A GREEN DECEPTION IN PROFILE

At times the antics of politicians in Parliament are reminiscent of an episode of the Teletubbies; a combination of incomprehensible dialog and wild gesticulation, interspersed with a lot of prancing about, which yields a message of sorts, that’s vaguely discernible to the average 4 to 7 year-old but few others. And like the Teletubbies, the antics of our Parliamentarians are, at least for the most part, all good clean fun. But there are exceptions.

We have all heard the Greens’ anti-hunting rhetoric, especially in opposition to hunting in NSW National Parks. We expected the Greens and the anti-hunters to play the emotive doom-n-gloom cards freely, and I guess we also accepted that in politics at least, some measure of deceit is par for the course. But should we accept it; should a politician’s zealous opposition to government policy excuse unethical conduct in Parliament?

Take the case of Greens MLC David Shoebridge in the NSW Parliament a couple of years back. During a debate on the topic of conservation hunting in the context of “animal cruelty”, Mr Shoebridge had this to say:

The Greens New South Wales consider that the control of feral animals must be carried out effectively and humanely. Sharp and Saunders, two authors of numerous Government standard operating procedures for feral animal control, state:

“There are three essential requirements for a pest control technique—necessity, effectiveness and humaneness.

“They recommend in general that ground shooting should be used only in a strategic manner as part of a coordinated program. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether the Game Council New South Wales, and its practice of using recreational hunters, is able to control feral animal populations in New South Wales either effectively or humanely. There is significant evidence that some hunters engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices, including hunting protected species, and subjecting animals to long and lingering deaths. This evidence is found in a number of publications, including Environmental Crime in Australia by Bricknell, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010; Illegal trade in fauna and flora and harms to biodiversity, a report of the Australian Institute of Criminology on 14 October 2010; and Understanding Non-compliance in the Marine Environment by Russell G. Smith and Katherine Anderson of the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2004.”

Ref: Parliamentary Hansard, Tuesday June 16th, 2011

The bit you need to consider in the context of deception is the bit where Mr Shoebridge quotes the sources of his “significant evidence”; reports by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Now in the world of academic publications, these guys are pretty good, and let’s face it, we expect them to be. It’s not Fairfax churning out reams of Barbara Cartland-esque ‘literature’ we’re talking about here, this is proper, scientific, peer reviewed stuff, written by experts in the relevant fields, all published under titles employing highly prejudicial descriptors such as “crime”, “illegal” and “non-compliance”.

It’s not until one invests considerable time and effort in reading the reports that the air begins to become somewhat fetid with the aroma of rodent, for the evidence Mr Shoebridge cites is nowhere to be found!

Now it never pays to assume that one’s copy of a report is the only one in circulation. Drafts have a nasty habit of escaping and works are sometimes amended and re-released/re-posted months down the track, often is some very obscure places. No, if you want to be certain about a report’s content and conclusions, the only way to do it is to contact the author/s.

The following is the text of just such an enquiry sent to Dr Samantha Bricknell, Senior Research Analyst, the Australian Institute of Criminology, dated Wednesday, July 13, 2011:

Dear Dr Bricknell,

In follow-up to our telephone conversation on Friday 8 July I write to seek comment from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) on the veracity of claims made in the following statement made in the NSW Parliament on 16 June 2011.

"The question we need to ask ourselves is whether the Game Council New South Wales, and its practice of using recreational hunters, is able to control feral animal populations in New South Wales either effectively or humanely. There is significant evidence that some hunters engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices, including hunting protected species, and subjecting animals to long and lingering deaths. This evidence is found in a number of publications, including Environmental Crime in Australia by Bricknell, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010; Illegal trade in fauna and flora and harms to biodiversity, a report of the Australian Institute of Criminology on 14 October 2010; and Understanding Non-compliance in the Marine Environment by Russell G. Smith and Katherine Anderson of the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2004.”

In particular I would appreciate comment on whether any of the three cited AIC reports contain "significant" evidence that some hunters:

(a) engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices,
(b) hunt protected species,
(c) subject animals to long and lingering deaths.
 

Yours sincerely,

------------------
 

And now Dr Bricknell’s very prompt response, dated July 28th, 2011:

Dear...

