Changing Hunting StereoTypes.

That's good news.
Let's hope there is also a corresponding drop in unregistered and illegal firearms, which is what the buyback was aiming to achieve.

Nothing wrong with rifles, but nut cases with rifles or anything for that matter, is of great concern.

Having been threatened with a loaded with a loaded, hammerless, double barrel, with safety OFF, and pressed against my head, it isn't the gun which was at fault, just the drunk on the other end.

Drunk or or unhinged doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what the relationship is here between the number of registered firearms and Port Arthur. Also, the buy back was primarily for removing semi automatic long arms from the community, and secondary for removing unregistered firearms.

The buy back scheme was introduced in an effort to get rid of unwanted/illegal firearms, because of the Port Arthur Shooting. Other laws also surrounding ownership also came in to effect at this same time.

wrong SDG.
It was as Penchy said.
I was forced to hand in a legal, registered and regularly legally used .22 rifle which I had owned since 14yrs old and brought to Australia with me.
Great sentimental value.

1984–1996 multiple killings[edit]
From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in a series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne. In response, several states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of self-loading rifles and shotguns. In the Strathfield massacre in New South Wales, 1991, two were killed with a knife, and five more with a firearm. Tasmania passed a law in 1991 for firearm purchasers to obtain a licence, though enforcement was light. Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for longarms.

Shooting massacres in Australia and other English-speaking countries often occurred close together in time. Forensic psychiatrists attribute this to copycat behaviour,[8][9] which is in many cases triggered by sensational media treatment.[10][11] Mass murderers study media reports and imitate the actions and equipment that are sensationalised in them.[12]

The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences[edit]
The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty-five people were killed and 23 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood[13] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland,[8] this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.

The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.[14]

Prime Minister John Howard immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[15] and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.

The Howard Government planned a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, on the advice of his security team, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. Many shooters were critical of this.[16][17][18]

Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership.[19][20] A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.[21]

The Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[22] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

Im a bit dizzy after reading the first 2 paragraphs of that, skimming over it though I couldnt see where it was for illegal firearms unless you count making them illegal then buying them back?
Mine were perfectly legal.

Simple. If it was a semi automatic, it was made ILLEGAL. Therefore they bought them back. Does not matter if it was registered or not. I lost mine as well. So what. Made a few grand off them. More than what they were worth.
Still have my bolt actions. Still have the break downs.

as I said! But they are not illegal, just restricted

Not to mention the feral cats which are decimating our native fauna.

Their does seem to be a constant beatup Donnyj , but I am always surprised by the lack of real material presented in support of the beatup.
It seems many countries have made sporting shooting a successful pastime.

I have seen the effect of wild dogs on a pack of sheep and its truly horrendous , but I've only ever heard about the pigs and from your post I rather not see what they could do.

The link between (some) hunters and pigs is fairly well known. The reason hunters want access to National Parks is primarily because land owners won't have a bar of them - for good reason. Same old story - the idiots spoil it for the serious, responsible shooters.

Tony, there is nothing wrong or any concern if sensible folk hunt and kill ferals like pigs,foxes,wild dogs etc.(its been going on for a 100 years or more) The destruction and killing spree these things cause is an ever increasing problem. To clean them up any other way is too cost prohibitive to governments or National Parks organisations.
Does anyone know how many people have been shot/injured by hunters over the past 10 years???

Jeff

Trouper I didn't say there was anything wrong with killing/culling/destroying animals! What I did say was there is something wrong with people who enjoy it. On the other matter, does it matter how many people are shot/injured through stupidity and negligence, one is too many. Is one life worth any less than 10?

Its Ironic Trouper , hunting is almost the safest sport apparently.

It sure ain't cars and motocross bikes which are everywhere in our group.

In the interview on Tv they brought in the usual anti-gunners and Lawry was asked about the danger in the bush from firearms and he could only come up with 1 example of a death and that was 20 years ago.
A massively more dangerous thing to do is to give a kid a push bike according to statistics.

Tony , its an interesting philosophy but wouldn't it be abnormal if some one didn't enjoy the hunt and kill as its a natural instinct in all animals for survival.

I worry more about those who get Big Mac's and don't associate that with supporting the culling of animals.

Fishing is a form of hunting, different weapon. More dangerous carrying a fishing rod while hunting, than a rifle or bow.


For some reason people don't associate fishing as hunting.

I have had to kill as a necessity, but I can promise you it was not enjoyable. Anyone who 'enjoys' killing whether it be fish, cows, dogs, lions, whatever, has a serious problem. Before anyone asks, yes, I have been hunting and I have killed an animal - once. I have never been so disgusted and vowed never to do it again. I have killed a few animals myself as a matter of necessity and watched and overseen the destruction of many more - I found it a sad and emotional time on every occasion, but a necessary evil of the job. Sporting shooters and sporting hunters, a misnomer if ever there was one: how can anyone who hunts a pig or a deer, rabbit, elephant, whatever, possibly call themselves a sporting hunter or sporting shooter. Sporting is defined as: fair and generous in one's behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a contest. Going out armed with a firearm, often in multiples, for the express purpose of stalking/hunting and then killing your quarry can hardly be called ‘sporting’ if your quarry does not know or recognise your intent and is not armed in a like manner. It is a natural instinct to kill to survive, it is not a natural instinct to kill for pleasure. Big Mac burger meat does not come from animals that have been culled, it comes from animals that have been bred for the specific purpose of feeding us – but that is a another discussion. If you are intent on exhibiting your masculinity, ship off to Afghanistan, get in the boxing ring, sign up for ultimate fighting - fight something that fights back.

"wouldn't it be abnormal if some one didn't enjoy the hunt and kill as its a natural instinct in all animals for survival"

All animals? Take cows for instance, the amount of grass they kill in one day is unbelievable :) ...but maybe things aren't as they seem...

[vimeo]Cows Enjoy Killing[/vimeo]

Cheers
Greg

Lol Greg. That was exactly what popped into my mind when I read Robin's line and I was about to do precisely what you did. I often think of the Croc Dundee scene on the rare occasions one of those nutters from the NSW Shooters Party put their heads above the parapet.

"gun nuts mishandling and waving them around all over the place". Cmon Tony, you are the exact reason there is a generalisation with firearm owners. Not only that, you are a hypocrite! If you were in defence then you would have been asked the question, "are you prepared to be shot at, and to shoot at other people", but you go on to say, "Anyone who 'enjoys' killing whether it be fish, cows, dogs, lions, whatever, has a serious problem". So you don't regard yourself in the same category as hunters, even though you could have potentially been posted in a conflict and had to kill another human being? Seriously?
" Going out armed with a firearm, often in multiples, for the express purpose of stalking/hunting and then killing your quarry can hardly be called ‘sporting’ if your quarry does not know or recognise your intent".
By that statement I make the assumption that you have never been deer hunting. Do you honestly think they just stand there in an open plain eating grass waiting for someone to line up a kill shot? Hunters can spend days (and nights) in the field stalking one deer, only to not even be given a chance to fire their weapon. Do us all a favour and educate yourself, then get some experience before making any further comments.

Sorry I missed that one. Certainly, being in defence I was prepared to be shot at and to shoot other people, was even asked to sign an acknowledgement to that fact (not quite in those terms of course [not politically correct]; however, and this is the big however, I was never asked/told to enjoy it and neither would I expect to enjoy it. Necessity – ring any bells? I say again, anyone who ‘enjoys’ killing has a serious problem. There is no enjoyment in killing a living entity – neither should there be. Again: necessity – enjoyment, worlds apart.

Do you seriously consider a hunter hunting deer is in the same category as defence personnel involved in conflict? I think the 57,000 odd defence members currently serving would disagree with you on that point, most particularly the ones who did not return. Attempting to draw a parallel between the people who serve and protect this country and the hunter is an insult to their memory.

On your last point, I must say I really feel for you: that’s terrible having to wait days (and nights) waiting to line up a kill shot. How distressing that must be. There is a breed of goat that will play dead when frightened, perhaps you should hunt them: less distress and danger for the hunter.

A simplified version for you:
Normal: Hungry + kill + eat = Necessity
Not Normal: Not hungry + kill + not eat = enjoyment.

Do you think it is a necessity to kill the dear before you eat it?
Or is eating not a necessity?

Again:
A simplified version for you:
Normal: Hungry + kill + eat = Necessity
Not Normal: Not hungry + kill + not eat = enjoyment.

Yes, but do you enjoy killing the animal?

When accomplished with one well placed projectile, then of course yes.
When the animal drops instantly and does not move because that one projectile hit exactly where required to inflict instant death, then also of course yes.

Feral Cats require no explanation, yes I enjoy killing them.

That tells me all I want to know.

Tony you have no friggin idea mate.
Sitting in your city apartment passing judgement on people who dont think the same as you (most often country people who enjoy or participate in hunting of ferals)
Buying your meat on a foam tray and disasociating yourself from the process.
I kill foxes, not to eat and enjoy it.
Foxes kill chickens, lambs etc not to eat but for fun or whatever reason-who knows.
Maybe you could provide some councilling for them

Fisho64, I'm afraid it is you that has no idea, what on earth gives you the idea I live in an apartment in the city - talk about having no friginn idea. As for passing judgements, you've just passed judgement on me, why is that any different? Plenty of country folk kill ferals, sheep, cows, emus, roos, whatever, been there and assisted - never seen anyone enjoy it though. Plenty of swearing and cursing and pleased there is one less feral maybe, but no enjoyment. What is it with you lot? You just can't seem to get it through your heads, there is a difference between the necessity of it and taking enjoyment from it. Now there I ago again, getting all judgemental, what a naughty man I am!.

"what on earth gives you the idea I live in an apartment in the city"

your attitude.
Gels with-"the city is the centre of the universe and the rest of the countryside and its people are there for our amusement and must conform to my beliefs"

So any attitude or belief that does not parallel yours is restricted to city dwellers. What an interesting observation - perhaps you should google 'persecution complex'.

Yes and i guess thats where our similarities end.
The difference between us is that i dont feel compelled to make you admit that carrying a manbag and wearing socks with thongs is plain wrong
:-)

Keep up the good work Tony. For the most part I gree with you. I recall a TV chef once berating a contestant for his lack of respect for a beautiful fish he was asked to prepare. The message was have respect for the animal and not to abuse the resource.

Hi Beatit

Its interesting to see the responses isn't it. The evidence shows hunting to be one of the safest sports , where giving your kids a bike is one of the more dangerous.

Yet despite this some have what are I guess, ideological views against what is most natural. If it was cruelty or something I understand those views but our society runs on culling animals , even a practical vegetarian like myself can except what is normal in our world and not deny the obvious.

G'day Robin,

Yes gun ownership tends to polarise people and the facts will never satisfy some.

Kind regards

Hi Ron

Stereotypes occur when people exaggerate things out of all proportion , these beliefs get picked up by media shock jocks etc and we end up with a general false impression of the real situation.

When true research is done as it has recently been done here with firearm ownership a quite different picture presents itself.

In this case the hunters have been shown to be of generally above average citizens which help our economy particularly in the bush and deserve our support based on an excellant track record.

"but there's way too many people out there today, who own 4WD's, who are pyschologically unsuited to 4WD ownership, and who don't have any real NEED for a 4WD."

See how easy it is to substitute your anti firearm stance for anothers anti4WD stance?
"But thats different, I NEED my 4WD because I paid taxes all my life and now I want to have enjoy my 4WD".

Your position is that you no longer needed your firearms (which you used to "shoot everything on sight") and I applaud that you recognised that you were not suited for firearms ownership.

Why does that translate to everyone who owns a firearm being a "squeeling gun owner" who "shoots everything on sight" and "needed to kill things every single day".

You dont sound like the ideal candidate to own firearms.

Ya know, fisho - you're right with your first line, too. I don't know how many 4WD owners have shoved their bullbar up against my back window, trying to shove me along. And I always travel at the speed limit, too.

My missus has just come in and told me about the dropkick in the "giant 4WD" (her words), who slotted himself right in between her rear end, and a Kenworth on the freeway this arvo, leaving no stopping room for the truck, and no stopping room for him.
She said his bullbar was "2 inches off my back bumper!" (her words again). Then he swerved out and did exactly the same to someone else.

I don't know why it is, that gun-lovers feel the need to become personally aggrieved, and see any supporter of tighter gun laws, as a direct, personal affront to their RIGHT to have a firearm (or firearms).
There is no RIGHT to anything in this country (unlike America, that most gun-lovers seem to think this place is).

We have PRIVILEGES in this country, that have to earned by showing you have the abilities and skills to carry out the ownership or operation of the job or item, without danger to others.

That includes - driving on a public road - operating machinery - flying an aircraft - constructing a building - installing electrickery or mains water - plus 1000 other important things.

It never ceases to amaze me that someone who will agree, that not everyone should have the right to do anything they choose, without proper training and assessment and licencing - yet that same person will immediately claim that firearms should be freely available to anyone who just has a personal desire to shoot the crap out of things.

In the area where I lived in the country, the local shire just gave up on road sign replacement after constant sign damage by shooters. It was costing them thousands annually for sign replacement, thanks to dozens of idiots with guns.

I know station owners who'd like to shoot every firearn owner that comes onto their properties, such is the tally of bullet damage to their properties and stock. Shot-up water tanks, shot-up PVC piping, shot-up cattle - the list is endless.

Cattle shot and left to die

The amount of indiscrimate shooting damage is still so high, that it only goes to prove that too many of the wrong type of people are still gaining UNNECESSARY access to firearms.

" yet that same person will immediately claim that firearms should be freely available to anyone who just has a personal desire to shoot the crap out of things."

Nobody except you has said and done the things i have quoted from your post.
Because you shot up everything in sight and had to kill everything in sight, should mean other responsible people will do the same?

As your driving around your local area fisho64, look out your window, look at the signs, the water tanks, the fence posts. The evidence is everywhere. I quite often camp in out of the way areas, if there's a farm nearby, you'll more than likely see the idiots racing around the paddocks, spotlights blazing, shooting at anything they see.

And as you drive around the city you see signs of idiots in cars too does that make all drivers raving lunatics? I hope not?

From your own posts, that sounds like you Tony quote "shooting everything in sight"

I would think it is fair to say that most hunters "enjoy" the act and those that don't would be an exception to the rule.
Reality is most hunt as a liesure activity and some turn it into a proffession as well.
I am not anti the activity but it does rub me up the wrong way a bit when gun owners drag out the " we are helping keep the feral population down' story.
Reality is they are doing what they like and that is just a byproduct to the activity, you don't often see these same people out eradicating knoxious weeds or trying to stop the cane toad invasion or reducing soil erosion etc

A few people I know who were keen hunters seem to have melowed over the years and whilst still loving their firearms and going out on a hunt are doing the ancillery activities of holding the spotlight and driving rather than pulling the trigger these days

From my knowledge of only one state, and predating Port Arthur; most of them.

Homicides can be divided roughly into 3 groups, which the relationship/social interaction group is the largest (more than 75%). Most of these are assaults and stabbings, but if a firearm is available; the assailant can be almost guaranteed of a kill. It takes quite a lot of energy to stab or beat a person to death and quite often the act of violence exhausts the anger before death. A gun shot only requires 1 action.

For purely criminal homicides,"Underbelly" type murders, which are the minority of homicides, I'd agree that most of those would be committed with illegal weapons.

Unfortunately, domestic/relationship/social interaction murders far outnumber disputes between crims. During the "Underbelly" there were far more women (partners, wives or women that said no) murdered than crims. A firearm (whether legal or illegal) is also an instrument used to threaten. which automatically escalates the chances of it being used with intent

Hence why there was a stipulation that ammo was to be stored, and locked up, separately to the actual firearm.
Give the person time to cool down while looking for all the keys act.
Of course this did not always happen. I know of some loaded ones sitting out in the open in the shed.

Mate that first part of your post is just nonsense. I like many others know lots of people who shoot and fish and not for a minute do I fear for my life around these people.

Good for you, I for one would never go bush with a hunter, nor would I ever turn my back on one, gun or not... A gun nut is a nut, is a nut...

Oh, I almost forgot - the gun lobbyist's favourite: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guess what sort of people kill people? People who enjoy killing. Oh well, I guess everyone's got to have a hobby!

Tony I don't own a gun and never have but I do like to fish so I guess I must still be threatening to you in some way and to my family who are blissfully unaware of what danger they are in.
Your extreme view on the matter is no different to the a Redneck type gunslinger shooting everything in sight, just at the other end of the scale.
I appreciate that hunting may not be in your DNA but it still is in others, we are all different. Perhaps in our more primitive days you may have taken on other duties in your community of basket weaving, growing or collecting fruit and vegetables or contributed in some other form. Whereas someone else in the community excelled at ( probably enjoyed) the hunting aspect of providing their part in the community.
We are all different and whilst I may no want to partake in a particular activity I respect other wishes to do so and keep an open mind on the subject.

How would you even know they were a hunter that you may be travelling with, unless they are actually hunting?

No I don't think I'd enjoy basket weaving much at all Alby, or collecting fruit and vegetables for that matter, I'd probably be out killing animals to eat. I'd enjoy the exercise and the food, but I certainly wouldn't be taking any enjoyment from watching the unfortunate animal die. There is a difference between killing to eat and killing for enjoyment - I find it extraordinary that you don't understand that difference. As for feeling threatened Alby, let me put your mind at rest: I don't think anyone would find you threatening.

Yes I do understand the difference.
There is a difference between Ivan Milat style hunting and someone who has enjoyed being successful in their hunting conquest

Now you're moving the goal posts Alby: you're now saying that someone enjoys being successful, that's a world away from someone taking enjoyment from watching an animal's death! As for conquering the hunted, how could you possibly not conquer, it's hardly a level playing field - very sporting!

Would it help to get more enjoyment out of hunting Tony if we go back to first principles and discuss the safe end and the dangerous end of a firearm?

Tony I am not moving the goal posts but perhaps you have misinterpreted what people are saying when they enjoy hunting
People obviously must enjoy the activity as they do it as a leisure / sporting activity, the taking of an animals life is just part of the activity not the sole focus of the enjoyment
If that was the case they would all be lining up to get a job at the abattoir to get their jollies.
As I said in an earlier post, I know of people who still participate in the hunt but no longer pull the trigger but still enjoy the activity of the hunt.
As far as level playing field, I guess that it up the individual with what and how they hunt. There are plenty who prefer the bow and arrow as their skill set and craft of hunting
But I get what you are saying, just walked up to a beast in a paddock and shooting it point blank for pleasure is not what hunters are talking about

Tony,
How does "Hide and seek" rate in your eyes?
I mean, to enjoy sneaking around looking for people who are hiding from you? That would have to be the first sign of a serial killer wouldn't it? LOL

Hairy gee that made me laugh, if that statement gets into the wrong hands they will be banning the game at preschool.LOL

Perhaps another analogy for hunting would be playing golf.
There is a vast array of equipment, planning, technical ability and social intercourse involved in a game of golf and in simplistic terms the aim is to put a little white ball in a hole. Watching a golfer they get a lot of pleasure in doing so but you cannot analyse that as getting a bucket of balls and sitting next to a hole and dropping them in to get some ultimate pleasure rush even though that is the end result.

Good old fashioned game of Brandy was more satisfying than Hide and Seek. The infliction of pain with that tennis ball was a precursor to hunting life. lol

What about playing Armies or Cowboys and Indians as kids with air rifles?.......Picking gum nuts and slugs out of your cousins and brothers arse when they didn't put their hands up.....Bwhahahahaha
I should probably hand myself in now before I turn bad....LOL

Well Hairy, I find that disturbing, you shot at people with an air rifle and your parents allowed you to keep the rifle? That's astounding! I lived in the Williams/Narrogin region when I was a kid, a few mates had air rifles and a few made the mistake of shooting at others - they never saw their rifle again. I, like most kids made gings/catapults/ as well as bows and arrows, my folks couldn't afford things like air rifles, but they would have gone spare had I actually shot anyone with a ging or arrow..

I find it disturbing that you think we would have told our parents!!!!

Tony that was probably just an excuse your parents made up as they realised early on that you were unsuited to firearms ownership.

Gings and bows and arrows so you were manufacturing weapons as a kid...Mmmmm ....very disturbing.
Any way Im off down the creek to have a few shots with my new compound bow. Now Im shooting at a target of a rabbit........is this the start of me going bad? God help me if a real rabbit pokes his head out or the neighbour comes over!!!!!

Cheers

I must be a terrorist as well.
Apart from sling shots, bow and arrows, throwing knives, I also made explosives.

Just because kids and some adults do these things, does not make them nut cases.

Aiming a weapon at anyone - any weapon - is just plain stupidity, actually shooting them is a criminal offence! As a youngster I never aimed a weapon at anyone, nor did I shoot anyone, tin cans and the like were a good enough target for me. Today I still wouldn't aim a weapon at anyone for the very same reason - it is sheer stupidity - nor would I shoot anyone. So, if that makes be an unsuitable candidate for a firearm license, so be it...

If you're interested in a good read, Martin Bryant's biography is interesting. His father bought him an air rifle as his first weapon when he was a kid. Martin used it to shoot at the other kids. He then graduated to actual firearms as he grew, but never held a licence/permit. On your logic fisho64, he would have been the ideal candidate.

BTW Hairy, I think it disturbing that your parents never found out you were using your air rifle to shoot at other kids Just as disturbing: The parents of the kids you shot didn't notice the wounds on their kids behinds?

Tony must have me confused with someone else?
Plus I dont use logic, just common sense :-)

First line your post fisho64, what on earth are you talking about?
Second line your post fisho64 - that says it all.

"On your logic fisho64, he would have been the ideal candidate."

Tony you‘re becoming more and more confused and less and less lucid.

What a terrible person you are Mike - I only eat vegtables that have died of natural old age !

I sneak up on them while dressed all in orange with a fluffy green hat. Then I lop them of their green bits with one precise slash of a blade. Please read this in a Hannibal Lector voice for maximum effect. :-)

No, carrots don't count - don't like them, or pumpkins or brussel sprouts. I think I would enjoy shooting them into extinction.

In answer to the first question Mike: Nope, creepy is as creepy creepy does! I grow veges and fruit to eat on occasion Robin, I've never apologised to them though and I certainly don't wait for them to die of old age - mushy and horrible. Does that make me a bad person? I do take relish with killing sprouts, pumpkins and carrots though, pun intended of course.

Robin,
if you used to eat meat from animals that died of natural old age I can understand you have become vegetarian
cheesrs
howard

I haven't yet been able to get the actual report Chisel , but the parlimentary commentry gives us some clues as below.

The fascinating thing is the amount that ends up in local communitys its been a massive good news story.

Quote ----------------------------

“We also have this wonderful high country where the deer live and you’ve got this great forested habitat to hunt in and explore,” he said.

Hunting has continued to grow in popularity, with a 46 per cent increase in the number of Victoria game licence holders in the past decade.

The report identified more than 50 towns across the state where hunting expenditure was estimated to be more than $1 million last year.

And hunting expenditure in three towns — Traralgon, Rosedale and Mansfield — was upwards of $10 million.

Your sarcastic, threatening, confrontational and abusive manner is more likely the reason for you not being allowed to possess firearms.
This has caused you to feel bitter and suffer from an anger management problem.
Do you own knives and have you had any AVO's issued against you?

You’re right I don’t own a firearm fisho64, not for the reasons you assume though. I have a target crossbow, which is now classified as a prohibited weapon so requires a permit/license to own – does that count? Let me guess, real men (like yourself of course) only own weapons they can stroke while having their photo taken - correct?. I do own knives fisho64, but I’ve never learned to throw them, they’re used for cutting up the Sunday roast, rope, stuff like that. Sorry, never had an AVO taken against me, never had to seek one either – actually you should have read between the lines of my posts fisho64 - I'm against violence as well as the enjoyment some appear to get from killing..
Sarcastic, yes I think I’ll wear that one (as should a few others); however, confrontational? On the contrary fisho64 I find your enjoyment for killing rather confrontational to be truthful. Threatening and abusive, well you got me there fisho64, I’ve gone over all the posts (for your benefit) and I just can’t seem to see any threatening or abusive language from either side – robust discussion maybe? But, if it’s too ‘robust’ for you, perhaps you should be weaving baskets and collecting fruit and vegetable, as was suggested for me. Anger management problems, now I really must object to that label fisho64: after all, I’m not the one visiting violence on animals - pretending I’m doing the community good and voicing my enjoyment over the killing of them. And you say I have an anger management problem – go figure. No doubt you’ll be stroking your weapon again by now fisho64; I wouldn’t expect anything to come of it though.

"they’re used for cutting up the Sunday roast,"

obviously that roast committed suicide, and you got no enjoyment from the tragic death of that animal-gagging while forcing it down I'd wager!

You had me going there, for a while I was taking you seriously :-)

Ahhh, here we go again fisho64: The roast would have previously been a cow, sheep, pig, whatever, slaughtered in an abattoir for our consumption. As omnivores we are tied in to the eating of meat as well as greens (broccolli, carrots or pumpkins not included), the meat (and veges I hear someone say) are slaughtered as a matter of necessity rather than enjoyment. Just can't seem to grasp that one can we - fisho64: necessity - enjoyment. Worlds apart really. Not too many pigs, sheep, cattle roaming the halls of this apartment in the city in which I live (I'm told), so I guess I'll just have to rely on other avenues for procuring life's essentials. Life's tough ain't it? Never mind fisho64 - I empathise with your confusion. I feel I know you well enough by now to realise your statement was serious, as we now know sarcasm and confrontation are peculiar to me only

I get it now-its ok to enjoy the FRUITS of the slaughter cos we NEED to eat it. I honestly had you pegged as a vegan fruitloop.
Vegans, however odd they may appear would disagree heartily with you that its a necessity.

I however agree with you heartily.

Its odd that you cannot connect that some people enjoy eating meat and as an extension of that enjoy PROVIDING that meat.
And also enjoy providing that meat in a humane manner.

Meantime others who live in their city apartments go on believing that Coles meat comes from an abbatoir where the cows are read a bedtime story then fall asleep under a shady tree as the sun sets having been kindly euthanased by a Dr Harry lookalike.

By flicking out your credit card to pay for your meat, subconsciously I guess you get to disconnect from the reality which is somewhat different, but its better that you dont connect with reality on that as we'd then get a lecture from you on why we should only eat tofu and lentil sausages.

Ummm, yes of course it is ok to eat what you haven’t killed: I don’t make cars, does that mean I shouldn’t drive one; I don’t make socks, does that mean I shouldn’t wear them; I don’t make houses, does that mean I shouldn’t live in one; I don’t make radios, does that mean I shouldn’t listen to one. Many vegans don’t eat animal products because they object to the processes employed in farming our food animals. Some refrain from eating animal products because they believe our physiology is more akin to a herbivore than an omnivore – physiology and science tends to disagree in the main. I certainly enjoy my meat, as I do my house my car, my socks, my radio and a whole heap of other things. As an extension of that, I don’t think too many employers would appreciate their employees skipping work because they had to kill an animal for their supper, build a house to live in, knit some socks to keep their feet warm or make a car to drive to work. And of course there is the issue of the other residents of their apartment blocks (anyone who doesn’t kill their food lives in an apartment apparently) objecting to their attempts at self sufficiency – apparently there is a space reserved for hypocrisy in everyone!

I don’t think anyone (meat eaters or vegans) believe the animal farming and killing industries provide a warm fuzzy environment for the animals, however, they are aware it is the only viable option they have at their disposal, simply because if we all went about our lives gathering, killing and building in the name of self sufficiency our society would very rapidly devolve.

I can totally connect with people enjoying eating meat and as an extension of that enjoy PROVIDING that meat in a humane manner; however, that is not what is being said here. You yourself said, and I quote ‘I kill foxes, not to eat and enjoy it’. Others, as an answer to a direct question also said they enjoyed killing animals – not enjoy the process of providing that meat but actually enjoy killing the animal.

Animals such as rabbits, foxes and dingos are not killed humanely; they are routinely baited or infected with viruses and die an agonising death. Given their sheer numbers it is simply not possible to read them a bedtime story then watch them fall asleep under a shady tree as the sun sets having been kindly euthanised by a Dr Harry look alike. But until an acceptable alternative is available it is a fact of our lives - I can accept that as a necessary albeit less than pleasant reality – what I do not like is people saying they enjoy ‘killing’ an animal.

I do not believe for one minute any of you actually eat all that you kill: Animals in the wild do not have access to veterinary treatment so would suffer from a range of injuries, diseases and maladies; they also don’t have the option of treatments for parasitic infestation. And of course the thought of eating cat, dog or fox, whilst acceptable in some parts of the world, is not readily accepted here.

I hate tofu, lentils I like. While it is clear that meat is not essential in the diet, as witness the large number of vegetarians who have a nutritionally adequate diet, the inclusion of animal products makes it easier to ensure a good diet.

For your benefit let me conclude with:

Normal: Hungry + kill + eat = enjoyment.
Not normal: Not hungry + kill + not eat = enjoyment.

Gday Tony,
Ive had a reasonable read, not every word, but a reasonable read of this thread and I cant see where people have even suggested that watching an animal die at their feet is their reason for hunting other than you suggesting it?
As for the wellbeing of the animals.......personally I would prefer to be killed instantly while out doing what I do naturally without seeing it coming than being herded into yards and waiting in line to be slaughtered, wouldn't you.
As for not trusting or feeling safe around anyone who has hunted /fished or killed anything....well.......that just sounds bloody ridiculous to me, but each to their own I suppose, but you must be pretty lonely or scared.
I personally keep 50-100 sheep purely for food.........I don't line them all up for a mass killing but I do yard them not stalk them in the paddock.......Im confused......does that make me a homicidal maniac or do I come under the producer banner.
Id appreciate you feedback as Ive invited people over for dinner and should probably warn them, if I'm likely to shoot and kill them for fun while they are here? LOL

Cheers
(probably shouldn't have said that......now Im an alcoholic!)

I can see the benefit of your writing style as I fell asleep halfway thru your diatribe and wokeup at the last couple of sentences. But to borrow your style;

"shoot everything in sight, kill something everyday"=TonyH15

"eat red meat but pretend it grew on a foam tray"=TonyH15

"participate in an outdoor activity which is enjoyable, healthy, safe but clearly misunderstood by metrosexuals"=hunters

G’day Hairy, here’s a cut and post from my original post:

‘hunting, killing and consuming an animal is one thing, as is the necessity for culling and destroying sick and injured animals, but to admit to actually enjoying hunting and killing – that is a concern!

The emphasis here was and still is ‘enjoying killing’ As I have maintained throughout this thread I don’t have any problems with killing as a necessity, I do maintain anyone who ‘enjoys’ the act is a concern - neither have I suggested it is the sole purpose for hunting. Here’s a few quotes from this thread I cut and posted for you:

‘Lots of people enjoy it’.
‘I would think it is fair to say that most hunters "enjoy" the act and those that don't would be an exception to the rule’.
‘I kill foxes, not to eat and enjoy it’.
‘Feral Cats require no explanation, yes I enjoy killing them’.
‘Tony , its an interesting philosophy but wouldn't it be abnormal if some one didn't enjoy the hunt and kill as its a natural instinct in all animals for survival’.

Well I guess I’m different to you, I prefer to have some control over my life: of the two options, I would prefer to know, at least then I can either do something about it or know it’s time to bend over and kiss myself goodbye.

I find it ridiculous not being concerned about being in the company of someone who has admitted to ‘enjoying killing’ No sorry Hairy I’m not lonely or scared, just wise enough not to trust anyone with a penchant for killing things.

Now your last statement is interesting ‘I personally keep 50-100 sheep purely for food’. What part of I don’t have a problem with necessity don’t you understand: You kill them you eat them, terrific, great idea, let me reiterate:

Normal: Hungry + kill + eat = necessity.
Not normal: Not hungry + kill + not eat = not normal.

Now before you jump in boots and all again, let me expand: Killing to eradicate pests and killing to eat amount to the same thing, it is necessary.

Whether you warn your visitors is up to you, I have no knowledge or interest in your intentions.

