Look how close NSW Hunters can hunt near the ACT Border…

richiedt 4 June 2012 35
map

If you’re heading up to the Brindabellas anytime soon, maybe take at least two of the following items:

  • A very bright red hat
  • A high visibitliy vest, or
  • A bullet proof vest
  • A very good first aid kit…

Here’s where NSW Hunters will be able to hunt now…


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
35 Responses to Look how close NSW Hunters can hunt near the ACT Border…
Filter
Order
Disinformation Disinformation 9:30 am 08 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Disinformation said :

After a period of years in which the hunting was intense and the feral population decreased remarkably over a large area, park managers noted something that they couldn’t understand. Popular hunting enclaves that were totally cleared suddenly sprouted goats and pigs again, far in excess of the most fecund possibilities. Without accessways to the enclaves showing any signs of traversal.
The only logical explanations to this was that feral animals were conducting exploratory migrations by helicopter OR the animals were being deliberately re-introduced to repopulate accessable hunting grounds.
.

“We declared an unfenced area Feral-free and then a few years later we were proven wrong, so somebody must have deliberately re-introduced feral animals to the area”.

Classic bit of rationalising an observation which doesn’t fit with a core belief. Sadly, National Parks decision-making is made by people suffering from this sort of intellectual debility.

Except it was along the lines of “This small area with easy road access has had no ferals recorded for three years, but now has a population density consistent with eight years breeding potential and an environmental impact level of about two years. When nothing like this statistically exists within a several hundred kilometre radius, how can this have happened at this specific enclave?

The National Parks people do actually have contractors and consultants with a bit of a clue. Even CSIRO gets into the act every now and then.

I’m just pointing this out as an example how people are likely to take advantage of all situations if given the chance. If I lived next to a national park with a feral population, I would be very likely to be setting up trail camera just to see what was out there.

p1 p1 3:26 pm 07 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

p1 said :

HenryBG said :

Classic bit of rationalising an observation which doesn’t fit with a core belief. Sadly, National Parks decision-making is made by people suffering from this sort of intellectual debility.

Should be pretty easy to check using basic DNA profiling….

Oh, look….

Illegal Translocation And Genetic Structure Of Feral Pigs In Western Australia

Looks like a little bit of research (a sum total of 269 pigs over the entire area) and oodles of supposition, including in the title.

Not exactly a smoking gun.

No, the pigs might have wandered a couple of hundred km, or hitched a ride unknowingly with some innocent truck driver. Or maybe this is just one of the many articles which a quick google search tossed up, which tends to support an argument you are somewhat dismissive of, based on your sound reasoning that every single pig hunter is such a model citizen that they would never, ever, relocate a single animal, even if it meant never pig hunting ever again.

poetix poetix 2:52 pm 07 Jun 12

p1 said :

bean said :

Anyone up for an Annual Hunt of the Riotous?

Do you mean an activity where members of this site go out into the bush and shoot some feral animals, or do you mean an activity where you go into the bush and shoot some of the feral members of this site?

We can test out theories that being shot by a .22 is eminently survivable…only if it involves no cruelty to animals, of course.

HenryBG HenryBG 2:37 pm 07 Jun 12

p1 said :

HenryBG said :

Classic bit of rationalising an observation which doesn’t fit with a core belief. Sadly, National Parks decision-making is made by people suffering from this sort of intellectual debility.

Should be pretty easy to check using basic DNA profiling….

Oh, look….

Illegal Translocation And Genetic Structure Of Feral Pigs In Western Australia

Looks like a little bit of research (a sum total of 269 pigs over the entire area) and oodles of supposition, including in the title.

Not exactly a smoking gun.

p1 p1 2:07 pm 07 Jun 12

bean said :

Anyone up for an Annual Hunt of the Riotous?

Do you mean an activity where members of this site go out into the bush and shoot some feral animals, or do you mean an activity where you go into the bush and shoot some of the feral members of this site?

bean bean 1:45 pm 07 Jun 12

Anyone up for an Annual Hunt of the Riotous?

p1 p1 12:41 pm 07 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Classic bit of rationalising an observation which doesn’t fit with a core belief. Sadly, National Parks decision-making is made by people suffering from this sort of intellectual debility.

