They probably look for the pink ear!
On 26/6/13 8:23 AM, "Peter Shute" <> wrote:
> Philip, are you suggesting that shooters might have trouble recognising a
> Pink-eared Duck? I would have thought there were few ducks that were so
> distinctive. In Victoria at least, shooters have to pass an identification
> Peter Shute
>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Behalf Of
>> Philip Veerman
>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013 10:31 PM
>> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Duck Shooting in NSW
>> All that makes sense but surely the relevant part of the
>> reason is to pander to people who do not have the skills or
>> interest to recognise this species (or probably several other
>> ones), so that the system does not get involved in debating
>> whether someone made an identification or shooting error. The
>> bureaucracy would have a hard task prosecuting that, given
>> the likely defence. I would suspect that as the reason rather
>> than what it eats or that it associates with other waterfowl
>> species that do harm crops, which is of course a cop out.
>> Maybe it does not help that it has a name that refers to a
>> feature barely visible at shooting range.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Behalf Of
>> Chris King
>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013 4:53 PM
>> To: Erica Trinder
>> Cc: Birding Aus
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Duck Shooting in NSW
>> Hi Erica
>> It is dismal. At the risk of being political, below is part
>> of an email from the National Parks Association (a not for
>> profit group, not associated with the government National
>> Parks) showing that at least there is some opposition and
>> that other groups care about the pink-eared ducks in NSW!
>> "In the last two years, the NSW government has made a series
>> of alarming environmental decisions that seriously threaten
>> the future of our national parks and wildlife. Many of these
>> decisions are based on political deals made with the Shooters
>> and Fishers Party, rather than credible scientific evidence.
>> Nothing illustrates this quite as clearly as the case of the
>> This beautiful Australian bird has recently been added to the
>> list of native game species that can be legally hunted on
>> private land in NSW. According to the Legislation, ducks can
>> only be shot for the purposes of 'sustainable agricultural
>> management', primarily to protect rice crops. However, the
>> scientific literature indicates that the Pink-eared Duck is
>> an insect eater and doesn't consume rice or other crops. In
>> reality the Pink-eared Duck serves as a farmer's friend,
>> preying on insects that are major rice pests.
>> If left unharmed this unique little duck could even help
>> reduce pesticide use on these crops.
>> Based on the species feeding habits, the NPA provided
>> evidence for a recent private member's Bill calling for
>> Pink-eared Ducks to be removed from the list of native game
>> birds. However, despite clear scientific evidence that the
>> decision to cull this species is fatally flawed, the
>> government will not support the Bill, claiming that the
>> Pink-eared Duck associate with other waterfowl species that
>> do harm crops. So for no other reason than that they "hang
>> out" with the wrong crowd the government has made it legal to
>> shoot this unique native species.
>> We use this example to highlight how bad recent
>> environmental decisions have been in NSW and why we fear for
>> the future. If this was not ominous enough a serious new
>> threat is now emerging out of the recent inquiry into the
>> management of public lands, chaired by Shooters and Fishers
>> MLC Robert Brown, whose recommendations include opening
>> national parks to logging, and imposing a moratorium on the
>> creation of new national parks.
>> With the help of our supporters, NPA has been driving a
>> successful high profile campaign against hunting in national
>> parks that has helped delay the start of the program.
>> However, as you have just read hunting is no longer the only
>> major threat our parks and environment face and we need to
>> broaden our campaign to tackle these new, emerging dangers.
>> *Please make a donation and help us to protect our national
>> parks **and unique species, such as the Pink-eared Duck, for
>> future generations to
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Erica Trinder
>>> I was wondering what people think / feel / know about recreational
>>> shooting of NSW waterbirds?
>>> When I say recreational shooting, that's what it of course
>> is. But it
>>> is being politically disguised under the "pest management"
>> banner by
>>> the O'Farrell government. They're calling it a cull! Yet
>> they have now
>>> added the pink-eared duck to the hit list. Despite the fact
>> they are
>>> claiming they are doing this cull for the rice and grain farmers
>>> (claiming the birds eat their crops), yet the pink-eared duck eats
>>> insects, not grains.
>>> For more on the latest from the O'Farrell government giving in to
>>> every desire of the 2 Upper House NSW Shooters MP's, see:
>>> I'm very interested in people's thoughts and comments on this topic.
>>> My interest in this is that I care deeply for all animals, and will
>>> fight to the death for them. I've been going down to
>> Victoria for many
>>> years to protect and rescue our native water birds during
>> the annual
>>> duck shooting season. However, the state of things in NSW is quite
>>> possibly a whole lot worse, as it takes place on private
>> property all
>>> year round, where it can't be monitored. I've heard
>> terrible stories
>>> of as many as 3000 birds being killed (I hate to think how
>> many were
>>> not killed outright, but seriously
>>> wounded) in a single days shooting on a single property. But no one
>>> aside from the shooters and farmers really knows exactly
>> what's going
>>> on...and they're certainly not telling. I'd appreciate the thoughts
>>> and knowledge
>>> people in the bird loving community.
>>> Erica Trinder
>>> CatRescue Coordinator
>>> (m) 0416 741 020
>>> (w) www.catrescue.com.au
>>> (f) Like CatRescue NSW on Facebook
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)