The Greens have just posted their Policies for the coming election but I wonder have they spread themselves to far?

They seem to have a solution for all of society's ills instead of concentrating on those things which are more easily achieved, and many of their aims, whilst doing good would also have bad effects.

The Eden woodchiping is one example, they would close the mill but they offer no solution to the resultant unemployment problem nor to the financial consequences to the town.
Another is the coal mining industry, they would shut the mines, but what would be the cost to the State let alone the cost to miners and their families.

It is fair to ask if there is any real substance to this party and if they could be trusted to work for the greater good of all the people of NSW?

The NSW Greens have no policies on population growth/stabilization/size and nothing on sustainability per se. Other policies might touch on these issues, but it is just unacceptable to not address these vital subjects head-on.

The Australian Greens policies have been withdrawn from their website for review and are currently entirely unavailable.

Is Mise, I think they have spread themselves too far and dissipated their energies with all sorts of minor issues – minor compared to sustainability and population that is.

I can’t say they’ve lost their way because I don’t think that they have ever been focused on the right things!

I think the mood is right for them to gain huge support if they would just make sustainability their bottom line. With the right sort of campaign, this could win the hearts of a large portion of the Australian populace.

It befuddles me entirely as to how the Greens, who are supposed to be the environmentally enlightened political entity of this country, can see fit to piffle around the edges of the parameter that so obviously matters the most – susbloominstainability!!

Similarly, it is perplexing in the extreme as to how they can just simply not address population issues, which is an essential major factor of sustainability and can see fit to allow a rapidly increasing demand on all our resources, many of which are somewhere between becoming stressed and severely stressed.

As a former Qld Greens state candidate, it pains me greatly to criticize the Australian and NSW Greens in this way. But I think it needs to be said.

In fact I’ll even take it one step further: for as long as the Greens don’t address the core of sustainability issues, especially the continuous growth paradigm, they are effectively facilitating the continued antisustainable momentum of our society, which is just going to lead to greater environmental destruction, resource depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, societal stresses, and to a reduced ability and will to deal with the big-picture damage we are causing as more and more focus and money gets geared towards here-and-now crisis issues.

I know Eden really well. I know some of the chippers and the area they work in. The chippers get tired of the Liberals patronising to them when at the end of the day, they are doing a job, and they need to put food on the table.

The facts are that the number of chippers has been decreasing over the last 10 years. It is an industry that the town knows is in decline whether they like it or not. The coalition can't change that.

The town and the whole Sapphire Coast is moving on. The population of "seachange" people moving in is booming. Eden's real Estate prices are still rising, compared to Sydney.

The chippers are more concerned about the changes in IR laws than the Greens. The problem is that under the Howard plan for IR laws, if and when they lose their jobs, there could be little if no compensation, payouts, redundancy pay, or any industrial relations bargaining. They will just be kicked out in that cold, and that is that.

The Greens in these areas, like Eden Monaro are growing in membership. So much for the theory that chipping is such a concern down there.

As for sustainability, the Greens policy outlines more on sustainability than any other party running in the NSW State election.

The coalition wants population growth. Tony Abbott wants an Australian population of 60 million people in the next 10 years for a viable domestic market. Is that sustainable?

The greens want to build huge solar thermal power stations, like the model west of Liddel. They propose one west of Mooree, and one west of Coonabarabrin. They propose recycling water with various strategies for tanks, catchment and more efficient use of water.

If you can't see it in the policy, then I suggest you read it again.

I suspect that both major parties are out of favour with many voters at the moment.

Yesterday, I discussed sustainability and environmental issues with a federal Liberal MP. While courteous, I picked up on his dismissiveness (and disdain) over my concerns. Is this blinkered attitude the reason Libs do so poorly in state elections and remain in the wilderness?

The Greens deserve a chance - they couldn't be any worse than what we've had to ingest lately. The Greens lack of experience is not a real issue since governments make their decisions as a result of information gleaned from advisors anyway.

I believe it could be quite refreshing to see the Greens do better in the next election - providing they don't do any deals with Labor!
Hopefully, with additional Green MPs, they could better manage to "keep the bastards honest!"

With debates raging on climate change, global warming and sustainability, I reckon the next election will be the best opportunity the Greens have had for a successful outcome, since this party was formed.

I went back and had a read again, particularly their firearms policy as I live in a rural community.
This one's a lulu.
Quote:
33. Enforcement of regulations requiring guns in homes in rural communities to be kept in a metal box with a combination lock securely bolted to wall or floor, with firing mechanisms and ammunition locked in a similar box in a separate room; Unquote.

