AN UN-AUSTRALIAN ABUSE OF 'RIGHTS'

The following call to arms against the organisers of Narooma's HuntFest, entitled "Stong opposition", was published in the Letters section of the Bega District News - May 21st edition:

"Will the legislation to allow amateur hunting in national parks be revoked by the NSW Government as a result of strong opposition from the majority of voters, and will Narooma’s Huntfest be cancelled as a consequence of this decision?

"One can only hope so for the sake of the town’s reputation, the safety of children and adults, and the continued use of national parks as sanctuaries for wildlife.

"A Huntfest with no guns (at least for the first year), and nowhere to hunt in a beautiful environment like the South Coast will be as ludicrous as a Pub With No Beer in Mt Isa.

"Maybe the Huntfesters will abandon their schemes to encourage killing and simply embark on the tourist promotion aspect of their agenda, even though that is a function more than adequately performed by the nearby tourist bureau.

In the words spoken at the Bega rally, “throw away the gun and have a lot more fun” (BDN 19/3). 

"Do you want to protect our wildlife and keep national parks for safe recreation?

"Are you opposed to teaching children to kill?

"Express your pro-life feelings with a poster on the fence opposite the Narooma Sports and Leisure Centre."

Susan Cruttenden
Dalmeny

-ends-

The first thing that hit me about Ms Cruttenden’s letter was the claim that hunting in national parks enjoys the “strong opposition of the majority of voters.” If this can be established from the dismal turnout anti-hunting rallies have enjoyed across the state, one can only hope that it cuts both ways.

Take for instance the most highly publicised of these rallies, the one in Sydney on April 18th 2013. Attended by 2000 people, by the most generous estimates, it hardly equates to “strong support” by a “majority of voters”, given Sydney’s population of 6 million plus souls.

The Bega version drew between 150 and 200 people, most of them identified by one local as “the usual suspects”. Few people joined the rally off the street, but rather the crowd read as a who’s who of eco-activism in the Bega Valley. But even had they been new converts to the cause, given that the rally was preceded by a huge media and communications campaign aimed at rallying troops from far and wide, 200 was hardly an indication of majority opposition as was subsequently claimed.

It could be claimed with equal vigour and credibility that getting 200 people along to a rally in a major rural centre with a total population of 31,000, demonstrates that 30,880 people didn’t care at all, one way or the other. But I like the rally organisers’ stance much better, because it means that all hunters need do is gather 201 people in the main street for a walk to the local member’s office, and by the anti-hunters’ own model of community consultation we have established clear majority support.

Satire aside, the activities of Ms Cruttenden and her supporters have taken on an increasingly irresponsible and malicseous tone in recent months, and I beleive this should be cause for concern in the community at large.

My response (below), submitted to the Bega District News on Wednesday, May 22nd, includes a number of important points and seldom considered consequences of so-called “community action”. Moreover, I believe it exposes recent activity on the far south coast for what it really is; in every respect, worthy of the term un-Australian.

For example, inciting people to hang signs on fences expressing opposition to Huntfest is a very clever little stratagem aimed at obfuscating responsibility for the messages that will doubtless appear. I can hear the cries of self-righteous outrage now -

“What offensive sign? It’s nothing to do with us! We didn’t hang it there, so it’s not our responsibility to remove it!! It’s not our fault,  people feel that way!!!” 

Ah, but it is your fault, if you fuel the furnace of hate with messages of intolerance specifically geared to incite fear and loathing in your community. 

Anyway, for what it's worth, this is my response.

I'll get outaya way now... 

THE ABUSE OF RIGHTS

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘bullying’ as a verb meaning to use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something.

We condemn it and campaign against it in our schools. We encourage a position of zero tolerance! Yet when it is deployed as a weapon against an initiative we don’t approve of, as if by magic, bullying becomes noble.

