Hunting on public land

[harmonix1234]

Honestly I'd rather pest control be done by licensed trappers.

Me too. But unfortunately this is only practical with cats and myana birds. Foxes are terribly hard top trap, goats and deer are too large.
I support this though, but to trap deer, large boar and goats you need to use either very inhumane traps that harm and scare the animals and pose a great risk to humans or very large cage style traps that would be enormous and very hard to manage.

 

[dolphinman]

The shooters and vermin hunters talk a lot about shooting pigs, deer, foxes etc, no-one seems to mention wild brumbies - they would be great shooting I would have thought.

 

[harmonix1234]

The shooters and vermin hunters talk a lot about shooting pigs, deer, foxes etc, no-one seems to mention wild brumbies - they would be great shooting I would have thought.

Actually, a few years back there was a big problem with wild brumbies. can't remember which state.
The local government proposed that they recruit a small team of expreienced shooters and contacted the SSAA (Sporting Shooters Association Aus) and put out a tender for shooters to submit their quotes for the job at hand.
A number of shooters got approval to go in and target X amount over a period of a few months.
The greenies got wind of this (Don't mind the greenies but this ne stank) and made a big kick and a fuss about how people were gonna go in guns blazing and kill all these brumbies in a vicious display of destructive military might.
The greeines got the RSPCA involved who made such a stink about the whole thing the shooters ended up losing their contracts and getting sent back home just so the local pollies could save face.
The state gov then enlisted the RSPCA to deal with the problem and after six months of deliberating and troubleshooting they came to the conclusion that the only way to do it was to cull them with firearms.
But, the RSPCA would not have 'Hunters' come in and do the job, they would do it themselves.

They took it upon themselves to license two RSPCA employees and provide them with .223 calibre semi automtic rifles and a helicopter for a week.
These people, with no hunting experience or shooting expreience proceeded to fly up in the choppers and buzz the herds of brumbies who would panic and flee and the RSPCA employees would pepper these brumbies with an brutally damaging but underpowered rifle.

All they ended up doing was wounding several dozen brumbies, and they then had to call in professional shooters to go in a track the wounded brumbies and put them out of their misery.

Great big fucking mess it was.

BTW - I do support the RSPCA in what they do, and some of the greens so this is not a political rant. Just an example of how being idealistic is not realistic, and how shooting isn't bad. Shooting can be bad, and unfortunately can be possibly the worst thing in the world. But it generally isn't.

Of all the rifles in Australia that are shot everyday at ranges and in paddocks and in forests, how often do you hear of an injury or a fatality?
It can be safe, and it can be fun, and it can be productive.

 

[0psi]

Of all the rifles in Australia that are shot everyday at ranges and in paddocks and in forests, how often do you hear of an injury or a fatality?

In NSW at least in the past 15-20 years there have been a bit over 20 hunting related deaths, a bit more than 1 per year. . . . . However. . . The overwhelming majority have been misadventure. Drowning, quad bike roll over, car crash that sort of thing. In fact in recent times only 4 deaths have been firearm related and a couple of those were accidental discharge which killed the owner. Of the couple left the deaths remaining they both involved members of the same party. There is no record of an innocent bystander being killed by a hunter.

Thanks Harmonix for outlining the process needed to hunt on public land. General Joe Public seem to think that once an area is opened up to hunting it's just a free for all which couldn't be further from the truth. It's also worth adding that the number of permits given for any period are limited. Most State forests would only issue 3 permits at any one time and what you are allowed to hunt is also restricted.

 

[MARKL]

I see both sides of the argument and I think in a perfect world it can work, problem is <<stupid/drunk/angry etc>> scares the fcuk of me. I grew up listening to the stories of my grandfather and uncle etc hunting and it was that perfect world or responsible, careful accident free. However I can remember being invited on hunting trips by mates in my early 20's 'yeah sink piss, shoot stuff...Fred didn't have the safety on, gun went off,,ha ha'.

Doesn't matter how good the screening is you will end up with both groups. So if they are going to do it then resource it properly, physical resources, legislation etc, not sure if you can write a 'dickhead clause' into legislation but it needs one:

'If your a dickhead no warning, lose yours and ya mates licences forever and we confiscate ya guns.

Love BOF'

And if it isn't going to be resourced properly then don't do it.