Now imagine this. Mum is really proud of her small mob of fine wool sheep.Their wool is an important part of the family's economy.
"Dad, I think there's dogs at the sheep"
Dad gets out of bed and goes to get the shotgun. He fumbles around in the dark trying to open the combination lock, but he can't so he gets the torch (silly man he should have had it with him at the bedside).
Finds torch and under its other-hand-shaded light he manages to open the lock, gets the gun out and then heads off, still in the dark to the spare room where the ammo. box is kept. Repeats fumble at the lock under the shaded torch light, gets it open, gets the ammo out and the firing mechanism, fits it to the gun using one hand as he still has to shade the torch.
Loads gun and goes outside. Bad bloody luck! six of the prize sheep are dead with their throats torn out and another four are walking around treading on their own entrails. The dogs are gone.
Sadly he goes back to get the .22rf rifle as he wants to not only put the sheep out of their misery but also to save the meat and skins; after all times are tough.

I don't think that The Greens thought this one through.

Is Mise

Try the Shooters website - they love blood and guts stories.

dickie,
Not a very constructive post, old chap, but I did take your advice and found The Shooters' Party site.
What a breath of fresh air. Policies laid out clearly and I found that they have been really active in Parliament, and have had a couple of acts passed.
Quite an achievement for a party with only one representative, very impressive. Here's a link to what they have achieved and to what they attempted.
I was surprised at the apparently helpful things that The Greens opposed.

http://www.shootersparty.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=45

Example:
Quote:Brought in so-called “Granny Bashing” Bill to provide heavier penalties for unprovoked attacks on the defenceless and vulnerable (very old, very young, mentally or physically impaired, people in vulnerable professions etc.) which became law in April 2002. Was opposed only by the two Greens and the Democrat in the Upper House, and went through the Lower House unopposed. unquote.
Would have thought that the Greens would have supported that at least.
Had another look at the Greens' web site, thought that I must have missed anything on their parliamentary achievements but they either haven't had any or they just forgot to put them on the site.

Is Mise

You state that: "I did take your advice and found the Shooters' Party site. What a breath of fresh air".

The remainder of your post contains very flattering commentary on the parliamentary achievements of the Shooters' Party.

However, in your thread "The Great Gun Buy Back", you report in your post of 20/2/07:

"Just found this during a Curiosity visit to the Shooters' Party site."

Is Mise, I do believe you have raised this thread on the Greens in a covert attempt to promote the Shooters' Party.

Those who have a hidden agenda by encouraging debate on one subject, to influence readers' thoughts on another, should first ensure that they are endowed with a good memory.

Gord, talk about reactionary! From Granny bashing to Labour bashing, Democrat bashing, the anxiety now is that the ALP will win by a landslide with current polls.

So they don't bother Labour Bashing, here we go, next easiest target: Green Bashing. Comm'n bullyboys, let's bash a few little Greens. How easy is that? How brave are you. Let's go bash the little Greens. We will look so clever. So tough. So credible. braaaahaahahahaha!

And Ludwig, your patronising statement "It pains me as a former Green in Queensland" does not give you credibility at all. It totally discredits you as an opportunistic rat setting new lows in arrogance. The Green's party is chock full of sections on sustainability and working with farmers. That is why it is called a Green Party.

The ALP goes into depth about "clean coal", whatever that is. The Liberals hint at Nuclear energy, but are not foolish enough to spell it out just yet. They won’t say whose back yard the nuclear power station will be built. They refuse to say how much it will cost and how long it takes to construct the things.

As to the policy on guns, the details could be pedantic but the gist of the guns being locked away from children sounds sensible to me. I wouldn't want my children having access to guns.

Their policies could be more general, but then they get the other accusation that their policies are "too thin". We can at least work out what kinds of things they have in mind, and the pedantic details can be sifted through later. I'm still not sure whom to vote for myself. It is a tough call...

dickie,
You're right, I do have a lousy memory. I'd completely forgotten that I'd previously visited the Shooters' Party site, and you did cause me to find it again, so now I've bookmarked it, thanks.

