I contacted an SMH journalist about the overall proposal seeking to find what the risk analysis says about the probability of someone getting shot. His response included
"The risk assessment doesn't offer hard numbers. It simply presents a risk rating of high, medium or low for the risk of park visitors being shot.This latest draft says the risk is now "medium" because of the move to zoning."
I leave it to others to put a value on "medium" but i would have expected, for any normal person to be able to endorse such a proposal, words such as 'extremely low', 'negligible', 'minimal' to be used rather than 'medium'.
Fa be it from me to attempt a diagnosis of the mental state of the Premier of NSW or his Minster for the Environment but clearly both were hiding behind the door when common sense was handed out. Unfortunately every time ICAC has held a hearing recently the probability of anyone defeating O'Farrell at the polls gets reduced further.
Martin
I have written to my local member of NSW Parliament expressing my concern about th
On 26 February 2013 11:38, Julian Robinson
<> wrote:
With respect and no hostility at all Anthony IMHO the chatline is the perfect place to discuss this issue. As a risk to our wellbeing in the subject reserves it affects many if not all of us, and certainly affects mammalian wildlife in those reserves with consequential effects on other species including veg and birds. Perhaps Mark’s language is a bit colourful but surely we know what he means and can cope with it without feeling threatened or a need to take it literally?
I read the Canb Times on an iPad app which has the disadvantage that articles are presented without context – you don’t know whether you’re reading an opinion piece or national news or whatever. So this morning when I read that silencers were being considered in National Parks I truly thought I was reading a satirical piece. It wasn’t, so I do agree with Mark that it seems to throw doubt on the sanity of the proponents (more accurately it throws doubt on the lousy politics of the particular deal that lead to the proposal in the first place).
As stated before in different contexts, it is easy to avoid reading posts on topics that don’t interest you by scanning subject headings. In this way each of us can use the chatline for different purposes without any disadvantages.
While I am not a shooter and don't support the whole idea, this language is inappropriate for this forum.
Is it seriously being suggested that members of the public who want to shoot feral animals are 'gun toting criminals?' What crime were they convicted of? how does the poster know of their criminality? Similarly comments about the mental well being of named politicians is excessive and trivialises mental health issues. Mental asylums are a thing of the past.
It is apparently being suggested in this forum that elected members of the government should be forcibly imprisoned under the guise of mental illness, as has been done in some places overseas. Who will do this? Given that there is no lawful power to do so, will force be used? Presumably backed by weapons? Would this not be a greater wrong than the one being opposed? It is to be hoped that the NSW government has a greater commitment to democratic ideals than some forum posts.
I really appreciate this chat line as a way for me to learn about local birds from people with far greater knowledge than I. From time to time I have thought about coming on an event. However the intemperate and unabated comments on this issue is strongly dissuasive. There are places for environment and political action, could I suggest that this is not the place.
Could I also respectfully ask that the moderators consider taking this issue offline? It will interesting to see if this post receives the same hostility an earlier one on the same lines did.
Regards
AD
From:
To: m("gmail.com","calyptorhynchus");" target="_blank">; m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");" target="_blank">; m("vicnet.net.au","birding-aus");" target="_blank">
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:28:00 +1100
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Shooting in NSW NPs
It is also reported in the Canberra Times today. I don’t know what sort of lunatics are running this government in NSW but this proposal is insane. All the gun toting criminals in NSW will be thinking that heaven has finally arrived!! Barry O’Farrell and Robin Parker should be committed to a mental asylum for even considering the idea of shooting in national parks and nature reserves in the first place. I am beginning to think that O’Farrell and co have let this get totally out of hand and now are unable to stop it.
Mark
From: John Leonard
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013 9:46 AM
To: Canberra Birds; Birding-aus
Subject: [canberrabirds] Shooting in NSW NPs
SMH today "Hunters would be allowed to use silencers on their guns while shooting feral animals in national parks...."
I hope I'm not the only person who can see a problem with this idea.
--
Martin Butterfield
