Notwithstanding that the bill may have lapsed for the time being, it
appears likely that a voting result would most likely be a pro hunting
result where Clause 8 of the game bill provides that the Game Council is
to consist of 14 members, being:
(a) 7 persons appointed on the nomination of prescribed hunting
(b) a person appointed on the nomination of the State Council of Rural
Lands Protection Boards, and
(c) a person who is appointed on the nomination of prescribed Landcare
(d) 2 persons who are wildlife management scientists, and
(e) a person appointed on the nomination of the New South Wales
Aboriginal Land Council, and
(f) a person appointed on the nomination of the Minister administering
the Forestry Act 1916, and
(g) a person appointed on the nomination of the Minister administering
the Crown Lands Act 1989.
Now is that stacked or is it not? Where is there representation from
nature conservation and animal welfare organisations under this proposed
structure? Is the Game Council stacked for a pro hunting result?
Consider a hypothetical hunting issue that has conservation and social
management implications such as "Should Game Associations access
national parks to shoot feral goats in preference to say, more passive
but equally effective methods of control such as allowing indigenous
groups rights to muster and trap them" Now if we accept that only one
of these control methods should be used at any time because shooting is
not compatible with goat mustering, what would be the likely vote
outcome from this proposed committee?
The likely result would be about 11 in favour of shooting, 3 against.
So what then would be the likely outcome if a proposal was put to this
committee structure "to ban duck shooting"?
Before the pro hunting mob attacks me about poor logic remember, I was
never much good at algebra either.
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)