Latest campaign: Guns in NSW Parks

Posted by
Kelsey
15th February 2013

Would you be comfortable bushwalking or camping in NSW’s beloved National Parks knowing that amateur hunters were out there with guns? Would you bring the kids?


Click here to share the campaign on Facebook.

Click here to see the full size ad image

Premier Barry O’Farrell acted against good advice, broke his pre-election promise that there will never be hunting in National Parks and made a dangerous deal with the Shooters Party. We can’t let him get away with trading our safety for political gain.

Chip in now to run this powerful ad in Sunday’s Sun Herald and demand that O’Farrell make good on his promise.

http://www.getup.org.au/not-worth-the-risk

New Zealand knows all too well how hunting and recreation is a recipe for disaster. In late 2010, a 25-year-old New Zealand school teacher, Rosemary Ives, was shot dead while brushing her teeth at a camp site in a conservation park on the North Island. The amateur hunter responsible mistook her for a deer.[1] Then in 2011, another bushwalker — 23 year old Dougal Fyfe — was shot and killed by his best friend.[2]

Conceding to the Shooters is not only dangerous, it’s just plain stupid. The NSW Government’s own Draft Risk Assessment Report released in December of 2010 found that the program poses a “high” risk to human life. And the evidence shows that allowing amateur shooting will have no impact on feral animal control.[4]

How do we find ourselves in this ridiculously risky situation? Frankly, our Premier sold out. Our Premier, Barry O’Farrell, sold out by making a dangerous deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party to allow shooting in National Parks so he could sell off our public electricity assets. Now the Shooters and Fishers Party know that the government need them to pass any controversial reform. Who knows what they’ll ask for next?

Don’t let them get away with it!

http://www.getup.org.au/not-worth-the-risk

Conceding to the Shooters is not only dangerous, it’s just plain stupid. We already know that many within the Office of Environment and Heritage answering to the Environment Minister Robyn Parker are fiercely opposed to this program because feral animal control should be left to wildlife and conservation experts, not amateur hunters (some as young as 12!). They also have concerns about waterways in our Parks being poisoned by rotting animal carcasses.

Let’s lend our strength to the voices of reason within the government to stop this before lives are lost.

Help run this ad and let Barry O’Farrell know that it’s not worth the risk:

http://www.getup.org.au/not-worth-the-risk

Our National Parks should be places where everyone can escape, get close to nature and appreciate its beauty. Let’s not let them turn our Parks into a playground for gun-wielding hunters.

Thanks for all that you do,
The GetUp team.

PS – Thanks to the National Parks Association of NSW, the Public Service Association of NSW, WIRES and Wild Walks for their tireless campaigning over the last two years to stop shooting in NSW National Parks.

PPS – Click here to share this campaign on Facebook or click here to share it on Twitter.

Share with Friends
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Lynden

    What are the references that are cited?

    Also, I think the details are vitally important to whether this is a ridiculous idea or not.

  • Cremefraiche

    I strongly agree with you, these sorts of scare campaigns can get rapidly out of control, how about throwing some facts and references on to the page then call for a public debate on the topic before rushing in to investing in advertisements?

  • Cremefraiche

    Consider this, instead of running this campaign why not take the middle ground and say; Well ok that is fine to allow hunters in the National Parks but only if they can prove they have the adequate training, and make the training a prerequisite to obtaining a license.

  • Cremefraiche

    Consider this, instead of running this campaign why not take the middle ground and say; Well ok that is fine to allow hunters in the National Parks but only if they can prove they have the adequate training, and make the training a prerequisite to obtaining a license.

  • Cowboy Joe in Sydney Australia

    What an impressive business model. Scare the hell out of impressionable & paranoid city slickers and then con them into donating to the propaganda exercise.

    Phineas Taylor Barnum (July 5, 1810 – April 7, 1891) an American showman, businessman, scam artist and entertainer, remembered for promoting celebrated hoaxes and for founding the circus that became the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus probably would have been CEO of Getup if he were alive. “There is a sucker born every minute”, was his famous quote.

  • Cowboy Joe in Sydney Australia

    What a great idea. That is exactly what has been devised. Ask and ye shall receive.

  • Freddy Krueger

    Shooters are great at killing feral animals like wild pigs, rabbits, camels and wild dogs that do untold damage to our native flora and fauna.I would have thought supporting our native flora and fauna is something GetUP! would also support, there is no sound reasoning behind this scare campaign.

