It would be unreasonable to expect that a new party such as the Australian Shooters and Fishers Party (ASP) would be doing any better. They wouldn't be fielding candidates in all seats and nor would they have the wealthy benefactors that are behind the Greens.

The ASP policies would be attractive to the many Australians who prefer reasonableness and practical solutions, civility too.

Incidentally, what links are there between the interfering international billionaire currency dealer's Soros organistion and that anonymous, secret-squirrel 'gun control' site and the Greens, the Trotskyist 'Watermelon' faction in particular?

To answer your question Beach, none at all. That might be the Shooters excuse for failing to score a vote, what's yours and Jim's considering your mob have been around for yonks. Ross was attacking Asians back in the sixties.

The Australian Shooters and Fishers Party (ASP) does have sensible policies that should have broad appeal where voters want a sound, stable option outside of Labor & LNP and have qualms about the intransigence and idealism of the Greens protest party.

Australian Shooters and Fishers Party (ASP)
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/

The ASP would be attractive to families and older voters as well I imagine. Many Baby Boomers want to travel within Australia and they are keen on low-cost caravanning and camping. The Greens want to fence off all national parks and reserves, which is un-costed idealism that taxpayers and campers will pay very dearly for indeed. That is if they are allowed to visit reserves anymore.

I have never been associated with any political party or lobby, so you are wasting your slurs on me, Paul1405.

Beach, I don't know about that! You seem to articulate the views of the extreme right at times, to a point of paranoia against the moderate Greens, so I take it you must be associated with such a group of right wing extremest like Australia First. Another poster who's views are some what similar to yours let the cat out of the bag, saying his like minded group, are you also a member of a like minded group?

As for the Shooters Party, they tend to be associated with a single issue, hunting/shooting/camping. You say their policies should appeal to the moderate baby boomers, over 50's section of the community, and it should. The problem being two fold, firstly the "stigma" of being associated with the one issue. Then there is the problem of competing with a number of similar parties aiming for moderate appeal, including The Christian Democrats, Family First, along with numerous micro parties. At the same time the two major parties also offer moderate appeal, not surprising as moderate voters form by far the biggest voting block.
Then there is the reality of finance and membership numbers, one of the reasons PUP did so well in the Senate was the fact they were able to contest every lower house seat, maximizing their Senate vote.
The Greens have moved beyond the micro party status, it has taken 20 years. The party has a broad membership base, and has moved well away from the single issue of the environment alone, but still retaining its core principles. The Greens defiantly articulates an alternative to the majors on all manor of issues. The party gets very good media coverage, a necessity in this day and age of TV politics. All this helps to foster broad based appeal. I will admit, the Greens is not the party for everyone, no party is, the Democrats tried that some years back and failed badly, Labor also had a go at it and lost direction. The Greens are reasonably well financed, which is a necessity in these days of expensive politics. .

Maybe the Shooters' and Fishers' should start lying,
seems to help the Greens.
Maybe they could also have wacky policies like requiring farmers to use combination locks, instead of the Government approved ones, on their gun lockers/chests.

The Shooters and Fishers Party are eminently sensible, practical and have consideration for costs in their policies.

I was quite impressed for instance by the work they have put into their "Fair Recreational Access" policy for Crown land that was always set aside as parks for the public, not to wall out the public so a few rangers and their invitees could selfishly enjoy them.

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/files/1/206476483/recreational-access-19-oct.-2013-.pdf

There are thousands of Grey Nomads who have worked their hearts out for Australia in their jobs, raising families and in community service. They have paid taxes all of their lives. If in their final years they want to gradually tour the country they supported and likely fought for as well, they should be able to do that.

Likewise families should be able to go camping as their parents and grandparents did. Young people should be able to car trip and backpack too and basic facilities should be provided.

I would have to say that young families, student backpackers and grey nomads would be foolish to cast a vote for the Greens, who for political convenience have thrown their lot in with the fat cats of the National Parks and Wildlife service to create a monster department to gobble up all local, State and federal agencies with a stake in stock routes and so on.

The NPWS has a very poor record in controlling feral pests and weeds. The very last thing the public would want is more registration and pre-booking to travel anywhere and more fees. It is becoming like some Communist country where you are obliged to get prior approval to go anywhere and have to carry papers. Except the greens and NPWS have the public paying for the privilege and require stickers on windscreens as well. It is double and triple taxing and it encourages people to tour overseas instead.

The greens and NPWS are spoilers who see the public as their enemy.