 

[poita]

I'm currently travelling around the country and have probably seen more feral animals than natives. Every national park I have been in so far I have seen feral animal damage, and in most I have seen dead native wildlife, most likely killed by feral animals. I have never been hunting with guns or rifles, but if hunters could reduce even a small amount of the feral animal population, I would put my hard earned cash up for them to do it. As much as trapping and baiting would be nice, some species are pretty resistant to those methods and shooting is the only option. As much as I hate the thought of "yobs with guns" everywhere, having seen the number of feral animals, the "greenest" thing to do is get hunters in I think.

 

[Arete]

I'm a population geneticist by profession, currently working on a couple of population eradication projects - notably to do with leishmaniasis, sleeping sickness and malaria.

When you reduce an eradication problem down to a set of algorithms, there's several essential components -
Nc - census population size: This is the absolute number of individuals in a population and ultimately what you want to reduce
Ne - effective population size: This the number of breeding individuals actively contributing to the gene pool of a population. Reducing this reduces the genetic viability of a population
Pgr - population growth rate: The number of individuals coming into a population either through breeding or migration
Pdr - population decline rate: The number of individuals leaving a population either through death or emigration
K - carrying capacity: The absolute number of individuals which can persist in a given spatial area.

There are a series of equations and summary statistics you can generate from genetic sampling of a population to generate predictive models, to examine how a particular mechanism will impact each of these parameters. While it may be counter-intuitive at first glance, if you don't significantly increase Pdr relative to Pgr, the Nc remains at K (exactly what you want if you're say, managing a fishery). Furthermore, if you aren't removing individuals who are members of the effective population, reductions in Nc are temporary with no overall effect on the genetic density of the population. Therefore for recreational hunting to be considered an effective control measure, it needs to increase Pdr significantly in relation to Pgr, and it needs to be removing members of the effective population.

There have been a number of studies done on deer, pigs, goats, etc. which demonstrate that the impact of recreational shooting on Pdr in these populations is generally insufficient to significantly reduce populations below K, as the Pgr exceeds changes to Pdr. Furthermore, in many cases hunters prefer to remove large males rather than breeding females, thus not affecting Ne and deliberate releases to sustain populations for hunting have been observed.
E.g.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2403610
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR02100
http://143.188.17.20/data/warehouse/mvpfgr9abr_001/mvpfgr9abr_0010111a/ggchap1_6.pdf

However in some cases, maintenance of Nc below K through recreational hunting have been observed (e.g. in prairie dogs http://www.jstor.org/stable/3802300) but eradication was shown to be unachievable.

So, in most cases, recreational hunting can't be relied upon as an effective population control measure for pest eradication - despite it often being a politically attractive option. The number of animals killed by hunters would need to drastically increase in many cases, and be maintained at these much higher levels for any real impact to be achieved.

The remaining arguments for hunting usually center around the right to recreation, and the economic impacts of hunting.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

I'm a population geneticist by profession, currently working on a couple of population eradication projects -

Nice one!. Do any of those projects involve the population of Perth?

 

[harmonix1234]

I'm currently travelling around the country and have probably seen more feral animals than natives. Every national park I have been in so far I have seen feral animal damage, and in most I have seen dead native wildlife, most likely killed by feral animals. I have never been hunting with guns or rifles, but if hunters could reduce even a small amount of the feral animal population, I would put my hard earned cash up for them to do it. As much as trapping and baiting would be nice, some species are pretty resistant to those methods and shooting is the only option. As much as I hate the thought of "yobs with guns" everywhere, having seen the number of feral animals, the "greenest" thing to do is get hunters in I think.

Baiting is terrible.
Since they introduced baiting in Tassie the Eagle population has plummeted.
Eagles are predators but they also eat carrion, and baited carrion is toxic.

Baiting is also very inhumane.
Basically it liquifies the insides of the animal and they hemmorhage to death.
A slow and painful miserable death. Just horrible.

 

[harmonix1234]

So, in most cases, recreational hunting can't be relied upon as an effective population control measure for pest eradication - despite it often being a politically attractive option. The number of animals killed by hunters would need to drastically increase in many cases, and be maintained at these much higher levels for any real impact to be achieved.

The remaining arguments for hunting usually center around the right to recreation, and the economic impacts of hunting.

Thanks for this post. I guess some eradication is better than none.
What seems to be the most effective means of pest erdication? Poison, introduced virus(s) like calici or myxo (Are they even viruses? I don't know?)

 

[poita]

Baiting is terrible.
Since they introduced baiting in Tassie the Eagle population has plummeted.
Eagles are predators but they also eat carrion, and baited carrion is toxic.

Baiting is also very inhumane.
Basically it liquifies the insides of the animal and they hemmorhage to death.
A slow and painful miserable death. Just horrible.