In reference to your letter dated 13 July 2011, and as discussed in our telephone conversation earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Criminology reports cited in a statement made to the NSW Parliament on 16 June 2011 - Environmental Crime in Australia (Bricknell 2010) and Understanding non-compliance in the marine environment (Smith and Anderson 2004) - do not make reference to 'significant' evidence that hunters:

(a) engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices
(b) hunt protected species
(c) subject animals to long and lingering deaths.

There is one reference in Smith and Anderson (2004: 2) to 'illegal hunting or removal of threatened species such as the dugong, turtles and cetaceans' but not to who is doing the illegal hunting.

Please note that Illegal trade in fauna and flora and harms to biodiversity is not a separate publication, but a chapter in the Environmental Crime report.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Samantha Bricknell
Senior Research Analyst

-----------------------------

As both a believer in our Parliamentary system, and as a responsible traditional hunter, the outcome of this investigation troubles me in two ways:

(a) Despite being demonstrably incorrect, Mr Shoebridge’s statements will remain for evermore in Hansard, unchallenged as though they are gospel truths, waiting to be pounced on by anyone looking for a couple of handy reports to cite as evidence that hunters are cruel and generally irresponsible. I call that mission accomplished!

(b) Because it would seem that Mr Shoebridge’s propensity for fabricating facts to suit his agenda will go unnoticed and without censure, with the result that there is no barrier to him misleading the Parliament or the citizens of NSW as often as he finds it advantageous to do so.

I accept that politics is a dirty business. I accept also that as a hunter I am destined to be maligned, ridiculed and vilified by hunting’s opponents, in ways so vile and despicable that they can have only one intent – to promote a climate of fear, hatred and disdain in the community.

I do not accept that it is ethical to mislead Parliament or the NSW taxpayer in pursuit of a purely political agenda.

Is misleading Parliament a legitimate course of action or an abuse of power and privilege? As always, you are welcome to share your views below.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....

EXAMINING THE SECOND LUCKY ATTACK....AGAIN

In a recent story, “Dogs unleash terror on wombats”, Newcastle Herald, June 17th, 2013 (here) wombat rescuer Roz Holme makes a number of accusations that, not surprisingly, do not stand up to even basic scrutiny.

Through the article Ms Holme finds a wide audience for her claim that a wombat named “Lucky”, was recently attacked by dogs for the second time. Yet in another story posted on Ms Holme's own website, Wollombi Valley Online (here), she claims that Lucky the wombat was attacked for a second time in October 2010. 

The story as run by the Newcastle Herald (here), quotes Ms Holme as saying that the most recent second attack on Lucky (as distinct from the first second attack three years ago) is attributable to dogs owned by Game Council hunters. In the story about the first second attack, Lucky’s plight was attributed to domestic dogs in or about the Pokolbin National Park.

With all this bad luck, one could be forgiven for wondering if Lucky is prone to wearing provocative t-shirts with the words "COME ON IF YA THINK YA GOOD ENOUGH!" emblazoned across them.

In 2010 Ms Holme claims to know that Lucky was attacked by domestic dogs because Dingos always kill and eat what they attack. Alas, she does not reveal how she was able to determine that the culprits responsible for the second-second attack were Game Council hunters’ dogs, nor how she knows that the offending dogs were not micro-chipped, which she resolutely claims in the story about the second-second attack too...as well, also.

Confused? I was!

Enter Mr Stephen Larrson, quintessence of clarity and campaigner against the contrived vilification of hunters, who took the time to contact radio 2HD Newcastle, which recently interviewed Ms Holme about Lucky’s run of bad-bad luck-luck. 

Upon contacting the broadcaster to express his concerns, Newcastle radio personality Richard King invited Mr Larrson to take part in a follow-up interview. Prior to the interview, Richard King and staff attempted to contact Ms Holme via both landline and mobile, not less than 5 times in the space of 24 hours, without success.

Had Ms Holme taken Richard King's calls, she might have been able to satisfy questions as to the veracity of her most recent claims. Never-mind, perhaps Richard will leave a little post-it note for his successor so that she/he might remember to quiz Ms Holme in 2016 when she again seeks to regale the local media with the story of Lucky’s lucky-lucky-lucky escape from his third second attack. One can only hope!

