Law passed to allow hunting in NSW national parks [Archive]

stets

21st June 2012, 10:04 PM

Maxhead

21st June 2012, 10:13 PM

Yes mate, its always the 99% that get the blame for the 1% that just want to go and destroy anything they see. 4wding is in the same situation, all the tracks are closing because of the few idiots out there.
It's the responsible people that enjoy a hobby that suffer, unfortunately.

Maxhead

21st June 2012, 10:18 PM

Might approach this from a farmers angle for example. If you border a national park and your cow gets through a fence that was brought down by a fallen tree that was in NP, you get a fine. If a wild dog gets onto your property from NP you loose livestock... If there were better controls in NP I could understand but unfortunately nothing happens so now the farmers have a bit more room to move to get rid of the ferals

Silver

21st June 2012, 10:32 PM

the reality is the hidden agenda is as follows.

NSW has a known wild animal/pest epidemic at its door step, wild cats, dogs, pigs etc, allowing hunting gives the general public access to go "control" nsw's problems for them. but see the hidden problem lies in the fact that many hunters like to shoot anything that moves, so dingoes, roos, deer, etc will all end up laying dead for no reason once the person that pulled the trigger realises that they dont really want to keep or eat what they just shot.

pity really that the government offers an open slather to quench a blood thirsty hoarde that just wants to kill things.

my advice kill what you can eat and eat what you kill. if you dont want to stock your over stock your freezer full of freezer burnt meat, dont kill more than you can fit.

We all bring our own values and ethics to this question.

There have been feral animal control projects in Nat Parks in SA for some time. I understand they have consistently been carried out to a very high standard.

There is also R license hunting in State forests in NSW - I haven't heard any negative news from that, which is not to say that it is all done as we would like, I guess.

As to your approach Stets, that is exactly what I do when fishing. enough fish, time to go home :-).

I shoot feral animals, and while I like to use what I kill, I draw the line at eating feral pigs, esp those that are living on cotton places, cats and foxes. :-)

I have had varied experiences eating bunnies - must learn to cook them better :-). My values are that I only shoot ferals, and that I have the skills and equipment to kill them humanely. That's just me, and others do it differently.

stets

21st June 2012, 10:33 PM

my concern are the native animals that have a right to be there, protected. now when a gun shot goes off no one will give a rats, at least before the rules where changed it offered some sort of consequence for poachers. i have no problem with cats, foxes, rabbits and other feral animals being controlled, but there are still pure dingoes in the high country that should be protected, roo populations should not be wiped out, possums and other wildlife need some sort of protection too. and i can assure you, its alot more than 1 in 100 people that just shoot at anything that moves regardless

Silver

21st June 2012, 10:53 PM

Looking at the press clipping it seems the scheme might be like that in SA.

Here is some info from the management plan of one SA national park - Gawler Ranges National Park http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/18e8b989-bc99-4747-b5ff-9e4f00b1997e/PARKS_PDFS_GAWLERRNGS_MP.pdf

5.5 Introduced Animals
Introduced animals in the park include Goat, Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Feral Honeybee, House Mouse, European Sparrow and Common Starling. Of these, goats, foxes, cats and rabbits pose the greatest threats to wildlife and are subject to ongoing control programs. Fortunately, rabbit numbers are restricted to sites with suitable soil for warren construction and, furthermore, have been severely affected throughout the arid zone by Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (formerly called Rabbit Calicivirus Disease). Additional control of rabbits includes destruction of warrens and poison baiting.
Goats have been periodically mustered and removed or systematically shot on the park and are subject to regional control. Photopoint monitoring includes evaluation of goat impacts. Numerous monitoring sites include stands of Bullock Bush (Alectryon oleifolius), much favoured by goats. The extent of browse on these trees is indicative of goat numbers and their location. The Hunting and Conservation Branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has assisted in the control of goats in the park. The effective closure of pastoral watering points will have some impact on the prevalence of goats in the future, but effective control will depend largely on much larger, landscape-scale, regional programs.
Cats and foxes have been controlled in the past mainly by shooting. A systematic and regional approach to the control of foxes will be more effective in the longer term by employing poisoned baits, but cats have proved difficult to control by these methods and will probably only receive some control from opportunistic shooting in the future. A poison bait preparation area has been constructed on the park and results from preliminary fox baiting have yielded promising results.
Objective
Control, and if possible eradicate, introduced animals from the park.
Strategies
•
Collect information on the population numbers and distribution of introduced animals, determine priorities based on relative threat to wildlife and develop and implement integrated, regional control programs. In particular, participate in regional programs for the control of goats, foxes, cats and rabbits.
•
Maintain partnership arrangements with the Hunting and Conservation Branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia to assist with feral animal control.

stets

21st June 2012, 11:20 PM

the only problem is that in nsw and most other states australia wide, the dingo in particular is not even recognised and a native animal, even though there is evidence that it has been in aus for over 28,000 years. this is due to the pastoral and farming lobbyists that want all animals that pose a potential threat to a dollar eradicated from surrounding lands (which happens to be most of australia, believe it or not) many farmers and pastoralists would like to see roo numbers all but eliminated too as roos compete with thier stock for the grasses that stock eat. some farmers want eagles eradicated as they are known to take lambs.

