Dear Wes,
Despite all the clarifying e-mails by others you keep incorrectly mixing up two
issues (1) ferals and (2) recreational hunters.
(1) Everyone agrees that ferals (many of which were introduced FOR the
recreational hunters!) need to be eradicated and that this needs to be done
professionally.
(2) You said that most recreational hunters "have an environmental conscience
and know the animals of the bush far better than most city greenies". I am not
so sure about that. Do you have a statistical proof for such statements? With
the same amount of scientific proof I could say that most recreational hunters
cannot tell a Brush-tailed Rock-Wallaby - and even less so a Common Wombat -
from a Pig.What is 'environmental conscience'? I know people who love 'nature'
but they are talking of golf courses, farm fields, pine tree monocultures,
gardens with exotic plants...!
There is need for clear definitions and facts.My point here is that we have to
be professional! You can't argue the way you do.
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: Wes Tolhurst <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:12 PM
Subject: Hunting in NPs
Dear Storm and Others,
I wonder whether a pig can tell the difference between a mallard or a swan or a
freckled duck. One of the reasons I picked up a compound bow and started
hunting on my birding trips was because I would see things like pigs feeding on
semi-fledged brolgas and not be able to do a single thing about it. The
hunters (and I exclude those that hunt native Australian birds like the knuckle
headed duck shooters from this bracket) I know are nearly all rec hunters. And
all of the ones I am friends with have an environmental conscience and know the
animals of the bush far better than most city greenies I know (and yes I know
heaps of them too).
I think it is pure trickery to cite one or two examples of people that have
done the wrong thing paint hunters across the board as being tarred with the
same brush. That's infantile logic. Perhaps we should claim that the ref in
the latest State of Origin did a less than par job therefore all refs are
gooses! I'm sorry, I digress :)
And though not every hunter hunts for feral eradication, I am one hunter would
be be ecstatic if every feral was gone and I had to sell my bow. I know there
are some that do the wrong thing but I believe this is a very very small
percetage - given the many that I interact with.
I am not so naive to think that the political manoeuvring doesn't seem a bit
suss. But I know that every time I take out a feral, it means that there are
going to be many more natives have a fairer go. And I believe that does make a
difference. I choose to use a bow because it has the smallest environmental
impact... they are silent, have a short effective range (50 metres) and very
effective.
If pro shooting was being so effective, then we would have no ferals - the
truth is that there are more now than there ever have been. And we are all
responsible for that. Let's do all we can to give our natives a chance.
Eric, you said "Why would they want access to national parks when pest species
are already widespread across vast public areas of the state?" The only places
hunters can legally hunt ferals atm is on private land or with special
permission (the same system being suggested for NP) in some state forests.
Contrary to your comment, National Parks are actually public areas. They were
set up for the public's enjoyment of natural wonders. It is very difficult for
most guys in NSW to find somewhere to hunt because they are mostly restricted
to private land. Contrary to what many believe, in the State Forests, to get
access you need to do a thorough training course to receive an R License, then
apply to hunt a specific place at a specific time, a specific way. e.g. Some
forests or bow only. You need to demonstrate exactly where the hunt is (away
from any areas that may hold general public etc). After all that, you need to
report feral activity
encountered.
Bob, I have before read the quote that Ground shooting of pigs is not effective
in reducing the pig populations etc. It was a government organisation that
made that claim so we can read "it was not cost effective in reducing..." They
only have limited funds for feral erradication. Usually they concentrate on
baiting (now there is a truely inhuman practice) or aerial shooting - very
effective but very expensive.
All that is required for evil (feral animals) to prosper is for good men to do
nothing.
Are some of you trying to tell me that if you had an endangered nesting bird on
your own property and knew that a fox was stalking it you wouldn't do whatever
you were legally entitled to do to protect the birds? Of course you would.
Same principal in my opinion.
I think we're all on the same team really. Just different perspectives.
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
