HUNTING AND AUSTRALIA'S ENORMOUS WILD BORE

Now before you go criticising me for the title’s spelling, I should point out I am in fact referring to His Lordship Peter FitzSimons (cuffs forelock in deference to aristocratic superiority),  in which case all becomes clear and I’m sure, gentle reader, you will agree the title has perfect integrity, even if Lord FitzSimons himself does not.

Having read the ‘article’, Killing defenceless animals – just tell me how that can be sport? in the Sydney Morning Herald, my first reaction was to wonder if, given the obvious fragility of the mind it contains, it is wise to get about inciting bulls to attack one's head. 

Still, I accept that FitzSimons' decision to wear a red headscarf and declare himself ‘Lord’, puerile affectations though they may appear to the casual observer – do not, in fact, have to make sense to me. He does it for reasons best know – and I suspect kept – to him and that’s just fine, just as it’s fine that I should hunt for my own reasons. My opinion of the various manifestations of his mid-life-crisis, like his opinion of my hunting activities, is absolutely worthless. 

Likewise, hunters have no obligation to explain why they hunt, thus nourishing His Lordship’s tirades and providing the fodder he craves for his next unremarkable column. 

His concerns for animal welfare and his obvious contempt for hunters reminded me of a childhood excursion to Sydney’s La Perouse. 

It was the mid 1960s, a small circus outfit had come to town and with it the usual assortment of exotic beasts from the Dark Continent, each confined to a tiny cage with thick iron bars of the sort that protect the public, while affording a relatively unobscured view of the occupant. 

It was here that I saw a chimp for the very first time and what a remarkable chimp he was, all dressed in his little suit, smoking cigars, using a spoon to eat his tucker and generally aping human behaviour in a very entertaining manner.

During the ensuing years I'd often wondered what became of that little guy in his inhospitable iron confinement, so you can imagine perhaps, the joy I felt upon discovering he'd mastered the rudiments of English sufficient to hold down a regular gig as a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald. 

Pleased you've given up the cigars, Your Lordship. They’ll stunt your growth, though perhaps intellectually at least, the damage was done.

Sadly, His Lordship’s – or Gonzo’s as I’ll always think of him – column demonstrates the limits of anthropomorphosis.

Even with the most committed effort to civilise and integrate an ape with a limited vocabulary and basic social skills into mainstream society, he will always struggle somewhat with his environment, rattling the bars as it were, crapping in his hand and tossing it at anything that displeases him in a world he struggles to understand.

It is in his nature to lash out you see and in the manner of the brute who believes tossing turds is clever, he is sadly oblivious to the fact that people are not actually laughing with him. 

His Lordship's article begins with an invitation contrived to pander to the mob mentality, “So let's talk about hunters and let's talk about miserable bastards who get their jollies by stalking and killing defenceless animals. But I repeat myself ...” he says. He’s such a card, but not just any card, a simplistic attention seeking card whose capacity for reason and intellectual rigor is reminiscent of that displayed by a fresh corpse. 

Lord FitzSimons' claim that hunters are unwilling to engage with him in debate about trophy hunting is a lie, pure and simple. Unsurprising perhaps, he is after all an Australian 'journalist'. See the Twitter snippet below for an example of His Lordship's commitment to sincere, intellectual debate.

Example of rapier witted aristocratic intellectualism

His aim is to dominate the discussion, to push it in a direction that supports his clearly close-minded, simplistic view of what hunting – and in particular, trophy hunting - is all about. 

Regardless of how reasoned an argument one might seek to put to him, regardless of the science-based studies and the peer-reviewed research collated by highly regarded international agencies one submits for his information, Lord FitzSimons will simply respond with emotive, non-sequitur vitriol of the kind one expects to hear in a pub just moments before a frustrated, inarticulate drunk lands a coward punch.

