The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > This is the type of person we do not need in the senate.

This is the type of person we do not need in the senate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All
It is understandable that the NSW Greens (and many ordinary citizens) would be concerned about the opening up of national parks to shooters - no matter how responsible and well trained those shooters might be; let alone under the fundamentally minimal-training and minimal supervision approach of the NSW Game Council (which has demonstrated itself to be little more than a 'boys club' primarily interested in having exclusive access to the hunting of deer, and in maintaining financial means to establish and run 'game farms').
In my estimation, the vermin-control argument put forward by the Game Council (via the NSW Shooters and Fishers Party) for access to State Forests, Crown Land and National Parks is mostly a smokescreen to enable access to the deer contained therein - though there will be many responsible environmentally-conscious amateur hunter members who do indeed hold such altruistic interests.

The Shooters and Fishers Party appeals in large part to a base of sport, recreation and hunting shooters for its very existence in the NSW Parliament, and the NSW Game Council was its 'jewel in the crown'.
Hence, by association, the Game Council is, or was, in a most fundamental way, political. For Brian Doyle to deny such association is/was a discombobulation of incomprehensible proportion.
TBC>
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 14 September 2013 4:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont'd>
From an ABC report, in part referring to statements by (NSW) Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson, contained in the following link:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2013-07-04%2Fgame-council-disbanded-but-volunteer-hunting-to-go-ahead%2F4800098&ei=3u8zUsWpJ6mZiQfj-IG4Bw&usg=AFQjCNH5rn2ZLqORq1DUNjLG37v-_CSpLQ&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aGc

>>>"The overall direct economic impact of the pest animals has been conservatively estimated at $740 million annually," Ms Hodgkinson said.

"Pest animals threaten 40 per cent of fragile biodiversity in NSW. There are 388 threatened species at risk, including 154 plants, 186 animals, 17 endangered populations and 31 endangered ecological communities.

"It is impossible to place a value on this cost to the environment."

A trial of the controversial plan to allow volunteer hunters will begin in 12 parks in October.

NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker says the trial will be regulated and managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and there will be strict controls and supervision.

"Only those volunteers who have the equivalent qualifications, experience and training as national parks staff will be able to participate," Ms Parker said.<<<

The Game Council has indeed been 'political', by virtue of its association with the Shooters and Fishers Party in the NSW parliament - which has claimed the Game Council as its 'baby'.

Genuine altruism (or guile) aside, the Game Council has not lived up to minimal expectations, and the NSW Greens and NSW Government had every right to query its continued operation and relevant funding.

Vermin control is a problem, but could not, and would not, be adequately addressed under Game Council management.
(However, licensing and operating provisos by NSW Environment Minister Parker are likely to preclude most amateurs from any participation in the 'new' arrangements. This would please some; but to the detriment of vermin control and native species conservation - unless effective 'management' arrangements can be worked out.)
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 14 September 2013 4:55:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Boyle was denying that he was political and that, as alleged by his attackers, he had political ambitions.
That he was working with members of a political party does not mean that he was political no more than the National Parks working with the Greens does.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 14 September 2013 5:39:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The NSW Greens members may have gotten a bit 'carried away' in their opposition to the proposed opening of national parks to 'amateur' hunters (under 'management' by the Game Council), and it would appear that they did misrepresent Game Council CEO, Brian Doyle, in part of their presentation, but at least some of their underlying concerns appear to have been vindicated by the subsequent disbanding of the Game Council.

However, I don't totally share the espoused views of these NSW Greens members (particularly as vermin control remains a significant concern), and would have preferred if more adequate and 'professional' arrangements could have been made with the Game Council, and via its relationship with the National Parks Service and other relevant government departments (Primary Industry, Environment).
The disbanding of the Game Council has missed out on an opportunity to implement reforms which could satisfy both the environmental interests and the interests of shooters to 'assist' in vermin control.
As it is, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

Left to National Parks (and Forestry Services), there is little hope that effective vermin control on public land could be achieved without either a large increase in relevant NPWS staffing, or by large expenditure employing professional hunters.
Room for a compromise (under appropriate 'conditions')? I certainly hope so.
(Bring on 'the Green Army'?)

Has this 'exercise' vindicated, or condemned, the participation of 'micros' (or minority interest Parties/Groups) in our parliamentary democratic system?
Yes or no, now, that is the question.
(I think they have a place, subject to them having earned a place honestly.)

An aside: It appears many of we OLO-ers might be categorized as 'the ancients' (or, more tactfully, as 'elders')? I wonder whether we have many/any generation X or Y participants?
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 14 September 2013 5:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Greens and Shoebridge, in particular, have been going on about amateur hunters but just what is an 'amateur hunter'? If the NP Rangers are professionals then heaven help us and the native wildlife.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:14:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mise: >what is an 'amateur hunter'?<

Well, they're the ones who don't get paid.
But, they are a mixed bag, including experienced, responsible hunters (excellent marksmen and stalkers), through to 'new chums'. It is only through appropriate training, assessing and duly-earned accreditation that some may be appropriately qualified to undertake game-hunting or vermin control on public lands (or any form of hunting, IMHO).
All necessarily hold a relevant firearms licence (issued by a State government authority), but this alone is not an accreditation of skill/capability, and is where additional hunting training by an accredited shooting/hunting organisation comes in. And, in this respect (of a lack of appropriate training and assessment) the Game Council rather let the side down (IMHO).

The Game Council issued 'R' licences, as a prerequisite for the hunting of 'game' (deer, ducks) on private land (with landholder approval), and for access to hunting of game or vermin on public land (under strict conditions). But, acquisition of an 'R' licence was really fairly easy - and shouldn't have been, given the attendant responsibilities. (Game Council management of public land 'permit' provisions also appears to have been a little 'loose'.)

The interests of 'native wildlife' (flora and fauna) requires the removal of competing 'exotic' species, and there ought be 'accredited' persons authorised and managed to undertake the removal of vermin. (One should not expect someone intent on deer to take opportunity to shoot a fox, feral-dog, cat, goat or pig. It would be counter-intuitive.)

Vermin control can include baiting/poisoning (rather inhumane), trapping (more humane, though still distressing for the 'captive'), and humane, swift, one-shot kill. I know which I prefer, when undertaken with 'professional' skill.
However, only a combination of control measures may ever be really effective - until biological control methods may be devised.
Shooting can and does have a legitimate role, when performed skillfully and responsibly. Its obviation from management of public environments will have a cost, for farmers, for native species, for 'humane' control, and potentially for the public purse.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 14 September 2013 8:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy