I sat a R licence test for a R licence in NSW several years ago. But never applied for it, saved some money in hindsight as I haven't visited there in the meantine.

But with all the new reserves, parks, forests etc opened up to hunting, my question has anyone taken any sort of decent hunting trophy from these areas?

The reports I have seen have never shown eg a trophy class stag or buck. Any decent horned trophy goats. etc I would suppose some decent boars have been taken.

All the trophies have come off private lands from what I have seen.

Is this the case? Have "you" (ie the replier) shot anything decent in terms of trophy animals from R licence areas? Maybe post some pics.

I understand the justification for opening up these areas to hunting was "killing pest species" ie pest extermination. Rather than true recreational hunting motives.

Just interested in are these areas worth pursuing (ie in general not talking about specific locations) and actually applying for an R licence. I meat hunt closer to home, but if driving for a day or two, primarily trophy hunt. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:


I understand the justification for opening up these areas to hunting was "killing pest species" ie pest extermination. Rather than true recreational hunting motives.

Sorry I cant answer the question re: trophy quality from personal experience but I would take this opportunity, at risk of sounding pedantic, to correct you if I can in that the justification above may have seemed so for some species (in order to bring in the legislation) but the real (ie. reality) motivation is to manage these species and most particularly the actual GAME species, namely deer..... Deer now being classified as a game species in NSW, not a pest species.

Once National Parks are opened to hunting,there will be some huge Sambar and Rusa shot

No doubt there are some magnificent animals in some of the NP's.
I can vouch for a Rusa that this year had a rack that looked like an ant carrying a muffin.( as far as rusa go)
he has a bed within 70M of my cabin.......been watching him for the last 5 yrs.

Opening NP's to hunting has some huge public risk policy issues & is a big IF rather than a "once".
The contract culling has had issues & was recently suspended for a period due to safety issues.
If contract culling has issues.......what chance the general hunting community.??????
Methinks there are quite a few NP's that have no chance of being opened.

quote:

Originally posted by DenisB:
No doubt there are some magnificent animals in some of the NP's.
I can vouch for a Rusa that this year had a rack that looked like an ant carrying a muffin.( as far as rusa go)
he has a bed within 70M of my cabin.......been watching him for the last 5 yrs.

Opening NP's to hunting has some huge public risk policy issues & is a big IF rather than a "once".
The contract culling has had issues & was recently suspended for a period due to safety issues.
If contract culling has issues.......what chance the general hunting community.??????

Recreational hunting does not have serious safety issues in other states or countries?? Why would it be any different in NSW??

Risk anywhere with things that go bang.
The issue is areas with high non- hunting general public utilisation & interactions.
those interactions don't need to be close, just within hearing to have substantial angst issues & potential political repercussions.
Its a case of risk management on the part of the hunting community as far as what you wish for , what you have achieved in access thus far & what you risk by pushing too far & having interaction repercussions ( even very distant ones ) that carry with them a risk of losing ground in current access.
One step too far on slippery ground can result in sliding several steps backwards.

Less problems in remote areas .

The political policy perspective in NSW between
general public access & sector group access policy issues has been playing out for decades.
The prevailing framework has been separation of general public access areas from sector group access areas ..........just look at the fishing situation.........and there is nothing perceived as potentially life threatening in sector interactions there.

when you add the potential of just "imagined" life threatening risk to the mix in the political & area management, the level of angst in both the general public's mind & the responsibility ( repercussions)for a management decision that results in an "interaction" increases dramatically.

I well understand the desire for access, I have difficulty in seeing access being politically acceptable , Departmental access management being anything other than "partitioning" of sector access, unacceptability of partitioning" by the general public, coupled with the risk to the hunting community, that even a distant "interaction" in an NP with the general public will result in potential loss of access to existing "R" areas.

Just trying to give a perspective to the other side of the public access 'coin' Matt.......and raising the issue of risk in taking a step too far in hunting access.
Responsible hunters will manage the risks, but not everyone out there is responsible, despite passing an "R" test............they are the ones who will bring the whole hunting community undone in the public lands access issue.
IMHO in NSW ..........it will only take one.

When culling contractors who have a significant financial gain in NP access can't maintain the "interaction" protocols, what chance EVERYONE in the "R" endorsed hunting community will do so.
The question to be asked is what repercussions you might expect if there is an "interaction" in NP hunting access.
The desire for access needs to be balanced against the risk of repercussion for current access..........not everyone is thinking of the potential downside in their desire for more access.

The reality is though Denis that in NSW there is so much National Park and so little access and visitation to and by the general public... that the risks are very , very low anyhow. If you take the Royal National Park out the equation (as far as widespread hunting goes) and regulate access to some of the the more popular parks down south... what you are left with are a bunch of Parks that do not get many visitors outside of the public rest stops and lookouts and such. The chance of any negatiove encounters are very, very slim.

IMO there is no reason why Nat Park hunting in NSW cant work...

In principle you are right Matt.

Quote-DenisB- "Less problems in remote areas ."

In many NPs the areas accessed by significant numbers of the general public are small.
Much smaller percentage of the general public getting energetic and accessing the trails.
even smaller percentages getting "off piste".
therein lays the issue of interactions .

I raised the issue of "interactions" in a previous post.
there is a huge conceptual difference in what a hunter sees as an interaction ( close & personal) and what the general public sees as an interaction.
"partitioning" user group access can eliminate the potential for visual interaction with hunters( the hunters concept of interaction).

when you start to develop the "partitioning" of NP areas .............you discover that despite never seeing anyone in an area you seek to partition ..........it becomes the most important piece of real estate for someone else.
( its incredibly rare not to occur in any review process about 'public land').
As soon as you identify an area of interest:-
- people go out of their way to go there ........ because they are philosophically opposed to partitioning of public land for sector group use..........they create physical interaction.

