Issy, we don't have the mass of money pouring in from the NRA to purchase sheep stations! We are not the SSAA.

Paul,

Even if you drag up something from a century ago, the sports hunters are not responsible for crimes of the past and especially the Brumbies.

The facts are simple, the most humane and practical solution for reducing the numbers of large feral animals is by using qualified marksmen who can guarantee clean kill.

Don't let your pathological hatred of guns cloud your judgement. (Christine Minge could have benefited)

Paul,

"Issy, we don't have the mass of money pouring in from the NRA to purchase sheep stations! We are not the SSAA."

Care to back up that assertion with facts?

The SSAA are subject to and comply with Australian law and publish a financial statement every year.
There are no funds from the NRA, if there were the Greens (Trotskyite division) would have presented the evidence years ago, no wonder you can't come up with anything.

Have you found out yet where your secretive mates, Gun Control Australia, get their money from, can't be from members subscriptions as they only have three members, and not all of them are the full quid?

The Greens are indeed not the SSAA, the Greens are the friends of feral predators.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/farmers-hope-hunting-plan-will-curb-feral-animal-problem-20120601-1zn68.html

Then there is "Hardacres", a property of some 750+ acres, between Armidale and Inverell, NSW, that the SSAA have purchased for around $500,000 and on account of which they will spend a further $750,000 on all-weather road access, which is fair enough, as the local ratepayers should not have to foot the bill for the increased traffic.
This property will have a number of ranges as a shooting complex and will be another refuge for native animals.

The local Greens have objected as a matter of course.

//Not hard evidence//

[initiate sarcasm mode]

Gosh, what a surprise that you are, once again, unconvinced by fairly conclusive evidence of naughtiness on the part of shooters.

Because naughtiness, well, it's just not something that shooters get up to, is it Is Mise? Perish the thought! Why, 'tis a fact well known, to those who know it well, that all shooters are erudite gentleman conservationists. And the notion that any hunters might just be pissed-up bogans who do indeed get up to the occasional bit of naughtiness... well, all that can be said to that is tish, tosh, and old wet fish!

Holes shot in road signs? Piffle; those are caused by mischievous fairy-folk with hammers. Even the ones that really look like bullet holes. Especially the ones that that really, really look like bullet holes.

Hunters releasing feral species in order to have something to shoot at? Lies, calumny and slander: those gentleman conservationists were going to eat all those feral pigs just like they claimed, damn the risk of the disease, for that is the way of the gentleman conservationist.

People getting a bit trigger happy and mistaking a wombat for a particularly stout and short-tailed fox? Simply unheard of. Why, a gentleman conservationist would sooner turn his gun upon himself than upon some poor hapless protected species. Their only interest is in shooting those feral species which have popped up by themselves and have definitely not been dumped in order to provide a bit of sport.

Gentleman conservationists are well-mannered, educated, civically-minded and of the highest moral calibre. They do not over-indulge in hard liquour, and never behave in an uncouth, uncivil or irresponsible fashion. They are all, to a man, pillars of society.

And the idea that many shooters are dumb rednecks who just like things that go bang and who think that the 'no handling the guns after more than 10 cans of bundy & coke' rule constitutes responsible firearm safety is just fake news. No hunters like that, nosirree.

Or at least, that's Is Mise's story and he's sticking to it.

And we'll all believe it when he produces HARD EVIDENCE - not just charming, twee little anecdotes about his adventures as a gentleman conservationist - but HARD EVIDENCE to convince us that his claims are true.