Regardless of the response he receives from a hunter committed to engaging him in respectful, productive debate, His Lordship will always revert to type with the same childish rebukes he's famous for. He attacks with puerile accusations one expects to hear from a pimply-faced schoolgirl in the quad – Err, you're DISGUSTING (note: Mr. Shouty all-caps)! Eer, you kill animals, shame! Eer, you're tragic I'm tellin'! 

It's not that hunters lack the courage to engage with His Lordship, but rather they realise that, as with all bigots, his desire to engage them as anything but a target is insincere, born of the desire to display and rant for the privilege of hearing his own voice (or seeing his own tweets) and thus hunters give this ludicrous leviathan a big swerve. 

I suspect he actually expects his cloth-eared rants to be avoided. That is, after all, the traditional purpose a red rag serves when tied to the end of something – to prevent people walking into an enormous lump hanging out in public where it has no business being.

Lordship FitzSimons displays all the characteristics of a man who has taken to heart the compliments of friends who've assured him he's an articulate commentator and a talented writer of better than average intelligence, but who has chosen to give no gravitas whatsoever to the rider, “...for a footballer.”

His Lordship's claim that to suggest killing animals as a means of saving them is "tragically absurd" is indicative of the arrogant, little-picture intellectual simplicity for which his column has won renown. He of course knows better than the likes of University of Zimbabwe conservation biologist, Peter Lindsey, who recently had this to say about trophy hunting in his country:

"Trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas.”

In an upcoming edition of the journal Conservation Biology Lindsey and an international team of colleagues call for a plan to increase the conservation benefits of sport hunting, including a certification program to more tightly regulate the industry.

"To justify the continued existence of [protected] areas in the context of increasing demand for land, wildlife has to pay for itself and contribute to the economy, and hunting provides an important means of achieving this," Lindsey said.

He even knows better than Peter Allison, the personal friend and supposed ally, whom His Lordship describes as a man who "has more than 20 years experience as a safari guide in the African bush and is now an author and passionate advocate for conservation"...

Oops, perhaps one should check with those one wishes to quote for their vehement opposition to trophy hunting in Africa?

It may well be that Lord FitzSimons' sole purpose in life is to serve as a sober (?) warning to others, but whether his decision to acquit his duties via the medium of journalism is a sensible one is, well, debatable. Take for instance the Sydney Morning Herald contribution that inspired me to put fingers to keyboard. 

His article deploys a total of 954 words, 26 of them an adaptation of Mark Twain’s admirable wit, 248 of them the work of Robert Borsak MP, 2 attributed to the Rev. Fred Nile, 23 attributed to a notorious wine aficionado and disgraced former Premier and 77 the work of His Lordship’s mate Peter Allison, making a total of 376 words. 

Subtracted from the 954 words of his ‘commentary’ on hunters, we are left with a grand total of 578 words, with which he strives to make his point, a point even I can encapsulate in three short sentences: 

I hate hunting, full stop!

Anyone who disagrees with me is scum!

I can’t hear you, la-la-la-la-la-la-la!

Is it any wonder sensible people avoid His Lordship on Twitter, itself a world renown wellspring of egocentricity, emotive pseudo-intellectualism and just plain ol' bullying?

Twitter, like Lord FitzSimons himself, is to productive debate what glow in the dark tampons are to feminine hygiene – amusing distractions perhaps, but in no way useful or productive and at the end of the day, not the slightest bit illuminating. 

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

Those interested in some factual resources on the role of big game hunting in Africa’s conservation efforts, may be interested in the resources below:

Collegiate Outdoors - Uncertain future for Botswana  

Global Ecology and Conservation - Unexpected and undesired conservation outcomes of wildlife trade bans—An emerging problem for stakeholders? .PDF 

National Geographic -  Trophy hunting can help African conservation

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/hunting-and-australias-enormous-wild.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

HATING GLENN MCGRATH

I have little to say on the topic of recent Glenn McGrath hunting revelations that I've not said on the topic of big game hunting in previous posts, with the possible exception that I think it's very disappointing he has chosen to plead temporary insanity due to the death of his wife in 2008 when the hunting trip that's got him tied to a stake in the town square apparently took place.