I guess I did extole them a bit but you must admit that in the absence of any claims by the Greens that they have any Bills to their credit then the Shooters' sole MP looks to be more effective.
I am at a complete loss as to why the Greens opposed the 'Granny Bashing' Bill. I would have thought that it would be in line with a careing attitude.

saintfletcher,
There is already a law that requires guns to be locked away.
Farmers and graziers who have dog or fox problems probably completely ignore it, as they must if they are to be anyway effective when dogs attack. There simply isn't time to go unlocking combination locks.
Here's one Green idea that's pretty clear:

17. The abolition of existing minors' permits.

With hat do they intend to replace them?
Or are they going to stop those aged between 12 and 18 years from having instruction in the safe handling and use of firearms?

If this latter is the case then the Greens must stand accussed of gross indifference to the future safety of the community.
On the one hand they demand the training of firearms users (which is already a requirement for a licence) then on the other they would deny such training to teenagers.
Strange

I posted this in response to Saintfletcher a couple of days ago and have just discovered that it didn’t go!

.
“As for sustainability, the Greens policy outlines more on sustainability than any other party running in the NSW State election.”

Well of course, but that’s not saying much.

“The coalition wants population growth. Tony Abbott wants an Australian population of 60 million people in the next 10 years for a viable domestic market. Is that sustainable?”

Obviously this is a million miles from sustainable. In fact it is absolutely horribly antisustainable. Just imagine how effective we would have to be in reducing per-capita resource consumption of just about all resources, and per-capita waste production and impacts on our environment, for the total impacts of a population three times the current size just to break with present impact!! How on earth are we supposed to make significant improvements on current levels of impact that are so badly needed in many areas?

The sort of population growth philosophy of Abbott and Costello is not one tiny bit less whacko than their namesake comedians’ antics were. But unfortunately it is 500 orders of magnitude more serious!

And what have the Greens got to say about it? Absolutely stuff-all!

Saintfletcher, lots of aspects of green policy would be good parts of a sustainability strategy. But in isolation, and especially without direct attention paid to the continuous growth paradigm, they fall way short of the mark.

Just to show that I'm not an all out Greens basher.

The Greens are on a winner with their proposals for more use of the rail network.
Any policy that reduces the number of heavy trucks on our highways has got to be a good thing.

Country NSW desperately needs the existing rail network to be opened up and the mothballed or abandoned lines to be brought back into use.
India, for an example, is investing heavily in railways. Thier's is probably the biggest in the world and is growing.

NSW which once had a large system, both in mileage and rolling stock, now lags far behind other countries.

India runs Express Passenger trains which consist of 22 x 60 foot long bogie coaches. Not just the one or two per day but dozens (or more).
NSW by contrast doesn't run any locomotive hauled passenger trains any more.
We have the self contained Explorer 4 and 6 car sets. Which have such an unfortunate habit of breaking down that they became known on the railway as the 'Exploders'.

Now for a bash.
Couldn't really believe that the Greens haven't thought things through, after all they've had plenty of time.

31. Guns in urban areas are to be stored at gun clubs under lock and key, with firing mechanisms kept at designated police stations;

This is really well thought out, if its aim is to cause the maximum of trouble for the poor old Law Abiding Firearms Owner, LAFO for short.

Now let's say it's Friday afternoon of a long weekend, and he's just got home from work. He lives in Newtown (inner Sydney). There's a call from a mate.

"Hey Blue, You doin' anythin' this weeken' 'cause I just got a call from Charlie [Charlie lives near Aberdeen, in the Upper Hunter area] 'e's 'avin' trouble with th' bloody dogs agin an' they're organizin' a shoot for Sat'dy night. Can ya come?'

"Geez mate, I'd like to but my rifle is at the club at Hilltop and that's 50 miles each way at least, then my designated police station is at Burwood 'cause th' local don't have storage facilities for the mechanism.
No, don't reckon I could make it. To far in the peak hour traffic and all. But maybe I could, I'll ring ya back".

Ends conversation with conventional farewells and rings Burwood Police station to arrange to pick up the mechanism without any delay.

"Sorry", says the probationary Constable on phone duty,"I'm the only one here because everyone else is out, there's some protest about coal trains going through Strathfield Junction and a 'bus has broken down on the Strathfield approach to the Freeway and it's blockin' two lanes and there's a fight at the market at Flemington and I don't have the authority to issue mechanisms.".

Ah well! Next time.

They are either very brave or very stupid to advocate no coal mining in Newcastle.

This might help

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations
In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001. His take on coal power:-:-

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."
He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104

What testing is done by Health Officials in areas near coal mines?

How do we know how much radioactivity is floating about mines, power-stations and slag heaps?

What is the Green's policy on Thorium reactors?

