National Parks in hunters' sights | Northern Rivers Environment | Environmental News in Northern Rivers

This bill will help our native wildlife enormously. Trained and licenced Game Council hunters will be able to voulenteer their time to help control feral animals which are killing our endangered native animals. This system has been working in our state forests for 3 years, without any of the claimed problems radical groups predicted.
Native animals are already currently culled under NP permit,They have been simply added to the G&FAC Act to facilitate GC hunters culling the same, after the land manager obtains a permit to do so. The bill does not allow any more native animals to be killed than now and does not allow the hunting of native animals in National Parks.

When we have no wildlife will people then be happy? I'm so appalled at this bill that words escape me.

If the facts were checked instead of just telling the story the animal liberation extremist groups want you to hear people may have a different point of view.
They are claiming that this new bill will allow the wholesale slaughter of natives within the parks, which is simply untrue. The only reference to natives being culled is in regard to CURRENT National Parks &
Wildlife Service Policies involving selective culling of natives considered to be in pest proportions. The bill would allow NPWS to utilise the volunteer services of GC hunters to carry out these programs. Obviously this would be in very limited circumstances and tightly
controlled.
The mention of shooting of Kangaroos is being blown out of proportion by these so-called 'green' groups in other ways. The current NPWS tag system for farmers to cull these natives is flawed; as the roos must be shot and left to rot in the paddock. The new bill would allow a farmer to utilise the meat from the animal in a sustainable fashion. Nothing else would change; it
would still be against the law to shoot a native animal of ANY type without a NPWS permit!
The selective opening of some National Parks to Restricted Game Council licensed hunters can only be a good thing for conservation in this state. I for one have noticed an increase in the numbers of native species in our local State Forests since the introduction of Game Council Hunters. At one State Forest near Glen Innes last weekend I saw 5 Lyrebirds, 20+ Wallabies of different types, and numerous parrots etc that I previously had not seen due to the destruction wrought by foxes & feral cats.
I have done my part this year in reducing feral animal numbers; over 300 rabbits, 20+ foxes & numerous deer removed from NSW land.
Anyone who loves our bush and considers themselves to be an environmentalist would be mad to oppose this bill!

Oh dear, it seems the shooters out number those with the wildlife at heart. If you go out into the bush when these people are shooting it up, be it feral or native be very careful. I wonder who the first casualty will be? Some poor child out on a nature excusion with Mum and Dad? Our national parks are for ALL of us, not just the people who want to shoot something living. If the shooters must shoot try a shooting range and chase each other around! How easy some find it to kill our wildlife. It's to be remembered that less farm animals are shot since our gun laws were revised, that was due to less shooting!

Norally, do you have wildlife at heart? Foxes and Cats kill over 20 native animals each a day. What are you doing about this? Do you want poisons used to painfully and slowly kill pests, or are you happy for our native wildlife to become extinct. I have our native wildlife at heart and am prepared to do something to help. You seem to have an irrational fear of conservation hunters which can't be good for you. You must really be terrified doing something really dangerous like crossing a busy street or traveling in a car. I can assure you that any hunters will be well away from any walking tracks, or any other commonly used area, as anyone not hunting makes so much noise most animals keep well away. Any animals seen buy a hunter will also be identified before shooting as identifying you target is the first rule of hunting.

Norally from Bulldog, You haven't read the actual bill have you? Please show everyone where in the new bill does it say that hunters now have carte blanche to shoot native animals for the fun of it. Might be worth reading the bill you are criticising next time.

Norally: How are you helping our wildlife? I help by removing introduced species. The fox is threatening the survival of many Australian mammals and birds including the Western Quoll, Greater Bilby, Black-footed Rock Wallaby and Long-footed Potoroo. The feral pig population is estimated at about 23 million in Australia and they destroy the vegetation that prevents erosion and provides food and nesting sites for native wildlife. Again 'Norally', what have YOU done to reduce the impact of these feral animals?

It is amazing how green "buttons" can be pushed by the quite reasonable NS article and engender such irrational and even rabid responses. As always, knee-jerk reactions can be expected from such well-meaning but impractical people and of course - the "FNC nimbys" -[sorry 'new settlers'.]

If any animal becomes over-populated it is up to the designated land-managers to control its numbers, as NPWS and CofA do at present - otherwise the other animals, flora and eventually the whole eco-system will suffer.