That said, I guess it's somewhat understandable that in desperation he should grasp at straws in order to save his charity - the McGrath Foundation.

Glenn McGrath, focus of so much homicidal 'tolerance'

Notable is the response of the oh-so responsible, enlightened and morally superior anti-hunters, who've gathered via Facebook and Twitter to assure the McGrath Foundation that Glenn will never get another cent of their hard earned ethically superior money. 

What shallow angry little chimps you all are, jumping about, screaming incoherently, teeth bared, limp-wristedly pounding the ground with your clubs. Still, if one can't think I suppose one must emote.

Glenn McGrath is not the beneficiary of your money, imbeciles. Women suffering breast-cancer and the search for cures and treatments is. When reduced to  mathematical formula, your decision to stop supporting the McGrath Foundation looks something like this:

Ex-cricketer kills elephant 6 years ago    +
The righteous public demands retribution
_____________________________
= Australian women and girls must suffer

Seems fair.

And of-course brovo the Australian media, which dived on the carrion of 6 year-old photographs relating to a total non-event and shoved them it front of predatory keyboard warriors and Change.org slacktivists to increase the circulation and advertising revenue of their respective rags.

You should all be aware you have facilitated damage to a charitable organistion with a proven track record. Your priorities are astonishingly amoral. The pride you must feel? One assumes your partners and daughters are immune to breast cancer?

I think it's important someone points this out to you, because it's clear your minds are so filled with the fog of self-indulgent opportunism and puerile disapproval you cannot see the great damage you're responsible for.

People are fond of judging big game hunters. I must admit to having some reservations about the practice myself. It's just not my thang, but I accept that folks do lots of stuff that’s not for me and accepting that is the essence of tolerance.

We hear the word 'tolerance' a lot these days and of course being branded 'intolerant' is quite the insult of the times. However the tolerance so many people claim to embody in relation to things such as immigration and Islam, isn't tolerance at all.

Tolerance is not a matter of embracing something one does not oppose, something one enjoys or approves of. Tolerance is the act of accepting that which one is not comfortable with, does not like and does not approve of.

Unlike those who emote their position on McGrath's big game hunting from a position of warm-fuzzy feelings and general ignorance, I at least have bothered to look into what big game or “trophy” hunting involves. Having done so, and with a mind thirsty for facts rather than evidence in support of a gut feeling, I have decided that I will be tolerant of the practice until I am given reason (not emotive drivel) to change that view.

As National Geographic points out, "...without the financial resources provided by hunters to protect habitat and stop poachers, there would be no infrastructure for wildlife management” (Sept 2nd, 2013).

This money is provided by hunters, not vegans or greenies, who devote their spare cash to self-indulgent displays and the promulgation of hate speech, denying facts, forcing their philosophical bent on others and paying for not one scrap of infrastructure for either endangered elephants or impoverished villagers as hunters' fees do.

  

In short, it is largely because of the work of hunters, not photographers, that there are animals left to capture on film and hunters in fact pay for the photo-safari infrastructure.

Sadly, it has been found that the average photographer leaves a much larger ecological footprint than the hunter, with his demand for comfy motels, coaches, bodyguards, viewing platforms, restaurants, souvenir shops, hot showers, toilet facilities and all the waste that lot entails. But hey, as long as we feel better about photographers than hunters, what does any of that matter?

For further information about legal hunting's contribution to wildlife conservation programs and the realities of hunting vs. shooting with cameras et al, I encourage you to watch the expert panel assembled by the University of NSW program "The Hot Seat" below. 

The Hot Seat: They Kill Lions Don't They?

It won't cause the haters to rethink their positions I know, but it may give the Twittersphere some brief respite from their bile.

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

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/hating-glenn-mcgrath_22.html 

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

SO HUNTING IS CRUEL: YOUR POINT?