  • B.M

    Here’s an article reporting the leaked NSW risk assessment protocol http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/park-visitors-could-be-in-line-of-fire-20121222-2bsjk.html
    Here’s a very interesting article by David Dixon re: Game Councill conduct http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/agency-a-fantasy-land-for-brothers-in-arms-20100618-ymmo.html
    And here’s a couple to give you an idea of the ‘character’ of Robert Borsak http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/angry-mps-email-voter-stampede/story-e6freuy9-1226254554203
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-13/nsw-mp-robert-borsak-with-an-elephant-shot-on/2619226

    I can’t begin to express how disgraceful it is that all supporters of such legislation can contribute to this debate is by calling it’s opponents paranoid, Stalinist, extremist, city slickers, elitists and on and on. Hunters have no place shooting in national parks where bush walkers and hiking clubs enjoy the beautiful surroundings – it’s not paranoia, it’s commonsense.

  • geoff of the central coast

    so do you know that there has been hunting in state parks for over 4 years now??

  • Rick

    Hey Freddykrueger shooting the flora always does it for me

  • Cremefraiche

    Have a look at State Forests for an example, shooting (with a permit) is allowed in State forests and has been for a long time, how many injuries/deaths to bush walkers, rogainers, adventurers etc have been recorded in the last 5years? simply put I agree that there needs to be some way of regulating this but why not make it part of the licensing component i.e. compulsory training in the use of firearms in public areas and target training to minimise missing of targets; I do believe that it is the best way (and lowest pressure financial) to the state to control feral animals. furthermore in reference to the links in the post by you; The media has; with astounding skill, an ability to sensationalise even the smallest issue; so i would be prudent to look for some independent and government studies before forming a conclusion and or an opinion and any topic.

  • Cremefraiche

    very good post; I am very happy to see the way Australians can compartmentalise (most of us anyway) fact from fiction in regards to sensitive topics like this, I also this that our leaders should publicly debate such thing (with out the name calling); as I feel it will yield greater results in regards to legislating said activities.

  • Bob Jones

    What a bloody crock………you guys need to pull your heads in. Look back over the last 50 years and count on ONE HAND the number of hunting accidents…..like one idiot posted above….only 2 in NZ in the past 40+ years…..it simply doesnt happen enough to even rate a mention. Your anti gun stance is attrocious in every way….if you want o gain respect and support then o save a whale you morons!

  • Bob Jones

    get up suypports very littel worthwhile…..WHY DONT THEY STOP JAPANESE WHALE HUNTING??? nobody cares thats why! More anti gun scaring….

  • Cremefraiche

    I need to retract the following statement: “I do believe that it is the best way (and lowest pressure financial) to the state to control feral animals.” I am retracting this statement in light of an independent Benifit Cost Analysis (BCA). http://www.invasives.org.au/documents/file/reports/Critique_IsHuntingConservation.pdf

  • Cremefraiche

    I need to retract the following statement: “I do believe that it is the best way (and lowest pressure financial) to the state to control feral animals.” I am retracting this statement in light of an independent Benifit Cost Analysis (BCA). http://www.invasives.org.au/documents/file/reports/Critique_IsHuntingConservation.pdf

  • Cremefraiche

    I need to retract the following statement: “I do believe that it is the best way (and lowest pressure financial) to the state to control feral animals.” I am retracting this statement in light of an independent Benifit Cost Analysis (BCA). http://www.invasives.org.au/documents/file/reports/Critique_IsHuntingConservation.pdf

  • Shini

    Yet another unreferenced emotively worded anti-gun campaign. Well done.

    This article, like most presented in the present media, is a just another example of one sided scare mongering that misrepresents ‘facts’ and quotes statistics out of context.

    Before you jump on the band wagon and paint all shooters as gun toating yahoos with this type of publicity perhaps it would be worth while doing a little more research. Newzealand has 150% as many firearms per capita as Australia (22.6 per 100 vs 15 per 100)[1] and 3.5 % as much space (271000 sq km [2] vs 7692000 sq km [3]) To me this would suggest there are more hunters in less space in New Zealand (Not to mention how much more easily firearms can be acquired there) and there are 2 hunting accidents in New Zealand since 2010 that you can cite. have you looked to see how many people have been killed or injured by rockfall as a result of bush walkers in the same national parks? I’m inclined to suggest the number would be greater than 2 as would the injury rates for unprepared hikers having to be rescued from national parks in the same period. Food for thought?

    Shooters are among the most safety aware individuals you will find, all of them licensed here in Australia have been through a safety course before being able to apply for a license and the permits to shoot in national parks in NSW require more training and membership to appropriate hunting bodies before they can be applied for. This poster presents the idea that these laws will open up national park walking tracks to packs of wild roving shooters trying to hit anything that moves which is just incorrect.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

    [2]http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/government_finance/central_government/nz-in-the-oecd/population.aspx

    [3]http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/the-australian-continent

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.raffaelli Peter Raffaelli

    This is, without doubt, just another anti gun scare campaign. Total waste of our valuable time which could be better spent on issues that actually matter. The strong image pictured to scare the masses would never happen as most gun owners are law abiding and generally trained in the use of their tools of choice. GET UP? no, in this case it’s more a case of GET A LIFE.

  • drjones

    Wow- look at all the gun-nuts weighing in here with their aggression and name-calling. Hardly bodes well for the safety of ordinary citizens when these sorts of people are given open slather to shoot in our National Parks.

    This is a disgraceful and dangerous idea. It only happened because the O’farrell government wanted to get the Shooters party onside to sell electricity assets. The government’s own suppressed risk analysis report states there is a high likelihood of death and wounding if this goes ahead.

    Worst of all there are MANY scientific, peer-reviewed studies that clearly show this style of hunting does not make and significant dent in fal animal populations- only properly managed eradication programs using professional hunters in helicopters plus burrow ripping/ poisoning, etc work.

    Then there is the laughable fact that this legislation will allow people who have never even fired a weapon to get a permit to shoot in parks. I bet they’ll be terrific at hunting feral animals! Finally there is a push to let children loose with bows to kill and maim as well. Perhaps this should be called The Hunger Games law? most self-respecting sporting shooters find this proposal ridiculous and do not support it- watch the 7.30 Report story from Mon 18 Feb.

    Getting kids hunting; getting novices hunting; hunting in national parks- It is obvious this legislation is designed by the fringe gun element to promote and normalize a gun culture analogous to that in the US. These people would be happy to turn NSW into another Sandy Hook waiting to happen. It’s their John Wayne wet dream to live in a society of concealed carry, cowboy shoot outs. What’s unbelievable is that the NSW Liberal Party is hell-bent on helping them with this agenda.

  • Cremefraiche

    the only name calling came from an individual on the same side of the debate such as yourself and I quote “I can’t begin to express how disgraceful it is that all supporters of such legislation can contribute to this debate is by calling it’s opponents paranoid, Stalinist, extremist, city slickers, elitists and on and on. Hunters have no place shooting in national parks where bush walkers and hiking clubs enjoy the beautiful surroundings – it’s not paranoia, it’s commonsense.”
    where as this individual was obviously misled to think that he/she or people of a similar stance or view was being discriminated against by such terms and i quote “by calling it’s opponents paranoid, Stalinist, extremist, city slickers, elitists and on and on”.
    It seems as though the people that are of the view that this legislation should happen have actual statistical evidence to support their debate whereas the opposing people have only got false information that is shown by the mainstream media and of whom have a history of making a spectacle of such debates.

  • drjones

    I’m sorry Cremefraiche but you are not making any sense here. You suggest that people opposed to this legislation are not supported by facts, yet the very link you posted previously http://www.invasives.org.au/documents/file/reports/Critique_IsHuntingConservation.pdf
    is a complete demolition of the pro-hunting argument. I suggest you re-read and comprehend this report. And I suggest anyone interested in this debate read it too. It comprehensively refutes every furphy the pro-hunting brigade has put up in favor of this proposal.

    The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that this push for novices and children to hunt in national parks has nothing to do with conservation and is an attempt to spread a pernicious gun culture similar to that of the US.

  • Cremefraiche

    if you actually refer to and read the said statement; it will be evident that I retracted a statement I made on the basis that it can be proven wrong by the before mentioned document, since the ‘independent report’ clearly states that hunting is not a viable form of pest control from a financial stand point.

    The statement in question has no bearing on the primary debate only addresses a secondary debate on the topic of ‘Government savings and Hunting’, I originally made a statement stating that hunting would be a more cost effective method of pest control vs’ the Government’s Aerial shooting, baiting and trapping programs. Upon reading the document mentioned I realised that the statistics were against me and hence forth I retracted my statement.

    In response to the statement made by yourself and I quote “It comprehensively refutes every furphy the pro-hunting brigade has put up in favor of this proposal”; the before mentioned document only debunks the argument of ‘ hunting is a more cost effective method of pest control’ and nothing more.

    If you take conservation out of the equation; and look at this as a form or recreation then the argument still stands and has not changed, as the primary debate in this instance is not conservation but public safety; and i would like to draw your attention to the post by Shini and read the linked statistics.

    in response to “Getting kids hunting; getting novices hunting; hunting in national parks” I would like to remind you that Shooting in state forests has been legal for some time, and there have been no problems.

    in response to “element to promote and normalize a gun culture analogous to that in the US” In Australia you need to attain a firearm license for the relevant class of firearm, this includes firearm safety training and an examination in conjunction with a police background search (if you want a handgun you need to a member of a pistol club, you need a reason to have a rifle i.e. vermin control on farms”, furthermore the types of firearms that are available in this country is limited to semi-automatic weapons with no more then 5 rounds per magazine. In contrast; in American society firearms are legal an individual can waltz into a ‘Gun Shop’ and purchase a fully-automatic assault weapon, I am sorry sir but you are greatly mistaken in your assumptions.

    In response to “Getting kids hunting” I am not sure on what your reasoning is on this statement but i do not see how it is possible when ‘kid’ or properly worded as minors can not attain a firearm licence due to the age restriction.

    I look forward to your response

    Kind regards Cremefraiche

  • drones

    Dear Cremefriache,

    If you actually read all 9 pages of the document you cited in full, you will see that it examines THREE key claims made by shooters (and I quote from p1):

    “(1) There is “an abundance” of scientific evidence that recreational hunting is effective for feral ani- mal control and highly beneficial for conservation;
    (2) Recreational hunters offer a “free” or “low cost” service that governments should use to control feral animals on public lands; and
    (3) The motivations of hunters are aligned to con- servation, and provide the most effective basis for conservation.”

    You cited the document’s evidence refuting point 2- and I appreciate that you had an open enough mind on the topic to change you r opinion where the evidence warranted doing so.

    Respectfully, I suggest that you also read the evidence presented to refute point 1 (pages 2,3 and 4). It comprehensively shows this style of hunting has zero effect on feral animal population control. To me this is key, because feral control has been the number one argument advanced by the hunting lobby to get this bill up. They have not argued primarily on this as are recreational choice- the argument has been dragged into that area by pro-hunters who (erroneously) think their ‘right’ to hunt in parks is somehow equivalent to everyone else’s right to passively enjoy parks.

  • Cremefraiche

    As previously stated i referenced the document in the context of a statement that was made previously I quote “The statement in question has no bearing on the primary debate only addresses a secondary debate on the topic of ‘Government savings and Hunting’, I originally made a statement stating that hunting would be a more cost effective method of pest control vs’ the Government’s Aerial shooting, baiting and trapping programs. Upon reading the document mentioned I realised that the statistics were against me and hence forth I retracted my statement.” please refer to Page 3 – Table 1, Page 4 – Table 2, Page 5 – Table 3 and finally Page 6 – Table 4; these are to be used in context with the retracted statement, since I was strictly referencing only the financial component of the document and not the scientific detail; http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PSCS2_fox_SthCstNSW.pdf shows how shooting can be effective if targeted and this same document is referenced by the Shooters and Fishers Party http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/news/shooting-effective-proven-pest-control.

    You are quite correct as the document as a whole justifies the argument against ‘conservation hunting’ in a scientific and financial prospective, but i need to draw your attention back to relevance to the argument your posing in regards to the before mentioned and I quote “If you take conservation out of the equation; and look at this as a form or recreation then the argument still stands and has not changed, as the primary debate in this instance is not conservation but public safety; and i would like to draw your attention to the post by Shini and read the linked statistics.
    in response to “Getting kids hunting; getting novices hunting; hunting in national parks” I would like to remind you that Shooting in state forests has been legal for some time, and there have been no problems.”

    In response to “They have not argued primarily on this as are recreational choice” unfortunately I cannot comment on this due to the correctness of your response.

