Shooters in national parks

[Trembling Hand]

Further to this, shooters should only be allowed in the parks during off seasons, i.e not xmas or easter. In fact winter is ideal time, and when the brats are back at school.

You would be surprised at how little the numbers drop off during winter.

Any of those suggestion are unnecessary as hunters will only be in the least accessible parts of the least used parks. Feral animals avoid contact with people in most cases, so hunters will not want to hunt in popular areas.

Well there is your answer. Bring in more walkers and the feral animals will be driven out to the state forests. :

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Well there is your answer. Bring in more walkers and the feral animals will be driven out to the state forests. :

Walkers should be able to take care of themselves, otherwise they should stick to a safe city park or beach.

gg

 

[Prospector]

Walkers should be able to take care of themselves, otherwise they should stick to a safe city park or beach.

gg

Is there a difference between State Forests and National Parks? There certainly is in SA.

 

[moXJO]

Good evening dumb and stupid PEOPLE.

I read this and thought, what stupid people the people that posted before me,
the dills that will flap their jaws BOFORE knowing what they are even talking about !

I honestly thought my fellow Australia would have had far more brains than to do such a stupid thing.

Now before the dumb and stupid attack me, reread the first post which you all can running in for with your un eductated and dumb comments,

"I'm not up to speed on the bill, but this seems like a stupid idea"

NOT UP TO SPEED ....... ??????
AND it would appear so are the other posters before me.

Sick, maybe sad what people will write without knowing what the bl...dy hell they are even writing about ot the facts of the situation
UB

[B]what type of moron can get satisfaction from blowing the brains out of an innocent and defenceless[/B]

TOTAL B/S !
I would love the day, to see you standing there with sh...running down the back of your legs

WITH a 100kg boar deciding if he wants to eat you, just standing there grinding his teeth to make sure they are well sharpened for the job.

TOO much b/s from people who DON'T have a clue on Earth what they are talking about... AGAIN !
UB
ps, where do you think pigs grown and breed, yep, right there in a so called National Park.

Ohh bazza....

There are a lot of irresponsible shooters out there. Just ask any farmer that has let shooters on their land. I was primarily interested in if it was open slather. IMO there should be a special licensing course to shoot in national parks to weed out the idiots. And don't tell me all shooters are responsible because I know scores of them.

I shoot and was in the army, and as far as I am concerned 100kg of bacon running at you is hardly $hit inducing when you have a gun (and dogs in most cases)


Here is the bill which no one seemed to be bothered to produce. Like I said good luck getting it through in it's current form. I have no problem with people shooting pests.

http://www.nccnsw.org.au/images/stories/events/game%20and%20feral%20animal%20control%20bill%20amendment.pdf

 

[Uncle Barry]

IMO there should be a special licensing course to shoot in national parks to weed out the idiots.

there ALREADY IS, the same licence as has to be obtained for shooting in State Foests !
BUT
if you know scores of shooter you WOULD KNOW about this condition ALREADY !

And don't tell me all shooters are responsible because I know scores of them.
Scores, well, my man
I would say YOU DON'T know SCORES of shooters !

There, any other silly post playing with the facts to siut the poster!

 

[Trembling Hand]

There, any other silly post playing with the facts to siut the poster!

Its clear that shooters in national parks will solve no feral animal problem. They cannot solve it on a small amount of land that they are now allowed to use.What makes them think spreading over a larger area will make them more effective.

Let them go to Africa and shot at caged/fenced animals to stroke their egos. They will achieve nothing in national parks just like they have achieved nothing in state forests. Other than giving rangers something to do ie replace signs.

 

[Uncle Barry]

Dear T Hand
I bet that post make you feel good, way down deep somewhere in side !

AGAIN
another silly post by someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about except to cause a sh..t stir.

 

[Uncle Barry]

T Hand,
its time, its time to put up or shut up, as its said,

"Its clear that shooters in national parks will solve no feral animal problem"

PLEASE
show me the study,
the facts
or something to point your point.

or if you cannot, throw your cards in and zip up,

with the kindest of regards,
UB
come to think of it, I've had enough of these pointless posts that talk total rubbish without any clear knowledge of the facts...... thanks boys and girls.

 

[Goodoo]

I realise this, but people will wander into very remote areas, and if someone does, by a quark of fate get shot, then imagine the uproar.better to cover all avenues of escape, and put the onus back on the non-shooters.