As a first step I suggest that 'norally' and 'Bulldog' get the full details of this proposed Bill and then read it. Only then perhaps will you begin to comment on it more rationally and perhaps even usefully.

Our National Parks are full of introduced Feral cats and dogs and foxes who cause a heavy toll on native mammals.

National Parks already carry out animal control programs but to be honest they are underfunded and overwhelmed by the task and they need all the help they can get.

Anyone who is a real environmentalist will welcome the new law which will allow well trained and safe hunters, accredited by the Game Council to assist in ridding the National parks of introduced species.

The general public have nothing to fear by having Game Council accredited hunters operating under permit in National Parks

The usual cries of hysteria from the usual suspects only shows their ignorance of the issues.

I sometimes wonder if they really are interested in protecting the environment.

I don't see many/any greenies helping our native wildlife by actively controlling feral animals such as rabbits, pigs, goats etc or even trying to help control noxious weeds in our NP's. The majority are just arm-chair critics who are anti hunting/guns and who want to lock everyone out of NP's.

The comments by animal liberationists and extreme greens here should be treated with the contempt they deserve by any normal person. norally makes this ridiculous statement. "It's to be remembered that less farm animals are shot since our gun laws were revised, that was due to less shooting!" ??? this is equal to saying we should buy our meat from the supermarket so animals aren't killed. Perhaps as suggested elsewhere they should actually read the bill and then make comments based on reality.

How about some facts on the matter?
1. Existing intensive feral management programs (such as in Booderee NP recently) have been proven effective - documented.
2. Every year hundreds of native birds are "accidentally" killed during the annual legal duck shoot - documented.
3. Every year hundreds of Kangaroos have to be put down after being wounded / orphaned in cull actions -documented.
5. There are not enough rangers to police the existing situation, This bill will compoind the problem
4. The bill will encourage the release of non-native game birds for hunting (IE MORE ferals NOT less)
5. The bill will increase the number of native animals that can be shot, including 20 species of native duck , Swamphens and Black Swans.

Anyone want to tell me how killing black swans is a positive move for wildlife? How this will help control ferals? (And before you ask, yes I AM involved in wildlife rehab and HAVE been involved in removing feral animals).

Game Shooters enjoy shooting things and this bill is an attempt to allow them to more of it. Anything else is spin.

I believe the above article and the sensationalist photos on the front cover are a good example of biased and innaccurate reporting.
The changes to the bill would be a good thing for the national parks and would allow hunters to be involved in the control of feral pests and to manage the numbers of native animals in the event of a cull.

Those who oppose the bill are doing it simply because they are opposed to responsible hunters, not because they are interested in the environment.

The game hunters want to shoot living animals. They consider it recreation to kill animals. Therefore they must find it fun. The Bill doesn't need to include reference to fun for moral and decent people to know that these killers like to kill for fun and recreation.

The only only spin is to say their real motives are conservation. How are game reserves and releasing foreign game onto game reserves to be shot helping remove feral animals from the landscape?

BTW I rescue native wildlife, care for it, rehabilitate it and return it to the wild. I am also involved in effective programs of feral control which (shock horror) don't involve death or shooting or poisons.

I spoke to some shooters on the weekend. At least they had the honesty to admit they shoot for the fun of killing. Why don't you shooters join the army and go kill an enemy which can at least defend itself. Exactly what sort of a kick do you get out of killing defenceless animals.

BTW humans cause more environmental damage than any other species. Will your next Bill propose culling humans?

In reply to some of the above:
Bushwaka: 1) It's great to see that perhaps ONE NPWS feral control program worked. Ask them how their Brumby control programs went in the Guy Fawkes NP?
2) I was not aware that NSW had a duck season? Might want to check those facts....
3) This bill has nothing to do with changes to kangaroo culling other than to allow for persons with NPWS tags to take the animals they shoot. The NPWS CURRENTLY issues tags to shooters for cull Kangaroos when they are in pest numbers; however they must be left to rot in the paddock. What is your point here?
4) Are you sure this bill includes game birds? Might want to check that....
5) How many times does it have to be said? The NPWS ALREADY culls these animals. The bill simply allows the minister for DEC to utilise volunteer Game Council hunters for this instead of paying so-called professionals to do it.
Orlanda: What superior morals do you have over a hunter who provides healthy, fresh game meat such as venison for their family? Are you a vegan? If not, get off your high horse!
I may enjoy stalking an animal with much more effective senses than I; but at the end of the day I only shoot introduced animals.
How about getting specific about these "effective programs of feral control which (shock horror) don't involve death or shooting or poisons."
I'd love to hear all about them....