Used 'Google' a while back to have a look at the various party web-sites and made the, to me, amazing discovery that none of the parties, except one, provide any facilities for the ordinary voter to ask questions and interact with the candidates.
Surprisingly the one exception is The Shooters' Party, they have a normal website where anyone may join in discussion and ask questions.

Why do not Labor, Liberals and the Nationals offer the same service, surely they have the money?
One can understand, up to a point, that the Democrats, the Greens and the smaller parties might be strapped for cash and because of their small membership can't justify this provision of 'Participatory Democracy' on their sites.

Perhaps it is that they don't value the expression of opinions or are not game to answer questions or engage in open debate?

C'mon someone.
Defend them, engage in open debate.
I would have thought that at least one green supporter would come and do some little refutation.
I've been accused of being a stooge for the Shooters' Party but I'm not. I would really like to see someone refute what I've written.

Do the Greens mean what they say or, if not, is what is in their policies just waffle to fill in space?

Apart from their firearms policies what else is just twaddle?

Here's another one for consideration:

"20. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.".

Most of this is already the law, except that using one for personal protection is allowed by law when the threat to the user is such that the user believes that his/her life is threatened.

It is for the Court to decide not the Greens or any other political party if personal protection was justified.

Beware any Party that would usurp the prerogative of the Courts, or is this just another instance of not thinking things through.

I've been looking at everyones' policy statements as I haven't yet really made up my mind on who to vote for in the lower house, although I favour the local Independent.

I'm fascinated by the Greens though, I'm a keen shooter and I keep getting the feeling that they are out to pick on firearms owners and make life hard for them; consider this:

"38. A ban on the so-called sport of 'combat shooting' where participants use semi-automatic handguns to shoot human-shaped targets in simulated scenarios.".

Here's a group of pistol shooters firing at paper targets on an approved range, collecting all the spent bullets, reloading and
recycling, doing no harm to anyone.

The Greens want to stop it all.

Why? Because it is a danger? Apparently not, it's being done on a police approved range by shooters who have the Police Commissioner's approval, and who have passed all the requirements to be licenced pistol shooters, and who are under the supervision of experienced and accredited Range Officers.

Could it be that the Greens don't like what these people are doing? Spoil sports perhaps? Interfering busybodies?

What's next on the hate list, archery perhaps? Or darts ?
Now there's a nasty weapon if ever there was one, yobbos throw them at football matches in Britain; Germans used to drop them from aeroplanes in WW I and even the ancients were wont to fling them at each other.

Compare the Greens' policy on drugs. It could only be called solicitous and no where do they suggest that drug users, and therefore by law criminals, should be subjected to anywhere the same restrictions or proposed laws as Licenced Shooters, who are by any definition among the most law-abiding groups in society.

Has any Green come out and called for tougher laws against the use of firearms by drug growers, dealers, pushers and peddlers?
It's not uncommon to hear that the Police, at no small risk to themselves, have apprehended drug criminals who, along with illegal drugs also possessed illegal firearms.
Never a peep from the Greens. They target the law-abiding it seems.

You won’t get any defence of the Greens from me Is Mise.

I gave it my best shot with them in the early and mid 90s. But no, they just didn’t have it together.... and haven't improved.

I don’t know about the legitimacy of their policies on guns and drugs. And I can’t get enthused over them, for as long as they are so grossly missing the picture on vastly bigger issues, as outlined in my posts above.

So who do you vote for? I still think the Greens come closest to espousing the most important things for our nation and our quality of life. But nowhere near close enough to be effective or to deserve my vote.

Besides, with the incredible antidemocratic compulsory preferential voting system, my vote would end up counting for either Labor or Liberal anyway – whichever I put second last on my ballot paper…..even if I specifically and very strongly desired not to vote for either of the two big grossly future-destroying antisustainability political dinosaurs…which of course I do!!

This leads me to another major criticism of the Greens; their lack of outrage over this disgusting vote-stealing rort of a voting system.

So there is no-one for the true environmentalist and 'sustainabilityist' to vote for. And even if the there was, the growth-at-all-costs rush-towards-the-cliff parties would steal your vote anyway!

O what a mess Australian politics is in!

Recent, limited research has revealed that all political parties appear to support the hooched up "Guns for Fun" brigade (despite the Greens' platform) therefore, I suspect any future votes by me will be deemed Informal.

Dickie,

I respect your right to voice your opinions even though I disagree with them.

However here is something else to ponder; if it hadn't been for men with guns you wouldn't be allowed to express your opinions and certainly not in English, it is even doubtful that the Roman Alphabet would have featured on your keyboard.

