Pig Hunts May Get The Bullet Over Use Of Dogs

[Curlybert]

The Greens, or more correctly the Greens MP David Shoebridge seems to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language.

Wow. How many facts did you have to twist to arrive at that conclusion? I lost count.

No twisted facts. Read David's blog. Read the Code of Practice. Read the Standard Operating Procedures.

Gee, Katrina you remind me of the Black Knight in that Monty Python movie! I've read David Shoebridge's blog and I note his comment that of the killing methods contained in the Code of Practice, "ground shooting is the most humane." But hey, if you think that actually means he's an enthusiastic supporter of baiting, then you go ahead and think that.

[KatrinaM]

Gee, Katrina you remind me of the Black Knight in that Monty Python movie! I've read David Shoebridge's blog and I note his comment that of the killing methods contained in the Code of Practice, "ground shooting is the most humane." But hey, if you think that actually means he's an enthusiastic supporter of baiting, then you go ahead and think that.

I dont for a second think he is an enthusiastic supporter of baiting. I said he seems to favour poisoning. If you know why he is targeting dogs being used by hunters in NSW state forests, a subject he knows nothing about and not campaigning against current 1080 baiting in NSW state forests and national parks if he doesnt find baiting a more favourable option for feral pest management then I would like to know.

Here is a link to the current baiting advice - theland.farmonline.com.au/classifiedsimages/full/13467251.pdf

The purpose of this GC organised hunt is to make an impact on pig numbers prior to wild dog control. How do you think the wild dogs will be controlled in Nundle, Hanging Rock and Tomalla once the pig hunters go home and the forest is closed?

Ground shooting is only the most humane method according to the DPI under very specific conditions. Many of these variables can be remove through the use of a dog. It is only effective, another quaility David attaches to it, when used in conjunction with baiting. He refuses to learn about or gain any real insight into ethical hunting with dogs and comes up with statements like "the Game Council is proposing using dogs to fight with feral pigs, in the course of which both dogs and the pigs will face serious mauling". If this were true I would understand why he feels this way, however if he bothered to actually become educated on the subject and the alternitives I am sure he would feel rather differently.

[Curlybert]

Whatever you say Katrina. But you talk about the Game Council as though it has some sort of respectability in the wider community. It doesn't. And it only exists because the NSW Labor government was bribed into creating it (and providing it with millions in taxpayer dollars each year) so the Shooters Party members in the Legislative Council would vote with Labor on particular legislation. And now Barry O'Farrell is stuck with it. Tell me, what has the Game Council ever done that is of any substance? And what does it do with its 3 million bucks each year? All it does is bang on about being forbidden to shoot in national parks - it's simply busting to be allowed to shoot native wildlife in NPs too, including parrots, not just introduced animals. It's also calling for shooting to be a sport in NSW schools. (And what a top idea that is.) And of course, there's that famous pic of former Game Council chair, Robert Borsak grinning triumphantly next to the huge and magnificent bull elephant he had just blasted to death in Zimbabwe.

But if you're impressed by the Game Council, good for you.

[shortstep]

grinning triumphantly next to the huge and magnificent bull elephant he had just blasted to death in Zimbabwe.

The old pulling an elephant out of your hat trick! Well done!

Here are some links to some recent information about Zimbabwwe and their elephants.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...-flip-test.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...iving-room.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...human-over.html

Enjoy!

[Aidan3]

Gee, Katrina you remind me of the Black Knight in that Monty Python movie! I've read David Shoebridge's blog and I note his comment that of the killing methods contained in the Code of Practice, "ground shooting is the most humane." But hey, if you think that actually means he's an enthusiastic supporter of baiting, then you go ahead and think that.

I dont for a second think he is an enthusiastic supporter of baiting. I said he seems to favour poisoning. If you know why he is targeting dogs being used by hunters in NSW state forests, a subject he knows nothing about and not campaigning against current 1080 baiting in NSW state forests and national parks if he doesnt find baiting a more favourable option for feral pest management then I would like to know.

Then why on earth does his website promote ground-based shooting with flushing and bailing dogs (DPI's SOP) as the preferred option? What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

In any case, do you think recreational hunters are going to effectively control feral pig populations? That would be a remarkable feat. Maybe that's why the Greens aren't up in arms about baiting or heli-shooting...