Should be pretty easy to check using basic DNA profiling….

Oh, look….

Illegal Translocation And Genetic Structure Of Feral Pigs In Western Australia

switch switch 11:47 am 07 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Classic bit of rationalising an observation which doesn’t fit with a core belief. Sadly, National Parks decision-making is made by people suffering from this sort of intellectual debility.

Many years ago Media Watch or whatever it was called then ran a piece about someone complaining loudly about planning then underway to shoot all the “bambis” (java deer, a real pest) in the Royal NP south of Sydney. MW showed the someone was also very closely involved with a shooter’s magazine, who didn’t want the population of deer disturbed. That way it could go on providing hunters with sport in the nearby state forests. Unfortunately he got his way, because the deer are still infesting the Royal NP.

HenryBG HenryBG 11:33 am 07 Jun 12

Disinformation said :

After a period of years in which the hunting was intense and the feral population decreased remarkably over a large area, park managers noted something that they couldn’t understand. Popular hunting enclaves that were totally cleared suddenly sprouted goats and pigs again, far in excess of the most fecund possibilities. Without accessways to the enclaves showing any signs of traversal.
The only logical explanations to this was that feral animals were conducting exploratory migrations by helicopter OR the animals were being deliberately re-introduced to repopulate accessable hunting grounds.
.

“We declared an unfenced area Feral-free and then a few years later we were proven wrong, so somebody must have deliberately re-introduced feral animals to the area”.

Classic bit of rationalising an observation which doesn’t fit with a core belief. Sadly, National Parks decision-making is made by people suffering from this sort of intellectual debility.

Disinformation Disinformation 9:45 am 07 Jun 12

While I’m generally in favour of the National Parks being hunted under controlled conditions, I am aware of at least one instance where a population of feral pigs was eliminated from one national park close to a large population base in NSW. Most of the goats were also heavily depleted. Tagged animals (also called “judas goats” like the ones at abattoirs) were used to locate and eliminate the herds. (This makes me think that the judas goat developed some serious self esteem issues, as bad things always happened to its friends…)

After a period of years in which the hunting was intense and the feral population decreased remarkably over a large area, park managers noted something that they couldn’t understand. Popular hunting enclaves that were totally cleared suddenly sprouted goats and pigs again, far in excess of the most fecund possibilities. Without accessways to the enclaves showing any signs of traversal.
The only logical explanations to this was that feral animals were conducting exploratory migrations by helicopter OR the animals were being deliberately re-introduced to repopulate accessable hunting grounds.
While I’m down for the eradication of introduced species through recreational hunting, it never occurred to me that this equation also works backwards. Re-establishment of recreational hunting through the reintroduction of species. I’m sure any National Parks people reading this are likely to know of this situation.

davesact davesact 1:34 pm 05 Jun 12

neanderthalsis said :

davesact said :

For what its worth… It’s your taxes people.

Can you cite any evidence to support this?

There have been ongoing conservation programs run by National Parks and Wildlife that allow recreational shooting of vertebrate pests in national parks in South Australia for some years. The restoration of the Gammon Range National Park in SA has been largely attributed to the controlling of the feral goat and rabbit population by hunters.

All I can say is my comment is a personal observation formulated from a number of things. 20 years, off and on, of pig hunting on local properties and large properties in western NSW. Reading the ACT Parks and Conservation Service Vertebrate Pest Management Annual Reports 2009-10 & 2010-11 among other things, which indicates a successful scientific programs. My point is not emotive. If it worked I’d be right behind it but I believe what will be a small reduction in feral species in Brindabella will result in a large increase of numbers in the ACT where there is nobody going bang to disperse them back.

p1 p1 10:59 am 05 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

I believe it has also been scientifically proven that feral animals thta have been shot stop breeding, while feral animals that are being “monitored” keep breeding.

Unless they are Zombie ‘Roos from the other thread….

Hunting pressures causing populations of ferals to migrating is almost certainly something that really happens. I can’t for the life of me think of a reason why this would mean you don’t hunt them though.

Sure, put in place some sort of rolling approval system so that a different part of the park can be hunted each month, make it more attractive for hunters to operate in the more remote areas so that ferals will migrate toward the borders – but don’t just give up.

