I've always known it has been widely used to control feral animals in NSW National parks, but I was never aware of its devastating effects. It wasn't until I began to question the motives of the anti-hunting lobby groups that I began to uncover something far more sinister, the true agenda of the anti-hunting lobby groups. Supported under the guise of environmentalism by the Australian Greens, a party too lazy to do it's own research and has a history of only supporting the idealistic side of an argument.
Before we start, please watch this video. It is nearly two hours in length, but it won't take to be convinced we must ban the practice of aerial baiting in Australia. As the makers of the film describe it:
“Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide New Zealand” takes you into the drop-zone of aerial 1080 operations, beneath the canopy, where the birds and animals die. For the first time, supported by scientific evidence and indisputable footage, this film fully exposes the truth about a culture that is believed will eventually see New Zealand's image tarnished, and an international embarrassment."
One particular lobby group, the Invasives Species Council, seem to have been very vocal in their opposition to recreational hunting in NSW National Parks on the grounds that it is ineffective at controlling introduced species. This lobby group are the same group that work with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife service on aerial baiting programs. As with all lobby groups, someone must be funding them. I suspect it might be the manufacturer of 1080 poison in Alabama, USA. Australia and NZ consume 92% of the world supply of 1080. What is the obsession with this poison?
Lets delve deeper. The Invasives Species Council's biggest threat is the recreational hunting lobby groups. Why? Because if we can prove that recreational hunting and the issue of bounties on feral animals by Government is an effective means for pest eradication, they would be out of a job!
They often quote "The Game Council" when suggesting how ineffective recreational hunting is controlling feral animals. If this were the case, why are they so afraid of them?
What they fail to mention is the Game Council is required by law to limit the issue of permits to no more than one permit per 400 hectares of land. Of course recreational hunters cannot be as effective in eradicating invasive species when you compare them to the alternative - an alternative that involves aerial dumping of thousands of tonnes of toxic poisons throughout our National Parks every year.
They cite figures such as $3 million annual cost to tax payers to fund the Game Council. Money they would rather see re-directed into aerial baiting programs and bigger kickbacks.
I decided to explore their website to see what expertise they really have when it comes to feral animals. Click on first link of the left called feral animals to see what we find.
Three paragraphs telling us how bad foxes, cats, rabbits and pigs are for the environment. Thanks ISC - I never knew!!!
Scroll down further and the first link you see is a link titled "Hunting of feral animals, is it conservation?"
Lets follow this link to explore deeper.
Victoria supports recreational hunting in national parks via a permit system from the Department of Primary Industries. In October 2011 they issued a bounty of $10 per fox scalp and recently hit the 100,000 milestone, paying out $1 million to recreational hunters. You can read the media release here....
The second claim is "Funding recreational hunting as a primary method of control is a waste of taxpayers’ money. There is also the risk that opening up public lands to hunting creates an incentive for maverick hunters to shift feral animals into new areas - as has occurred particularly with pigs and deer."
How is funding recreational hunting a waste of tax payers' money and where is your evidence to support this claim? When was the last time NSW issued a bounty?
The Game Council was set up to support recreational hunting in NSW but the uptake has been slow, largely due to bureaucracy. I often plan a hunt in a NSW State Forest, only to discover they have exceeded their permit issuing quota. One thing is for sure, the more people become licensed, the less of a burden it will be on the tax payer. Increasing the hunter to land ratio would also encourage more hunters to hunt. Costs to the tax payer will not increase because of the economies of scale.
Suggesting maverick hunters in this day and age will shift feral animals into new areas is ridiculous. Feral animals are everywhere. Sambar deer that were introduced in Victoria have migrated all the way to Sydney. Animals will always breed and explore new habitat - that is simply nature.
The NSW environment minister recently admitted the National Parks and Wildlife Service only removed 25,000 feral animals in the previous 12 months. It's a bit rich to claim 10's of thousands of recreational hunters couldn't match that. I personally shoot hundreds of feral animals every year. You can listen to Robyn Parkers comments made on lateline here.
Here you can read one of his anti hunting pieces. As a lobby group potentially getting kickbacks to supply the government with more 1080, this screams of conflict of interest.
David Shoebridge is just as guilty. He would rather our water supply be contaminated than over-come his Hoplophobia (fear of firearms). Regardless of the science. He is anti hunting and anti-guns. Can you really trust him to make the best decisions for the environment?
I could go into further links on this page, but I think you get the idea. It's all anti-hunting rhetoric supported by the Greens with no real science to back it up.
Watch a video on the poisoning of Australian dingoes here.
Learn the facts about recreational hunting here...