Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Shooting In National Parks - NSW 31-May-2012 At 3:42:24 PM sleake

Message

On 31/05/2012 ARidgley wrote:
>Sleake, is your gripe a safety issue or an environmental issue?
>
>I'm not a hunter. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. However, I don't
>see any ethical problem with hunting, especially hunting for food. If
>an animal is going to die for my table, I'd rather it have a wild, free
>life first rather than in a pen or cage. That means I should hunt to satisfy
>my own ethic. I'm just too much of a coward.
>
>In my very limited experience, I've found most hunters to be environmentally
>aware and possessing very strict moral and ethical standards. I think
>many (if not most) would be more environmentally aware than your average
>national park tourist.
>
>Feral animals are a blight on our ecosystems. Yes, one way to control
>this would be through professional hunters. However, the NPs don't have
>that sort of money and never will. It's not a strategy that has any hope
>of working. Why not utilise people that want to do the job for free, provided
>they are regulated. I can't tell you what such regulation would look like
>because I'm not a hunter. But if a professional hunter can do it, then
>why not an amateur that sticks to the same regulations?
>
>As for safety, it gives me the willies too. But I admit to being ignorant.
> I'm not aware of the NZ case that you speak of, but no doubt it's a tragedy
>that could have been avoided. I wonder how many tourists in parks like
>Yosemite, Squamish, Zion etc have been taken out by climbers dropping or
>dislodging something. Should we be banned too.
>
>Without looking deeply into the regulations proposed I don't know if it's
>a good idea or not. But I sure can't say it's a bad idea either as there
>seems to be some real benefits if the safety side of things can be controlled.
>
>

Let me clarify my stance a little more.

Although I am somewhat sickened by the pride taken by many hunters in killing something when the odds are somewhat uneven (do it bear grylls style and ill give you cred!) I used to bow-hunt and have shot .22's at a few bunnies, and often spearfish - so no - I have no issue with killing something for food/sport/pest removal etc.

However, I have a little involvement work-wise with National parks as a nerdy biologist, and am becoming frustrated that national parks seem to be more and more for recreation than conservation.

In my view, this move will not affect feral numbers in any significant way.

'Pro hunters' have a job to do - and that is the removal of the pest - eg deer - and will hopefully not descriminate between a buck or doe, and just cull the quota required.

'Amatur hunters' are out for a good time, and will typically be limited to only a few animals, due to restraints such as carrying the meat out, refrigeration, etc etc. Typically they will choose the animal that is most suited to their needs - eg - the biggest Stag. It is not in their interests to wipe out a population by taking the breeding females, so they wont.

That aside, I am more concerned with safety.

In NZ - where hunting on DOC land is generally fair game, I have had one time up scott creek off the copeland valley - bashing through the scrub, scared a herd of thar, seen a few jump in front of me before gunshots rang out and the biggest Thar fell down dead. When I started screaming the house down, the hunter came out - hugely apologetic, but suprised that anyone could possibly be there. He had no idea I was there, and it was the last thing I expected to need to be worried about.

Once hunting is allowed, it become much harder to 'police' guns in national parks. Blanket rules make things much easier, once paperwork is required it gets more complex.

Steve