But we now have the wonderful (kinda sorta) anti-coagulant warfarin after the discovery of this type of poison! I agree about baiting though.

And thanks to Arete for the correct information! Very interesting, I think most hunters would be reluctant to kill breeding females due to the inability to conclusively confirm a clean kill for any young.

 

[0psi]

So, in most cases, recreational hunting can't be relied upon as an effective population control measure for pest eradication - despite it often being a politically attractive option. The number of animals killed by hunters would need to drastically increase in many cases, and be maintained at these much higher levels for any real impact to be achieved.

It's funny you mention that. A hunter I was speaking to a while back who mentioned that hunters will never eradicate a species because that would mean they no longer have a sport. While I agree that recreational hunting will never eradicate a species I think it can certainly help limit the damage ferals do to our natives and landscape.

There will always be the drunken idiot out there but I think they'll be there regardless of whether it's legal or not. And yes I keep bringing up self regulation and I do genuinely think it will work. I was talking to a hunter only this morning about this very topic and he mentioned that he's reported several illegal hunters in the past. He also mentioned a group that's been hunting illegally near Lithgow and recently released pigs into the area. As he put it, "That shit just ruins it for everyone". The majority of those that hunt responsibly won't stand for that kind of action and realise it threatens their sport.

 

[Joel O]

A few more points to consider:

My observation is that in a lot of cases rec hunters eat MUCH less meat sourced from agricultural methods, which can have a significant negative environmental impact. The environmental impact is greater than just the re moval of ferals.

Whilst there will be countless exceptions, most of the people I come across who are vocally against hunting in NP's and hunting in general spend little, if any, time out there enjoying these areas they are so adamant we need to "protect". My hunting mates are getting out to these areas at every available opportunity.

There will always be a redneck element doing more harm than good, but there seems to be an increasingly large group of image conscious hunters making a real effort to educate the general public on what hunting is all about. these guys come to mind (https://www.facebook.com/groups/gourmethunters/ or http://gourmet-hunters.com/category/gh-adventures/) but there are plenty more.

 

[Arete]

What seems to be the most effective means of pest erdication? Poison, introduced virus(s) like calici or myxo (Are they even viruses? I don't know?)

There doesn't appear to be a definite answer for every case. For mosquitoes, who only mate once, the release of sterile males into a population seems to be highly effective. Females mate with sterile males instead of fertile males, and then lay inviable eggs. For tsetse, widespread spraying of pyrethroids seems to be effective. In NZ, 1080 seems to be the best way to clear an area of feral mammals.

To dispel one myth here - the poisons typically used to kill pest animals do not "liquefy" and animal's insides. Warfarin and derivatives common in rat bait are anticoagulants - many humans take therapeutic doses of Warfarin as a blood clotting preventative. Lethal doses block the syntehsis of vitamin K and cause death through blood loss - not by liquefying organs. 1080 blocks the citrate cycle which stops cell metabolizing, resulting in seizures and ventricular fibrillation (i.e. heart attack). Neither sound like much fun, but they aren't intentionally cruel methods either.

It's funny you mention that. A hunter I was speaking to a while back who mentioned that hunters will never eradicate a species because that would mean they no longer have a sport. While I agree that recreational hunting will never eradicate a species I think it can certainly help limit the damage ferals do to our natives and landscape.

What I'm actually saying is that in most cases it has no effect.

As an example say you have 200 beers in your fridge and that's all you can fit (Nc = K = 200), each week a "hunter" comes over and drinks three of them (Pdr = 3) but each week you buy a new case (Pgr = 24), and replace the beers that are gone. As a result, despite the "hunter" drinking 3 beers a week, your fridge always has 200 beers in it, and beer "hunting" has no net effect on the population size of beers in the fridge (Nc always = 200). In order to have an effect, the "hunter" would have to increase his "take" (Pdr) to more than 24, and to have any lasting effect it would have to remain above 24 indefinitely.

 

[driftking]

I'd rather controlled hunting over the idea that was brough up to poison them instead that's just stupid. I'd prefer legal trappers to do it, however it probably runs more risks of people walking into traps or he like, at least a gun has to be discharged. Down here there was some questioning that they wanted to legalise 13yr olds to shot in the national parks. (Anyone want to set this law straight I have a feeling it might not be so clear cut)

I think its ridiculous to let a 13yr old to own a fun in the first place, ok technically the parent needs to have control of it but a 13yr old does not have the cognitive development or reaction development to hand a firearm in a dangerous or split second situation. I'd be happy to see the laws stay as is but definaitly not lessen them.