my problem isnt the laws, my problem is now when vigilante farmers, pastoralists or just simply gunho shooters, many of our native animals wont stand half a chance, in the lands that are designed and set aside for them.

example. a group of hunters go out and bring home a deer each. in the process of thier weekend they shoot 30 rabbits, 10 foxes, a cat or 3, half a dozen roos and any number of dingoes. with no proof that these guys took home more than a few deer and no one knows any wiser to the further destruction these people have caused.

and i have heard it all before, they shot 3 dingoes/roos/etc but they killed dozens of rabbits, goats etc good with the bad..... no any bad just isnt good enough. legislation should not be brought in without an efficient way to police this

Silver

21st June 2012, 11:33 PM

Stets, your comments focus on protection of native animals in land set aside for that purpose - and the law change is about shooting in national parks, so I'll talk about that.

I think we are all keen to see conservation of native animals and plants in national parks.

I am not saying that NSW should follow SA - but it looks like it will from the limited info in the press release.

I think your specific concerns, in relation to shooting in national parks will be addressed because rangers will be part of the program and will certainly be taking a look at the areas where feral animal control has been undertaken by people who are not rangers.

It has worked well in SA and the issues you are concerned about have not arisen in national parks there.

I am member of SSAA - but not of one of the hunting and conservation groups, and I live in Qld, not SA or NSW :-). I have taken the trouble to find info from SA Gov't rather than relying on SSAA info to address any suggestion of bias.

Can I say too, Stets, that this seems to me to be an issue you obviously feel deeply about. I want to thank you for the polite and measured way you have put your views. That's so much a part of what this forum is about, and I hope others who join this discussion keep it that way. Thanks again mate.

Cheers,

Rick

stets

21st June 2012, 11:59 PM

rick, it is a passion of mine. i have been out bush working on stations and closer to town on many farms too. i know boith sides of the story and the effects that feral introduced species have on stock throughout australia.

my issue is mainly to do with dingoes more than other larger native species. dingoes are the only native species to NOT be recognised as australian wildlife in the protection acts. arial 1080 poison baiting takes place australia wide, south australia even has a bounty on the hides of dingoes. wa actively claims there is no such thing as "a pure bred dingo" and promotes total erradication of any wild canine. even in the NT where dingoes are protected they are shot by poachers without penalty, even when reported. and in qld, even the dingoes on fraser island, a dedicated, promoted place set aside with a heritage listing, dingoes are shot on site (usually rubber bullets, but often not) if they are seen to be within 100ft of people. pure "alpine"dingo numbers are becoming limited and they are in danger of becoming extinct as are the fraser island dingoes. both being reported to have under 200 left in thier respective habitats.

nsw new laws do not show any limitations put on shooters, simply pointing out that there is a problem and they want people that like to shoot things to help eradicate a few named species. once you open the gates, all hell breaks out, that is what needs to be controlled.

a few rangers, to a few thousand shooters is hardly policing the enterprise. strict harsh penalties that are enforced would be a good start, an investigation process would be another step to help keep poachers in check too.... i'll support the new laws when the government takes some responsibility for the welfare of what was here long before they were. until then this isnt a "win" for anyone except those people that like to kill for fun

for those of you that share similar wildlife conservation views, i understand that hunting can be not only a way to feed your family and help control unwanted species in our national parks, however, contrary to stated belief, true conservationalists are seriously outnumbered

Maxhead

22nd June 2012, 07:08 AM

a few rangers, to a few thousand shooters is hardly policing the enterprise. strict harsh penalties that are enforced would be a good start, an investigation process would be another step to help keep poachers in check too.... i'll support the new laws when the government takes some responsibility for the welfare of what was here long before they were. until then this isnt a "win" for anyone except those people that like to kill for fun

Great comments guys.

Stets, policing the whole scheme would be an ideal outcome. Hopefully the legislation has "just been passed" and some control measures take place. Last thing we want is people going out blasting anything that moves but unfortunately the government has neglected this issue for so long they had to take some actions to make them look good, I doubt a lot will happen.

Let's not loose track of the farming community who put food on our tables. They keep getting shafted by this government enough as it is and the last thing they want is loose stock they work hard for.
There is also the responsible shooters who do the right thing, they should not be punished for the few idiots out there.

It's a sticky subject but there has to be a well thought out balance point to suit all parties involved instead of just siding with one side of the equasion.

stets

22nd June 2012, 08:52 AM

I'm all for balance, and I enjoy hunting as much as the next bloke. Love goat, roo, venison meat, and have been known to take a pig or roo for dog food too when working in the scrub. I have shot my fair share of feral introduced species as well.

However, responsible shooters, proper hunters and the like are rare. With trophy photos and skulls being high on the list of many.

To me though the balance shouldn't be the split down the middle of taking the good with the bad, the balance should be native animals in nature reserves and NP's should be protected.... Full stop.

Dingoes in particular aren't even protected there.

In fact, go grab your hunting magazine of the newsstand shelf and have a look through the readers photos. Doesn't matter which magazine, they all have pictures of native trophy animals. Including larger than usual roos, dingoes, I've Even seen crocs shot for trophy.

