national park visits

Those brumbies and camels may be introduced and doing some damage (not aware of any evidence as to how much) but geez it's bloody lovely seeing them.

Will never forget the brumbies at a hut in the mist on dusk in the high country. Magical experience.

And when we did the desert trips (Canning, Simpson, Anne Beadell etc) we looked forward to sighting camels.

Cats - yep shoot the bloody lot. Pigs likewise. But it will never happen - too many of the buggers out there now.

Don't have a problem with regulated shooting in NPs or SFs (although I see that Game Council was recently wiped out in NSW so SFs now off the shooting list). Wonder if the NP program will now get to go ahead???

Use of army for pest control - not a bad idea, however machine guns would necessitate total closure of the area being cleaned out and that would not go down well with some.

Finger crossed it's not going to happen to one of my favorite NPs

Mountainman,

An update:

O'Farrell HAS NOT allowed the opening up of NPs to hunters. In fact, a couple of weeks ago he SEVERELY RESTRICTED the planned access by hunters to NPs.

Firstly and with immediate effect, the Game Council, which was to oversee recreational hunters as young as 12 using conventional hunting firearms as well as bows, crossbows and black powder "antique" weapons, has been disbanded following an independent review of its operations. The review found that in essence the Council was incapable of discharging its regulatory and safety monitoring obligations, for a number of reasons.

This action has put an immediate stop to all previously allowed hunting activities that were permitted under the auspices of the Game Council. Until new arrangements are in place, NO ONE is allowed to hunt in state forests and other crown land - all the arrangements that permitted it have been withdrawn. However, you can still hunt on private land with the landowner's permission.

Beginning in October sometime, a new system will be in place on a trial basis.

- The trial will take place in only a few of the originally planned 79 NPs. They will all be outback parks.
- Only conventional hunting firearms will be allowed. No bows, crossbows or black powder "antiques".
- Shooters must be 18 or older, properly licensed.
- There will be other qualifications (competence, target identification, etc) but I don't know specific details.ie, just because you have a licence and a firearm doesn't mean you will get approval. It is not automatic.
- Shooters will be accompanied by an appropriately trained NPWS ranger who will have the authority to cancel a hunt at any time.
- Application to hunt must be made considerably in advance so that at least one month's notice can be given to other users of the affected Park, Forest or whatever. (Previously it could be as little as 48 hours)
- These arrangements apply to all the previous areas where hunting was allowed in NSW (except private land), ie State Forests, Reserves and other Crown Land.

There are other details which I cannot recall or which have not yet been finalised, but that's the guts of it.

Now for a more personal bit ...

Not so long ago my wife and I were in the line of fire from shooters in a national park. It was a close call.

In our incident the shooters were locals from one of the farms on the access road to the NP campground. Being locals they would have known about the campground and the possibility that campers could be present, but they made no effort to find out. They just arrived on their quadbike and started shooting 'roos. Some of those fled in our direction and shots were fired at them, ie toward us. Until we made our presence known (flashing torces, yelling out) those people were unaware of our presence. As soon as they saw us they hightailed it out of there.

We do not believe we were intentionally shot at, but we believe that the type of incident we experienced is typical of the risk that would be imposed on campers, walkers and other users of national parks if unsupervised recreational shooters of unknown ability, skill, competence and attitude were to be allowed simultaneous access with those other users.

I'm sure the majority of shooters are careful, responsible people, aware of the rules and also of the dangers their passtime presents to themselves and others, and who prepare and act accordingly. But then there are the others, and it is their stupidity, ignorance and callous disregard for the rules and safety of others who spoil it for the majority. Isn't it always the case (as per the recent posts on EO about bogans trashing campsites).

Trouble is with this activity (shooting) mistakes (if that is what they are. Disregard of rules and safety is not a mistake, it is a conscious action) are so easily fatal.

My wife and I are not opposed to culling of feral pests in NPs or other Crown Land. We are not opposed to hunting. But we are most definitely opposed to the use of poorly supervised recreational hunters of unknown ability, responsibility, concsience or ethic to be mixing it up with other users.

We think the use of professionals, assisted by skilled and proficient recreational shooters in an appropriately controlled and supervised way is an effective method of controlling feral pests in public landsd.
We think O'Farrell's amended plan has merit and hope that it will not be watered down by sectional and political interests.

Sorry for the long post.

Too many fools and cowboys among the shooters to ever get my approval to be out there when I'm using a NP. I go there to enjoy the quiet, not dodge bullets.

Iza

Shooting in National Parks has been a long tradition in NZ. Permits are generally required and may be restricted at peak visitor times, i.e goat shooting in the Whanganui National Park during the summer tramping and kayaking period. There is no evidence of an increase in fatalities or near misses. However despite shooters accessing these parks for Possums, goats, deer, pigs and goats, feral animals remain an ongoing problem.

Let's call a spade a spade! It annoys me that shooters want access to NP's under the guise of pest control. Let's get real, hunters just want to shoot stuff and are looking for new areas to do it! They are not interested in environmental preservation, I don't see the same people wanting to eradicate cane toads etc or looking to remove the noxious weeds or prevent soil erosion.
I have nothing against shooters and participate myself in pest control on relatives properties.
I saw a program on TV a couple of weeks ago with an interview with I think it was the president of the shooters party? or a similar representative. He was showing his trophy room with the heads of various game from around the world and told the story of how he recently got permission (and paid a fee) to the African Govt to shoot an elephant. He described how he walked up to the elephant and from about 20 feet away killed the animal with a single shot.
Have to say that I don't think the image portrayed in the program did anything to help the shooters cause in general.
I have an open mind on the whole hunting subject but if any shooting does get approved I think it needs to be regulated by other than the shooters themselves

I've shot roos, pigs, feral cats and rabbits when I was younger on private properties, I agree with professional helicopter shooting of brumbies in places like Guy Fawkes NP between Coff's and Glen Innes. I am definitely not a greenie.
But I can not agree with allowing shooters into NP without ranger supervision. As mentioned above there are just too many cowboys, who won't limit themselves to target feral animals.
I know responsible pig doggers who would do a great job in a NP with feral pigs, but I don't have confidence to say they would be in the majority.
I don't call Tamworth or Armidale the outback yet there are NP in those regions amongst the 13 in the trial. I've been in Coolah Tops NP with my family when illegal shooting was going on, it's scary let me tell you.
The only solace I take out of it is that most of the shooters in these parks I visit are too lazy to venture more than 25m from their 4WD on a track and I will be hopefully well away from those tracks.
I also struggle with the phrase that these shooters support local communities by buying produce in the communities near the NP. Unless they stay more than several days they don't need to and rarely cart their rubbish out, they just dump it in the parks.

Around here the shooters presently don't control the feral animals in the state forests where they can shoot, why do they need more country to shoot in?

Mark

The need to cull feral animals in some (all) of our National Parks is a well informed argument, and I suspect the majority of the population wouldn’t disagree with the need to do this from time to time.

The problem that arises is how it will be done, that is humane to the animal and keeps the park safe for all users at the same time.

When it comes to the use of firearms in National Parks for the purpose of culling I suspect views will be polarised because there are three groups, those who love guns and can see the merit in their use, those who can’t stand them and will never agree, and possibly a lesser number that could be persuaded either way, or who don’t really care.

Whilst the new proposals appear to cover the level of competency and safety of those who will be engaged to undertake a cull with firearms and therefore placing safeguards that might be adequate to most people, I still have the issue of the rogue shooter.

A rogue shooter can turn up anywhere, anytime, and in any National Park and place the safety of others at risk, unfortunately that is something that confronts us already, and “Frank P” in his post highlights his experience in this regard.

But does the use of firearms in National Parks put us on a “slippery slope” whereby it might encourage more than just the “rogue” shooter to have an unauthorised go in a National Park. The sound of a gun-shot might encourage others to pull their firearm out, not necessarily then and there, but next week, or next month. After all if someone else is doing it perhaps it is okay? A line of thinking that seemingly tends to prevail, increasingly.

A bit like the “track closed” sign, most four-wheel drivers will obey it, but plenty of usually reasonable and law abiding people on seeing fresh tracks might form the view that if someone else has done it recently, than it might just be okay to ignore the sign. The stakes are raised when it involves firearms.

I think firearms are most likely the best and most humane way to tackle the culling of feral animals. The question for many National Parks users, such as me, is whether the desire to see culling take place is great enough to allow the use of firearms in National Parks.

Could this be like Pandora's Box, or letting the Genie out of the bottle?

I'm concerned it might be...

I don't disagree with the thrust of your discussion, except the Army bit. How can you say that current training exercises are 'useless' but flying around shooting feral animals will provide some kind of value? The ability to shoot straight is about the most basic requirement of Army training mate. Kind of like turning the key is to being a competent driver. The 'useless' training undertaken to prepare our troops for overseas deployments is unbelievably complex and focused on surviving and winning in a very difficult environment, one where the 'ferals' shoot back, plant IEDs, mount ambushes and commit all sorts of atrocities.

Otherwise, yeah agree with you.

Matt.