There was a time when demonstrating one’s opposition to an event, business or initiative, was a matter of not supporting it with one’s patronage. Today’, however, the very people who preach the message of tolerance with respect to so many controversial cultures and practices, are not satisfied with anything less than the utter destruction of community events they don’t approve of.

HuntFest is not the initiative of some government department or big, faceless multinational. It is the initiative of a local non-profit community organisation whose members seek to celebrate their love of hunting. The men and women who make-up this organisation have contributed to their community responsibly and productively for many years. As anyone who has ever organised an event in a country town will appreciate, the money invested in HuntFest will have come from a range of fundraising activities requiring hard work, and a not insignificant amount of money will doubtless have come out of the organisers’ own pockets.

I was not surprised to read Ms Cruttenden’s call to express pro-life feelings on posters hung on a fence opposite the HuntFest site (BDN May 21) in the days leading up to the event.  Readers may recall that my family awoke the day before a no-hunting in national parks protest in Bega to find just such a pro-life “love note” hung on our front fence.

The sign hung on the front fence of the author's home, just 5 metres from a school-bus stop, the day before the Bega "No hunting in National Parks" rally, March 2013

When my partner approached a high-profile member of The Greens on the day of the protest, asking if, on principle, he’d publically condemn the act of hanging this offensive sign on our front fence, his response was, “No, why should I? I didn’t do it!”  And now, coincidentally, there is a call to arms, encouraging people to repeat the sign-hanging strategy in Narooma.  Well fancy that!

HuntFest’s opponents claim their opposition is justified because of their perception that it represents a threat to the amenity of Narooma and public wellbeing. If harbouring such perceptions is in itself sufficient justification for destroying an event and the club organising it, where do we draw the line?

There is a ‘perception’ in some quarters, that Candelo is populated exclusively by ‘hippies’. Now as everyone knows (?) ‘hippies’ are drug addicts and pushers, so clearly the Candelo Village Festival must have some underlying and malignant raison d’etre. Drugs are a threat to the wellbeing of our children and our community, so perhaps we should hang posters at the Princes Hwy turn-off come festival time – “Hippies go home” or “This way to pushers’ festival”.

What’s that you say…it’s a ludicrous and offensive suggestion? Yes, isn’t it!

Yet this is the strategy encouraged by HuntFest’s opponents, based on nothing more than their hatred of hunting and their perceptions of the threat it poses to the community.

If you don’t like the hunting culture, hunters or their activities, deny them your company and your patronage. That is your right.  Seeking to destroy a non-profit community organisation and its event, simply because of your perceptions and prejudices, is not!

The Bega Valley says no to violence. Let’s say no to cultural intolerance and acts of sabotage too.

Garry Mallard

Disclosure statement:
The author will not be attending HuntFest. He is not a member of the South Coast Hunters’ Club, nor is he a member of the HuntFest organising or management committees. He will reap no pecuniary benefit from the event’s success, nor will he be impoverished should it fail. He has, in fact, no stake in HuntFest at all.

However, the author does have a 50+ year stake in opposing the corruption of the community spirit and the sense of fair-play that drew him to the region as a child, and resulted in his decision to make it his home.

UNITED WE STAND: RALLYING BEHIND OUR COMRADES AT GAME COUNCIL NSW

As visitors to this site and members of its news network can hardly fail to have noticed, Game Council NSW has been the subject of much attention and unfair criticism in recent months. 

Opportunistic Greens and anti-hunters would capitalise on the alleged transgressions of one staff member and one volunteer in order to further their objective, to ban hunting Australia-wide, by painting Game Council NSW as though it were the very manifestation of incompetence and moral corruption.

For some time now I have wondered how this vendetta is affecting Game Council NSW staff. While sources tell me they are soldiering on, I am also advised that staff morale has taken a bit of a knock and this is hardly surprising. Though quick to imbue feral animals with all manner of basic rights and anthropomorphic sensibilities, The Greens and anti-hunters revel in all opportunities to deny their human targets any such regard.