Then there is the general public concept of an "interaction" in an NP.
All access sectors:-
- lookouts,rest stops
- trail users
- "off piste" users
regard any auditory pollution to the tranquility of an NP.......as an INTERACTION.
and incompatible with an NP.

Then they toss in the "trust" issue.
" I heard a hunter in the NP.......what were they doing, what were they killing......NPs are supposed to contain representative examples of all fauna ( except declared pests )............
report to NP Management demanding followup investigation that the hunting activity was appropriate to the objectives of an NP.

Again,
I understand the desire for hunting access, I'm not sure many understand the difference in concepts of "interactions" between hunters & the non-hunting general public........and the political & administrative difficulties that creates.

He He........I'm only raising this to moderate the expectations of the original post about
" once NPs are opened to hunting " to IF NPs are opened to hunting........and consideration that it may be a step too far if opening results in a physical interaction as it could result in a rebound into "R" area access.

BTW........good luck with changing the NPWS Act to allow the taking of fauna other than declared pests in an NP.
your 'take' on the legislative situation in State Forests is correct , but its fundamentally invalid in NPs as they are managed under different legislation.
You cannot "take" even vegetation in an NP & that includes dead vegetation for a camp fire or B-B-Q.
We still have huge policy problems with managing vegetation fuel load in NPs as a public safety issue , let alone taking some fauna.
When you have experienced the policy issues in getting action over a feral dog that is a risk to the public in an NP, you might realise how big that IF is, in achieving hunting access in an NP.
None the less, I wish the hunting community success in their desire to achieve access, but the policy & political hurdles are huge, and its not without risk to what they have already achieved IMHO.

There are already National Parks open to hunting in Australia... I dont see why it is such a big step in NSW?? apart from a lot of political willpower and a whole lot of paperwork!!

Everything about it works - economically, socially, environmentally.... it works!! I do understand that it is an 'if' however...

Who mentioned taking native fauna in a National Park anyhow?? I didnt did I?? That is not on anyone's agenda.

I do understand about the interactions and that is what I was talking about too. But negative interactions would be so few in the parks that I am talking about... ie. the ones that would be opened first!!!

quote:

Originally posted by TOP_PREDATOR:
Once National Parks are opened to hunting,there will be some huge Sambar and Rusa shot

Thats already been happening for years NP or not,they dont give a rats those blokes.

He He ........you added the prefix "native" to the fauna bit.

I just referred to the taking of fauna & vegetation ( within the context of the NSW NPWS legislation ).

Methinks the wording of NP legislation in NSW is a big hurdle, Matt , that might have been easier to jump in other states.
Heck the Royal NP , as the second oldest NP declared in the world , was declared "for the purpose of public recreation"........that hasn't stopped that original park being managed as essentially a wilderness area , with the politically very active National Parks Association begrudging seeing any footprints on the ground other than their own.

The missives to NPWS, about reducing access , closing tracks etc, from Bob Carr when he was NSW premier , are legendary.
NPWS staff dreaded everytime they heard he was walking in the Park........IIRC he is a member of the NP Association.......and from the dark green side of conservation.
The Greens might have lost the balance of power in NSW politics 6 months ago , but their kin are well entrenched in the jurisdictional administrations & nowhere more heavily than in the NPWS.
yes NSW is different ( unfortunately , in a lot of ways).
a lot of hard work going in by the Game Council, but its a pretty steep cliff they are climbing.

It took more than 2 years of consultations & badgering to get approval for the installation of some life rings in popular fishing spots , with even having to do an EIS on the impact of drilling holes in the sandstone platforms to install the brackets & an EIS on the adhesive required to mount them........bare sandstone mind you. The approval documents are a dozen pages.
It sure is a different culture in NSW NPWS.

Dennis people said the same thing about state forests.

Opening National Parks won't be easy,but the guys at the shooters party are not the kind of people to give in without a fight.

quote:

Originally posted by TOP_PREDATOR:
Dennis people said the same thing about state forests.

Opening National Parks won't be easy,but the guys at the shooters party are not the kind of people to give in without a fight.

TP
State Forests are administered under the jurisdiction of the Dept of Primary Industries, who have legislative objectives of extractive activities.......and it was hard enough there to achieve hunting access.
NPWS is a totally different ball game & administered under a legislative framework that has no reference to extractive activity for flora & fauna within a context of recreation.

Again, my only issue is with the context of "ONCE" hunting access is gained rather than "IF".
Positive thinking is useful, it needs however to be tempered by the reality of what is being faced & that it is a terribly steep pathway that is being travelled , with a different set of impediments to be faced compared to State Forests & a very different administrative culture & legislative framework.

Thanks for the op topic replies. I was looking for some idea from people hunting these areas as to what the trophy potential of the game species are.

Yes I would assume there is a lot of trophy potential in the Rusa herds in some of the Nat Parks.

I think these reserves, forests etc plus hopefully one day Nat Parks offer good hunting potential for locals, especially those without access to private properties.

Matt, yes the "pest destruction" justification was a good way to allow recreational hunters access. The "funny" thing is so often even hunters argue against recreational hunting, and claim it all HAS to be pest destruction.

Arguments by a shooter or "hunter" that recreational hunters cause potential safety issues in National Parks? Sheesh! No wonder it is such a hard fight to win against the irrational antis ...

No