If it's an orange dog let it pass through the sights, give it the benefit of doubt and the respect it deserves for surviving in terrain that most people haven't been able to adapt to survive in yet.

Nsw highlands (most of nsw NP's) is the last remaining refuge for the alpine dingoes along with a few small patches in vic. With an eatimated less than 200 pure alpines in the wild, that breed, less than a tenth of it's young survive to breed.

It's not a fair call by the government at all, there is no protective legislation against shooting dingoes, there is no legislation intact even recognizing they are Australian. And now they open up their homes for an open slather for introduced species.

That's the same as saying if your family haven't been in Australia for over 30,000 years then we don't want you here so let's shoot you. From memory us "white" people haven't been here much longer than 5-10 generations. What gives us the right to destroy that which was here long before our time.

This is a similar way the tassie tiger ended. Farmers wanting something done, so they called on everyone to shoot them. Now no tassie tiger, the Eco system hasn't been able to cope properly since...... But the farmers are happy.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Silver

22nd June 2012, 10:36 AM

Is the other big challenge for the dingo, as a purebred animal anyway, cross breeding with domestic dogs, and the offspring of dingos and dogs who have already done the dastardly deed?

I am not a scientist, but have seen scientists use islands as refuges for threatened species. A viable population of dingos would need a pretty big island - Fraser might be big enough for that strain, but where could we put the alpine dingos? Maybe some lateral thinking, and a look at some of the New 2ealand islands that are already over run with rats etc to the point where, from a N2 point of view they are a conservation write off, but have no dog population? They would be cold enough to maintain the characteristics that separate the Alpine type from the lowlanders?

Silver

22nd June 2012, 10:59 AM

(some text deleted)
In fact, go grab your hunting magazine of the newsstand shelf and have a look through the readers photos. Doesn't matter which magazine, they all have pictures of native trophy animals. Including larger than usual roos, dingoes, I've Even seen crocs shot for trophy.
(some text deleted)

Hi Stets, You make some interesting points in the text I deleted - but since I am responding to your quest above, I have deleted it for brevity.

I checked the two current maga2ines I have at home.

Australian Hunter Edition 41. A SSAA publication. It has none of the images you mention above as being present in all mags. It does have ducks, which appear to have been shot in NSW under some sort of pest control arrangement over crops, and then eaten - page 64.

Guns and Game Number 74. Again, none of the images you mention as being present in all mags. It does have a full page on page 91 from the NSW Gov't highlighting the damage feral animals do in Australia.

Please don't take this as a cheap shot, Stets, I'm just trying to bring the discussion onto a more factual basis. I fully appreciate the more substantive points you make around the dingo, for example, and acknowledge that there are problem shooters out there.

I have never seen a photo of a croc taken by an amateur since they were fully protected. I have seen recipes for wallaby from Tasmania, where licenses are issued to take wallabies, but cannot recall any other images of shot roos or wallabies.

I think I may have seen documentaries on a Dingo Hunter in NSW on the ABC, and have read articles that include shooting dingos in places where the science is apparently such that a government bounty is in place - along with aerial baiting programs. It may be as you say, Stets, that farmer's economic imperatives are given undue importance - I don't know because I haven't looked into it. It seems to come down to whether or not sheep can be farmed in a particular area.

You might disagree Stets, but I see the recent changes to legislation around national parks as being seperate from the much bigger issues facing dingos in Australia.

stets

22nd June 2012, 01:10 PM

Rick, first issue, island relocation. Yes scientists have done this in the past and it has clearly been seen as an extremists solution due to popular peoples perspective to eradicate those species or the direct impact that domestic animals have had on that species.

Yes a secluded area of nature would be an ideal option however, not relocating and entire strain of a species. That would be like forcing your neighbor to move for fear his rotweiler will eat your cat.

Not a solution at all, European culture has taken over just about every viable farming or pastoral land available as it is, removing every obstacle, be it aboriginals or native animals, all for the mighty dollar.

No account has been taken in history to resolve these issues, with the exception of providing areas set aside for the "problems" that aren't viable profitable lands to begin with.

So no moving dingoes to NZ should not be an option, however, in order to save a strain of species it could be force upon them.

As for the magazine issue... I do have to admit that over the last few years I have seen less and less trophy photo of native animals published in the magazines, as it has clearly been considered poor form. They do on occasion make poor headlines though.
So I apologize if I made it sound as though every issue of every mag publishes these photos, as I acknowledge it is becoming more of an uncommon occurrence.

Many other online forums associated with these magazines, do still have and accept posts by those that trophy hunt.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Silver

22nd June 2012, 01:49 PM

thanks, Stets.

I agree that some pretty unfortunate decisions, with the benefit of hindsight, have been made in pursuit of the $$. And some pretty ugly ones, too. And it is still happening - take your dingo issue, or maybe the coal seam gas issue, or maybe the fracking issue..... I hope we get the last couple right and don't mess up our artesian water.

In an ideal world, if dingos could be kept in the Alpine National Park, and other strains of dogs kept out - that would seem to be a good start for those pure strain Alpine Dingos?

Hard to arrange, perhaps, and expensive, but a start?

I personally don't have an issue with dingos being managed in National Parks so that their interactions with humans remain reasonably safe. From the limited time I spent on Fraser, the biggest problem with dingo behaviour there is human behaviour!