This blog was set-up specifically to oppose the unjust vilification of hunters however it might manifest, and if the outrageous and often cruel accusations levelled at Game Council NSW in the press of late do not qualify as unjust vilification, then, frankly, nothing does.

It is absolutely vital to remember that if staff at Game Council are under attack it is not because The Greens and the anti-hunters are out to get them, per se – after all they’re just folks trying to do a job. Rather it is because Game Council NSW and its staff have become handy focal points for the anti-hunters' hatred of us and our culture.

We may not be able to force the anti-hunters to curb their unprincipled tongues and activities, but we can let the staff at Game Council NSW know that they are not suffering the haters' attacks for us without our acknowledgement and support.

For this reason I encourage all hunters across the Wide Brown Land to rally behind Game Council NSW staff by sending them a brief message of support. Yes, all hunters wherever they may be! Let’s forget boarders and parochial interests on this occasion, to send a clear message to our detractors - if you knock one of us, you knock us all!

Let’s leave the staff at Game Council NSW in no doubt that we acknowledge their present difficulties and appreciate their stolid persistence on our behalf.

Forget facebook for this one. Oh it’s handy and fast I know, but nothing beats a proper note that can be shared around the office, posted at a workstation, published in a newsletter or pinned on a notice board as a reminder that your work is appreciated.

When you leave this page please take the time to send an individual message of support from a person whose hunting rights Game Council NSW staff work so conscientiously to manage and whose safety they strive every day to assure. It will take just 5 minutes of your time and, let's face it, if the anti-hunters win the battle you'll likely have a lot more time than that on on your hand!

Your brief message of support and encouragement should be headed "Support feedback" and sent to Communications Manager, Amy Warr who handles feedback at Game Council NSW. Amy's address is: amy.warr@gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au

If you are a facebook junky and can’t resist the urge, you’ll find Game Council’s page here:

https://www.facebook.com/GameCouncilNSW?fref=ts

It would certainly be one in the eye for our detractors if Game Council staff arrived at the office tomorrow morning to find a tsunami of support to begin the week with, so spread the word!

Anyway, I’ll get outayaway now…

TESTING THE GROUND FOR A STATE-WIDE BOWHUNTERS’ BRANCH OF THE SHOOTERS & FISHERS PARTY

Increasingly Bowhunters are being targeted by the ant-hunting lobby. Our discipline has been maligned as cruel, irresponsible, even primitive, and as a bowhunter myself I am increasingly concerned that the liberty to practice my hunting discipline may be under even greater threat than that faced by shooters.

I believe it is past time that bowhunting had a strong, united, well-informed and relevant advocacy and policy development voice of its own, to rally behind the Shooters & Fishers Party’s efforts on our behalf.

One obvious and cohesive way to do this is by launching a state-wide Bowhunters Branch of the Shooters & Fishers Party.

For those of you concerned that this might in some way weaken S&FP, perhaps because you fear that it could be a divisive move, there is no need for concern. I have been chatting with the S&FP about the idea and if there’s enough support for such a branch, the Party is all for it. It would be embraced in much the same way the Party has embraced fishers as a stakeholder group with similar, yet at times divergent concerns and objectives.

What would it look like, and how would it benefit bowhunters?

At the present time the Shooters & Fishers Party's efforts to represent our stake in weapons ownership and hunting, is based largely on a combination of feedback from its general membership, and on a system of consultations through loose affiliations with external stakeholder groups. While this has been helpful to date, it may not be as sound a representative base as an bowhunters branch within the Party itself might be.

Of course setting up such a group within the Party need in no way diminish the value or relevance of feedback from non-archers within the Party, or even external stakeholders.

What it would mean, though, is that the S&FP would have ready access to a known and specific stakeholder group within, making it quicker and easier to obtain advice on important issues, such as policy and legislation, while perhaps also affording the Party a source of expert comment on occasions when our discipline is criticised by the media, or those who would see our rights diminished and our discipline over-regulated or even abolished.