We would probably have still had a Yen for money (lol, rolling eyes, smirk and other emoticons)

Read my lips, Is Mise. I specifically expressed opposition to guns for fun.

Guns for fun have no relevance to a country defending its territory where they must resort to guns.

You know about the shooters, Is Mise since you are one of them where you use guns for fun. That's why you are attempting to exploit the readers on this thread with your silly attempts, plugging away for the Shooters Party.

You are part of the brigade who salivate over the prospect of killing a defenceless beast or bird for no other reason than the thrill of the kill.

Sick sick - sickos!

Why don't you try shooting clay pigeons?

Dickie.

I do shoot for fun especially at clay pigeons, but they taste gritty and you have to boil them for ages before they soften.
I also shoot foxes and have killed hundreds over the years, more than 500 since I started to keep count.
Now as a fox requires an absolute minimum of 5 ounces of food per day that means that if we deduct road kills, rabbits and fruit/berries, say 50%, that means the rest is probably native animals, birds and reptiles.

So 500 X 2.5 = 1250 ozs, let us further postulate that each animal etc., saved by killing the foxes equals, on average 8 ozs, that's
1250 divided by 8=156.25 animals etc., per day.
Now 156.25 X 365 days(1 year) = 56,940. I shot those foxes over a ten year period so let us take 3 as the next factor.
56,940 X 3 = 170,820, that's a conservative estimate of the number of native fauna that I have saved and I am only one among thousands of shooters who have done the same.

Feral cats I haven't taken into the equation nor wild dogs of which I've only shot three. I have killed some two dozen feral cats.

Now Dickie have you done as much or even a fraction as much?
I doubt that the Greens have saved as many of our fauna as I have alone.

Yeah dickie, I'd figured Is Mise as some kind of sock puppet too with this thread - which is why I haven't responded until now.

Now that he's outed himself as a Shooters Party stooge, I'm glad I didn't bother.

What is with these guys who get their jollies out of killing defenceless animals - feral or otherwise - anyway? Where I live I'm surrounded by them and I still don't get it.

The common fox in Australia is the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). The vixen usually has a litter of 5 kitsalthough 13 have been recorded.
The biggest litter that I ever found was 7. I killed them all.
If half of the foxes that I've killed were vixens then we could say that had they all averaged 5 kits per litter and half of them were females then it follows that...Heck, it's beyond my limited maths
but I'm sure you get the picture. Exponentiality it's called.

Just how many more of our fauna have been saved, just by modest lil ole me alone.?

That's enough for now, I'm sure you'll agree, Dickie, except that I ought to point out that many of those who took up the gun to give you the security and freedom which you enjoy (I hope) learned their craft as civilian shooters, particularly as hunters.
That great 'fun gun' the 12 gauge double shotgun was used to train Air Gunners in WW II by having them shoot at clay pigeons.

Welcome aboard CJ.

Getting one's jollies out of shooting defenceless feral animals is called conservation, 'con-ser-vat-ion' in case you are not familiar with the word or the concept.
I put fox skins to good use and have some very practical and warm bed coverings made from them.
Unfortunately foxes are not edible. I do hunt deer though and have venison in the freezer at the moment allong with a dozen or so rabbits. No pig meat though as I don't like the taste. But killing them is good conservation as well.
I prefer to hunt my own food rather than buy my meat from a supermarket.
It's an old tradition with we hunter gatherers, in fact one of the oldest traditions of the human race

I’m impressed Is Mise.

So do you only shoot ferals?

Don’t worry, I’m not going to condemn you if you shoot the occasional wallaby or whatever for food.

I agree with what you said on 12 March –

“I don't think that The Greens thought this one through”

Re Is Mise:
I have rural & bush property in Northern NSW.
It has been my experience that shooters don’t just shoot ferals but anything within range.

They come onto your property uninvited.
They massacre wild ducks (& Ibis & swan apparently just for the thrill of it)

Often driving around bush roads you’ll find dead kangaroo, goanna, possum -shot & left to rot.

Irresponsibility & guns make a destructive mix & in my area at least, current provisions appear to be largely ineffective!

How would you remedy this -or doesn't it need remedying?

I actually have no problem with people humanely killing feral animals, or hunting unendangered species for food.

What I don't understand is how they actually enjoy killing things.

Ludwig,
Thanks for the kind remarks, In the broader sense I only shoot ferals.
With the newer hunting regimes a lot of what were considered feral are now game species, and require the appropriate Game Council licences.