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘cruel’ as an adjective meaning to “wilfully or knowingly cause pain or distress to others” and of course when hunting’s opponents apply the adjective to the hunters’ craft we are apt to object, to claim hunting is not cruel. 

I can’t help but wonder why we invest so much time and effort refuting what is patently true – hunting is cruel.

A hunter cruelly about the business of feeding his family

The decision to debate cruelty with an Anti rides on two presumptions, both of them flawed: 

1. that their minds are open to the proposition that hunting is not cruel, and
   
   
2. that proving conclusively that hunting is not cruel, ‘unnecessary’ or ‘barbaric’ will induce a change of position in the Anti.

This being the case, the debate is already as good as lost because hunting's advocate is clearly delusional. 

Equally flawed is the presumption that it’s the Antis we have to win-over to ensure our future hunting rights. The committed Anti accounts for but a tiny fraction of the voting public and it is the voting public – the vast majority of whom have no conviction either for or against hunting – we should be making our case to. 

It’s a case we must make honestly and without resorting to lies or emotional blackmail, with the expectation not of winning the public to our side, but with the simple and completely achievable objective of preventing the Antis winning the public to theirs. 

Unlike the average rabid Anti, Jane and John Citizen have not spent countless hours trawling the internet in search of studies and damning images that support an already clearly defined and very negative opinion of hunting. The Citizen’s view of life in the wild is often very naive, nourished primarily by the occasional wildlife documentary, images collected on the annual caravanning excursion to the seaside and their personal interactions with the family cat, dog or goldfish, replete with all the luxuries and tender mercies one lavishes on non-human family members.

I believe it is in this climate of relatively open minded naivety that we should try a new tack.

With absolute honesty and sincerity we should inform John & Jane Citizen that hunting is cruel, except perhaps in the case of the instantaneous oblivion delivered by a perfect headshot. The key to winning the Citizen’s support for hunting, or at least their continued indifference to it, lies in challenging them to consider the infinitely greater cruelty nature has in store for each and every creature that does not die by the hunters’ hand. 

The Antis effectively capitalise on the Citizen’s lack of interest in the topic of hunting, exploiting their failure to progress the notion of life in the wild to its logical conclusion – death in the wild – and all the ramifications associated therewith. It’s a kind of mental block resulting in the subconscious belief the Antis exploit so efficiently – if we can only save Bambi from the nasty cruel hunters, she will frolic joyfully through the forest, ever young forevermore. 

By bursting the Disney bubble, armed with nothing more than the completely unsanitised and readily verified facts about life in the wild, we stand to open the Citizen’s minds to a new reality – the ‘cruelty’ of hunting is the lesser of a multitude of nature’s cruelties that, without doubt or exception, await every wild creature at the end of its allotted span. 

The point needs to be made that because humans are rational, self-aware creatures with the capacity to consider the wider implications of their actions, the hunter may take steps to mitigate pain and trauma. This commitment to mercy is unique to man.

No other creature gives any thought to the ethics of hunting. The majestic eagle feels no obligation to end the suffering of its prey with merciful speed and efficiency. The eagle’s only concern is that the joey or lamb impaled on its massive talons should not escape before it dies. How long its prey takes to die is of no concern, as it preens its feathers waiting patiently for all that futile kicking and struggling nonsense to subside enough to begin the disembowelling procedure with that enormous, razor-sharp beak. 

When a deer nears the end of its natural life it does not lay down comfortably to await the inevitable, all warm and cosy, surrounded by sympathetic family and friends, with morphine on tap and a nurse gently mopping sweat from its brow. As a deer nears the end of its short span it will find it increasingly difficult to find adequate nourishment and avoid predators. Struggling with the symptoms of whatever ails it, the deer approaching death will seek refuge in a shaded location where it will wait to succumb to the effects of  its illness, malnutrition and dehydration.

But a thousand natural predators will not respect the solemnity of the occasion.

