Where was the 'sadistic torture' in this case? As far as the reports go, he was hunting a protected species illegally and his tools and competence were not adequate to the purpose.

Real hunters, farmers and the like would wince and be highly critical of his stupidity and wilful disregard for the law and some might even like to flog him with his own quiver for his lack of ethics and concern for the target animal, but at the end of the day there has to be a measure of relativity in the sentence given by a court.

That is why I believe that the over-the-top penalty panders to animal rights activists. The penalty is way beyond what might be expected for first offender assaults on other humans and that is most concerning.

divine-msn
Have you read the judge's words carefully, because you could easily end up in the pokey if your culling shot does not result in immediate collapse and loss of unconsciousness of your target animal. The animal rights activists must be chortling at the opportunities for mayhem that gives them.

Look at it in terms of risk analysis, isn't it the case that despite the best efforts of all concerned it is unreasonable to expect that all animals will die 'immediately' and a finishing shot will sometimes be necessary. What is so wrong with that? In the subject case the 'hunter' was incompetent, ill-informed and casual about the law so he got done for it. However he should not have been dealt with so severely and the judge's wording leaves a lot to be desired. Judges make mistakes too.

It is worth remembering though that all we have are the press reports and not all of the evidence that was before the court.

RobP,

The hypocrisy would exist if the didn't throw the book. Why have a licensing system if it's not going to be enforced.

Why the licenses? to try and reduce the yobs that think they're game hunters, get a skin full and shoot everything with fur/wool.
Then there are hunting magazines that encourage 'hunting'(?) with a Bowie knife "for the true experience Man Versus Beast".

It's a bit like booking a non licensed racer on the highway. Rules are there to stop the idiots (well reduce them).
12 months jail? seems a bit excessive but do the crime do the time.
not a lot of sympathy

I consider the shooting of an unarmed marsupial if not for food to be idiotic in the extreme. Repulsive and needless criminal madness.

When you head down the jetty with a fishing rod on a Saturday afternoon and the blowies are off on vacation for the weekend, and you happen to catch a few herring to cook up for the meal, and maybe share a few fillets with your neighbours, then there's still a little natural human nature to explain you're trickery, and it's a fairly good effort if you don't ask the opinions of the fish.

That aside, even working for pay on a beef farm can be looked upon as mercenary, and not for the feint-hearted, and if what you kill is not purely about feeding your family, then it's a fine line between some sort of safari tour-guide and something not quite as nice to speak of.

Etham

Don't fret, meat is grown on the bubblewrap plant by Coles and Woolies and no cuddly animals are hurt in the process.

Herring?! They are not cute and cuddly now are they and they are usually raised in cans. Not like baby seals or dolphins (pauses to touch a Kleenex to the misty eyes while reaching for the chequebook for a donation to charity).

That reminds me - when talking about mercenary how could you forget PETA? Can't see how Aussie farmers could ever be described as mercenary ahead of that lot.

There is a lot of responsibility, care and kindness in farming but you might need to remove those animal rights tinted glasses to see it.

Cornflower - I'm with you. On a property plus raised on the land in a very 'self-sufficient' family. Yes I can shoot straight but like you say there is the odd occasion. And I have always felt like a bastard when a second bullet was necessary. These days when you have to jump through 50 hoops to have firearms and carrying one is a crime unless its inside 3 locked boxes with ammo and bolt separate there was recent occasion when a large shifter had to suffice to destroy a kangaroo with broken legs .... Can hear the cries of 'brutality' already but one well-aimed whack to the head vs slow death from exposure and dehydration?

Didn't read the article, sorry, so don't know the circumstances of the case in question. Perhaps I should visit the link ...

Anyway is my belief a custodial sentence is appropriate for calculated extreme animal cruelty - not necessarily this case. Next paragraphs lamented soft treatment by judges of perpetrators of criminal assault (If some dude gets 12 months for wounding a couple of roos and leaving them to die then someone who attacks another person and injures them severely should get 10 times that - but it doesn't happen) and inconsistancies that parents have to face nowadays if their child derails and they're trying to get them back on track.

Yes, plenty wacko elements within the animal activist camps. Also the STUPIDITY of some 'rescues' featured on popular 'reality' TV shows has had me gob-smacked.

Stopped giving to the RSPCA about 8 years ago when they ran campaign to outlaw tail docking. Figured if that was how they were using my donation then goodbye. Another bit of hypocracy - tail docking newborn pups (tradition based on perceived benefit to dogs purpose)'cruel' but circumsizing baby boys (based on tradition/religious belief) 'OK' - and hey I'm not going to argue this - just pointing out an inconsistancy :-)

LOL and the poster who referred to indigenous hunting methods - how true. No hurry to finish the job, but that's culture eh!

divine_msn

I don't see why any hunter should feel awful because a second shot was necessary. What would that take in seconds? The readiness and capacity to do that is one of the things that puts a gulf of difference between the subject idiot who wounded macropods and hunters, not to mention the ethics of the hunter.

The subject idiot knew nothing about shot placement, obviously used the wrong projectile (suitable broadheads are available), could not get a second 'finisher' in and (what would really anger hunters) allowed an animal to escape injured. All of that on top of the illegalities of where he was (in a suburb) and what he was shooting without permit.

This is the sort of sad, incompetent, uncaring slob who has no respect for his quarry nor the environment generally.

Responsible law-abiding hunters (including bow hunters) and gun owners should feel no responsibility for fools like that and they certainly should not be apologetic for what they do themselves. I have yet to meet a licensed gun owner who wilfully disregarded the law or had contempt for the environment - quite the opposite in fact.

Many car drivers break laws daily, putting themselves and others at risk, yet no-one ever seriously suggests they should lose their licence forever, be given a massive fine and have their vehicle confiscated. Yet those are the extreme penalties that can apply to a licensed gun owner for even minor 'infringements' that could never put anyone at risk.

I guess no-one should feel too sorry for the idiot who loosed arrows into the roos - had he been licensed the penalty could have been well in excess what he received. Guess he was 'smart' not being licensed and having an unregistered crossbow. What amazing regulations (not!).