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...