Get real people

Yes - I am a vegan. Next question?

A hunter who provides for his family? Are you still living in the stone age? That explains a lot.

Healthy, fresh game meat? Hmmm - clearly you've not read the recent peer reviewed journal articles about meat being a major contributor to cancer and heart disease. They're available on line, for your information. I know about them because I read them.

I've got a Bsc (Hons) Biology and Postgrad qualifications in animal health, nutrition, reproduction, also law, accounting, IT and nursing to name a few.

The journal articles are available for anyone to read. Go to your local University and ask. Ditto humane feral control programs. You have a computer. You have Universities you can access. Go do your research and start to engage your brain, assuming it has evolved from the stone age.

War is a frightening thing to all living beings.

Every day millions of animals which have pledged allegiance to no flag and who have done nothing to provoke aggression, are the victims of the longest running undeclared war in human history. The war on the animal nations. They are killed just because someone is powerful enough to steal their land, run them out of their homes, take their young from them, cut them up and eat them, experiment on them, use their skins, treat them as amusements for some human fleeting pleasure.

They never can feel secure, they must creep and run.

People who try to justify mistreatment of animals by saying by saying that they are stupid and they are dirty are using arguments that have been used historically against those that are marginalised and dismissed.

Even if we believe ourselves to be superior, we are not entitled to be bullies.

It’s true, that we don’t comprehend the other animals’ languages. It doesn’t mean they don’t have them. It is true that most humans are ignorant of other animals’ cultures. It doesn’t mean they don’t have them.

Animal behaviours and needs are quite often misunderstood or just downright dismissed.

Mistreatment isn’t right for them any more than it is right for us.

Embrace justice for all, no matter their race, or their creed, or their colour, or their gender, or their species.

PS - The Bill was rejected, wasn't it?

Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. The capacity for suffering is the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration.

All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

Animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. Every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.

Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable.

Animals are our neighbours, our friends, and our fellow Earthlings. They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose. Animals deserve our consideration whether or not they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and whether or not anyone else cares about them at all.

Recently, Former High Court judge, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, launched Australia’s first animal law textbook at Sydney Law School ‘Animal Law in Australasia’, edited by Peter Sankoff and Steven White.

Justice Kirby stated that the book was an upsetting book, particularly in the section where it describes the legal treatment of farm animals. He said "We should all be upset, because it was when we got upset about slaves that something happened about slaves. It was when we got upset about Aboriginal rights that something happened about Aboriginal rights. Being upset is the beginning of the journey to solutions."

We need to start thinking if someone other than us deserves some protection.

Animals are treated as commodities. They are treated as pieces of meat. They are treated as products we are going to use. They are not considered to be sentient beings, but they are.

We need to be upset.

Anyone claiming to be a decent human being, and claiming to care about animal welfare, must be upset by what shooters are planning to do to our native wildlife.

All humans should care about animal protection because we have a moral and ethical obligation to those who are innocent and vulnerable, as they are our wards in this world we live in.

Cruelty to animals and mistreatment of animals in any way at all diminishes our own role as human beings and reduces our own capacity to live ethically and sustainably.

Given the quantity of animal suffering, the extent to which they are suffering and the stupid and glutinous reasons why they are intentionally made to suffer so horribly, helping animals is the moral imperative of our time.

Orlanda, your comments seem more to do with you wanting us to all be vegans than against hunting. They even seem pro hunting as game meat it is more healthy and sustainable than meat from intensively farmed animals.

Do you feel it would be better if we all ate meet bought from the supermarket, that someone else has killed for us. Is it better to eat meat from an animal that was kept in a small indoor pen or raised in a feedlot. Are animals that were treated with chemicals, hormones and antibiotics better for the environment. Are animals which were produced on cleared land, and fed feed which was grown with the use of fossil fuels better for the environment than game meat?

Would it be better to eat meat from a wild introduced species such as deer, which if numbers were allowed to increase would damage the environment?

Please answer.