3: NPA are in the group that

"specifically seek the cessation of/did no support provision of mountain bike experiences"



They submitted that Mountain Biking would "erode the conservation value of the park system." page 4

DELAY Tactic

They wanted Trials to be assessed before any further expansion

DELAY Tactic

Suggest a whole-of-government, cross-tenure planning approach to providing mountain biking in NSW.

YES but not in our NATIONAL PARKS (Tactic)Supported  alternatives in areas managed by other agencies such as regional parks, crown recreation reserves, state parks, state forests and local councils (page 6)

Submission from:
NPA-Exec National Parks Association of NSW, Executive Officer
NPA-CV NPA Clarence Valley Branch
NPA-H NPA Hunter Branch
NPA-SH NPA Southern Highlands Branch
NPA-SS NPA Southern Sydney Branch
NPA-TV NPA Three Valleys Branch


OCTOBER 2011  MEDIA STATEMENT

http://bit.ly/15G7Hze

The National Parks Association of NSW, which has vigorously opposed people building ad hoc trails through the bush, said it would not oppose mountain-bike riding in designated areas if it stopped illegal activity.

Notice that:

Will not Oppose (but they already did actively oppose) IF (conditional) it stops illegal activity (which it never can).

Very cleverly worded statement that says

- YES WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS UNTIL YOU PROVE NO ONE IS DOING IT ILLEGALLY.

JUNE 2012 - They bring it up again:

& Finally note that in Submission on Horse Riding in National Parks in June 2012 (http://bit.ly/GXwPZp) they say:

"we did not support the outcomes of the consultative process around mountain biking in national parks"

READ the statements by these guys and girls very carefully.....

PS Read the Various Submissions as well, you will see interesting things....



Here are some Policy Items you might like to know about as well

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: