/

Alf,

Firstly, we are shooters. Our two main gun magazines are called The Sporting Shooter and Australian Shooter. Our main gun organisation is called Sporting Shooters Assoc of Australia.

We talk about going on a shooting trip. We ask, "how many pigs, roos or goats did you shoot?" No one talks about "harvesting"

In addition, the shooting from a vehichle is the only way you will do it on the open flat country. If I drop you out in the middle of the paddock in summertime, what are you going to do and where will you walk to?

What I have always found difficult to understand is how Americans and Europeans break out in an ethical rash about wounding a deer but not chuckrocks or prairie dogs or similar animals.

Mike

ALF,

As far as I know, Australia has no 'game animals', only feral introduced species and animals classified as 'pests'. I think there are regulations governing the hunting of waterfowl.

They hunt vermin, and while they should try for a clean kill, they're under none of the restrictions (legal, ethical, or moral) that hunters of game animals are.

I think of it as hunting prairie dogs or 'chucks, only they have donkeys, camels, goats, pigs, etc.

George

Australians know Australia better than anyone else does, so I say more power to you gentlemen. I don't see anything wrong with your proceedures, and I wouldn't mind joining in the fun myself sometime!

AD

[ 08-27-2002, 18:28: Message edited by: allen day ]

Alf

I agree with you to some extent. Shooting from the back on a Landcruiser or ute is shooting not hunting. I tned to think of myself as a hunter, but many Aussie hunters don't distinguish the difference and that's their business.

I have hunted all my roos, pigs and foxes on foot. I have shot a few roos and foxes with a spotlight from a 4WD. This tends to be pest destruction. But much prefer the true sporting aspects of hunting on foot without a light.

In a thread I started the discussion at one time did turn to spotlighting. When going pig hunting this really never comes to the forefront of my plans but I can understand many city based Aussie hunters like to spend some time spotlighting for foxes and rabbits while on a hunting trip. A boar shot from a ute with a spotlight is no trophy in my view.

Also we are blessed with large numbers of game in Australia. Feral goats and pigs - the farmers used to think less of you UNLESS you could tell them a reasonable number shot at the end of the trip. I used to hunt mainly for some meat, nice skins and trophy horns and tusks, but always "bombed up" a few mobs or herds to keep the farmer happy. This may have changed somewhat as feral game has achieved some commercial value.

Roos are in oversupply and the 3 million plus shot legally each year are not the total picture as I imagine 2 to 3 times that number are actually shot. Roos are prolific breeders in good times and recover their numbers after difficult (drought) times. The quotas set by the government are more set by world "greenie" opinion in my view than by a true scientific harvest requirement. Indeed it has been reported that the state of NSW has more roos now than the whole of the country did when Cook landed on our shores (due to increased water supply from Artesian bores).

(PS - you may not be aware. Under the rules of many roo cull permits, the landowner is NOT permitted to remove the roo carcase from his property. He may be issued with a permit to kill 200 roos. He will shoot at least 200 and may use some for dog meat The rest just lie where they fall. If you say this is ridiculous I agree with you as it is a total waste. Conserve means "to use wisely". There is no harvesting or conservation in these culls.)

*******************

But its always wise to be careful when casting stones at other people. How many "trophies" shot in Southern or Eastern Africa are [b}shot[/b] (not hunted) from the back of the safari vehicle. How many "hunters" insist on shooting all trophies on foot? I wonder.

What is the value of "trophies" shot on small South African fenced farms? There's a hell of a lot of these properties in South Africa.

As I said I'm always careful about throwing stones, but I'd love to enlighten you oneday on how many "trophy" deer are shot in NZ behind wire in small enclosures and from helicopters. Most of these "trophies" do not head West!

Clean up your own backyard first.

*****************

PPS Allen you are welcome down here when you drop in one day. Alf and George too.

[ 08-27-2002, 18:44: Message edited by: NitroExpress.com ]

It is just different not wrong. There are many different styles of hunting or shooting just like anything else. We here in the US are pretty much taught that hunting from a vehicle is a no no. That isnt the case everywhere. Im sure there are people who think hunting from blinds by waterholes is not appropriate. To each their own. As long as it is done with a quick and clean kill that is the important part. Please dont confuse style with ethics. Different parts of the world have different cultural traditions. Just because it is different dosnt make it wrong. Hunting or shooting styles is no different. How does this type of hunting really differ from prairie dog or similar varmint hunting here? I think we need to concentrate on the similiarities rather than the differences. Dont get caught up in the semantics.

[ 08-27-2002, 21:48: Message edited by: Mike Smith ]

Alf:

Given the apparent fact that the kangaroo is a pest and in abundant supply, the method of shooting (method of "hunting"?)seems incidental. Granted that a body of "indifferent" observers may be repelled by the method of shooting kangaroo from a truck using a spotlight. A phrase like "ethical hunting" should not be a way of saying that " You and he should hunt in such manner as I do". An old English expression perhaps says it best. "One man's meat is another man's poison".

It is the personal compass within each of us that defines "ethical hunting".

I read your post with interest. It spurred something in my memory so I went and looked it up. It's from Aldo Leopold's " Wildlife in American Culture" , an essay contained in "A Sand County Almanac".

"A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts,they are dictated by his own conscience,rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact."

We hunters voluntarily impose restrictions upon ourselves and we do support conservation and have been doing so for generations. What we do not accept censure for is the ultimate end of hunting itself, to kill. On that count, we and the "indifferent" group of non hunters probably never will come to agreement.

/

Alf

This question surprises me when coming from a South African. Particularly a PH.

There is a tremendous amount of spotlight hunting in the RSA for any number of small antelope, small cats and especially spring hares. Almost all of these are taken out of the bakkie and in a spotlight.

Culling Impala, Zebra, Sprinbok etc. is also not dissimmilar from Australian Shooting. At least in Aus. they call it what it is and don't call it 'hunting' and enter the animals in the Record Book.

I have a good friend, a PH that most of you have heard about and some of you have hunted with, who hunts in the RSA. He figures 8 out of 10 clients shoot at least one animal out of the bakkie and the majority even more.

Now I know that no one on this forum has ever done that but 'those other guys' do.

It all seems very hypocritical to me.

'Too much gun is better than the alternative'

I am not sure what happened here. I thought that ALF asked a legitimate question, but it seemed that there was some resentment about it. Perhaps there is some history that I am not aware of? In any case, I saw the part in Crocodile Dundee where Aussie "hunters" (maybe "shooters"?) were chasing 'roos in 4WD's and blazing away at them. I would think that someone on this forum would have a hard time justifying this activity to a non-hunter. In fact, you would have a hard time justifying it to me! Just because you classify an animal as "vermin" surely doesn't justify you not killing it quickly with one clean shot? If you want to chase it, chase it on foot for heavens sake. While I live in the States, I was raised in England, so I'm not sure I buy the "what you are used to argument". I do not think it is "ethical" to shoot bald eagles from an airplane, I don't care where you live!I don't think it is ethical to shoot polar bears from a boat while they are swimming. Again, I don't care what you are used to!
I think this is point that ALF was trying to make. Is SCI full of it by even thinking that we can convince the 60% "uncommitted" if we have some of the attitudes expressed above? Is it true that hunters and "non hunters" can never meet? Are we always going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with the hunting episode shown in Crocodile Dundee as a PETA extremist?
Peter.

Peter,

From your post:

If you want to chase it, chase it on foot for heavens sake

Peter, the thust of that is that on foot will be more sporting. There is a point I would like to raise.

Why not use open sights instead of a scope. Why not use a 45/120 with black powder loads. Why not use a bow and arrow. Why not stalk on foot and just dart the animal?

Using a 300 Wby with scope as compared to 45/70 etc is exactly the same as using a vehichle instead of on foot. Efficiency, increased results etc.

Mike

I say , if in Australia , do as the Aussies do .

Obviously , the shooting of these 'roos and pigs , etc. falls into the category of pest or varmint control , and has little to do with "trophy" hunting for such as the big five in Africa or elk , sheep and so forth in North America . As such , it makes perfectly good sense to me to pursue these animals in the most efficient fashion possible .

I think it is likely a case could be made that the culling of overly thick populations of feral or other animals is in fact conservation ---you may be conserving scarce forage and water supplies for more desirable species and obviously preventing tremendous crop damage at times ....

It seems to me Alf , you have mentioned a few times hunting out of the back of a truck in the Kalihari yourself ? How do you justify pursuing edible game animals in that fashion ?

How do the Europeans justify their shooting of game animals after dark ? That would be illegal everywhere here in the states and viewed as scumbag poaching .......

[ 08-28-2002, 09:17: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

/

..

[ 08-28-2002, 15:22: Message edited by: Shikaree ]

Hi ALF
Apart from the fox, cat and dog most of the animals that are shot,are killed to protect the flora and stop land degradation.We kill animals mostly to conserve vegetation and habitat.

There is trophy hunting as well but the value of the animal does nothing to conserve the species as in Africa.Trophy hunting in Australia is an exploitation of the feral animal for private profit with the side benefit of protecting and conserving flora(and crops)and native habitat.

To some degree trophy hunting leads to propogation of feral species for profit at the expense of the environment and conservation.

Hunting can be perceived as undesirable if ALL the ferals are NOT eliminated and some are left to be hunted later or ferals are intoduced into an area previously unpopulated for future hunting.

Most hunters in Australia would like to manage the feral populations so that there would always be animals to shoot.However to really conserve the Australian enviornment ALL ferals should be removed or eliminated.

The attitude of most non-hunters in Australia is that EVERY feral species should be eliminated or farmed.To some degree we are at war with our ferals.We even resort to biological warfare to kill off ferals.The shooting of ferals is widely accepted as necessary and even desirable to protect the native flora and fauna especially if you kill them ALL.

The numbers of feral animals that could be shot are staggering.Take camels, to just stabilise the current estimated population of over a million, you would have to cull 30,000 animals each year.

The estimated population of roos is currently 60 million and with the drought you propably need to cull half or more.For one shooter to shot one million roos he has to shoot 2,740 every day for a year.

Spotlighting is very common in Australia and is widely accepted as the method of choice for shooting ferals and culling roos.It makes the "job" of shooting ferals and roos practical,efficient and cost effective.

There is always a Yahoo element that hoons around guns blazing but they are frowned upon by the majority and it is not encouraged.

For me my aim as a hunter/shooter is to kill all ferals untill they are all gone, the 2 goats I shot were the LAST feral goats in my area.I killed them to stop the damage to the environment and left them for the eagles to eat.

Regards
Deafdog

Firstly as has been said "Crocodile Dundee" was a movie. It was fiction. Not only that, it was a fictional comedy. Not a documentary. Don't take it seriously.

Secondly, as has also been said in a way, good conservation in Australia probably entails the "wholesale slaughter" of feral animals.

I must say I do not agree with Deafdogs in his statement "For me my aim as a hunter/shooter is to kill all ferals untill they are all gone". That for me is his personal opinion and as such is fine. But the major resource for hunting in Australia is feral animals (plus native ducks). In my view management is the key. The wildlife authorities in this country have a very simplistic view of "managing" wildlife, and is reduced to this:
All native animals are wonderful and must be totally perserved

All introduced animals are pests and must be totally exterminated

Simplistic, that's why they can understand it. I think they could learn a lot from our African cousins if they had the will and the brains.

Take this example. A club I belong to was trying to get access to government land which is part of a cities water catchment area (forests etc) for the purpose of hunting deer. We were given permission providing we EXTERMINATED all deer in the forests. We refused to participate on that basis.

Interesting to note the same department also carries out widespread poisoning campaigns of native fauna (ie kangaroos and emus) in the same area, because for these purists anything that "shits" and "pisses" contaminates the water supply (sorry about the language but I feel strongly about this). Morons! And the public is completely unaware as it this area is strictly "off-limits".

So you see we hunters fight to keep some ethics even against our own goverments intentions.

Another large club has gained rights to "hunt" in National Parks. But again as part of "pest extermination". They think they are gaining "brownie points" but once the goats are gone, out the door they will go. (I am not knocking these individuals as this may be the only way they can access "hunting" of this sort)

The sad thing in Australia is that if ever we succeed in eliminating all feral game, the next year we will have succeeded in eliminating all firearm ownership as well. No valid reason for "hunters" to own a firearm. The rest will be locked away in "central repositories".

I also think when we discuss how to deal with non-hunters and antis we should be careful of withdrawing and hiding up our own orifices.

I see nothing disgraceful nor am ashamed in any way about being a hunter, so I purposely put it into the foreground. Hiding it makes it seem shameful and wrong. In a foreign magazine I once saw a debate on how hunting magazines shouldn't show dead animals on the covers. It might upset the antis or "bambie" believers. BS! There's nothing wrong with a hunter posing in front of a magnificient stag, and the anti or "bambie lover" that says different is a hypocrite when they tuck into a steak that night or eat alfalfa spouts that have been protected by killing all native wildlife that eats grass.

With respect and being polite argue the point with anyone that disagrees or agree to disagree in the end. Otherwise everywhere we will end up as one part of the world where I lived for a while where gunshops are hidden away behind closed doors and without window displays, lest someone be offended. A sure way to kill off our sport.

I have posted this photo before. But it is relevant to this discussion.



These impala were shot/culled with a .223 Ruger Mini 14 not even from a ute but from a helicopter. In Africa.

Not wholesale slaughter. Definitely not hunting in my view. Culling and good game management, YES.

A friend who is a PH a few months ago mentioned to me that he spent a weekend culling a couple of hundred of game (can't remember the species) with his .243 in South Africa.

Members on this board have mentioned going on cheaper "safaris" in SAf which basically are culls. I've got no problem with them doing this. Someones got to keep the numbers in check for the available food supplies.

I don't see the difference between Aust and SAf?
Yes many Aussie hunters do have a "numbers" or "quota" mentality. But that's more to do with the "unlimited" supply of ferals (in the past) and their supposed "worthlessness".

These attitudes are changing:
1) due to commercial exploitation of goats and pigs for human meat supply and export (did you know some meat sold as "boar" in Germany is actually feral pork from Australia);
2) with increased fee paying trophy hunting, individual animals are increasing in value.
(Did you know that before about 1980 there probably was NO fee based hunting in Australia? The first "safari" operations started in the NT about then (2 operators) and the first fenced deer hunting reserve for fee based hunting. Before then hunting was completely free if you had access. Paradise! So you can also see why attitudes are somewhat different.)

Try finding a property that allows 100 to 200 goats to be shot on a hunting trip in the Flinders Ranges today. If you do tell me about it.

They are worth more than sheep in some cases!

[ 08-28-2002, 19:57: Message edited by: NitroExpress.com ]

The SCI's mission is to address the issue of shooting/hunting as a legitimate and necessary part of maintaining our environment. Clearly, in Australia it is necessary to take out large numbers of indigenous and exotic animals in order to maintian the environment. We can identify the same necessity almost every where we look in the world.

The difference between conservationists and treehuggers is appreciation of the facts. There are all kinds of emotional appeals to the wholesale taking of life. However, death is death whether the result of 85gr of 243 bullet or starvation. We know that starvation is pretty awful, and absolutely destructive of the environment.

It is a shame to have to cull animals, but there are few realistic alternatives to this. Whether you leave the animals where they fall or utilize them is an economic issue not one of ethics or environmentalism. However, this has nothing to do with hunting/shooting as a means of control. Ku-dude

I believe shooting in Australia is very different to America and Europe because of some basic attitude differences and these attitudes are a product of both the nature of the country and also the animals that are here.

For as start, the majority of Australians have not grown up in an environment of eating what is shot with perhaps the exception of the rabbit and of course the duck.

Shooting in Australia has always been a case of "let's go and have a shot". I suspect that the so called "ethics" of hunting the various deer is also why "bambi" appeared.

This is also reflected in our anti gun people ranging from the dedicated ones to just the bloke down the street who does not like guns. You don't really encounter too many people out here that have anti hunting attitude because they have no interest.

Deafgog in his post says that shooters go shooting with the purpose to eliminate feral animals. Well, some might, but it would about.01% of them. Shooters go shooting for fun, a holiday etc.

I guess that in many ways our Kangaroo is the counterpart of your white tail deer. But there are two big differences which are probably linked. The kangaroo has never really been seen as an animal that you eat and perhaps that may even be related to the type of country that are found in. I think the American and European scene of a back ground of snow capped mountains creates a very different environment to country that is dead flat for hundreds and hundreds of miles and country that the kangaroo shares with snakes, lizard and millions of flies.

Lastly, I think our attitude has also been framed by the style or the natute of the properties we shoot on. Back in the mid 70s I went on a holiday with my first wife and told her that on the way home we would detour to a property I shoot on. She had never really been to far from our coast. She was a bit of animal lover and was a little bit apprehensive since I would be shooting.

By the second day she had changed quite a bit. For starters, this country was not like where she had seen kangaroos in nice green parks and Taroonga Park Zoo. It was a typical summer time in inland Australia. Very hot and very dry and about 57 million flies would cover your back

From talking to a few Americans over the years I suspect that our smaller sheep and cattle properties that are close to our coast are more like your ranchs in both appearance and atttitude. On these sort of places the few roos can almost be looked on like pets whereas out west they are just seen as a piece of shit.

Mike