For your information, Richard King’s interview with Mr Larrson can be found below.

On the face of it, one could be forgiven for concluding that Ms Holme has been embellishing the facts just a tad. This would come as no surprise to hunters who have come to accept that those opposed to the hunting culture will do anything to bring it into disrepute, while simultaneously striving to portray themselves as paragons of virtue and integrity.

Now, were I a cynic...and I’m not saying that I am a cynic...and using the same standards of deductive reasoning employed by Ms Holme, one might be forgiven for calling National Parks and Wildlife to report suspicions that certain wildlife warriors may be exposing hapless wombats to contrived dog attacks for the anti-hunting media value of it.

I have no doubt that Ms Holme and her supporters will go positively exothermic with outrage at such an offensive suggestion, yet they routinely expect responsible conservation hunters to cop it sweet when facts are fiddled to suit their anti-hunting agenda.

Toward the end of the interview, Richard King advises that Ms Holme also reports that a number of kangaroos in the area have been killed with arrows. Given the dubious nature of Lucky's trifecta of misfortune one can only wonder about the bona fides of this claim. However, if the report is reliable, it will be cause for concern among the archery and bowhunting fraternities, but it is not in and of itself, evidence of wrong-doing by hunters.

The vast majority of the graphic images released to punctuate the anti-hunting stories that invariably accompany them, depict target arrows, not hunting arrows, penetrating the victim and this is an indication of kids doing the wrong thing, not hunters trying to take native species.

That is no reason to excuse the actions of these invariably unsupervised youths, but it does represent compelling evidence that hunters are not the culprits.

No hunter sallies forth into the field with a quiver full of target arrows. Regardless of the intended prey, the objective is to kill, not wound or maim, and target arrows are utterly inefficient in this pursuit, as the number of animals caught and treated days or even weeks after an attack amply demonstrates.

Of course the hardcore hunter-hater will claim that maiming is in fact the cold blooded, thill-killing, red-necked hunters’ objective, and this claim doesn’t stand up to objective analysis either. If the objective were to maim, then once again, a strategically placed sharpened broadhead would deliver much more bang for the sadist’s buck, and is far more likely to pass right through its victim, thus leaving little evidence and facilitating retrieval and reuse of the arrow.

Whichever way you look at it, the suggestion that hunters are responsible for shooting animals with target arrows simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. On the other-hand, an alternative scenario that I have suggested in the past, does...

A youth, given a basic bow & arrow set for her/his birthday, spots a wallaby on mum & dad’s bush block or farm, and takes a pot-shot at it with a target arrow. The animal is wounded, yes, but not killed and off it hops into an adjoining forest or national park, where it is discovered days and perhaps many kilometers later, by outraged anti-hunters who thrive on wild conjecture and fabrication. Voila, with a little imagination the attack happened on public land, hunters are the perpetrators and the media laps it all up like cats on cream. 

On the other-hand, if Ms Holme claims her particular kangaroos were killed with hunting arrows she will of course be in a position to produce them...won't she...I mean, if she doesn't have the arrows, how can she possibly know what killed them? 

As a hunter myself, my thanks go to Mr Larrson and all the other rational, committed advocates of the hunter’s culture, who take the time to challenge those who seek to promote deception, misrepresent facts and generally vilify people whom they do not know, based on nothing more than their abiding prejudice against their culture and spiritual beliefs.

Yes, spiritual beliefs, and while the naysayers may scoff, the fact remains that it is in these terms that many hunters describe their passion for, and commitment to, the preservation and practice of the hunting tradition.

Its legitimacy cannot be challenged anymore than the legitimacy of one’s spiritual commitment to Christianity or Islam can be challenged, and while you may seek to deny its legitimacy as a form of spirituality, I'm afraid 10 thousand generations of cave paintings and rock art to be found the world over, begs to differ with your world view. 

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE HUNTERS' STAND MEDIA SERVICE

Australian’s long and once highly regarded hunting traditions are under threat like never before. The anti-hunting lobby uses the media to great effect in its drive to portray hunters as a cruel anti-social breed that must be shunned by the community, their rights withdrawn and their culture held in contempt.

Professional lobbyists and advocates recognise the threat posed by a manipulated and manipulative media, and the need to stay informed about emerging trends that are likely to sway popular opinion. They have come to appreciate the strategic value of media monitoring services that resource campaigns to counter negative and often highly misleading publicity, thus better informing debate and influencing public opinion for the better with the provision of facts. Unfortunately, such services are expensive – often costing thousands of dollars each month – putting their benefits beyond the reach of most hunting organisations let alone individual hunters…until now!

The creator of the Hunters’ Stand blogspot has almost 20 years experience in media monitoring and information resourcing spheres, providing highly regarded and award-winning services to the social welfare and indigenous community sectors nationally. These national services are so highly regarded that their founder/coordinator was awarded the Order of Australia Medal in the 2009 Queen’s Birthday Honours for his contributions to these sectors. He has also received a number of prestigious awards and citations from academia.

Garry Mallard is a lobbyist, activist, commentator and hunter who proudly identifies hunting and its traditions as a defining aspect of his cultural identity. In an effort to contribute in some small way to the preservation of the Australian hunting tradition, Garry has set-up a hunting specific media service – Hunters’ Stand Media – which hunters can subscribe to absolutely free of charge or obligation.

Subscribers will receive news and information from referenced sources, as it happens and often before papers hit the streets. Each bulletin is delivered in the form of an email bearing the headline in the subject field, making the news easy to sort through at a glance. Most of the bulletins are also posted on the Hunters against Cultural Vilification cause page and you can receive notifications of new posts there by activating the “Notifications” option on the page here

The email service is easy to subscribe to.  Just send an email to thehunterstand@gmail.com and include the words “Hunters Stand Media” in the email’s subject field. You should also include your name and a contact phone number. All personal details will remain strictly confidential. They will not be shared with any other party or organisation, at any time, without your prior written approval.

Please feel free to invite your hunting buddies to subscribe to Hunters’ Stand Media. The more we know of the big picture, the better equipped we are to influence it through our individual and club activities and through the efforts of our political representatives.

Anyway, I'll get outaya way now...

 

HUNTING COMMUNITY ANTI-VILIFICATION PETITION

www.huntersunify.com

The Hunters' Stand and Hunters Against Cultural Vilification (HACV) were founded for two fundamental purposes:

1. To oppose the deprecating and vilifying activities of The Greens and their cohort, who daily seek to incite a climate of community hatred towards hunters and their legitimate and legal cultural activities and traditions,
    
2. To keep hunters up-to-date with current affairs relevant to hunting and the preservation of their rights, culture and traditions.

For too long we have been portrayed as villains, evil despoilers of the environment, rednecks and irresponsible drunken ruffians intent on wholesale animal cruelty and homicidal mayhem, both on private property and on public lands.

Our elected representatives have been labelled “sub-human” in propaganda reminiscent of that deployed by the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazi movement.

Each and every day, it seems, we are assailed by some new accusation of evil intent, and online petitions demanding an immediate end to the hunting tradition abound.

 IT’S TIME TO MAKE A STAND!

We have initiated a petition on behalf of hunters everywhere, calling on all Australian political representatives, officers and institutions to immediately condemn and actively strive to end The Greens’ cultural vilification of responsible Australian men, women and youth who proudly define their culture and ethnicity as that of hunters.

You will find the petition at www.huntersunify.com and I encourage you to take a moment to read it. If you find that in good conscience you support its thrust, I urge you to sign it and to use your own networks to disseminate the petition’s address as widely as possible.

If you have evidence of a vilifying statement made by The Greens (e.g. quotes attributed to Greens spokespersons, appearing in the press or in social-media) please send the statement, along with a link to its source, to thehunterstand@gmail.com where the information will be filed for use should it be decided that further action is to be taken.

There are many hunters in the Australian community; some are high-profile, others choose to keep their love of hunting quiet, for fear of becoming the subjects of derision and ridicule.  While there may be little we can do as individuals, as a community we can send a strong message to The Greens and their intolerant cohort, reminding them that we are a force in the community and in the electorate too.

So please show your support for your fellow hunters by signing the petition at www.huntersunify.com and do your bit to make it go viral!

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now…