Ants and flies will quickly infest various orifices, birds will target the eyes and other fleshy areas and an assortment of carnivorous mammals will move in to hold vigil, snapping as the opportunity arises, at vulnerable areas as soon as they think their victim too feeble to resist. Of course the deer will struggle to its hoofs, try to move to safety, collapse and the process will start anew, until the deer succumbs, ceasing all opposition to the inevitable.

There is no veterinary equivalent of Dr. Philip Nitschke patrolling the Australian wilderness dispensing merciful “green dreams” to the afflicted, no respectful amnesty in recognition of impending death, no choirs of angels nor machines that go “PING!”  The ultimate fate awaiting all animals in the wind is pitiless torment by innumerable opportunists.

There are no exceptions, save for the extremely rare circumstances in which animals may die ‘instantly’ as the result of heart attack or stroke, those hit by lightening, falling trees or motor vehicles and, you guessed it, those lucky few taken by hunters.

Empathy, humaneness, cruelty – these are all human constructs that simply have no weight in nature. Only the human hunter strives for a swift kill born of concern for animal welfare.

Likewise notions such as fair-play and nobility are meaningless in nature’s eternal struggle for survival, despite what Hollywood and worshipful vegans might choose to believe. Charismatic species such as lions, tigers and even wolves – all very popular tattoo studies amongst the latte-set – are imbued with a purity and innocence that simply doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny and the Antis work very hard at ensuring that scrutiny is never applied.  

As we all know, tigers only prey on animals equal in musculature and armaments i.e. other tigers...and....maybe...ummm...lions?

Wolves, wolves are fair! They only pick on rabbits, hare and beaver of comparable size and it would never occur to the wolf to get-together with a dozen mates and drag down an ‘innocent’ deer. Perish the thought! Wolves prey exclusively on guilty deer.

The lion, noble King of Beasts, it preys exclusively on fierce creatures with powerful jaws and enormous razor-sharp incisors such as wildebeest, zebras and...antelope which, being ruminants, have no upper incisors per se, but have been known to inflict a very nasty suck on a predatory lion. 

Of course none of the above would sink so low as to prey on the aged, the disabled, the marginalised, the injured, the birthing or the newborn babe, heaven forefend! Being ethical creatures with an unswerving commitment to the principles of fair-play, they adhere to a strict volunteer policy.

Fox prepares to eat rabbit volunteer

The nobility of beasts is a fraud, but it’s a fraud seldom explored and rarely articulated. All hunters capitalise on advantage to exploit the weaknesses of their prey. Man is no different, nor is he the only creature to use tools in that pursuit. But he is the only creature on earth that will concern himself with mercy or feel a pang of remorse for the life he ends.

There is a multitude of grizzly scenarios one can expound in order that the Citizens can better contextualise hunting’s inevitable yet unremarkable cruelty, but how to get the message across. How do we insert these realities into the Citizen’s consciousness when it’s clear the media is among the most avid of Antis?  

The electronic age affords us unprecedented access to online resources such as alternative, independent media outlets and even academic and professional e-journals, all of them crying out for edgy contributions on controversial topics. It’s all about bumping up the hits to sell advertising and stories debunking the conventional view of a tender and merciful Mother Nature, have the potential to go viral as the Antis rally to defend the all loving Earth Goddess.  

At a more grass roots and less academically rigorous level, there is the much under-exploited and always popular Letters to the Editor section of the local newspaper. This again is a free and readily accessed medium the Antis have used to great effect, but with a few exceptions we have not, preferring instead to shrug and ignore their wildly exaggerated, highly emotive and often offensive claims about hunters. We have given them the stage and they are only too happy to perform, unopposed, to sell-out audiences. 

Our access to social media affords us access to extensive networks of hunters across the country. By harnessing these human networks along with the magic of mechanisms such as Google news alerts, we can monitor the media with incredible efficiency. I believe it is possible to create an agency with one focused objective – to coordinate a network of media monitors to pick-up negative stories and assemble a network of capable respondents that will leave no negative hunting story to stand without eloquent rebuttal. 