I don’t want to be too prescriptive about the nature, purpose and benefits of an bowhunters branch of the Party. Determining what it might look like is, at least in part, the purpose of this field-up grassroots consultation. I will however go so far as to suggest that there are some basic yet important things to discuss and establish initially, and they are:

• Does the sector (you) think there may be broad benefits associated with the development of a state-wide Bowhunters Branch of the Shooters and Fishers Party?
• What would your expectations be of the branch in terms of representation?
   
• What would its consultative obligations be e.g. strictly internal, or both internal and external to the branch membership?
   
• What would the benefits be, as you see them?
   
• What would the pitfalls be, as you see them?

Finally, and potentially the most vexed issue…

• What would your expectations be regarding lines of demarcation? For example, would you expect that:
  
  (a) only archers would comment on archery and bowhunting related issues, and only shooters on gun and shooting related issues,
  
  (b) would you expect to be consulted on all issues pertaining to hunting and weapons ownership, regardless of the issue and/or the discipline?
  
  (c) a combination of (a) and (b) ?

Again I stress that this is intended to be a primer for discussion and debate, to assess support (or otherwise) for the idea. It is not intended to be an expansive manifesto or mission statement. 

If this consultation is going to have any integrity at all, it is important that we spread the word far and wide, inviting all stakeholders to contribute to the process. It is fine to discuss the idea on facebook and in other online and face-to-face fora, but it is even more important to register your feedback in one place, to make it accessible by all, and to give the S&FP in particular an opportunity to gauge support.

This will be difficult if we don’t adopt a central place to register our thoughts and views.

It is for these reasons that I suggest you register your feedback on The Hunters’ Stand blogspot, where everyone will be able view the progress of the discussion as it unfolds.

I will undertake to post all feedback lodged, without bias, regardless of whether it is for or against the idea, without amendment, but with one proviso...

I will moderate any abusive, threatening, needlessly profane or grossly offensive comments right out of the debate! With consultation and representation comes responsibility, and I think it best to begin as we mean to continue, embracing the highest levels of probity and ethics.

So there you have it, a bunch of words about what I think. But what do you think, that’s the important question.

I hope you’ll spare the time to share your thoughts below. Don't forget to open the little drop-down box under the comments window and select an identity. There are loads to choose from, including "Anonymous". If you want to leave your name or 'handle' select "Name/URL" and type in the name you wish to appear with your comment. You do NOT have to enter anything in the URL field.

If due to some glitch you cannot leave a comment below, you can email it to thehunterstand@gmail.com and I'll make sure it's posted for you. Just be certain to include a name or identity at the end of your comment, and that's the ID I'll post it under. 

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now….

HUNTING AND THE MARQUESS OF QUEENSBERRY RULES

I was wading through the comments on a Kiwi blog today, when I came across a comment that caught my eye. Not for any new insight it offered - heaven forfend - but for an old and tired argument we’ve all heard before; 

“There is no such thing as fair chase in hunting. If hunters were really ‘fair’ they wouldn’t pursue defenceless animals with guns! They would run them down and strangle them with their own two hands, like other animals.” 

This view is based on a syndrome known as ‘anthropomorphism’ (the attribution of human form, emotions or behaviour to a deity or animal), which the vast majority of anti-hunters suffer from in its most acute form.

While anti-hunters will invariably assert that the only ‘fair’ way to kill an animal is as nature intended - club in hand, au naturale - this view overlooks a universal tenet of nature – there are no rules of fair-play – not one, none, zip!

The Cheetah is not obligated to pursue only such game as can match its top speed. The Grizzly is not obligated to pick on prey its own size....let’s face it, there’s not all that much to choose from in the 2.5-metre tall, 350kg class. Nature does not prosecute the Lion for taking prey that has no jaws to compare, and the snake is not restricted to a diet of venomous rats. In fact the opposite rule applies.