Once the pure strain dingos start to range into mixed use areas such as farmland and around towns, the risk of hybridisation (did I spell that correctly :-) ) must increase - how do we strike the right balance there, do you reckon?

I personally would like to see domestic cats and dogs under 100% control 100% of the time, but that is unreallistic, and particularly in the case of cats, not what a lot of owners seem to want. (yeah I know cats don't hybridise with dingos :-) )

I suppose taxpayers could compensate farmers for the economic value of the loss of stock due to dingo attack.

I've seen my farming relatives on the New England deal with the emotional shock of dog attacks - in one instance the neighbour's working dogs not managed correctly, and the other, a wild dog - maybe a dingo, maybe not, never seen to identify it. It wasn't pretty. I don't think it would be easy to assign a dollar value to that.

They are dealing with the same issues with wolves and one of the National Parks and the surrounding country in USA - I think Yellowstone? one of the big ones, anyway. The wolves were reintroduced to predate upon antelope or bison/buffalo, I can't remember now. It is causing a lot of friction over there.

This is a difficult problem that we aren't going to solve on this forum, but it is interesting to discuss.

Can I ask that we all continue to keep it polite and measured? I've been pretty impressed so far!

I guess the focus on dingos is getting a bit off topic - maybe we either stop, or start another thread?

Rick

Robo

22nd June 2012, 02:43 PM

Whats all the talk about fellers as soon as the greenies catch up to what penny pinching Barry has done it will be shut down again.

Bob

22nd June 2012, 02:59 PM

Great to see this discussion being carried out in a polite & courteous manner by both points of view. Well done Guys

Silver

22nd June 2012, 08:57 PM

Hi Bob,

The way forumites interact on here is what makes the place so special to me, and I think to others.

Congrats to the forumites, mods and AB!!

stets

22nd June 2012, 09:24 PM

nothing wrong with a healthy debate about passionate issues, as long as people can accept others points of view with out getting angry, then all is well. this topic could have gone so much worse, but im glad it has stayed like it has.

personally, i think the biggest problem that this topic has opened up can be dealth with in a simple educating way. most of the problems discussed herein are rarely known issues. and at the very least, rarely discussed.

i do think though that the way this has gone should still stand.

reason.....

the new law has been passed via underhanded methods in direct relation to political propaganda surrounding power privatisation. this new law was wacked on to gain support from the shooters party. the shooters party rep has made a mockery of himself even by threatening a greens rep ... something along the lines of " if we didnt live in such a modern time, i would take you outside and beat you to death" to me that really pinpoints the sole intentions of the shooters party. it would seem that the shooters party is fighting to not be regulated by conservation legislation, and that they would prefer an open slather of free shooting.

no where in this legislation does it mention hunting, everything seems to be mentioning only the feral animals and pest control side of things. in the wake of the chamberlain case, the government is openly declaring the dingo as a pest, refusing to accept its heritage in this country. however, that is only part of the problem, roos are being culled by the thousands in the ACT, dingoes are being targetted in SA and QLD, everything gets targetted in WA and NT (even though roos and dingoes are protected wildlife in the NT). so NSW has no reason not to follow suit and declare populations of native species as pests if they interfer with anything that society doesnt think they belong around.

this new law seems to be clearly a way to win votes by those that tend to hate politics the most, the redneck, rebelious, only in it for themselves type of people and some of us good folk that agree with some of the policies that the shooters party wants to fight for, like access to lands and waters, hunting rights etc. however, the good people arent all that the shooters party apeal too, and this is even more scary, as the shooters party now has complete control over which idea to support based on whi will give them what they want in return.

a complete fiasco, and our native species will be stuck in the middle. it wont matter if your a koala or a wombat, if you do something that causes an annoyance to someone, you will be next with crosshairs pointing at you.

please dont take this as pointing the finger at the many true hunters and lovers of the land so much, but, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Silver

23rd June 2012, 12:43 AM

Well............

* as I said above, I think the model that will be followed in NSW National Parks will be the same as in South Australia, which apparently is a success and has avoided the open slather approach, and the shooting of animals not 'on the list'.

* I put to one side the debacle that is gangland/drug related shooting on the Gold Coast, South West Sydney and elsewhere as a completely different issue. I agree that there are some problem recreational shooters out there. As it turns out, I don't know any of them. there is an accreditation process for participants in the SA projects. I don't expect that gung ho problem shooters will get access to the NSW projects in National Parks.

* I agree that there is plenty of scope for improving the management and protection of native animals within and outside national parks. this kind of project has been acknowledged as a success in helping native animals and their habitats in SA.

* this kind of political wheeling and dealing is exactly how politics works - compromise or whatever less tasteful name you might want to use to describe it. The Democrats made an art form of it - look at the complexity of the GST legislation as an instance, and it is bread and butter to the Greens who have truly mastered it, in my view.

And I think I might bow out of the discussion now. But I probably won't be able to help myself, I'll still be reading any new posts :-)

Stets and others, once again, thanks for keeping it polite - we are a credit to the forum, I reckon. Lets make sure we keep it that way :-)

Cheers,

Rick

NissanGQ4.2

23rd June 2012, 07:21 AM

Rick, Stets............good to see u guys playing nicely on this topic :)

I am not a hunter and I do not have anything against hunting so have no real input here. But read with interest both sides.