HenryBG HenryBG 10:37 am 05 Jun 12

davesact said :

With feral animal control it has been scientifically proven that attracting a population to an area where they can be controlled and monitored works efficiently whilst on the ground shooting disperses populations into more inaccessible and remote locations. In our case that migration will be into Namdgi National Park. It’s your taxes people.

I believe it has also been scientifically proven that feral animals thta have been shot stop breeding, while feral animals that are being “monitored” keep breeding.

Dave’s ideas could explain why National Parks are such a massive reservoir of feral animals which constantly spill out onto private land.

p1 p1 10:22 am 05 Jun 12

c_c said :

….and ACT Policing said not so long ago it’s he most dangerous part of the job for the teams they have patrolling Namadgi. …

Having seen the way the ACT Police ride their trail bikes, I think that hunters aren’t the reason Namadgi is dangerous…

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 9:31 am 05 Jun 12

davesact said :

For what its worth having read the comments… I don’t think people understand or have forgotten the underlying principle in feral animal control. The most efficient way to create genuine reductions in population is to meet very specific targets for the number of animals killed. These numbers need to exceed the rate at which the population can replace themselves from breeding or Immigration.

It’s a pretty simple conclusion that recreational hunting has limited effect on feral populations in NSW as evidenced by the current levels in the state forests where consistent recreational hunting has been going on for a long time. Recreational hunters currently achieve nothing like the required numbers.
This is simply because of the nature of the quarry. With each hunting encounter a few animals (at best) are dispatched and the others disperse.
….

It’s your taxes people.

Can you cite any evidence to support this?

There have been ongoing conservation programs run by National Parks and Wildlife that allow recreational shooting of vertebrate pests in national parks in South Australia for some years. The restoration of the Gammon Range National Park in SA has been largely attributed to the controlling of the feral goat and rabbit population by hunters.

Northwest9 Northwest9 8:17 am 05 Jun 12

davesact said :

For what its worth having read the comments… I don’t think people understand or have forgotten the underlying principle in feral animal control. The most efficient way to create genuine reductions in population is to meet very specific targets for the number of animals killed. These numbers need to exceed the rate at which the population can replace themselves from breeding or Immigration.

It’s a pretty simple conclusion that recreational hunting has limited effect on feral populations in NSW as evidenced by the current levels in the state forests where consistent recreational hunting has been going on for a long time. Recreational hunters currently achieve nothing like the required numbers.
This is simply because of the nature of the quarry. With each hunting encounter a few animals (at best) are dispatched and the others disperse.

When an animal is repeatedly fired upon it can travel considerable distances. The notion that these animals stay in the area for the next encounter is ridiculous. The animals simply become more wary and disperse. Examples of feral pig migration from heavily culled areas in Western NSW from property to property are not uncommon.

The same principle applies for Brindabella National Park, 18,472 hectares, a concentrated area that will possibly see hundreds of shooters. Perhaps in concentrated hunting areas they should call it feral herding not hunting. The concept of amateur hunters eliminating feral species from the environment is simply unfounded. My best guess in our case will be a large proportion of feral animals under duress dispersing/migrating south/east into the Cotter Catchment, Pierces Creek, Uriarra and probably then Corin areas.

With feral animal control it has been scientifically proven that attracting a population to an area where they can be controlled and monitored works efficiently whilst on the ground shooting disperses populations into more inaccessible and remote locations. In our case that migration will be into Namdgi National Park. It’s your taxes people.

care to provide scientific research to back up your statements? or is it all hysteria over something you dont understand and thus dont like.

every pig, fox, goat, cat or wild dog shot in the national parks is a win for the native flora and fauna. i fail to see how the greenies cant see that.

feral pigs car produce up to 2 litters of usually 6 to 8 piglets a year, tho usually only one litter, depending on conditions. sows can live up to 8 years. one sow shot can potentially stop up to 128 piglets (worse case scenario) how is that not a good thing???

if you see a cockroach in your house, do you kill it, or leave it? because after all, killing the one cockroach isnt going to have an impact on the population…..???