All creatures in the natural state, prey exclusively on the comparatively poorly equipped and the vulnerable. This is the ‘edge’ that the predator relies upon for its survival, and this bent for the exploitation of a power-imbalance is evident up and down the food chain. Why, then, should hunting’s critics seek to impose different rules on human predators?

The average anti-hunter will contend that we are more highly evolved, we know the difference between right and wrong, we are better than the sum-total of our primitive instincts etc, and these are propositions worthy of exploration in their own right. Not least because they represent the only admissions you’re ever likely to extract from an animal rights activist, to suggest that humans know better than nature. In all other matters we are Grasshopper, but when it comes to setting a moral example for nature’s predatory species, we are Master!

Of course we do have an edge. We have big brains, wired in such a way as to afford us a rare capacity in the natural order – the capacity to make tools. We are not completely alone in this. There are other species that have developed the capacity to make tools that extend their reach and power. How do those species use their super-powers? Why to give themselves the edge over the mere mortals of their ilk of course.

This is nature’s, not man’s, theme. It is part of the concept Darwin called natural selection, and the only measure of its appropriate application should lie in whether this ‘edge’ results in evolutionary progress or a dead-end. If my greater skill in the fashioning and application of tools results in the utter decimation of my primary food-source, then clearly my edge was counterproductive. But that would not make the development of the tool wrong or its application cruel or unfair. It would speak only to the issues of indiscriminate use and waste.

To claim that the use of guns and bows to harvest nature’s bounty results in a form of cruelty peculiar to man, is beyond ridiculous. Man as a species – even in the case of the most creative individuals – cannot hold a candle to nature’s ‘cruelty’. The fact is, among all species on earth, only man has a concept of, or cares about, cruelty.

Here, as an individual, I will give some quarter to the views of the anti-hunters, but just a little...

I believe that because hunters today have the capacity to ensure that their tools are very efficient, they have a moral – not a natural – obligation to strive for an efficient kill. This does not mean that we should agonise too much over the odd poor shot, but rather that we should not strive to make all shots poor.

This is more consideration than any other species will ever give to the welfare of its prey, and there is no doubt that when it comes to inflicting slow cruel deaths, humans are rank amateurs!

There are giant lizards that without any intention whatsoever to bring their prey down quickly will bite it with a mouth so rancid and septic that its victim will wander off to die an agonising death from septicaemia. Then and only then, will the lizard pursue its prey following the scent of its rotting carcass.

Not Happy Barry!
Sack the sub-human Komodo Dragon!

There are species of insect that paralyse their prey to lay their eggs inside it, so that their young will have a yummy, fresh, meaty meal to tuck into when they hatch. And there are all manner of creatures that enter the body cavities of other creatures, slowly consuming them from the inside before moving on to the next hapless host…the list goes on.

Planet Earth is replete with creatures that kill other creatures to eat, each of them capitalising on the edge they have developed over their prey. Man is not the worst of them, nor should those of us who choose to engage in the natural hunter-prey process be maligned, ridiculed, accused or vilified simply because the greater intellectual capacity given to us by nature itself, has better equipped us for the struggle.

No other creature on earth would bow to pressure to abandon its tools or its edge, for to do so may mean extinction.

So here’s to the hunter – tho shunned, maligned and vilified, he is no less the last vestige of our species’ proper place in the natural order of things. 

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now….

ANIMAL ACTIVIST RAYE REJECTS 'HATE' CHARGE BY HUNTER: WHAT THE LEADER DIDN'T PUBLISH

Oh how self-righteously they bleat their feigned agonies to the media...

On April 30 2013 a journalist from the St George and Southerland Shire’s “Leader” newspaper contacted me via email. The email invited me to respond to allegations brought against me by animal welfare activist Sylvia Raye. Her complaints pertain to statements made about her lobbying activities, which I criticise in my blog post The Doctrine of hate. The journalist invited me to respond to the following questions: 

• Ms Raye feels she was unfairly targeted in the post [The Doctrine of hate] and questions why there is so much hate directed to her - do you think she was unfairly targeted?