I do have a question,which I'm sure you guys can answer: Is there a list somewhere of what NP are covered by this new law, I would assume its not all NP in NSW

Cheers

Toddie

Sir Roofy

23rd June 2012, 08:56 AM

Todd i would think certain problem areas will be targeted not every park will be on the agenda
where they ski will be a no go zone ,dams for town city willbe no go or have a200 metre boundry from the waters edge
rec areas will be no go

and stets the only dogs i see hanging on the fences here have no dingo in them
if any they are the most evil looking dog you can meet big ugly dangerous,the biggest worry here is that
its only a matter of time that someone will be attacked wethere its a hunter or bush walker

my self i love seeing pure dingoes as you said there arent many left why hunt them
its the crossbreds that have bred up over the years that are causeing stock losses

stets

23rd June 2012, 09:19 AM

Todd, the environment minister has total say what parks. Who knows just yet, but 79 out of 139 have been asked for.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

NissanGQ4.2

23rd June 2012, 09:29 AM

Thanks guys,

Think I will be pretty safe in my local NP then, Wouldn't catch me taking my kids for a bush walk in my NP knowing that allows hunting.

Would be good 2 see a list so I can stay clear of them

stets

23rd June 2012, 09:30 AM

Roofy,

Hanging dogs is poor form in most peoples mind, but you are correct, pure dingoes are a rarity, that's why they need to be protected. The individual state gov's all have different laws too.
In nsw, there is no real protection at all. It used to be national parks were safe.

Question for you all.

Other than the "orange" colour, can any of you recognize a pure dingo?

Many crosses are orange as well. There are pure black and tan dingoes known in nsw, white dingoes too. Various sizes depending on the genes that bore them.

Feral dogs are a pest for sure and I'd be first in life to promote culling these. But I don't know many shooters that can tell the difference through a scope. And definitely not in the time it takes for it to realize it's lined up and takes off.

In the wake o these new laws, I will start a new thread highlighting the visual differences between pure and cross breds. Education is the best defense they will have now.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Sir Roofy

23rd June 2012, 09:52 AM

hi stets tell me mate,your so passionate on this subject
are you breeding dingos have dingos as a pet ? i have heard of a property near me
that are suppose tobe breeding them here ill check up on it

stets

23rd June 2012, 04:04 PM

Roofy,

I have many friends throughout the country that have domesticated dingoes, an I have one myself.

I have not bred mine as I refuse to cross breed and until a 100% suitable female comes around, I won't breed.
My boy is a desert variety.

But know many people with alpines. Most are desexed though, as intact dingoes are very much a handful

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

growler2058

23rd June 2012, 04:38 PM

stets

24th June 2012, 12:51 AM

pics in "dingo identification" thread as well as some good info for you all

stets

16th August 2012, 11:25 PM

NissanGQ4.2

16th August 2012, 11:36 PM

I am not a shooter, never even fired a gun in my life

But why did you expect this the happen Stets? It more than likely would of happened anyway regardless if the new bill was passed or not.

macca86

16th August 2012, 11:43 PM

I've had a good read of this thread as a shooter myself I am appalled by this behaviour. One should have specific game to target and the right calibre and knowledge of anatomy to provide a clean kill. You can't just go shooting anything that moves. To conduct shooting on crown land state Forrest or national parks I have no problem with if this irresponsible behaviour didn't happen or they said only shoot the ferals that are the problem. What's the point of getting 30 roos in a day if you can't process skin and use them. Take what you need so when you need there's some to take.

Silver

17th August 2012, 12:27 AM

This is exactly what I and many others expected to happen..... Thank you government.
You have failed the land yet again

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/08/15/3568593.htm

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Outrageous behaviour. Does not happen in SA where there is access to Nat Parks, has not occured in NSW State Forrests under the R license scheme.

I hope that the alleged offenders are dealt with severely if proved. Now, in using 'alleged' I am not saying that this did not happen - just using appropriate language at this point in the investigation.

stets

18th August 2012, 08:57 AM

I am not a shooter, never even fired a gun in my life

But why did you expect this the happen Stets? It more than likely would of happened anyway regardless if the new bill was passed or not.

Simple understanding of what humans have done time and time again in similar situations. There are a great number of people that are well behaved for fear of being prosecuted only. Remove the prosecution hence remove the fear...... No more good behavior.

Take suspension and tyre modifications across Australia. In many states a 2" lift am 33's is all you can do. Yeah there always the rebellious type that will do it anyway, then there are those that wish they could do more but for what ever reason can't risk a defect notice, fine, or other punishment. Remove the restriction and everyone would modify.
Same principle

Look, illegal shooting has always happened in and around nat parks an crown land, but to have it happen so frequently all over nsw without care only points to one reason. People think the law had changed

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Silver

18th August 2012, 11:57 AM

I'm not sure that those clowns have respect for any law.

If the report is accurate, and there is nothing to say it is not, they are just grubs who need to be dealt with.

Sometimes I think it would be useful to bring back the stocks/pillory - a bit of public humiliation in the market square rather than some slap on the wrist.

stets

18th August 2012, 12:50 PM

Hahaha silver...