There are lots of hoops to jump through to get a gun but I think its great it makes sure that the people who get guns are checked thoroughly and have proper security In place to have guns. Once you own a gun its not hard to stay within the law (from what I have been told by a gun owner).

As long as thier are stringent laws in place and hunters abide by them I have no issue with it due to low shooting incidences from hunting. Sure I hate the possibility of been shot if I was a bush walker but seriously got a better chance of winning lotto. I'm assuming there is zoning for shooting?

It's not a viable way to control pest but it might slow the growth by a few a week haha.

Arete
Curious are the disease you produce or consider modified to not pose a risk to humans, I'd hate the idea of releasing malaria or similar disease that could have a effect on human health. Our also be curious what would hunters who eat thier meat so in this case if they were to eat infected meat?

 

[Arete]

Arete
Curious are the disease you produce or consider modified to not pose a risk to humans, I'd hate the idea of releasing malaria or similar disease that could have a effect on human health. Our also be curious what would hunters who eat thier meat so in this case if they were to eat infected meat?

Are you talking about diseases released as biological control for pests? These are generally zoonoses - diseases which can only infect animals and are benign to humans. Usually of far greater concern is the risk they pose to native animals closely related to the target - e.g. if you released a disease which attacked cane toads, would it attack native frogs as well?

One other interesting facet I'm looking at in a new job starting next month is host switching in viruses - i.e. how a virus which infects one host evolves to infect another. An example is influenza - the strains that infect humans are a small subset of the ones which birds carry. There were some experimental evolution labs looking at how many evolutionary steps it took for a bird influenza to become a human influenza a while ago, which the media got hold of and blew up into "OMG scientists are making super killer flu in their labs" and it was all shut down (http://theweek.com/article/index/248092/scientists-want-to-make-a-deadly-new-superflu-even-deadlier). So we don't have a good handle on how many steps a benign flu virus has to go through to infect humans, and even less of an idea for almost all zoonses likely to be considered for biological control.

However most things that would be considered would be far removed from human diseases as to make host switching to humans a very unlikely event.

 

[dcrofty]

IDown here there was some questioning that they wanted to legalise 13yr olds to shot in the national parks. (Anyone want to set this law straight I have a feeling it might not be so clear

The original proposal by the (now defunct) NSW Game council was that children as young as 12 would be allowed to hunt unsupervised in some National Parks. I found a likk to a SMH article about it but cant drive my phone well enough to post it
They also refused point blank (pun intended) to instigate a system of practical testing before hunters would be allowed into national parks. Theory tests only.

 

[harmonix1234]

The original proposal by the (now defunct) NSW Game council was that children as young as 12 would be allowed to hunt unsupervised in some National Parks. I found a likk to a SMH article about it but cant drive my phone well enough to post it
They also refused point blank (pun intended) to instigate a system of practical testing before hunters would be allowed into national parks. Theory tests only.

Fark! 12, unsupervised? that's nuts.
But you cant currently shoot, own, or get licensed at 12. You have to be 18 at the moment.
Did they want to change the law? That's rooted.

(I think you can currently get approval to shoot competition limited calibre at sanctioned SSAA target shooting events as a junior, not sure on age limit though)

 

[harmonix1234]

Are you talking about diseases released as biological control for pests? These are generally zoonoses - diseases which can only infect animals and are benign to humans. Usually of far greater concern is the risk they pose to native animals closely related to the target - e.g. if you released a disease which attacked cane toads, would it attack native frogs as well?

One other interesting facet I'm looking at in a new job starting next month is host switching in viruses - i.e. how a virus which infects one host evolves to infect another. An example is influenza - the strains that infect humans are a small subset of the ones which birds carry. There were some experimental evolution labs looking at how many evolutionary steps it took for a bird influenza to become a human influenza a while ago, which the media got hold of and blew up into "OMG scientists are making super killer flu in their labs" and it was all shut down (http://theweek.com/article/index/248092/scientists-want-to-make-a-deadly-new-superflu-even-deadlier). So we don't have a good handle on how many steps a benign flu virus has to go through to infect humans, and even less of an idea for almost all zoonses likely to be considered for biological control.

However most things that would be considered would be far removed from human diseases as to make host switching to humans a very unlikely event.

There is speculation that the tassie devil tumor epidemic's related to baiting. No direct evidence though.

 

[dcrofty]

Fark! 12, unsupervised? that's nuts.

I used to hunt unsupervised on our family property when I was younger than that. In NSW it was at the time possible for kids under 18 to get a minors permit. I dont agree with kids that age doing it on public land though.