Of course there are areas where hunting may never appear as a topic in the newspapers and it is just as important that the Citizens consciousness is introduced to the realities of life in the wild here too; perhaps even more so, if these areas are located in or around cities with large populations whose experience of wildlife is restricted to creatures with names like Belvedere, Mr Twinkles and Moby Dick.  In areas where hunting is not a hot topic, the objective would be to write letters to the editor likely to provoke debate. 

Surely it’s better to do this and explore the potential to insert balance into the Citizen’s consciousness, than to simply whine about the inequity amongst ourselves and allow the Disney World view to dominate unopposed?

Of course we could also do with cleaning up our act in terms of the ammunition we post on Youtube and the like, but that’s an issue to explore another day.

Anyway, let me know what you think. I’ll get outaya way now....

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/so-hunting-is-cruel-your-point.html 

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

WHEN IGNORANCE BECOMES A POINT OF VIEW

Folk-law has it that if a lettuce leaf is placed in the nappy or in the underwear of a sleeping child, it will attract and thus reveal the presence of harmful parasites such as tapeworms, which can then be dealt with appropriately. 

Having always been somewhat sceptical of the technique’s efficacy, I was struck with a profound sense of poetic irony when, while reading the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, a piece of lettuce slipped silently from my bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich to land on my tablet’s screen, thus revealing Greens MP David Shoebridge’s latest effort to parasitise for political gain, a story about animal cruelty.

David Shoebridge MLC, Greens' spokesperson on firearms, has broadened his purview to 
cover yet another topic he knows absolutely nothing about - archery

The story, included below for the reader’s convenience, runs the headline “Call for compound bows to be banned as wildlife kills increase”, but while the plight of various macropods portrayed in the story may be cause for some concern, those advocating the strict regulation or even the abolition of compound bows as the solution, do so without providing so much as a scintilla of evidence to corroborate the allegation that compound bows were in some way involved. 

As spokesperson for a Party that claims to be an ethical cut above all the rest, surely Mr. Shoebridge would agree that making baseless allegations is a wholly inappropriate way to put a case to the public? On the other hand, as a Barrister perhaps he’s just going with a formula tried and true.

Once again (I appear to be doing it rather a lot lately) I’ll go through the story and examine the claims furnished to the public in order to elicit an emotive prohibitionist response and I'll see if I can’t apply a more rational if not exactly evidence-based slant to events. 

The public is advised that “Animal welfare authorities are at a loss to explain the cruelty that is injuring and killing some of Australia's native animals.” What the public is not told is that the archery community is equally disturbed by the injuries depicted in these oft recycled pictures. However, unlike our detractors, we do not seek to ascribe the victims' circumstances conveniently to a simplistic delight in acts of wanton cruelty. 

The motivation for targeting native fauna may be at once far more complex and perhaps not so 'hunting related' as the likes of the Greens and WIRES et al would have the public believe.

Remember, I do not claim the following scenarios are fact. I simply maintain that in the absence of a shooter, a weapon, CCTV footage or a written confession, my explanations are every bit as plausible as the scenarios the Greens and animal welfare authorities put forth as fact...

Many of these events appear to take place in quite urban environments, where mobs of kangaroos and wallabies are themselves becoming urbanised. As ranges shrink and their numbers increase, kangaroos and wallabies grow less timid and increasingly inclined to venture into residential gardens, in which state Skippy can be both destructive and intimidating. This situation grows steadily worse for the fact that animal welfare agencies and of course the Greens, doggedly oppose moves to cull macropod numbers even when they reach pest proportions. To the homeowner who grows increasingly frustrated and even frightened by encroaching kangaroos, the bow and arrow may seem a quiet and inexpensive, if patently illegal, disincentive to trespass and property damage.