[Curlybert]

grinning triumphantly next to the huge and magnificent bull elephant he had just blasted to death in Zimbabwe.

The old pulling an elephant out of your hat trick! Well done!

Here are some links to some recent information about Zimbabwwe and their elephants.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...-flip-test.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...iving-room.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...human-over.html

Enjoy!

You refer me to someone's blog??! You'll need to be more specific than that.

[shortstep]

grinning triumphantly next to the huge and magnificent bull elephant he had just blasted to death in Zimbabwe.

The old pulling an elephant out of your hat trick! Well done!

Here are some links to some recent information about Zimbabwwe and their elephants.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...-flip-test.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...iving-room.html

and

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/...human-over.html

Enjoy!

You refer me to someone's blog??! You'll need to be more specific than that.

What is with you, does everybody have to take a kicking from you?

Anyway this 'blog' that is not good enough for you to bother to look at is full of facts links and opinion that might not be exactly just like yours. Have a chat with him if you disagree.

So enjoy or don't enjoy, your choice.

I'm on the floor belly up waiting for you to kick me again.

Edited April 17, 2011 by shortstep

[Curlybert]

That's a bit melodramatic isn't it, Shortstep?! On this thread I have stridently stated some opinions just as you have done on many many occasions on many many threads. Not sure why you're being so thin-skinned.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Curlybert

[Tempus Fugit]

For me the issue is not so much about pig hunting but firearm safety.

As a child I used to go bushwalking with my dog along fire trails in what is now the Kosciusko National Park. As I grew up, more and more national parks were created. Since national parks are closed to domestic dogs that leaves state forests where one can enjoy bushwalking with one's dog(s). (Frankly I dispute Gwenneth1's assertion that 'state forests are locked up from public access'. I think the only people who would want to promote that idea are those that use the forests for their cannabis plantations).

However since Morris Iemma & Co opened up state forests for unrestricted hunting in order to kiss the backsides of the Shooters Party MPs for their electoral preferences and votes in the Legislative Council, (as Curlybert mentions), when going into a forest I am apprehensive about either my dog or I being fired at by a bullet from a high-powered hunting rifle or even an arrow, thereby getting into a "Deliverance" style kill or be killed situation, since you wouldn't know whether the shot was accidental or deliberate.

Obviously projectile weapons must be dangerous since services such as the military and police have very strict rules about handling weapons and civilians are not allowed to go wandering around firing ranges, which are delineated by flags and warning signs.

On private properties, no farmer would want hunters coming onto their land unannounced without agreeing with the farmer where and where not to hunt, yet in state forests there is apparently open slather.

Given that state forests are supposed to be a primarily a resource for timber and secondly a recreational facility for all citizens, then for safety's sake hunting with projectile weapons should be restricted to specific periods when the forest is closed to the general public with warning signs and flags erected, as for a shooting range.

As to the purpose of the hunt, Sandra777 said "feral pigs should be exterminated".

Tim's Mum said "how can you support their (wild pigs) continued existence as a feral animal that.......has no place here in Australia"

Well, supporting the continued existence of exotic feral animals is precisely what the 'conservation hunting' mentioned by Katrina M is about. The aim of 'conservation hunting' is not to eradicate a species, but to maintain a healthy controlled population for sport hunting, in the absence of natural predators, e.g. in Australia we don't have wolf packs to control the wild deer. (In America they killed the wolves as well in order to provide enough deer for hunters to kill).

Anyone who thinks sport conservation hunting is going to eradicate feral pigs, deer etc is in cloud cuckoo land.

"Conservation hunting" continues the work of the 19th century Acclimatization and Game Societies mentioned by Eric Rolls in his 1969 book on the history of exotic feral animals in Australia, "They All Ran Wild" (Angus & Robertson).

Sure, I would not like myself or my dogs attacked by a wild pig in a state forest either but:

a) let us have hunting and firearm safety policies,

b) if feral pigs have no place in Australia, let us hunt to eradicate, not conserve.

[Tim'sMum]

For me the issue is not so much about pig hunting but firearm safety.

As a child I used to go bushwalking with my dog along fire trails in what is now the Kosciusko National Park. As I grew up, more and more national parks were created. Since national parks are closed to domestic dogs that leaves state forests where one can enjoy bushwalking with one's dog(s). (Frankly I dispute Gwenneth1's assertion that 'state forests are locked up from public access'. I think the only people who would want to promote that idea are those that use the forests for their cannabis plantations).