Horus,
I'm a bit puzzled, is your bush property rural or in a town?
That aside there are a number of solutions to your problems:
1. Inform the police, making sure that you have collected all the relevant information, this not only helps them but lets them know that you are not just some nutter.
2. Inform your local Hunting or Target or Pistol club. They will spread the word and will be as anxious as you to stop irresponsible shooting.
3, Inform the nearest branch of the Sporting Shooters' Assoc, for the same reasons.
4. Arm yourself with a good digital camera with a really efficient telephoto lens and then photograph some of these people during their illegal activites, especially if they are on your property, then 1 above.
Just roughly where are you in Nth. NSW?

CJ.
How do you know that some shooters take a personal pleasure in killing?
Do you mean a personal, satisfying fulfillment in the ending of a life, a simple gratification of an urge to kill? Have shooters told you of this?

I must admit to getting real pleasure from whistling a fox up to within sure range of my gun and of killing it cleanly, that is instantaneously.
The most pleasure comes however from knowing that I am doing something positive in the field of conservation.
I really love marsupial mice, beautiful lttle creatures that quickly lose all fear and will sit on one's hand before being released. I use humane 'catch 'em alive' traps for house mice and occassionally a 'bush' mouse will be caught, that's when I sometimes have a chance to get close to a marsupial.
When I shoot a fox I often get pleasure, afterwards, thinking about the marsupial mice and other creatures that it wont have a chance to kill.

Another debate on the Greens going on at Debate and Relate. A bit more heated than this one:

http://www.debaterelate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=919&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Is Mise: "How do you know that some shooters take a personal pleasure in killing? Do you mean a personal, satisfying fulfillment in the ending of a life, a simple gratification of an urge to kill? Have shooters told you of this?"

I infer that some shooters enjoy killing from seeing them shoot animals such as tortoises, and from talking to guys who spend their weekends shooting any creature that has the misfortune to be dazzled by their spotlights.

I have no problems with shooters like Is Mise. Unfortunately, in my experience they are very much in the minority, particularly among the rednecks who support outfits like the Shooters Party.

Incidentally, one reason I support the current laws relating to the storage of firearms and ammunition, is that about 15 years ago a relative of mine was murdered by some young crims who had broken into a farmhouse and stolen a rifle and bullets. My stepfather had the misfortune of picking them up in his taxi, and they shot him for the $100 he had in his pocket.

My brother, in his youth, tore around the bush with unevolved, like-minded young guys, bragging about how many kangaroos they had slaughtered.

It pains him greatly now when he reflects on this regrettable, inhumane practice which he was party to.

With the exception of one of those youths, these men developed similar regrets about their testosterone driven actions for the thrill of a kill.

Why does Is Mise, in his quest for food, resort to stalking and slaughtering innocent animals?

And he can put a sock in his conservation spin which doesn't wash with me.

However, I'm happy to stand in my village square with my begging bowl if he's that hard up for a feed!

Dickie,
Why doesn't my conservation efforts wash with you?
I assure you that every fox destroyed saves some more of our fauna.

When the animal lib mob effectively put a stop to the trade in fox skins it meant that MILLIONS of Australian native animals, birds and reptiles were eaten because of the resulting blow-out in fox numbers.

It was only the hunters who had been keeping fox numbers in check, once the financial incentive was gone most shooters went back to punching holes in paper targets and hunting bunnies.

Now that the election is over could we just discuss the merits of some of the Greens' proposals.

"39. Rural owners of licensed firearms to limit their use of firearms to legitimate farm purposes, and to use their firearms in ways that minimise disturbance of people on neighbouring properties, and reduce lead pollution in the local environment.".

Dunno what to make of this at all.
Does it mean that Farmer Brown can't set up a target down in the back 1000acres, 5 miles from his good shooting mate on the next property and 24 miles from town, to do a bit of target shooting?
Would target shooting be a legitimate purpose on a property?

Then there's the lead polution problem, but it's no problem really because he has a bullet trap set up and recycles all his spent bullets; moulds new bullets and reloads the cases. Good conservationist this bloke.

From my (no doubt biased) point of view this is either an example of interference for the sake of interference or it bears out the contention that they haven't thought things through but have just scribbled something down to fill in space.

Found another beauty

"32. Regular unannounced checks by police or another enforcement body to ensure that individuals and clubs are abiding with firearm storage regulations"

Yahwol ! Mein Furher! Das democracie ist kaput, Ja?