If you knew anything, Paul, you'd know that rifle clubs must have a minimum membership and must be a legitimate organization under the Firearms Act to be recognized by the Commissioner of Police.
Ditto to be recognized by both State and Federal Governments, for the purpose of grants etc.

Do you think that conservationists should fund any sanctuaries or National Parks that they use?

Does the Government having decreed that shooters must attend a range at least four times a year then, to allow compliance with the law, the Govt should provide facilities to allow such compliance?

Hassy, narcissism you don't know the meaning of the word.
You claim greyhound racing is safe for the dogs, then I post a random Stewards Report from within the rubbish business itself, from a recent meeting, which indicates at least 6 greyhounds were injured at that meeting or had to be scratched due to pre race injury, or injury sustained recently at another meeting.
I have been at trial tracks and witnessed rabbits and possums being used to bait greyhounds.
Provide evidence that racing is safe for greyhounds.

No reason why conservationists should fund public parks as they're there for the public not hobbyists.

I'm a sporting shooter who uses the ANZAC Rifle Range so you can call me biased if you like but there are a few indisputable facts that you should consider.

1) the headland has been used as a musket/rifle/shooting range since around 1850.
2) if the headland was not a rifle range it would not exist as open space today, it would have been sold to developers a long time ago.
3) the ANZAC Rifle Range is the oldest rifle range in Australia, it has hosted the Kings, Queens and British Empire Medal international shooting competitions. The current Queens Competition held on the range can trace its history back to Queen Victoria.
4) Australia did not have a defense force at the start of WWI, we had a part time militia made up of members from the local rifle clubs. The members of these clubs fought and lost their lives during WWI and most of the wars since that time.
5) Most of the rifle clubs using the range today can trace their history back to before WWI.
6) The rifle range was renamed to the ANZAC Rifle Range to honour the Rifle Club Members who fought and lost their lives in these wars.
7) The rifle range was used by about 1000 people per week until the Government terminated the leases of the horse riding school, aero modelling clubs and other sporting shooter clubs in 2011.

IMO, the headland should be shared with other public users as it was before the Government terminated leases but you cannot blame the shooters for that. The Government promised to return the horse riders to the headland nearly 2 years ago.

If we value Australian history and our ANZAC heritage perhaps we should support the ANZAC Rifle Range ?.

If you believe the rifle range and sporting shooters should pay a commercial rent for the use of this public land then are you also saying that this should apply to all golf clubs, parks and sports activities held on public land ?.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_Headland

Fund it by a user's fee the way golf clubs are on public land. Not by a free transfer of control to a group of gun hobbyists. Call tenders for an official administrator, tenderers to specify truthfully how many shooters they represent and how much they undertake to remit to the public purse.

Paul C, you seem to be a reasonable and nice bloke, all Paul's are. As a progressive environmentalists and a local, I did say to Issy and Hassy, that the rifle range was in my opinion the second best choice for the land at Malabar. This was despite numerous governments and oppositions promising for years to eventually turn the land over to passive public use.
We know there was a secret late night deal stitched up between the government and senator David Leyonhjelm to favor the gunnies, again questionable. What EI posted is totally reasonable and fair, why dose Issy object? I also favor the 'Pony Club' being located on the headland.