    In response to “the argument has been dragged into that area by pro-hunters who (erroneously) think their ‘right’ to hunt in parks is somehow equivalent to everyone else’s right to passively enjoy parks”. the information on the following sites indicate that there is significant precautions taken in deeming areas for hunting (http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/visiting/activities/hunting , http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/business/permits, http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=NationalParks-newlaw) and in allocating permits for hunters, with this information and if it also pertains to National Parks; then why should shooters (given that the rules are observed and they refrain from shooting outside of any zones deemed as off limits) be any different to anyone else?

    Kind regards
    Cremefraiche

  • Cremefraiche

    As previously stated i referenced the document in the context of a statement that was made previously I quote “The statement in question has no bearing on the primary debate only addresses a secondary debate on the topic of ‘Government savings and Hunting’, I originally made a statement stating that hunting would be a more cost effective method of pest control vs’ the Government’s Aerial shooting, baiting and trapping programs. Upon reading the document mentioned I realised that the statistics were against me and hence forth I retracted my statement.” please refer to Page 3 – Table 1, Page 4 – Table 2, Page 5 – Table 3 and finally Page 6 – Table 4; these are to be used in context with the retracted statement, since I was strictly referencing only the financial component of the document and not the scientific detail; http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PSCS2_fox_SthCstNSW.pdf shows how shooting can be effective if targeted and this same document is referenced by the Shooters and Fishers Party http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/news/shooting-effective-proven-pest-control.

    You are quite correct as the document as a whole justifies the argument against ‘conservation hunting’ in a scientific and financial prospective, but i need to draw your attention back to relevance to the argument your posing in regards to the before mentioned and I quote “If you take conservation out of the equation; and look at this as a form or recreation then the argument still stands and has not changed, as the primary debate in this instance is not conservation but public safety; and i would like to draw your attention to the post by Shini and read the linked statistics.
    in response to “Getting kids hunting; getting novices hunting; hunting in national parks” I would like to remind you that Shooting in state forests has been legal for some time, and there have been no problems.”

    In response to “They have not argued primarily on this as are recreational choice” unfortunately I cannot comment on this due to the correctness of your response.

    In response to “the argument has been dragged into that area by pro-hunters who (erroneously) think their ‘right’ to hunt in parks is somehow equivalent to everyone else’s right to passively enjoy parks”. the information on the following sites indicate that there is significant precautions taken in deeming areas for hunting (http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/visiting/activities/hunting , http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/business/permits, http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=NationalParks-newlaw) and in allocating permits for hunters, with this information and if it also pertains to National Parks; then why should shooters (given that the rules are observed and they refrain from shooting outside of any zones deemed as off limits) be any different to anyone else?

    Kind regards
    Cremefraiche

  • drjones

    Dear Cremefriache,

    Thank you for your comments. Once again, I appauld you for reading the evidence presented and for being won over by reasoned argument.

    So, going by your comment above, “You are quite correct as the document as a whole justifies the argument against ‘conservation hunting’ in a scientific and financial prospective”, I take it we are now agreed on the statement that:

    Hunting in National Parks has ZERO conservation value.

    Good! Now that we have established this, I can move on and address your second point, which is your conjecture that hunting in National Parks is a legitimate recreational past-time that should be catered for. I disagree and here is why:

    The fundamental reason that National Parks exist in NSW is to protect biodiversity, natural and cultural resources within their boundaries. This function is stipulated in NSW law in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. In this Act, National Parks are defined as:

    “…areas of land and or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.”

    (see http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/081f39ee37593d86ca256ecf000a213e/$FILE/22-98.pdf for a briefing paper which describes this Act plus the whole evolution of how National Parks came to be established in NSW)

    So the parks are meant to act as an conservatories to preserve the natural heritage that belongs to us all. Their primary purpose is definitely NOT as entertainment precincts, be it for shooters, mountain bikers, BASE jumpers, moto-cross riders or anyone else. In fact, in theory, parks would be ‘off limits to all of us all the time. However, this is not a sensible real-world postion to take- so the law allows (mostly) low-impact activities such as hiking, kayaking, camping, in certain parts and with certain limits (eg no fires).Most of us would agree this is reasonable, since it allows citizens to appreciate the natural heritage their taxes are helping to protect, and it allows people to see for themselves the inherent value in keeping wild places intact.