I'm a fan of tall trees and short ropes myself. Hang 'em for all to see. Make a point of it!

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

MC97GQ

18th August 2012, 01:04 PM

This is exactly what I and many others expected to happen..... Thank you government.
You have failed the land yet again

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/08/15/3568593.htm

Stets,

I understand your passion about this issue, but that incident would have happened law or no law, There are halfwits out there who have carried out this sort of behaviour with guns, bows, rocks and sticks.

The issue is not the law but the absolutely cruel mentality that the morons that are swimming in the low end of the gene pool have. Because of where I live in the High Country of Southern NSW, I have worked in NP's and on farms and most of the people I know who shoot for pest eradication do it humanely and sensibly. I am in an area where we have Roo Shooters who cull for the Roo meat market and talking to these guys the setup costs and regulations mean that if they don't behave responsibly, their license would be revoked and they would end up massively out of pocket.

Unfortunately even some of our native animals get to plague proportions and become in themselves a pest, at these times we need to have responsible controls, and in times of drought I think it is better to cull their numbers than see them starve. We need a balance so that our farmers and native animals can co-exist. Without getting political there are some out there who would be happy if Australia was one big NP, but that is a ridiculous notion, we are here now and all need a way to manage this great land to the benefit of all.

I think most shooters try to behave in a manner that is respectful to our environment but there will always be exceptions to this, as that is human nature.

And no I am not a shooter/hunter but I know my way around firearms.

Mark

stets

19th August 2012, 10:08 AM

Stets,

I understand your passion about this issue, but that incident would have happened law or no law, There are halfwits out there who have carried out this sort of behaviour with guns, bows, rocks and sticks.

Without getting political there are some out there who would be happy if Australia was one big NP, but that is a ridiculous notion, we are here now

Mark

I know what you are saying... And it is true there are some no brainers out there that harm animals for fun. And there always will be.
However my argument is in relation to the half wits, the ones that would if no one says don't do it. They have enough brains to follow the law, but are snide and corrupt inside, and there are a lot of these people in society.
These are the ones that can be controlled with rules. Basic, straight forward and clear. No interpretation.

An just to clarify.... I know of a number of farmers and leaseholders that would gladly not have national parks if it meant more land to crop.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Silver

19th August 2012, 03:05 PM

5 pages and we are still playing nicely despite strongly held views.

I'm impressed.

That's what the forumites here are about. Self respect and respect for others.

Well done.

MC97GQ

19th August 2012, 05:57 PM

Silver,

We are all adults here, why can't we have different opinions without it turning into a shite fight.

I know what you are saying mate, I waded through 4 pages before I decided to post.

This is why I love coming to this forum on a daily basis, there is great respect and great fun, we can take the piss from blokes that we have never met(but would like to) and if we need some help, the people jump in - no holds barred.

This is a great place to be

Mark

threedogs

19th August 2012, 06:49 PM

Correct me please but I always thought the Dingo was a ferral.
I did have one as a pet years ago, but rego 'ed as sheppard cross
Great dog

macca86

19th August 2012, 09:19 PM

You could say the dingo is a feral but then you could say that about aborigines. They both came over 40 to 60 thousand years ago I may be wrong so correct me if I am. They are introduced but native all the same. But untill they are removed from the feral list that I can shoot if I see one I'll have a crack at them for the reasons of all the sheep chickens and geese they have killed on the farms I go to and Warrick council were paying 200 for a dog scalp having said that dogs are hard to get only seen one dog on my trips. Horses for courses our actions will never be liked by everyone but I do support humane killing and taking what you need

Silver

19th August 2012, 10:22 PM

Crikey, Macca, some controversial words there!

I would not make that comparison to that section of our population.

My ancestors all arrived here less than 200 years ago, so are dead set fly by night pests.

Stets and others will know far more about this than me, but I have a vague recollection of Tim Flannery saying the dingos arrived 5,000 plus years ago, but not many plusses - introduced from Asia. Flannery wrote a book about the interaction between the first Australians and the extinction of the megafauna, but I don't know that he still thinks it is correct, or indeed that he ever thought of it as more than a possible, perhaps the most likely, explanation? Its been a long time since I read it. I think the book was called the Future Eaters.

Cheers,

Rick

stets

19th August 2012, 11:56 PM

Recently there has been found some aboriginal art dating back between 28,000 and 80,000 years. This art clearly shows aboriginal persons with a K9 shape. Most likely a dingo.

Going by this it would say that dingoes have had more than enough time to have evolve into it's own subspecies, being unique to Australia. DNA evidence supports this. As our dingoes show many similarities to other breeds throughout Asia and Indonesia but don't share DNA sequences.

Dingoes are important to the ecosystem of our outback. In areas where dingoes are free to roam with minimal baiting and culling programs, (very remote areas, parts of the Simpson desert, kimberlies, Arnhem land, and several smaller pockets across Australia) kangaroo numbers are reasonable, wildlife is balanced, with no plague numbers, no strange deaths, and an ecosystem that takes care of itself.
The issues are where people have come along and taken over (throughout the world even) and removed the appex predators on the area, allowing lower class predators an almost free reign. These smaller predators take prey more suited to their size. Leaving the prey the larger predators used to take to breed un controllably.

Example. In many capital cities and larger regional centers. Wildlife in the area has been all but eliminated. Local bird life, many lizards, snakes, marsupials, rodents, have been killed off due to domestic pets and general population. Farm areas surrounding cities have varied wildlife populations depending on the farms history of domestic animal control.
Where farms have had cats for example local birdlife is minimal. On farmland that has only kept working dogs, birdlife, reptiles, possums, etc are around in small numbers.
It's about a balance, if dingoes were to reach a plague proportion, I'd be one of the first to say we need to control them, it's not the dingoes we need to control, it is domestic breeds gone feral that need to be controlled. Cats, foxes, rabbits, dogs, goats, pigs, buffalo, etc that once released or escaped have bred to plague proportions with the farmers and government lobbyists blaming dingoes, Roos, cockatoos, etc for the problems they face.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

stets

20th August 2012, 12:07 AM

And macca.... Exactly what do you need to take from a dingo? Do you eat the meat, wear the fur to keep warm, or even use the ground bones as an aphrodisiac?
do you "have a crack" to take revenge on them for killing the stock of the farmers that created this mess in the first place?
Or do yo shoot them simply because if you're man enough to kill one and scalp it from forehead to bumhole, the government will pay you $200 of taxpayers money.
Just remember that all the Roos you shoot, the dingoes you scalp, and the ducks/geese/ etc that get hunted formed a balance on this earth for millions of years before us humans. In our 200,000 odd year existence we have all but undone what was once a pristine planet, diverse in life. In the last 200 odd years in Australian history there are at least a dozen species that has been made extinct through selfish actions ignoring the cause of the problem only attacking the symptoms.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

Silver

20th August 2012, 02:24 AM

Hi Stets,

Macca86 will probably respond to your question in due course.

In the meantime it seems you took away something from his post that I didn't see. Well, his two recent posts.

I can confirm from direct observation that Macca86 goes out of his way to eat what he kills. He also, like me, invests a fair bit to ensure he has the right skills for the job.

Stet's, I didn't see that he claimed to eat dingo, or use the skin. What I took away from his post is that he accepts the view of officialdom that the dingo is a feral pest around Warwick where he has the opportunity to hunt. On that basis is prepared to shoot them for the bounty paid by officialdom, given the opportunity.

Stets, you have set out a view here that the right balance has not been struck between the interests of gra2iers and others, and the the native animals of Australia, with a particular focus on dingos. Still, shooting a dingo that has been declared a feral pest, whether for the bounty or not, is lawful - for the time being at least.

You make an interesting comment about being man enough to take a pelt and claim the bounty. There was a doco on the ABC about one of the most effective doggers in Queensland. That person was a woman, and extremely highly regarded for her skills in locating, trapping and shooting dogs including dingos.

Coming back to eating what we kill, and straying away from the point a bit, it is interesting what is culturally acceptable to eat. Speaking for myself, I've happily eaten venison, rabbit and pig. Some cultures won't eat pig. I am happy to eat camel, but for some reason draw the line at horse. Apparently in a big chunk of Europe, horse is a delicacy. You mused on Macca munching on a dingo. Can't really speak for him, but I draw the line at dog - yet they are farmed in Korea and elswhere for the purpose. Not saying who is right in that choice, nor who is wrong, but I find it fascinating that a highly esteemed delicacy in one place causes shudders of revulsion in others.

Rick

macca86

20th August 2012, 07:17 AM

Hi stets. I understand the passion you have and your ideals I love dogs big fan of them I have only seen one dingo where I've been but didn't shoot as I wanted to see one in the wild as Rick said I use what I take for meat fur or set up traps for other larger ferals like fox pig wild dog. I am within my rights to do so while on the ferral list untill that changes I shall continue once it changes I shall stop. Here in qld you cannot shoot in state Forrest crown land or national park like other states and there is plenty of that land where I go so there's plenty of room for them and me to co exist as in now the only person that really shoots on his land of 1500 and 600 acre plots.

As for my early post aborigines brought the dingos here I think both were introduced not native to the country but both worked with the local fauna and flora and became part of the eco system unlike European culture that devesated it and the people but that's a different topic best left alone.

I'm not. Having a go or trying to sound pushy or stir you up just voicing my opinion from the other side of the fence you're on. And I'm the adventurous type and would try dog horse etc I'm Scottish waste not want not

threedogs

20th August 2012, 07:33 AM

Seeing I started this Dingo debate I need to clear something up.
1 the Dingo is a feral animal, if this is the case why are they free to roam Fraser Is.
bit confused over this, and yes I love hunting.
And totally agree about the cross/dingo doing heaps of damage, just killing for fun in packs, not to eat

Silver

20th August 2012, 07:57 AM

G'day, threedogs,

In terms of bounties etc I think the key is that officialdom declare something, be it feral or not, to be a pest.

In this context, some of the authorities around Warwick have declared dingos a pest, which puts legal obligations on land owners etc, and also offered a bounty. I don't know but suspect there may well be a baiting campaign underway - there certainly is in other regions for foxes.

