Shooters in national parks

[Trembling Hand]

Here it is. http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9930559.htm
Does it still sound like BS

No just not effective like you claim it is.

Hunting, although illegal in a national park, removed 4.4-15.4% of pigs each year

Like I said to UB before he went off on his rant. Rec Hunters say that they are controlling or helping to control the problem but they don't. They are not effective enough. All they do it take out a small percentage of the population which is quickly replaced by others.

And professional's say they make their job harder by spooking them.

Can you answer this. If you think Rec Hunters are effective pest control why are the state forest still full of pests? You cannot get away from this. The area hunters are allowed in are still full of feral animals. So the control line is BS.

 

[Bafana]

Shooters should be allowed to enjoy shooting. Only make sense.

 

[Goodoo]

No just not effective like you claim it is.

Can you answer this. If you think Rec Hunters are effective pest control why are the state forest still full of pests? You cannot get away from this. The area hunters are allowed in are still full of feral animals. So the control line is BS.

There are a lot less pest animals in State forests which are available to hunting than their was. Do you have evidence of populations not falling. This is particularly so where they don't join onto a national park. I will tell you about two I hunt at.

One is surrounded buy farmland and has goats, pigs, foxes, cats and rabbits. I go there after goats to eat and there are a lot less than there was three years ago. This is not a very big forest only a few thousand hectares. I have also shot Foxes and Cats when I see them, and there are less than there was.

The other forest I hunt is surrounded by national park and the forest itself is smaller than the first one I hunt. About 1,500 goats have been shot there by Game Council Conservation Hunters and they just keep coming out of the national park as no control I know of is done by the NPWS. Due to the national park I will go there if I am in a hurry to get few goats. If I want to spend time hunting I go to the other as it is getting difficult to find goats as their population has been significantly reduced.

Cats are one animal where there is no argument about the effectiveness of recreational shooters. I have never seen one which is not fat so they have no trouble catching native birds, reptiles and small marsupials, and females breed at least once a year. Cats do not take baits as they prefer fresh kills, shooting is the only reliable way to kill them. Every one I kill never kills another native animal and stops raising another 6 kittens each year. They are also very difficult to target and can be seen anywhere at any time and are much more cunning and cautious than foxes. The only reliable way to get them is hours walking through the bush. I don't know why you think professionals do a better job, the only difference is one gets paid. Another question, would a professional shoot all the pests if they could, it is their livelihood and once there are no pests they are out of a job. Recreational shooters often travel to many forests and are doing it as a free service to the environment.

 

[Trembling Hand]

There are a lot less pest animals in State forests which are available to hunting than their was. Do you have evidence of populations not falling:confused.

LOL.

You have a very large flaw in your argument which you seem unable to address. If numbers were falling to any effective degree there would not be a problem of feral animals in the areas you are allowed to hunt. There would be close to zero animals. But there is stacks. You may like to kid yourself that taking 5-10% of the population is effective but its not. After 100 years of hunting these things by rec hunters they are still there.

They have failed. Spreading the hunters over a larger area will make them no more effective.