Saturday, 14 June 2014

THE DEER HUNTERS

Saturday, June 14th, 2014
By Stuart Rintoul
The Sydney Morning Herald


In Victoria, environmentalists and hunters have formed an uneasy alliance to eradicate an introduced pest.


Taking aim: Steve Garlick believes hunting is part of the “cultural imperative of man”. Photo: Colin Page

As he steps through the tangled brush of Victoria's Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, picking his way around mountain swamp gum and manna gum, and thickets of manuka, melaleuca, pink heath, wattle and banksia, Bob Anderson says there is no doubt in his mind that the wild deer that graze in these hills need to be shot.

Anderson, 79, is a retired primary school teacher and passionate conservationist. He has devoted decades of his life to the preservation of Victoria's rarest bird, the small, yellow-tufted helmeted honeyeater, which is being bred back from the verge of extinction in the Yellingbo reserve, in the Yarra Ranges east of Melbourne. Deer, he believes, threaten its survival. "I don't have any antagonism towards the animal," he says. "They're just in the wrong place. It's just an inappropriate animal in a very delicate part of the world."

Targets: deer culling has inspired an uneasy alliance
between hunters and environmentalists. Photo: Colin Page
He walks from tree to tree, pointing out examples of damage and "devastation" where deer have scraped the velvet off their antlers, debarked young trees, trampled underbrush habitat. "Wherever you look, they're buggered," he says.

Yellingbo is a five-square kilometre stretch of remnant bushland reserved for wildlife conservation – in particular the critically endangered helmeted honeyeater and the tiny Leadbeater's possum, both of which are official state emblems of Victoria.

In March, Parks Victoria announced that deer numbers had reached such profusion and posed such a threat to indigenous wildlife that 220 sambar and fallow deer would be culled in three reserves not far from Melbourne: 130 at Yellingbo, 70 in Sherbrooke Forest in the Dandenong Ranges, and 20 at Warramate Hills Nature Conservation Reserve, about 20 kilometres north of Yellingbo.

The first shots were fired at Yellingbo on a cold and foggy night on May 13. With only one sambar hind brought down on that night, it will be many months before the last shots are fired.

The cull brings shooters and environmentalists together into an uncommon alliance, with environmentalists the more zealous of the two groups. Not only do they welcome the cull, but they are pressing for deer to be declared pests that can be shot at any time in all states and territories. (At present, deer are declared pests in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory, but game in Victoria, NSW and Tasmania). Meanwhile, hunters want deer numbers preserved at sustainable levels for continued shooting.

Among environmental groups, only Animal Liberation has raised its voice in protest, with the group's Felicity Andersen describing the cull as "really sad". She questions the extent of damage caused by deer and says where the problem is significant, sterilisation or relocation should be tried.

But at Yellingbo, Bob Anderson describes the cull as "a good start" and "a godsend". Asked whether he would like to see wild deer eradicated from the Australian landscape, he replies, "Yes, I certainly would." He says relocation of deer is too hard and sterilisation would take too long, "and we can't afford to wait".

Steve Meacher, Forest Campaigner for the Friends of Leadbeater's Possum, also supports the cull. He says the habitat at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve "is already so highly compromised that any further threat is automatically significant". Meacher recognises that deer are beautiful animals, "but at Yellingbo they are in the wrong place". In the Dandenongs, too, the Friends of Sherbrooke Forest are agitating for deer to be culled to protect the habitat of lyrebirds on the banks of mountain streams.

At the Invasive Species Council, chief executive Andrew Cox says deer are the most significant emerging pest on the eastern seaboard, pushing into bush and farmland, affecting habitat and crops. In Victoria, there are estimated to be several hundred thousand wild deer, mostly sambar – "the dominant transplant", as Arthur Bentley termed them in his 1967 book An Introduction to the Deer of Australia.

In 2012-13, Victorian hunters killed more than 50,000 deer. The animals have bred and spread, but are listed contradictorily in wildlife laws as a protected game species under the Wildlife Act, and a "potentially threatening process" under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

At the Victorian National Parks Association, parks protection spokesperson Phil Ingamells says the association is "very pleased" about the cull and believes that deer should "absolutely" be declared a feral species across the nation. Eighteen deer species were introduced into Australia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most perished, but six – chital, red, rusa, fallow, hog and the asiatic sambar – survived to form viable wild populations. Ingamells dismisses, with brusque indifference, the colonial forces that brought deer to this country. "Time to move on, I reckon," he says.

The man co-ordinating the cull at Yellingbo is Steve Garlick, who provides advice on the management of wild deer and the maintenance of deer as a game species to the Australian Deer Association. A business analyst with the National Australia Bank, Garlick says that hunting provides "a level of calmness" in his life. He grew up hunting rabbit and hare, duck, quail, wallaby and fallow deer with his father in Tasmania. They are his best memories.

He quotes American environmentalist Aldo Leopold, one of the fathers of the wildlife conservation movement: "Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land", which the Australian Deer Association has adopted as its motto.

Hunters "participate" in nature, Garlick says. "We really understand the lower-level being in the environment, because you're part of the environment as a hunter. You're not a bushwalker, who just walks along and sniffs a few flowers and looks at things. You are participating in nature.

"Throughout the history of time, men have chased animals," he continues. "I think it just goes back to the general nature of man. Hunting is part of the cultural imperative of man."

Garlick talks about the solitude of hunting deer, alone or with a gun dog. "It is you and the deer. It is a pretty spiritual thing. Seeing a deer is a special thing." He talks about the difficulty of hunting sambar, whose natural predator is the tiger. And he talks about the elation of a good kill, the rush of dopamine, the heavy task of butchering and then hauling out the harvested animal, and "a certain element of sadness that you have taken a life", although it is a sadness excused by purpose. "It is a powerful thing to be able to take a life and you've got to do it with a level of respect for the animal and do it for the right reasons."

He tells a story about falling asleep under a tree one day when he was hunting and how, when he awoke, he startled four deer that had been grazing nearby, including a good stag. He had no shot to take, but waking among deer made it a "memorable hunt".

Garlick regards the cull as necessary management, although he is not looking forward to culling at night by spotlight. "It is not what we would call fair-chase hunting," he says. He expects the deer will quickly "wise up" and then they will have to hunt them, but it will be a long, highly controlled process.

Among the hunters taking part in the cull, these are common sentiments. John Mahoney is a fish researcher with Victoria's Department of Environment and Primary Industries, which he says gives him some insight into the battle between exotic and native species. He grew up hunting with his father in the hills and rivers of Alexandria, north-east of Melbourne. He started targeting deer 25 years ago, and says hunting "has always been about providing for the plate".

"I always feel sad taking an animal's life," he says. "I think you should always feel sad. It is a gracious animal and I've got heaps of respect for them. Taking any life, you've got to feel sad. If you don't feel sad, then there's a line you've crossed somewhere."

He talks about the way deer will lay up warming themselves on the northern faces of hillsides on warm autumn days. "The people that I hunt with, they love the bush," he says. "They love the birdlife and the animals. It's about ... I don't know ... connecting, or being a part of it."

Laurie Rees, 60, is a retired printer who started hunting seriously 28 years ago – long enough for him to recognise the musky scent of deer from a long distance away. He first hunted with his father when he was a boy, and says the experience taught him "the basics of life", and a connection with nature.

Rees's preference, he says, is to hunt for days at a time in the most remote areas, pursuing deer and solitude. "It's quiet, it's beautiful," he says. He recalls an occasion last year when he shook with adrenalin as he filmed a stag in a hollow, knowing that he could take the shot, but preferring instead to shoot with his camera.

Rees has 10 trophies on the wall of his home and another 26 antlers that he has found in the bush. Often, when people see the antlers, they ask, "How can you?" He tells them about the history of deer and that killing your own venison is no different to taking a fishing trip for dinner.

He insists the cull is sensible management, but also does not disguise his distaste for shooting a deer frozen in a spotlight. "There is no satisfaction at all in taking an animal under the light. I just feel sorry for the animal. There is no skill in it, there is no challenge, no enjoyment."

Mark Freeman is a quietly spoken 46-year-old teacher, a father of five who teaches design and technology, art and religious education at the Catholic school he attended as a boy. He says he is approaching the cull with "a sense of responsibility", to help manage deer numbers so that they can remain "a wonderful resource".

In his teenage years, he says, he was so much of a "greenie" that he refused to fish because he hated the idea of hurting them. "I had this real love of nature and I still do, but my perspective has changed completely and now I understand that we fit into nature as well, as a top-level predator. You still have this love for nature and you still have this love for the bush and you still love the animal. There is sort of a sadness at the demise of a wonderful animal. But I can see that it's not wrong. It's no different from a lion eating a deer.

"People ... say, 'Let animals live naturally', but how do you think they are going to die? There is no palliative care for wild animals. It would be a horrible way to die, alone in the bush. This notion of Bambi and that sort of stuff is all wrong. Shooting them, in a way, is humane."

He recalls hunting up a mountain one morning for several hours, shooting a sambar deer, butchering it, carrying out what he could, then hiking back down the mountain and bringing out the hindquarters on treacherous ground in fading light. "It was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life," he says. "But that is what hunting is about, that's what gives it that really deep-seated satisfaction. It is like a primeval urge, that nature of ours, that is seeded in us. And from a practical side, we get meat for the family."

He recalls another day when three red deer trotted past him not much more than an arm's length away. "It was just wonderful," he says. "It was really special to be so close to them. That was just a wonderful experience, and I didn't want to shoot them at all."

-ends-

6 comments:

  1. What a twisted bunch of nonsense! One minute they talk about how sad it is to kill a beautiful animal, next minute they talk about the thrill of the kill. Which one do you think rises higher in the lives of the shooters? People who enjoy seeing their bullet bring down an animal get enjoyment out of killing them. Their suppressed compassion may surface a little when they find their downed prey lying in the bushes kicking in agony as their life fades away. The shooter may not enjoy that quite so much so a shot to the head can put them 'out of their misery.'
    Bottom line: a hunter’s talk of the challenge and the stalk is trite subterfuge. What match is an animal with no defence - but to flee in terror- against a heartless killer with a high powered gun?
    Before you dismiss me with the derisive but handy label, 'bleeding heart,' consider this:

    FERAL PROBLEM - OUR CREATION
    Feral animals are native animals. Yes, native animals.
    How quickly we forget that every feral, vermin, pest including the rat, mouse and rabbit is a native animal of the country it came from. Domestic animals like dogs, cats and pigs 'gone wild' are not but are still part of the feral problem.
    How did they get here? We humans put them there or caused them to be there imported against their will from their natural habitat in far off countries and we have to remove them if we are to protect our native species. Do we make them pay for our actions by shooting, poisoning and trapping them? These are the lazy, expedient (and despicably cruel) ways and handily accommodate those among us who hunger for the thrill of the kill. We created the problem so we need to bring our science, our ingenuity, our problem solving skills and realistic financial backing to bear in solving the problem. Tackling this large and serious issue must involve our taking responsibility for the problem being of our own making. Making the animals pay for our mistakes by gleeful slaughter is NOT the way.

    Even without the thrill kill mentality, killing them is a dreadful way of remedying the mistakes of our forbears. Deciding whether to have love and compassion for an animal or a manufactured hate that allows us to ‘gun down the enemy vermin’ can't be based on whether the animal was born here or not. This kind of promoted hatred is necessarily created in soldier training without which it is impossible to kill other humans. If this was applied to people who were not born here it would be racism and this trumped up superiority that we award ourselves in the animal world is known as speciesism. To make excuses like not enough time or money or resources is a copout. This human created problem must be human solved. We put them there, we must take them away. Sterilisation, putting them in enclosures where they will not breed, fencing them in or out is just the beginning of a list of possible solutions, humane solutions, limited only by our ingenuity and created and administered by the ones who created the problem.
    It can be done.
    The will and commitment for the job are the only missing elements.

    COMPASSION ON THE RISE
    It is now widely acknowledged that humans can thrive on a plant based diet (United Nations, World Health Organisation, et al). Massive world hunger can be solved by it’s adoption, world pollution problems can be hugely alleviated by adopting this, hordes of people unnecessarily dying every day due to diseases like heart disease created by the western diet can be stopped.

    WORLD WIDE CARNAGE
    We arrive at a point where the senseless and unnecessary killing of animals can stop and compassion can take its rightful place in our human psyche. Time to stop making excuses and become the kind of beings we deep down long to be.
    Perhaps I should have more compassion for those so lacking it up to now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for sharing, Ralph. I had thought to write an eloquent rebuttal, but the errors in your post and your logic are so many and great that I really had no idea where to start. Perhaps just a word about one aspect of your missive tho, and that's its general tone.

    Like so many people of your persuasion, you speak of a more humane, less violent world in which everyone is, as per usual, a vegan. But you do it while expressing your views with such obvious anger and hatred towards your fellow man who does not subscribe to your philosophy. Indeed the hatred manifest in the statements and activities animal welfare zealot these days is astounding.

    The fact that you have removed yourself from nature's eternal struggle does not make you more in tune with the planet, anymore than your vegan philosophy makes you right about compassion's rightful place in the human psyche. Such views are, by definition, completely aberrant in nature, making your philosophy at odds with all creation, tho you espouse them as superior?

    Some humans do not live for the egocentric fulfillment of a drive to be superior to all other forms of life on the planet. Some are extremely content simply being a part of the struggle.

    And please don't bleat at us with the rubbish about hunting only being fair is the prey is equally armed. That position is ridiculous beyond words. All creatures on this planet exploit an advantage over their prey. If this were not so, lions would only eat animals with 8cm teeth and phenomenally powerful jaws. In fact predators expressly seek out prey that is ill-equipped, often toothless and weak by comparison, and of these the predator seeks out the marginalised, the aged-frail, the disabled and the newborn. The only nobility of fairness that exists in the wild, is in the minds of the anti-hunter. "Mother nature" is cruel and completely blind to suffering. Every single animal that dies in the wild will have a miserable, painful death. There are no exceptions, save for those you imagine due to your remoteness from the natural world.

    You may have some small case for objecting to factory and intensive farming practice, but to claim that because I (and other like me) hunt absolutely free-range organic produce is in some way unethical and unusually cruel, is just plain silly.

    Your choice to sustain yourself with vegetables is just that, your choice. As is the hatred and intolerance you clearly manifest for those who do not subscribe to your choices. And what the world needs now is more hate and the intolerance of fundamentalism, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kind of you to answer, Garry.
    I had thought of resubmitting with a -more typical for me, conciliatory tone - but I must admit I did not think you would allow my post to publish. Too late for that now but I want to say is that in spite of my having overdone it a little, I do not have the hatred you perceive and am constantly appealing for tolerance on the vegan forums lest people are abused for doing what we so many of us did before adopting the vegan way.

    I grew up on a farm where we killed our own meat, where I would go around and take rabbits from traps, where we shot rabbits and foxes but also native parrots and wallabies. Anything that ate or damaged our growing crops or fruit trees were fair game, no pun intended. So I am not as far removed from the natural world as you might suppose. I was a decent shot with a rifle and remember being excited when I was able to kill something from a fair distance. I don't remember being sympathetic with my marks, I would have thought they were only animals and the farmers enemy. My compassion showed through a little when I had to take wounded rabbits from traps and kill them.
    Things change and people change. Multi generation beef farmers, butchers, pig farmers, hunters and lots of other unlikely folks are amongst the vegans today. And there are plenty among us for whom vegans were once the object of their scorn.
    Once the penny drops it is extremely difficult to stand by and watch people make sport of killing animals and our compassion for all animals is akin to what you would feel Garry, if your dog got caught in a rabbit trap and was howling with the pain. And imagine how you would feel if another hunter who did not "know and love" your dog like I'll bet you do, saw this and was about to kindly put your dog out of his misery with a quick head shot.
    You speak of my choices. They do not involve taking lives as just as we believe - and you likely do also -in the right of a domestic animal not be neglected, tortured or killed, we believe these rights cannot be handed out to some and withdrawn from others at our pleasure.

    So, actually we are not motivated by hatred, but by compassion. The anger we feel is exactly the same kind of anger you would feel if you came home one day and to find intruders had been at your place and shot your beloved animals with guns and arrows.

    I don’t wish to and fro with each issue. I must say what stirred me up was the often heard spin about responsibility and ethics etc., when I know full well that when a person is out hunting these lofty concepts are nowhere to be seen. People get a kick out of killing things and talk around the camp fire after a hunt is pretty much about how big and how many. The idealist spin is saved for journalists and politicians.
    The culture that allows us to kill animals is deep seated. Doesn’t mean that it is right nor that it will endure long term.
    I wish you well Garry and thank you for the exchange.
    Many thanks,
    Ralph Graham

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ralph,

    Yes, I really do post comments, and unedited too. Probably because I am not a politician, I don't crave popularity, nor have I any reason to cosmetically enhance it. We will have to agree to differ I am sure, tho I can see by your response that there is a great deal we have in common, at least with regard to our respective upbringings. I suspect the fundamental difference between myself and the many-many vegans and animal rights activists who have threatened my life, the lives of my children, who have called me a murderer, a sicko, a pervert, a criminal, a moron, "worse than a paedophile", a redneck, filth, "scum of the earth", and prayed for the day that, in their enlightened mercy, they might have the pleasure of dancing upon my grave, is that I practice a philosophy known as 'tolerance'.

    Tolerance does not mean embracing all that one loves, agrees with and approves of, but rather it means permitting, with respect, the existence of things one does not love, agree with or approve of. Many vegans, Greens, animal-rights activists etc also claim great tolerance toward all manner of things as part of their philosophy. They would do well to look-up the word. When I take my primitive bow, with its stone points into the bush to kill a deer, I do it with great pride. At the moment of the kill (should I be lucky in that regard) I feel what is known as “hunters' remorse”; a moment of sadness and respect for the life taken. No other animal marks the passing of a life in this way but man. I use every part of that life – the meat, the hide, the antler, the sinew – I even provide the bone to a very talented carver. I am perfectly content that this is an entirely ethical process from start to finish. It is also the preservation of culture and practice many thousands of years older than the notion of veganism.