However since Morris Iemma & Co opened up state forests for unrestricted hunting in order to kiss the backsides of the Shooters Party MPs for their electoral preferences and votes in the Legislative Council, (as Curlybert mentions), when going into a forest I am apprehensive about either my dog or I being fired at by a bullet from a high-powered hunting rifle or even an arrow, thereby getting into a "Deliverance" style kill or be killed situation, since you wouldn't know whether the shot was accidental or deliberate.

Obviously projectile weapons must be dangerous since services such as the military and police have very strict rules about handling weapons and civilians are not allowed to go wandering around firing ranges, which are delineated by flags and warning signs.

On private properties, no farmer would want hunters coming onto their land unannounced without agreeing with the farmer where and where not to hunt, yet in state forests there is apparently open slather.

Given that state forests are supposed to be a primarily a resource for timber and secondly a recreational facility for all citizens, then for safety's sake hunting with projectile weapons should be restricted to specific periods when the forest is closed to the general public with warning signs and flags erected, as for a shooting range.

As to the purpose of the hunt, Sandra777 said "feral pigs should be exterminated".

Tim's Mum said "how can you support their (wild pigs) continued existence as a feral animal that.......has no place here in Australia"

Well, supporting the continued existence of exotic feral animals is precisely what the 'conservation hunting' mentioned by Katrina M is about. The aim of 'conservation hunting' is not to eradicate a species, but to maintain a healthy controlled population for sport hunting, in the absence of natural predators, e.g. in Australia we don't have wolf packs to control the wild deer. (In America they killed the wolves as well in order to provide enough deer for hunters to kill).

Anyone who thinks sport conservation hunting is going to eradicate feral pigs, deer etc is in cloud cuckoo land.

"Conservation hunting" continues the work of the 19th century Acclimatization and Game Societies mentioned by Eric Rolls in his 1969 book on the history of exotic feral animals in Australia, "They All Ran Wild" (Angus & Robertson).

Sure, I would not like myself or my dogs attacked by a wild pig in a state forest either but:

a) let us have hunting and firearm safety policies,

b) if feral pigs have no place in Australia, let us hunt to eradicate, not conserve.

Some good points raised in your post Tempus Fugit.

Many years ago professional shooters were employed by the State Govt. to eradicate feral animals. A fellow I knew spent many years pig and goat hunting out west, in the areas surrounding Cobar as a licensed professional hunter of feral animals. It was how he made his living. It begs the question...are licensed hunters still employed by the State govt here in NSW?

[gwenneth1]

For me the issue is not so much about pig hunting but firearm safety.

As a child I used to go bushwalking with my dog along fire trails in what is now the Kosciusko National Park. As I grew up, more and more national parks were created. Since national parks are closed to domestic dogs that leaves state forests where one can enjoy bushwalking with one's dog(s). (Frankly I dispute Gwenneth1's assertion that 'state forests are locked up from public access'. I think the only people who would want to promote that idea are those that use the forests for their cannabis plantations).

However since Morris Iemma & Co opened up state forests for unrestricted hunting in order to kiss the backsides of the Shooters Party MPs for their electoral preferences and votes in the Legislative Council, (as Curlybert mentions), when going into a forest I am apprehensive about either my dog or I being fired at by a bullet from a high-powered hunting rifle or even an arrow, thereby getting into a "Deliverance" style kill or be killed situation, since you wouldn't know whether the shot was accidental or deliberate.

Locking up, depends on one's definition I suppose. There is a "Reserve" over the road from me where you cannot take your dog for a walk in; take a car in; ride a horse in; ride a push bike in; ride a motor bike in, Oh, but you can walk and even that is now impossible since the npws took to it with heavy machinery, scoring and tearing up paths to stop those evil horse riders from using trails that had been used for the last fifty odd years. The only people now determined to access this place the last time i made the stupid decision to illegally walk my dog in it, were from the looks of it, were bong users, if the left over rubbish was anything to go by. Still, NPWS have kept illegal dog walkers and kids on ponies out so that's a win!!! Apparently the reason it was converted to a "nature reserve" was that a once only photographed and citing (by an avid greenie) was a rare native orchid, which strangely has never been sighted again by anybody ever again, but that was explained that these particular orchids may only come up every ten or twenty years. Yes, of course.........

So as far as I'm concerned such places are effectively locked up. All parks/reserves etc around where I live, you cannot take a dog for walk on lead or otherwise, they are banned and there are bloody great signs letting you know of the fines you are going to get if you enter & are caught by a Ranger , so you are indeed fortunate if you can walk your dog in a state forest.

Interestingly, during a heated discussion with the "head greenie" about use of the bridle trails in the then proposed reserve, frequently used by kids on ponies to get away from the busy road, it was put to them that if kids are forced to ride alongside the road and now forced to cross it before accessing another bridle path to the new limited designated common area, a child on a horse could be hit by a car . Head Greenies response "So be it". Pretty much sums it up. I think conversation is needed in Australia, but it is no longer a balanced sensible one.

Funny, I cannot recall any accidential shootings where I came from during culling or hunting, maybe its the Hatfields vs the McCoys where you come from? Then again I am not under the belief that I may be taken out by a deliberate bullet

Also, where I grew up, it is literally a locked up state reserve so thick and scrubby, that even surrounding farmers are no longer interested in having their stock go and feed on there, even with if an open invitation was issued. The only things thriving in that forest are mozzies and pigs atm. In that area. given the climate and environmental factors, the suggestion to grow massive cannabis crops where I grew up is laughable. Anyway,here's a heads up,do believe satellite technology is being used which is why cannabis growers are being caught more now more than ever.

As far as kissing the backsides of shooters party, pucker up, because there is plenty of arse kissing between greenies>labor and policiticians in general and its par for the course.

Anyway, veering from the original topic which I feel I have covered but surely there must be a way to approach the continuation of pig hunting, instead of the usual state government of a blanket 'ban' instead of targeting those who abuse the system.

[KatrinaM]

Curlybert,

I dont mind what people outside hunting think of the Game Council. I am not involved in anything they do. I only know a small portion of what they do and only that which relates specificly to hunting with dogs. They have educated hunters on how to better care for, work and train their dogs and best practice to ensure humane dispatch. I commend them for this. I dont know what they do with their 3 million, maybe educate hunters, run the R Licence program and look at ways they can benifit not just hunters but the wider community? Maybe buy 1 million cream buns? The funding is small fry compared to what other groups recieve.

Could you please supply reference to where they want to shoot native fauna such as parrots in National Parks? Unless it was to euth a sick or dying animal I doubt I would support them in this.

I persoanally dont see a problem with having shooting as a school sport.

It is not something that I would like to do at all but if Robert Borsak participated in a perfectly legal conservation hunt in another country I dont see the problem. Conservation hunting has helped save struggling African wildlife populations, locked up more land than National Parks as conservation areas and also provide bussiness for the local tribesmen. If he was poaching illegally he should be prosecuted.

Aiden,

This is where he mentioned bailing dogs on his web site, where it seems he does not approve of the use of bailing dogs

This proposal is directly contrary to well established NSW government codes of practice for hunting feral pigs that prohibit the use of dogs to bail or hold pigs

This is from one of the SOP's he quotes on his blog

If dogs are used they should only bail the pig up

and this

Trained dogs are sometimes used to detect or flush out pigs prior to shooting

Tell me why would he state it is a problem then provide two references where the DPI approve of the practice?

I dont know the type of terrain in these parks to say if I think that recreational hunters are going to effectively control feral pig populations. It certainly has in other areas, Pig numbers have been dramaticly reduced in my part of the world in the last 30 years. I attribute it to the continued long term hunting pressure from the chiller trade. Most people who hunt for the chillers are recreational hunters. No one method is a magic bullet, a multi pronged approach has always proven to work best when trying to control numbers. What methods depend on pig numbers, the type of country, the season, food sources, water sources, other species which may be impacted.

I think David has the wrong idea about hunting with dogs, he uses words like "bite", "maul", "bring down", "fight", "bloodsport" etc and this has prevented him from actually looking at what happens and comparing it to other methods. He has obviously never been hunting to understand how it is done and the role of the dog, or even when other methods such as ground shooting without a bailing dogs are limited and result in either the pig suffering unnessecarily or no animals being culled.

[KatrinaM]

Tempus Fugit,

I agree about trying to eliminate the population of pest species but unless you know of a method where pigs, feral cats, goats, rabbits, foxes, cane toads, brumbies, donkeys, camels, buffalo, banteng, wild dogs or any other feral species I have forgotten could be erradicated then I think that trying to control numbers is the only option.

If you are worried about flying bullets and arrows do you then think the use of bailing and holding dogs is a much safer alternitive to forest users, where animals are shot at very close range?

[Curlybert]

As requested, Katrina! See highlighted bits of news article below.

And as for shooting as a school sport, you honestly think that a disturbed or depressed adolescent should have ready access to firearms?

GREENS OPPOSE RECREATIONAL HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS Sydney Morning Herald - June 12 2009

A NEW bill that would open the state's national parks and reserves to recreational hunters who could be licensed to shoot native animals and birds has been condemned by the NSW Greens, the Liberal Party and environmental groups.

The NSW Shooters Party has introduced the private members bill to Parliament. It allows for private game reserves to be set up for professional safari hunters, overturning NSW laws that prevent the enclosing of animals on land solely for hunting purposes.

A Shooters Party MP, Robert Brown, said the bill would not allow the hunting of threatened species and, in the case of native waterfowl, licensed game hunters would be required to pass an official identification test of the ducks.

But the Opposition's environment spokeswoman, Catherine Cusack, attacked the bill, saying key elements were unacceptable. "We totally reject the idea of shooting in national parks and the concept of shooting native animals in national parks is repugnant to almost anyone."

Among the birds and animals that could be hunted are the Australian wood duck, the chestnut teal and grey teal ducks, galahs, corellas and eastern grey, western grey and red kangaroos.

The Shooters Party hopes to gain the Government's support for the bill but the Environment Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, is already signalling she will oppose key provisions in it, including allowing recreational hunters into national parks and the hunting of native animals.

Her spokeswoman said the Government would consider the bill's merits but it did not support "the hunting of native animals or hunting in national parks".

Mr Brown said the bill drew on many of the recommendations of a government-backed review of existing laws undertaken with staff from the NSW Department of Primary Industries and the Game Council.

He said that under his bill, the environment minister would be responsible for declaring any national park or reserve open to hunters.

He told the Herald that opening national parks to recreational hunters to shoot feral animals would save the Government significant amounts of money and the hunting of native animals and birds in parks would require ministerial approval.

The Greens leader, Lee Rhiannon, called on Ms Tebbutt to reject the entire bill, not only the provisions concerning national parks. "Opposing shooting in national parks may well be a tactic Labor is using to divert attention from the fact it will support other equally regressive changes being pushed by the Shooters Party," Ms Rhiannon said.

The Greens are also concerned about provisions in the bill that would make it an offence to approach anyone or interfere with anyone "lawfully hunting game animals" on any land that had been declared public hunting land.

The Shooters Party has provided critical support for the Labor Government in the upper house, especially since the 2007 election. Last week the Shooters voted with the Government and the Reverend Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic party to defeat a bill backed by the Greens and the Opposition to preserve prime agricultural land from mining developments.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Curlybert

[KatrinaM]

Curlybert, ready access is not something that springs to mind when I think of anything involving guns in Australia, our laws are very strict. I dont think that teens hold all the cards when it comes to being depressed or disturbed and I dont see shooting as a sport any different to any other sport. There are already plenty of juniors who compete without danger to themselves or society. But this is a debate for another place.

I do not support hunting of any native wildlife in National Parks unless it was for welfare purposes. I couldnt imagine why somebody would want to shoot Corellas and Galahs unless they were a threat to crops (which shouldnt be growning in National Parks anyway!) To me that is just strange, why would somebody want to go to a National Park and shoot a parrot? Are they going to eat them? Pretty sure they will only do that once! I do support the hunting of feral species in National Parks though. I dont have a problem with game reserves as long as they are well managed. Though I still couldnt imagine why somebody would want to go and shoot any of those species on a game reserve either unless it was to eat.

[sas]

If you believe them psychologists tell us those involved in such barbarity are tomorrows serial killers and spousal abusers.

No they don't.

Those who torture animals are who are believed to be linked to more serious crimes in the future.

[Curlybert]

To me that is just strange, why would somebody want to go to a National Park and shoot a parrot? Are they going to eat them?

No. I think they would be intending to refill their doonas.