I can imagine the uproar our left wing media would create in that situation because it would help their sales and viewings. That does not mean the risk is real or they care about public safety. Why don't they create an uproar when 10 children under five drown in home pools every year, or 1,500 people die in car accidents and 22,000 or seriously injured. There is risk in everything, and if we wanted to stay completely safe, we would never leave home, until we were told that 75% of accidents happen at home. There is no completely safe place.

I would say the odds of someone getting shot are so low, that if you were worried about that, you would never get in a car. You would be much more likely killed in a car crash getting to the park, or even shot by a criminal with an illegal weapon in Sydney, or have a tree fall on you while hiking. This is the same system which has operated in NSW state forests for 3 years with no incidents.

There is illegal hunting in national parks now, and what is proposed with licenced hunters there would stop this, as people committing illegal acts don't want to be caught. National Parks even put out a study I have seen, that stated hunting even though illegal, has prevented an increases in feral pig populations in Kosciusko National Park. So hunting takes place now it is just criminals doing it. Who do you think would be safest, a criminal who has an illegal weapon, and probably never had a gun license, or a licensed trained person, who has had to book to hunt there.

 

[moXJO]

IMO there should be a special licensing course to shoot in national parks to weed out the idiots.

there ALREADY IS, the same licence as has to be obtained for shooting in State Foests !
!

Add another layer for national parks not just an R license. And I could care less that it would be basically the same thing
Don't feed me the $hit on not knowing how a lot of weekend Rambo’s behave.

Now while a lot of responsible shooters will only take a shot if the bullet is going to eat dirt if it misses. There are a few that will take the shot no matter what their position. And that is just one of the many possible problems. Shooters do not need to be in national parks.

PLEASE
show me the study,
the facts
or something to point your point.

Here is an attempt, on the efficiency of rec hunters controlling feral pop

http://www.invasives.org.au/downloads/Critique_IsHuntingConservation.pdf

Arguing with you on a subject I would rather not, just because you came across as a bit of a self righteous tosser in your first few posts, is something I would rather not do. Worse would be to provide any damaging material from here on in, just because you start calling for proof or calling me a liar

 

[Prospector]

Let them go to Africa and shot at caged/fenced animals to stroke their egos. They will achieve nothing in national parks just like they have achieved nothing in state forests. Other than giving rangers something to do ie replace signs.

You mean lions, tigers, elephants, rhinos - like the former British aristocracy did just to prove they were cleverer with a gun than an animal in the wild.....

 

[Trembling Hand]

T Hand,
its time, its time to put up or shut up, as its said,

"Its clear that shooters in national parks will solve no feral animal problem"

PLEASE
show me the study,
the facts
or something to point your point.

or if you cannot, throw your cards in and zip up,

with the kindest of regards,
UB
come to think of it, I've had enough of these pointless posts that talk total rubbish without any clear knowledge of the facts...... thanks boys and girls.

Barry
It would be a shame if you don't come back. You personal attacks on everyone will be missed . Your lack of any reason or fact in your posts will be missed . You inability to discuss a topic in a civil manner will be missed You lack of any positive persuasion for your point of view will be greatly missed And your assumption that everyone is far sillier than you will be missed.

Oh its also a shame that you will not comment on the list of studies put together by the ISC that backs up my post. : Just like you wanted, facts except they contradict your opinion.

 

[mellifuous]

You mean lions, tigers, elephants, rhinos - like the former British aristocracy did just to prove they were cleverer with a gun than an animal in the wild.....

wasn't it about entertainment?

 

[Trembling Hand]

I would say the odds of someone getting shot are so low, that if you were worried about that, you would never get in a car. You would be much more likely killed in a car crash getting to the park, or even shot by a criminal with an illegal weapon in Sydney, or have a tree fall on you while hiking. This is the same system which has operated in NSW state forests for 3 years with no incidents.

I don't think its really a matter that much for safety. its about use of public lands in an environment that is conducive for all to have access. No one wants to go to our great national parks for whatever type of relaxation they are there to enjoy and have the sound of gun shots ping off over the hill.

Call it a nanzy pansy view if you want but its real. Most Australians don't like to be near people using guns.

There is illegal hunting in national parks now, and what is proposed with licenced hunters there would stop this, as people committing illegal acts don't want to be caught.

That is just silly logic. Then we should make the speed limit 250K/h. That's will stop the illegal speeding. You want to remove an illegal act so it not illegal?? You want to think about that?

National Parks even put out a study I have seen, that stated hunting even though illegal, has prevented an increases in feral pig populations in Kosciusko National Park. So hunting takes place now it is just criminals doing it. Who do you think would be safest, a criminal who has an illegal weapon, and probably never had a gun license, or a licensed trained person, who has had to book to hunt there.

Could you provide it because it sound like BS. the numbers that needs to be killed for population control are huge. Rec shooters haven't a hope in hell of achieving these numbers. especially a few illegal ones.

 

[Goodoo]

Here is an attempt, on the efficiency of rec hunters controlling feral pop


Arguing with you on a subject I would rather not, just because you came across as a bit of a self righteous tosser in your first few posts, is something I would rather not do. Worse would be to provide any damaging material from here on in, just because you start calling for proof or calling me a liar

The invasive species council is a voluntary organisation run by anti hunting people especially Carol Booth who has a doctorate is in Psychology. They never provide solutions just critisms, which is easy when they dont have to provide results.

I have not seen them even claim to be impartial but their record speaks for itself. They even made ridiculous claims in that anti hunting piece such as most of that 6,000 feral animals killed did not count because they were rabbits. Last time I checked rabbits are a serious pest which breed very quickly. Those several thousand rabbits would breed into 100,s of thousands if not controlled.

 

[Goodoo]

Could you provide it because it sound like BS. the numbers that needs to be killed for population control are huge. Rec shooters haven't a hope in hell of achieving these numbers. especially a few illegal ones.

Here it is. http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9930559.htm

The demography of a sub-alpine population of feral pigs was examined at Kosciusko National Park in south-eastern New South Wales. Reproductive data and age structures indicated a seasonal pattern of breeding, most births occurring in summer and autumn. It is proposed that a decreasing availability of high protein food in the autumn and winter months caused reduced rates of conception. Sows produced 0.84 litters per year with postnatal mortality as high as 85%. The population appeared relatively stable at a density of 1.6 pigs kg-2. Hunting, although illegal in a national park, removed 4.4-15.4% of pigs each year.

Does it still sound like BS

 

[moXJO]

The invasive species council is a voluntary organisation run by anti hunting people especially Carol Booth who has a doctorate is in Psychology. They never provide solutions just critisms, which is easy when they dont have to provide results.

I have not seen them even claim to be impartial but their record speaks for itself. They even made ridiculous claims in that anti hunting piece such as most of that 6,000 feral animals killed did not count because they were rabbits. Last time I checked rabbits are a serious pest which breed very quickly. Those several thousand rabbits would breed into 100,s of thousands if not controlled.

I think it was more a claim that rec shooting, is not the best method for controlling pest numbers on public land.

Are they anti hunting because they simply disagree with your opinion?

 

[trainspotter]

Barry
It would be a shame if you don't come back. You personal attacks on everyone will be missed . Your lack of any reason or fact in your posts will be missed . You inability to discuss a topic in a civil manner will be missed You lack of any positive persuasion for your point of view will be greatly missed And your assumption that everyone is far sillier than you will be missed.

Oh its also a shame that you will not comment on the list of studies put together by the ISC that backs up my post. : Just like you wanted, facts except they contradict your opinion.

LOLOL TH ... This is what makes ASF so entertaining. Life is like a garden bed man ... just dig it ! So many personalities to soak up and enjoy. I personally enjoy UB's whip hand. Genius in it's purest form. IMO. Just like yours.

 

[Goodoo]

I think it was more a claim that rec shooting, is not the best method for controlling pest numbers on public land.

Are they anti hunting because they simply disagree with your opinion?

Not only my opinion, The NSW game council employ wildlife biologests and produce scintific results showing the effects hunting in state forests.
The ISC then comes out with a media release saying there is not benefit, and have never provided any scintific evidence to support their claim.
The Victorian Fox bounty only went for 7 months and 170,000 bounties were paid meaning at least 170,000 foxes were killed. I shoot foxes and saw how Fox numbers dropped, the bounty was very effective. The ISC then claimed in the media it was not effective, again they do not provide proof and as their name sounds offical and Carol Booth has a doctorate the media dont doubt them.

One of the main points the ISC claims is that more pests breed if some are removed. This may be the case in very high densities, but in most cases we dont have high enough densities to stop breeding.

Just look at their recored, find one thing they have done to reduce pests.

 

[moXJO]

Not only my opinion, The NSW game council employ wildlife biologests and produce scintific results showing the effects hunting in state forests.

I don't know if that is the best source to quote either (please provide links as I would be interested).
Regardless of which ever it is, I don't have a problem with rec shooting. But I don't think the feral pop is a good enough excuse to get them into the national parks.