    There are a great many hunters today who think as I do and we are tolerant (genuinely) of those who do not. We do not seek them out for the most atrocious abuse. We do not threaten vegan families. We do not throw blood (real or simulated) at people. We do not claim that the size of a vegan's spoon is an indication of the size of his penis. We do not call you perverts, paedophiles et al and wish ill to your partners and families. We struggle to understand you, but we do not really need to, and we are happy for you to “vege” wherever and whenever you choose. We do not lie about vegans in the press and join with political organisations (I’m thinking The Greens here) in efforts to promote and rally community intolerance, hatred and disdain, though we may prove very vocal in pointing out those deceptions and hate-motivated activities in our oppressors.

    Vegans kill, every day. In fact when it comes to the total of lives taken over the course of a human lifetime, the committed life-time vegan’s death-toll would be near indistinguishable from that of the hunter. Every time a spade or plough is driven into the soil, innumerable lives end and organisms are wounded, and no assistance will be rendered them by the likes of WIRES. It seems to me that vegans must determine that some carnage and loss of life, albeit regrettable, is unavoidable if the vegan himself is to be nourished. I do likewise, as do many hunters. I have not determined that fury things with round faces are more worthy of life than slimy things that have no discernible heads. It is neither my right nor my capacity to ascribe superiority of worth based on my perceptions of a creature’s intelligence or ability to feel pain etc. I take what I need, as you do. I have simply decided that I do not wish to walk away from my heritage and I wish to preserve my culture with respect, economically and in moderation.

    I wish you well in all your endeavours, Ralph, and I make this firm undertaking to you. Should anyone around my campfire boast inappropriately as you’ve indicated above, I will smack him in the ear and tell him to wake-up to himself, just as I always have done.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Garry,
    A smack in the ear may not result in a new attitude, I fear.

    The core feeling of compassion for other lives gives rise to anger when those lives are taken. I lament the fact that this emotion in some cases translates to the kind of irrationality you have been subject to. As I said earlier, a way for you to see how this might come about is to reflect on how you would feel if animals dear to you were set upon or killed. All the animals are worthy to a person who has cognited that there is no difference between animals whether they have been kept and loved by humans or still run free in the bush.
    If the feral animal problem was to be solved what would the hunters shoot then? They would hardly say 'problem solved' and put their guns in storage.
    My way also is tolerance. Angst over animals and a lack of humanity shown to animals must not manifest as violence and a lack of humanity to other humans. Different people respond differently, just as some hunters are blessed with sadistic and criminal minds.
    Certainly I would rather deal with your apparently more reasoned and respectful approach.
    Regards,
    Ralph Graham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I expect we'll have to agree to differ, Ralph, but for the record, I would try the personal pet comparison you suggest, were it not for the fact that I do not believe in pets. In fact, I find it hard to relate to people who do, yet claim that hunting is excessively cruel. To me, keeping a Rottweiler or even a poodle caged in a backyard for 20 years with only occasional respite, is the very epitome of cruelty. And while my friends assure me that their beloved dogs are perfectly happy in their confinement, it occurs to me that they have fences and should a gate be left open, little fluffy is off at light speed.

      I do think you have hit the nail on the proverbial, tho. The issue of hunter hatred is born largely of those perceptions of "nature" animals and "the wild" that city folk gain from their cats, dogs and goldfish. Humans may be merciful to such creatures, but nature never is. Never-ever! All creatures that die in the wild -- and they will all die -- will die alone, in pain and chased by predators to the very last. Most will not be dead when the predator begins his work. The deer that is not shot by the archer, will not live forever. Nor will it die surrounded by family and friends, with the benefit prayer and pain killers, and at the last no one will say, "That's enough suffering, Doc, give Sootie the Green Dream please, and end her suffering."

      No philosophy of respect and universal harmony will alter the fact that all the hunted animals will die miserably. One can simply choose not to be a part of the process and that is your right, just as it is mine to take part in it. As for the question of what hunters will do with their guns when all the feral species are gone (please tell me where where in the world that has been accomplished?) I see now reason why it should end. There are plentiful, perfectly palatable Australian species such as grey kangaroos. In fact I would have all introduced meat species replaced with natives, which are much better for the environment, and have been harvested sustainably for 40,000 years or more.

      Garry

      Delete

Your comments are welcome, and dont forget to recommend this post to a friend.

Thanks!