Correct me if i'm wrong but have not duck hunters in Vic been killed and injured during past hunting seasons

Might as well ban matches in State and national parks. How many died in the Victorian bushfires and what about the houses, fauna ans livestock? The Whiskey Au Go Go fire in Brisbane, how many dead?

We need to be rational about the actual risks, which any competent risk assessment would rate as infinitesimally small. Obviously if regulators were inclined to be risk averse and some lobbyists are forever leaning on government, caravans wouldn't be allowed on the road, nor 'old' drivers at the wheel and certainly neither vans nor campers would be allowed in national and State parks.

A deep breath, a glass of cold water and leave the Greens' political hysteria for somewhere else maybe.

Those of you that don't like to be in places where guns are in common usage had better stay in the city. Most landholders, particularly those running stock (ie out in the country) carry and use firearms on a regular basis. Last week I shot a feral 120kg boar that had be working its way through this seasons lambs. Crows are just as bad pecking the eyes out of newborn lambs.

Get over it or stay in the "burbs"

John

The 'Wild West" was a fabrication of Hollywood. Unless of course anyone imagines that John Wayne movies were documentaries.

On the other hand, there have been many factual reports of four wheel drives backing over children. Ban 4X4s from NPs?

Hoplophobia: http://www.fearofstuff.com/objects/fear-of-firearms/

Edit,

Barrie, I notice you have a beer in your hand in your avatar.  Now it just so happens that there are some, not myself, who would ban alcohol tomorrow.  They would have good cause because it is the worst drug and the annual cost of alcohol fuelled violence alone would strongly support their cause.

Just to say that doubtless many can drink without becoming involved in violence.

Non-drinkers and drinkers need to get along, smokers and non-smokers need to get along and licensed firearms owners and non-owners need to get along.  Of those, licensed firearms owners have the strongest argument against intolerance imaginable, which is hard numbers proving how very safe their sport and hunting are.

-- Edited by johnq on Friday 29th of June 2012 04:52:40 AM

Johng I'm not against people owning guns just against them being used in NP's

Nicholstones wrote:

---

Wow, some of this stuff is going seriously off track. I don't think anyone has any problems with sports shooting, or disputes that it is a very safe sport (after all, everyone is behind the guns not in front of them) or thinks that firearms licences are handed out like lollies. None of that has anything at all to do with whether it is a good idea to allow shooting in national parks. In fact, it seems to me that most people on the forum (me included) don't have really strong views one way or the other but would really like some more informaqtion about exactly what is being proposed. The posts on here supposedly supporting the idea seem to me not to actually be putting up any arguments about this specific issue, but instead getting all defensive about the subject of firearms in general.

---

I agree with you. I expected more information about how this will work, and how it will be regulated.

It seems that the issue is not with licenced gun clubs and sporting clubs, but with hunters, and in particular unlicenced hunters using unlicenced guns.

I think its reasonable to expect the general population to be afraid of unregulated shooting anywhere, and I can't see that the current regulation actually reduces that fearfulness in the general population.

 

How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html

Haven't worked this topic to death? The standard of debate here is about 4th class primary school level although even they would do better than some of the posts.

The thread is full of hyperbole and irrelevant arguments containing implied misinformation on both sides. Question time in Parliament looks almost intelligent by comparison.

If this were a formal debate both sides would have been disqualified by now.

Now, instead of this childish tit-for-tat stuff, let's drop it and move on!

As an upcoming grey nomad, secretary and past president of a national hunting association, authorised "R" licence assessor for the Game Council of NSW, delegate to the Game Management Council of NSW and hunter for over 50 years using at various times all methods apart from bowhunting, I can only shake my head in disbelief at many of the posts on this thread. For the past six years NSW state Forests (present count something like 460 of them) have been hunted by "R" licenced hunters without a single major incident. Over this time, not only have very significant numbers of feral animals (far more than NP control methods have achieved) been despatched but the incidence of illegal uncontrolled hunting has decreased. I am disappointed that pig dogs will not be permitted (slight bias there) as they have proven to be, by far, the most effective form of hunting control for pigs in thick country. The figures are something of the order of 80% by pig doggers, 20% by other hunting forms in NSW State Forests. Pigs are one of the most, if not the most, intelligent feral animal (and almost the most prolific breeder) in Australia. One of the requirements for "R" licenced pig doggers is that their dogs must be fitted with radio tracking collars and it is extremely rare for dogs to become lost these days. Any half decent pig dog is highly trained to be species specific & will show no interest in anything other than pigs. I've even seen many cases where a dog has caught a wild boar amongst domestic pigs without touching the domestics. Has me beat how they differentiate but many experienced dogs have. However, I digress. Knowing the restrictions involved in allowing shooters access into National Parks and based on experience to date, I would be extremely surprised if the general public using those parks would be in any more danger than at present. In fact, I believe I could confidently say they would be at less risk as the policing presence of "R" licenced hunters would act as a deterrent to many of the illegal, hence uncontrolled hunters of all persuasions presently accessing the parks.

Darrell

It only got approved so they could sell off the power grid

barrie wrote:

---

It only got approved so they could sell off the power grid

---

So you have nothing to dispel the facts on the government regulator's site, ie., Games Council site?

Unlike farmers and DPI, the impractical and clueless Greens opponents are not responsible for the stock that are predated upon and nor do they lift a finger to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases.  The policy of shutting everyone out of national parks has ensured the spread of introduced plants and animals.  The government's expensive contract shooting from choppers and the aerial 1080 poison drops have limitations. 

What do you recommend instead and will you fund it through prohibitively expensive user pays for national parks?  There is the technology and capacity to apply an etoll to entry points for many national parks.