I don’t really have an interest in your drinking habits, if you say you’re an alcoholic, that’s fine with me - they say the hardest part is accepting it, good luck with that.

Just so it’s clear (although recent history would say – not), here it is again:

Normal: Hungry + kill + eat = necessity.
Not normal: Not hungry + kill + not eat = not normal.

LOL.

Not sure I‘m understanding your post fisho64:

"shoot everything in sight, kill something everyday"=TonyH15.
Please explain? Who shoots everything in sight? Who kills something everyday? Relevance?

"eat red meat but pretend it grew on a foam tray"=TonyH15
Again please explain? Who eats red meat and pretends it grew on a foam tray?

I’m sorry fisho64 but I can’t see the relevance of your writing style, perhaps you should try and stay awake - at least long enough to know what you’re commenting on. Just a suggestion.

Tony,
I could also go through and choose the comments I wish to quote now, and project a different story, but I have better things to do at the moment.
Not every hunter is a threat to humans or some maniac which was the opinion I thought you were portraying at the beginning.

Nope, just the ones that tell you they enjoy killing. New a bloke once who confided in me he enjoyed killing animals. Many years later he stabbed a woman - said he wanted to know what it felt like and whether it would feel the same as killing animals. Fortunately she survived.

Yes. I don't think that too many people would disagree that people who just kill because they like killing are a worry.
Im just not sure what that has to do with hunters though?
I don't know how many killers started as hunters, but if you had to categorise them I think they would have more to do with cities, computer games, drugs and even religion these days .....not hunting?

Any way Ill leave it at that........Im going fishing ( to catch a feed) LOL

Cheers

Well, it was the hunters said they enjoyed killing animals.

comical! Tony you appear to have confused yourself somewhat


"shoot everything in sight, kill something everyday"=TonyH15.
Please explain? Who shoots everything in sight? Who kills something everyday? Relevance?

Those statements were cut from your own post using your own words as actions you undertook
Or have you forgotten my friend?

it appears to be me confused as your compatriot Ron N earlier was the one who "shot everything in sight"

I hang my head in shame while I apologize for confusing you with someone else :-)

I don't mind being confused with someone like Ron N, he's one of those Australiians we should be proud of. Thank you Ron N!

Now I think your confused Tony
The only firearm owner here who says he did all the things you accused EVERY hunter of doing???

"shoot everything in sight, kill something everyday"=Ron N.

Im lost again, no wonder I got confused before...

Google "diatribe..."

Fisho64, you‘re becoming more and more confused and less and less lucid: attributing statements to the wrong people and displaying an inability to recognise dissimilarities in names. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed my time with this thread - I have leant:

hunters believe they are the equal of soldiers serving in a conflict zone,
defence personnel enjoy killing - otherwise they wouldn’t have joined the defence force,
anyone who doesn’t enjoy killing animals is abnormal,
nobody has a right to eat the meat of an animal they haven’t personally killed,
culling animals and slaughtering animals for consumption are the same,
the children’s game of hide and seek is the same as hunting and killing an animal,
inflicting pain on someone is a precursor to hunting life,
city folk think that country folk are there for their amusement and must conform to their beliefs,
city folk carry man bags and wear socks with sandals,
anyone who chooses not to eat animal products is a fruit loop, and
killers are all religious, live in the city, take drugs and play video games.

Apparently hunters also believe that anyone who doesn’t enjoy killing animals:
lives in a city apartment,
is lonely and scared,
is a vegan,
has no idea where meat comes from,
is a metrosexual,
should weave baskets and collect fruit and veges,
is not an ideal person to hold a firearm permit/license,
must have an AVO issued against them, and
eats tofu and lentil sausages.

At least one of your number:
used his air rifle to shoot childhood friends,
had parents who either didn’t know or didn’t care that their offspring was shooting at his childhood friends,
needs instruction on the difference between the safe end and the dangerous end of their firearm, and
believes that any two people who have similar, opposing views to himself must therefore be one and the same person.

The title of this thread is Changing Stereotypes of Hunters. Really? I feel like I’ve just stumbled onto the set of ‘Deliverance’.

I think I should leave it there for now, lest you become any more confused.

I know you jest Tony, but sadly some of the lessons you've listed are true, and I understand it can be painful to learn such lessons about oneself.

The difference between us is that while I dont feel a need to force you into submission to our way of thinking-I care little about what you get up to in your apartment.
On the otherhand, you feel hellbent on forcing others to bow to your higher thinking.
In a similar manner to some religious doorknockers, anti 4WD, antifishing anti whatever zealots, any other line than your own requires you to keep on pecking away in the hope that everyone bows to your superiour intellect.

While country people just go on with what their doing, not interfering with you except to ask that you buy their products instead of chinese.

No doubt back to peck peck peck some more

Peck, peck...