Hi Dave,
Thanks for that. It isn't good news!
Sonja
On 28/03/2013, at 12:03 PM, Dave Torr wrote:
> It was announced at the time of the BirdLife merger that there would be
> around 10,000 members. Of course lots of birders don't belong or belong to
> smaller groups which mean that we do not present a united front. I believe
> there are at least 15,000 shooters in Vic alone. In fact the national body
> has 140,000 members
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_Shooters_Association_of_Australia) so
> they probably outnumber birders (at least those in clubs) by 10:1!
>
> On 28 March 2013 11:26, Sonja Ross <> wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> Do we have any idea of how many of each group i.e. hunters and birders, there
> are?
>
> Sonja
>
>
> On 27/03/2013, at 8:47 PM, Chris Sanderson wrote:
>
> > Thanks Nick for providing some balance to the argument! I certainly know
> > some conservation-minded shooters who are no doubt cringing at this news.
> > In fact I think probably many shooters are reading these news articles and
> > thinking "you buggers are ruining it for the rest of us". At least I hope
> > they are, because peer pressure is likely to be far more effective than
> > pester-power in achieving improvements in hunting behaviour. I'm not
> > certain the bad behaviour of birders (which undoubtedly happens and is
> > likely more common than we'd like to think) is comparable to the senseless
> > slaughter of hundreds of protected birds though. Perhaps egg collecting or
> > poaching would be a better counter-example, as no doubt there have been
> > people interested in birds and bird-watching who have strayed down that
> > path in the past.
> >
> > I do know that polarising this issue puts us on the losing side, as there
> > are many, many more hunters than birders, and while this is a political
> > issue that means we can't win. Perhaps considering Nick's idea of talking
> > to the hunting lobby as equals with a vested interest in conservation has
> > some merit?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM, David Richardson <
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Well written Mr Leseberg.Food for thought.
> >>
> >> D. Richardson.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Nick Leseberg <
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Sonja et al,
> >>>
> >>> I think we as birders need to be very careful how we approach this
> >>> particular event. The broad statement that "I don't think shooters would
> >>> consider it a waste or mindless" is unhelpful and attempts to tar all
> >>> shooters with the same brush. There are many responsible shooters out
> >> there
> >>> who are very aware of the rules applied to regulate their chosen pastime,
> >>> and who abide by those rules. There are plenty of birders who disregard
> >> or
> >>> blatantly flout the rules associated with our pastime, approaching nests
> >>> too closely (see the recent thread concerning the nesting Red Goshawks at
> >>> Mataranka), using excessive playback when photographing birds etc, but
> >>> there is no suggestion that birding should be banned. Likewise there are
> >>> hunters who will disregard or blatantly flout the rules pertaining to
> >>> hunting. As birders and people generally concerned for the environment,
> >> we
> >>> must be sure to direct our efforts at ensuring the rules that exist are
> >>> enforced and that those who flout them are puni
> >>> shed accordingly, rather than simply decrying the existence of duck
> >>> shooters as a fraternity, because one or even a minority of duckshooters
> >>> broke the rules.
> >>>
> >>> This raises the follow-on question of whether the rules and regulations
> >>> which apply to hunting are adequate, an issue for which there is no easy
> >>> answer. Several species of duck are not endangered and could quite easily
> >>> sustain a level of harvesting that would not affect their population.
> >> Just
> >>> as there is a program for management of macropod populations in some
> >> rural
> >>> areas, a program whereby people are permitted to sustainably hunt certain
> >>> duck species is unlikely to have any significant effects on the
> >> populations
> >>> of those species. If such a program is effectively managed and policed I
> >>> can only see benefits. What if the money raised from such a program was
> >> put
> >>> towards the conservation of sensitive wetlands, as occurs in the United
> >>> States where the hunting lobby is also a very effective conservation
> >> group?
> >>> I have often wondered why organisations which ultimately have similar
> >> goals
> >>> are not able to unite in some way to further both their interests.
> >>>
> >>> If the issue is that shooting ducks is inhumane due to the probability
> >>> that birds will be left wounded, then we should make this clear also. Is
> >>> there possibly a balance that can be reached here? What if those rules
> >> and
> >>> regulations that try to mitigate these problems can be better enforced,
> >>> perhaps with the help of conservation volunteers? Would that satisfy
> >>> organisations like the Coalition Against Duck Shooting? Could the
> >>> organisations on both sides of this argument meet at some level to come
> >> up
> >>> with an accord where they agree to disagree on some issues, but also
> >> commit
> >>> to working together to solve other problems and also advance the causes
> >> of
> >>> both organisations on issues such as wetland conservation, shooter/birder
> >>> education etc.
> >>>
> >>> So, before the hate mail starts rolling in, I want to make it clear that
> >>> my intention here is not to defend duck shooting. The incident that
> >>> occurred in NW Vic was abhorrent and we as bird lovers should voice our
> >>> disgust and ensure that the perpetrator(s) feel the full weight of the
> >> law.
> >>> When looking at the bigger picture though, we need to be articulate and
> >>> direct about what our issues are. If we have a particular problem with
> >> duck
> >>> hunting we need to make that clear, and we also need to ensure we can
> >>> justify why it is a problem and how this problem can be solved. Broad
> >> brush
> >>> statements such as "duck shooters are murdering innocent wildlife and
> >>> should be stopped" are not helpful, and simply force the opposing groups
> >>> further apart. In reality, the abolition of duck hunting in Victoria (and
> >>> perhaps looking further ahead, NSW) doesn't seem to be an option, so
> >> let's
> >>> think outside the box and be creative in coming up with ways we can
> >>> approach this problem and get a better outcome
> >>> for all involved.
> >>>
> >>> Regards and good birding (as he boards up his windows and doors, and
> >> turns
> >>> off his phone and email!!)
> >>>
> >>> Nick Leseberg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ===============================
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >> ===============================
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Check out our site: http://www.bird-o.com
> > Follow us on Facebook (Bird-O) and Twitter
> > ===============================
> >
> > 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
> ===============================
>
===============================
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
===============================
|
