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
===============================
|