Northwest9 Northwest9 8:07 am 05 Jun 12

shauno said :

c_c said :

Have you seen how many bullet holes there are in signs throughout Namadgi and the Brindabellas? The public toilet at Angle Crossing once looked like it had been done over with a Dillon Mini Gun.

You would have to be mad to think there isn’t gun activities going on around the place, and ACT Policing said not so long ago it’s he most dangerous part of the job for the teams they have patrolling Namadgi. And judging by some of the loud bangs coming from Canberra Nature Park late at night, there’s probably some stuff going on very close to homes too.

There’s also the illegal animal traps often found in Namadgi which present a hidden hazard to park users.

People are dills and will put others in danger, legal or not.

Personally, I think the new law should add a requirement that shooters carry $20mil public liability cover… so that the unlucky sod who gets a dose of buck shot will at least have his costs covered.

I believe SSAA membership which most have has that liability already.

certainly does. 1 of the requirements of the R-licence program is membership of a shooting or hunting club.

the logical option is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, whose members are provided with the public liability insurance required

shauno shauno 3:30 am 05 Jun 12

c_c said :

Have you seen how many bullet holes there are in signs throughout Namadgi and the Brindabellas? The public toilet at Angle Crossing once looked like it had been done over with a Dillon Mini Gun.

You would have to be mad to think there isn’t gun activities going on around the place, and ACT Policing said not so long ago it’s he most dangerous part of the job for the teams they have patrolling Namadgi. And judging by some of the loud bangs coming from Canberra Nature Park late at night, there’s probably some stuff going on very close to homes too.

There’s also the illegal animal traps often found in Namadgi which present a hidden hazard to park users.

People are dills and will put others in danger, legal or not.

Personally, I think the new law should add a requirement that shooters carry $20mil public liability cover… so that the unlucky sod who gets a dose of buck shot will at least have his costs covered.

I believe SSAA membership which most have has that liability already.

c_c c_c 8:19 pm 04 Jun 12

Have you seen how many bullet holes there are in signs throughout Namadgi and the Brindabellas? The public toilet at Angle Crossing once looked like it had been done over with a Dillon Mini Gun.

You would have to be mad to think there isn’t gun activities going on around the place, and ACT Policing said not so long ago it’s he most dangerous part of the job for the teams they have patrolling Namadgi. And judging by some of the loud bangs coming from Canberra Nature Park late at night, there’s probably some stuff going on very close to homes too.

There’s also the illegal animal traps often found in Namadgi which present a hidden hazard to park users.

People are dills and will put others in danger, legal or not.

Personally, I think the new law should add a requirement that shooters carry $20mil public liability cover… so that the unlucky sod who gets a dose of buck shot will at least have his costs covered.

davesact davesact 7:56 pm 04 Jun 12

For what its worth having read the comments… I don’t think people understand or have forgotten the underlying principle in feral animal control. The most efficient way to create genuine reductions in population is to meet very specific targets for the number of animals killed. These numbers need to exceed the rate at which the population can replace themselves from breeding or Immigration.

It’s a pretty simple conclusion that recreational hunting has limited effect on feral populations in NSW as evidenced by the current levels in the state forests where consistent recreational hunting has been going on for a long time. Recreational hunters currently achieve nothing like the required numbers.
This is simply because of the nature of the quarry. With each hunting encounter a few animals (at best) are dispatched and the others disperse.

When an animal is repeatedly fired upon it can travel considerable distances. The notion that these animals stay in the area for the next encounter is ridiculous. The animals simply become more wary and disperse. Examples of feral pig migration from heavily culled areas in Western NSW from property to property are not uncommon.

The same principle applies for Brindabella National Park, 18,472 hectares, a concentrated area that will possibly see hundreds of shooters. Perhaps in concentrated hunting areas they should call it feral herding not hunting. The concept of amateur hunters eliminating feral species from the environment is simply unfounded. My best guess in our case will be a large proportion of feral animals under duress dispersing/migrating south/east into the Cotter Catchment, Pierces Creek, Uriarra and probably then Corin areas.

With feral animal control it has been scientifically proven that attracting a population to an area where they can be controlled and monitored works efficiently whilst on the ground shooting disperses populations into more inaccessible and remote locations. In our case that migration will be into Namdgi National Park. It’s your taxes people.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site