• She has received intimidating emails since this post went live - do you think by naming her you have incited harassment towards her?
   
• Do you think by linking terrorist attacks with someone's right to express an opinion you are vilifying Ms Raye?

Of course given the spurious nature of the allegations I was happy to respond, despite being given only a 12 hour window of opportunity in which to do so.

The Leader has published Ms Raye’s complaint today. It also published excerpts from my response. Given that my response was edited so strategically, I thought it only fair that I should publish it here, just as it was submitted to The Leader (see below).

Note that noting I have written on the topic of Ms Raye’s activities, either in my response nor in my original blog post, seeks to deny Ms Raye's right to freedom of speech or her right to lobby conscientiously for a cause she feels is just. My criticisms lay only in my concern for her use and promotion of dehumanising hate speech as a tool for achieving her goals

For the record, I do not condone retaliation with hate-mail as a response to her activities. We must be above such childish and socially irresponsible activities, which can only serve to damage our reputation as responsible citizens, and our cause as conservators of the ancient art of hunting and its associated skills and practices.

And now, for your information, my response to The Leader, uncut:

Ms Connolly,

Miss Raye has extensively promoted a poster via social media and other activities, depicting a hunter - Mr Robert Borsak - referring to him as "this sub human”. This version of the poster was not posted on the Hunters Stand because I refuse to promote culturally vilifying literature with the gay abandon demonstrated by Ms Raye. 

"Sub human" was the epithet applied to the Jews by the Nazi Party to promote their demonization and to mitigate responsibility and guilt for their slaughter. It is a term used today by the Ku Klux Klan to justify persecution and cultural hate activities perpetrated against African Americans and Jews.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to demonise or vilify a cultural group, and many hunters identify themselves as people preserving skills and practices as part of their cultural heritage.

As a man who grew up in The Shire, I am proud of the hunting heritage passed down to me by my grandfather and father, both also long term and socially responsible, contributing residents of The Shire. 

Ms Raye names herself and promotes her causes and philosophies broadly and inclusively via social media.  In the case of the poster she disseminates, she identifies herself proudly and asks that others pass on her message of intolerance and hatred by promoting the “sub human” poster. One respondent claims 10,000 shares. 

I recently contacted Ms Raye via facebook, requesting that she amend a lie that she posted on a National TV celebrity's facebook page, in which she accused Mr Robert Borsak of "giving the crowd the finger" at a recent No Hunting in National Parks rally in Sydney. At the time of the demonstration, Mr Borsak was hundreds of miles from the Parliament House balcony that Ms Raye claims he gave the crowd the finger from.

She did not respond to my request and I did not pursue the matter.

I refute that I have ever associated Ms Raye or her activities with acts of terrorism. I have, however, pointed out that when people peddle messages of hatred in a manner that dehumanises their target, such messages have the potential to insight irrational and often extremely violent acts in response, the inspiration for which they are quick to deny all responsibility for.

I note that among the many aspirations for violent reprisal registered in association with the poster Ms Raye promotes on her facebook page, the following is included: “Actually I think I'd rather shoot him [Borsak] in the spine and leave him suffer.” Ms Raye responds, "What a good idea." (see attached) and makes no attempt whatsoever to moderate other similarly violent statements.

It strikes me, after reading something of Ms Raye's activities in the animal welfare sphere, that she is very happy to vilify people whose philosophies she objects to, while claiming that she is the injured party should anyone dare to challenge her right to use social media to openly vilify.

A recent review of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 found in favour of wide interpretation of 'discrimination', such that it may be wise for Ms Raye to consider the implications of her use of dehumanising and vilifying terminology in pursuit of her goals.

Garry Mallard OAM

I'll get outa ya way now.....and as always, feel free to leave your comments below.