This is a copy of a speech given to a council in response to them wanting to write a letter to express their disapproval in regards to hunting in NPWS.
Anyway, here's the blurb.
As a ratepayer, I’d like to object to council time being used to pursue an ill-informed, overtly political agenda which this letter clearly is.
As a law abiding responsible hunter with 40 years experience, I could talk at length about the issues at the heart of the motion, but as I only have 3 minutes I will need to restrict myself to the specific themes raise in the motion.
Firstly, the use of the terms “amateur” and “professional. The harsh reality is that there is no real difference other than money changing hands. We have the same licensing regime, the same safety test and we operate to the same safety protocols.
I refer you to the Dept Environment, Climate Change and Water firearms management manual which, incidentally, is 90% about policy, regulation, compliance and OHS issues for staff. Never the less, it does state unequivocally that (and I quote) “The use of firearms is one of the most humane and effective techniques for destroying animals”.
Page 4 of the manual talks about Professionalism; you will see that the term is used in the context of competency, not employment status. The manual freely talks about the use of both volunteers and contractors as well as paid staff, and the rules apply to all.
On the subject of competency, you may not realise that Departmental staff only have to qualify with firearms every 5 years. Try getting a hole in one, first go, having not picked up a golf club in 5 years!
My personal observations during the ACT roo culler’s competency tests was that the “amateurs” passed with flying colours, whilst the park rangers struggled. So much for only using professionals.
The undeniable fact is, National Parks staff already shoot in parks, most often (other than in euthanasia situations) from helicopters using semi-automatic centrefire rifles equipped with silencers. Their own document (pg120) rates this as “low risk” as long as the gates are locked and signposted, and staff, neighbours and other contractors are advised that shooting is taking place.
They don’t seem to place much emphasis on park users other than a cursory check of any camp grounds. Why? Because park users and ferals tend to occupy different areas of the parks. Don’t believe the orchestrated fear mongering that would have you believe that hunters and other park users will be tripping over each other. It just does not happen.
Licenced hunters have operated in NSW state forests for several years and in Victorian National Parks for decades with an admirable safety record, and there is nothing magical about NSW NP’s that makes them materially different. Bush walkers are more at risk driving to the NP than they are from bullets, professional or amateur.
On the subject of animal welfare, the manual refers readers to the DAFF codes of practice, and in turn the Sharp and Saunders model for assessing the relative humaneness of available pest animal control methods.
It should be noted that the scientific rigour of the Sharp and Saunders model has been called into question (ironically, by amateur hunters - the redneck ones I hunt with hold PhD’s in environmental sciences by the way) and it is currently unavailable online as it is “under review”, never the less it is the closest we have to the “scientific rigour” you are seeking.
It consistently rates ground based shooting as the most humane method available and only discounts it on the basis of cost. The use of volunteers changes that cost paradigm significantly, to the point that it becomes a no brainer. We don’t need more money, we need more progressive thinking on how to deal with the problem. I note the draft letter does not suggest any alternative solutions by the way.
Certainly from an animal welfare perspective, ground based shooting is far preferable to aerial shooting and 1080 poisoning, which are the only viable real world alternatives.
I don’t need to point out the challenges of hitting a target from a moving helicopter, and the ability to monitor the results when flying above the trees. I have access to footage of a NPWS aerial pig cull which would make you sick. I also have access to footage of animals dying slow, painful deaths from 1080 if anyone cares to see that.
Shooting might be confronting, it might be unpalatable, but there can be no credible argument that it is THE most humane method, when done competently. It is target specific, does not pollute the environment with poison residues, or keep on killing up the food chain as the victims are consumed by predators, as poison can.
Lastly, on the subject of tourism. The Victorian Agriculture and Food Security Minister Peter Walsh was recently quoted as saying that "Duck hunting provides a significant economic benefit to Victoria, generating about $100 million annually”.
The NSW Game Council of NSW Public Benefit Assessment 2011-12 identifies a total net benefit to NSW from public land hunting of just under $3m, with Gross Regional Product of $50.8 million.
If council is concerned about the tourism dollar, the simple message is - be nice to hunters. I could go on but my time is up.
I have debunked your concerns about safety, animal welfare, scientific rigour and loss of tourism. What else is there other than pure, unadulterated ideology?
In closing, I have to ask, why is Council even worried about this subject? Local council is not a pre-school for green leaning councillors with their eye on a seat in the NSW legislative assembly.
Stick to your knitting please. If you have spare cycles, I wouldn’t mind seeing a plan to get my road sealed, or for one of my emails to council to get a response.
If you do decide to write a letter, then at least research the topic and ask informed questions. As it stands, this letter is an embarrassment to all who vote in favour of it.
Anyway hope this helps,
Cheers