Two examples that may help, one of ferals, one not are Ducks on Rice in NSW, and certain species of deer, right here in suburban Brisbane. One is native, one feral, but both have been declared pests when specific conditions are met.

On another tack for myself, and my values and ethics, it does matter to me whether an animal is feral or native. But that's personal and irrelevant to the legal position. The fish I target, with the exception of trout and redfin down South, are all native. I fish for food and limit my catch, so that is part of the picture for me killing those native animals........... complicated at the personal level, for some, anyway :-)

Just now on the radio they are discussing habitat destruction as the major threat to Koalas, which are listed in SE Qld as being under a degree of threat. They also have that terrible disease, soggy bottom/chlamydia to deal with.

macca86

20th August 2012, 09:15 AM

Frazer island in national park there for no hunting I hate it when a dingo or shark or croc gets hunted just because it bit somone or killed them you shouldn't do those activities if you aren't prepared for the risk. If I was taken buy any animal while hunting or spear fishing so be it life to me is much like my stuff after my post.

threedogs

20th August 2012, 09:57 AM

Think the term feral and noxious are the same, as its a pest in that area as stated by silver.
hopefully gone are the days of over fishing, Look on the pub walls with the Photos of men in suits
with there Cod catch, 5 foot plus. I know I have a pic of Dad and Pa with a pile of rabbits 8 ft high.
get rid of it if feral, what was it someone said.

LIMIT YOUR CATCH AND CATCH YOUR LIMIT

Just at to look at Port Phillip bay, can't get a feed of flathead there anymore.
Nearly everything we hunt is introduced, even trout are introduced, bloody English , but we didn't know what the outcome would be.
Getting off the thread a bit but more hunting areas will be good for the man on the land I hope

stets

20th August 2012, 10:14 AM

My biggest point is this....

We as people do have the power to control the government. What decisions they make and what rules/laws are legislated is entirely up to us. Each and every one of us. If we don't agree with the government then we should stand up and argue that point.

The feral list isn't made up of animals that have/are causing ecological problems. Primarily, the feral animal list is made up of any animal that competes with a farmers/leaseholders dollar. There are exceptions to this (deer in some places for example).
Dingoes/wild dogs are on the list because they have been known to take stock. And the typical farmer attitude is "anything that makes it hard to earn a buck needs to be taken care of"
For so long wildlife had been protected in national parks. But these national parks aren't set up with wildlife in mind, they are set up with people in mind. Rich grazing plains no longer belong to the Roos, they aren't welcome. Far remote waterholes and billabongs don't belong to the crocs, birdlife, Roos and dingoes, they belong to the cattle now. National parks tend to be made up of areas inhospitable to man, un farmable, of no value to "society"
There are no buffer zones, wild animals enter farmland and get shot, farm animals get into national parks and cause untold damage. If a farmers bull gets through a fence onto park land he kicks up a fuss, "my bull wants to eat that grass, he should be allowed" his argument is that, that one bulls offspring could feed 1000 people.
But that one dingo he shot, could have controlled a dingo family unit, taught it natural balance, helped control roo numbers, helped keep feral cat and fox numbers down, rabbit, deer, pig, goat, etc would be controlled too.
That means more food for the cattle he has left, fewer small predators to attack and kill his lambs, less deer and Roos and pigs mean fences stay stronger for longer. And the area that they enjoy camping in hasn't been overrun by introduced species.

Yes one pure alpha dingo has that much effect on the environment.
Dingoes are the top order predator in Australia, let them do their job, they did it very well for 30,000 years, that's more experience than we all have.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

stets

20th August 2012, 10:20 AM

my question for macca was based on his "take what you need" comment.
If you don't use the animal you hunt for a purpose, why kill it.
I do believe that many introduced species like foxes, cats, rabbits and pigs all have a use once shot. There is and always has been value in animal hides for clothing for example, the petfood market is huge and full of processed leftovers that make many animals sick.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head

stets

20th August 2012, 10:46 AM

Before this goes on too much longer I do wish to say that I have worked on farms and stations. In far remote places and places not so far from town. Now I live in a regional centre. I have spent weeks and months on end camping in remote places, riding fences, following stock.
I have shot more than most peoples share of goats, foxes, cats, and wild dogs. Several pigs, lots of rabbits, and even the occasional deer. I don't eat dog, cat, or fox, and wild pig just isn't my thing. My dogs get what they can chew of what ever they want.
I have shot Roos for food and quite enjoy the meat, I have eaten (not hunted) emu (bit tough), bush turkey, and croc, all of which is considered native food, but European culture won't touch it for the most part.
I too am an introduced entity, coming from America. And I tell you it's no different there. Wolves and wildcats are being reintroduced to parks to help bring devastated ecosystems Back from the "dead".

I'm not accusing any one person of doing wrong, just trying to show what's on the other side of the fence the farmers lobby and government have been erecting for decades.

If you personally think wildlife need more of a chance to fulfill their roll, make it known among your friends and family, make it a subject of discussion, and make your vote matter.

Don't let it be a one sided debate of what is best for the area you don't live in, don't turn a blind eye to what doesn't effect you today. In as little as 20-30 years time (in your lifetime, and definitely your children's) much of our wildlife could be on the verge of extinction.

Tap,tap,tapping in your head