    The Shooters Party knew all this when they proposed hunting in national parks- they knew there was NO legitimate reason under the Act for their demands to be met. Therefore they tried to to find a loophole in- and that loophole was to declare that they were there to help protect the heritage in the parks. And, as we both now agree, this is simply not true.

    Since the reason for being of National Parks has nothing to do with what special interest groups would like to do in them, you can now see why any argument or claim based on ‘wanting’ to shoot in parks is simply irrelevant. Shooting in parks for recreation should be dismissed out of hand, just as would any other high impact use demand.

    National Parks in NSW occupy ~5% of the land area of NSW. Of the ~95% that is not National Parks, much of it is private land upon which hunting is permitted (if the land owner allows it). There is also significant public land where hunting already occurs (eg State forests). Since hunters already have so many options to hunt, there is simply no justification whatsoever for them to infringe onto the only designated no-hunting area.

    The question I raise is why do they want to infringe on this space? Are hunters so greedy that 95% is not enough for them? Or are there other reasons. My conjecture, but I suspect there are two reasons- first (as previously stated) to try to ‘mainstream’ a hunting and firearms culture, but secondly because private property owners are increasingly disillusioned by their real-world experiences of hunters on their land. Visit any rural area and ask around, you will soon find stories of misbehaviour, cruelty and illegality on private land.

    Finally, regarding the safety aspect of hunting in National Parks. For argument’s sake let’s assume your position that, based on experiences in NZ and other states, it poses a low risk of park users being maimed or killed. Well it is obvious that whatever the risk is, it is still more risk than currently exists (which is ZERO). By the way, the government’s own risk analysis shows this is in fact a MAJOR risk. Too bad they suppressed this: see http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/hunt-fury-may-trigger-park-disruptions-20121226-2bwfz.html

    Relevant quote:

    “Anger among National Parks and Wildlife Service staff intensified over Christmas after a leaked draft risk assessment report showed the government will proceed with the plan despite warnings that a fatality or serious injury by gun wound was a ”major risk” once shooting begins in March.”

    In summary then, hunting in National Parks has no conservation value, is outside the purposes for which parks are legally designated, and it poses a major, and forseeable, risk of injury or death to other park users. I would say this gives absolutely zero merit to the idea.

  • Graham Barry

    Mr. O’Farrell,
    I am a firearms owner and shooter. I am not agree hugging hippie or a greenie, far from both.
    I writing to you to please change your policy on shooting in our National Parks.
    In the interest of public safety, please do not let this ludicrous piece of Legislation pass.

    Graham Barry
    Responsible Firearms Owner

  • Cremefraiche

    Hello drjones, I will have a response to this in due course and I am indeed enjoying the debate rater than mindless abuse (seems to occur frequently when people do not have a proper understanding; or lack capacity to comprehend the topic), since I am reading the reference material and preparing some of my own findings.

    Regards

    Cremefraiche

  • paul c

    According to a recent radio interview with the president of a NZ deer hunting association broadcast by the ABC – hunting in National Parks has always been allowed in NZ. There have been 10 fatalities in the last 10 years but only 1 of these was a non-hunter. As tragic as this is, the stats say we are far more likely to die driving to a National Park so why don’t we stop people from driving as well ?.

    If you look at the stats ~ 3000 people die from alcohol related causes per year, ~ 1500 die in traffic accidents ~ 190 die from drowning ~ 16 die from unintentional shootings.

    We all have to live with risk the alternative is to ban everything and do nothing.

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

  • sidsierra

    If the groups opposing hunting in NSW National Parks were serious about conservation of flora and fauna in the National Parks they would welcome a resource of fully accredited, trained and experienced sporting shooters reducing the number of feral pest. Having first hand experience seeing the utter destruction that these animals cause to Australian Fauna and Flora it is a great idea of the government of NSW to utilise this wonderful resource of qualified hunters. Feral eradication by these hunters DO make a difference.
    Regarding the concern of people visiting the National Park being shot or wounded the likelihood of this occurring is extremely small and highly unlikely. These qualified and experienced hunters would not want to be anywhere near them and would know that there was hikers or picnicers were in the vicinity well before the same people knew there were hunters in the area. As stated they would want to get away from park visitors as quick of possible. One reason is to mitigate the possibility of a person being injured. As for the get up poster , really , you must be desperate to advertise such misleading images. It does your organisation no favours as it discredits all your advertising as false and sensational and lacking facts.

blog comments powered by Disqus