Sadly, misdirected youthful exuberance is also a likely factor we have touched on previously in so many articles on this topic. With a plethora of movies and video games inspiring a desire to master impossible archery shots involving moving targets, kids are apt to get tired of shooting at static bullseyes and plastic soft-drink bottles. The solution to this is not the Greens’ first-best option in every case i.e. ever-tighter controls or preferably total abolition, but rather education, responsible mentoring and structure.

These things can be found at an archery club, the neighbourhood PCYC and, if the likes of the Greens would only cease their carping opposition to the notion, in Archery in Schools Programs. Here parents will find the advice required to ensure their kids are kitted-out with gear that’s right for the individual and kids themselves will find both stimulation and motivation in the coaching, the structured competition and the sorts of 'novelty targets' that keep them engaged and help them to become proficient in their sport. 

It is when kids begin to see some consistency emerging in their shooting that they tend to become more satisfied with static targets, ever striving to tighten their groups nearer the bullseye or the A-zone. When expert advice and guidance is lacking, kids’ accuracy is apt to remain somewhat random and in disappointment and desperation they’re inclined to seek out new targets that their immature minds lead them to believe will improve their accuracy – “Maybe if I aim at the neighbour’s cat, my inner hunter will awaken and I’ll be able to shoot bouncing tennis balls out of mid air, just like they do on tele.”

Adequate parental supervision is also essential and while I oppose the State’s regulation of every facet of life, I am a strong advocate of strict parental regulation.

Kids get bored quickly, especially in the absence of the aforementioned structure and coaching and when kids get bored they tend to stray from the path of patient responsibility to seek instant gratification instead. This is not to say they find killing native animals gratifying, but rather like a cat chasing a ball of wool, they are likely to react instinctively to a moving target without considering the consequences. It is a game to them, with no more foundation in reality than any of their video games. 

Parents should take control of the household’s bows and arrows, giving their kids access only when it is safe and appropriate to do so, at least until the child has proven her/himself responsible enough for free access. The child who cannot abide by such restrictions in the short term, is the child a parent should seek to engage in another sport.

If the child shows an interest in hunting, there are responsible, very professionally managed clubs that can cater to this aspect of archery safely, appropriately and legally. Eryk Bagshaw’s claim in the article, that shooting an animal with a bow and arrow in NSW is illegal is simply false. It is illegal to hunt native animals with any weapon in NSW (subject to some exemptions) including the bow and arrow, but bowhunting feral and game animals in NSW is a legal pursuit in the proper circumstances, with the proper supervision and with the appropriate permits where required. 

As for the suggestion that bowhunting is extremely cruel or even barbaric (emotive buzzword alert!) people who hold this opinion would do well to remember they enjoy the luxury of their opinions due to the ‘barbarity’ of countless generations who preceded them. They would also do well to consider whether it’s only white folks’ traditional hunting techniques they seek to inspire and promulgate public fear and loathing for, or whether they should cast their nets a little further to encompass indigenous hunting activities and equipment such as the spear and the nulla-nulla, used to harvest native species? The latter example we are invariably encouraged to celebrate for the great skill and rich cultural significance both the weapons proficiency and hunting prowess embody.

Black hunter  = good, noble, culture, tradition
White hunter = barbaric, evil, blood-lust, sicko

“Compound bows offer approximately twice the power of a regular recurve bow by including a system of pulleys in their mechanics” claims David Shoebridge. What unmitigated rubbish! 

The power of a bow is determined by the energy stored in its limbs and frame at full draw. Bows, of whatever style, come in various ‘powers’ described as their “draw weight”. Compound bows are not intrinsically more powerful than traditional bows simply by virtue of their pulleys or cams. Through practice and commitment the archer who chooses the simplest traditional English war-bow as his discipline may eventually draw a bow of 100lbs draw weight or more and you will find precious few compound bows to match the war-bow for 'power'. 

Mr. Shoebridge’s persistent and intentional disinformation in relation to their superior power has been concocted to imbue the compound bow with physics-defying magical powers to match their often alien sci-fi appearance. In reality, the compound bow’s great appeal lies not in its superior power, but in the fact that the “pulleys and mechanics” the Greens are so committed to frightening the public with, permit the bow to be held fully drawn with a fraction of the effort required to hold a bow at full draw in the absence of scary pulleys.

As a result, the archer can aim more effectively, making more efficient use of very finely tuned targeting sights. In short, it is the compound bow’s superior accuracy that holds appeal, not some enhanced power to render its target more emphatically dead by brute force. 

If Mr. Shoebridge’s concern is that compound bows are more accurate than other styles, in that he may have a point. But the Mongol hordes that overran so much of Europe in antiquity, shooting dirty great holes in the latest chain-mail and plate armour as they went, might take issue with the claim that compound bows are particularly efficient “weapons of death” when compared to the body count they racked-up armed with nothing better than recurve bows made of Yak horn, sinew and hoof glue.

Even if we defer to Mr. Shoebridge’s own whimsical claims and flawed logic, we still find no evidence whatsoever in his latest fear-mongering escapade, to suggest that compound bows played any role whatsoever in the injuries depicted in the article. Nor do we find the evidence in any of the other stock images trotted out when the desire to deceive  the community overwhelms him. 

Despite the claim in the story’s first photograph, there is nothing about the arrow depicted that marks it out as a “compound arrow”. This again is a fraudulent claim.

Compound bows may shoot arrows made of any number of materials, including wood, carbon, cane, aluminium, fibreglass and various combinations of same, and all may be fired from a traditional recurve or longbow with similar efficiency. There are often subtle aspects of arrow design and configuration that to the expert eye may betray the style of bow that fired it, but I can assure the Greens and WIRES that none of the arrows depicted displays any traits unique to compound bow archery. They are stock-standard, off the shelf, El Cheapo target arrows of the type no self-respecting wielder of a magical super-duper scary Rambo ballistic nightmare mega-decimating compound bow would be seen dead laying on his arrow-rest.

It is interesting that while the first image in the story claims to depict “the offending arrow heads”, none of the images depicting arrows impaling macropods is fitted with such a head, or even a camouflage patterned shaft to match. It would seem it’s an example of a shaft that offended elsewhere? Whatever its origin and relevance to this article, nothing about it marks it out as a compound arrow and unless someone has a photo of the bow that fired it, the claim that a compound bow was in any way involved must be called for the conveniently contrived bullshit it is.

The images featured depict what they always depict, the work of misdirected, poorly supervised youth, or frustrated gardener novice archers armed with basic recurve bows from which they’re launching “buy 1 get 2 free”, off the rack target arrows.  The fact that these arrows are not passing right through the animals, but rather getting stuck half way, only serves to render Mr. Shoebridge’s claim of super-bow involvement even more preposterous. 

Had the arrows been launched from a recurve bow of even moderate ‘power’, Mr. Shoebridge, the arrows would have passed clean through the animals in the cases depicted, even if fitted with simple target tips, eventually coming to rest on the ground some distance behind the target. The Lord only knows what might happen if one of your dreaded reverse overhead twin cam plutonium enriched double shot caffeine ginormous intergalactic armour piercing compound arrows was ever brought to bear on a hapless kangaroo. I can see the moon dipping from its orbit and sea levels rising for starters. 

My god, the sea levels...it was the compound bows all along!!

As to the suggestion that equipment might be inscribed with serial numbers which can be checked against some central register, notwithstanding the huge administrative cost involved in that strategy, I would dearly love to hear more about how people plan to regulate access to wood, string, kitchen tables and youtube tutorials. That’s all one needs to produce bows and arrows of sufficient quality and power to inflict the regrettable damage seen in the latest and previous articles in the same vein.

Let’s face it Mr. Shoebridge, you are a hoplophobe. You simply hate anything and everything you perceive to be a ‘weapon’, for its own sake. There is nothing responsible or noble in your purpose. You simply hate guns, bows & arrows and similar tools, and like any intolerant, petulant child you strike out at all that fails to please you or bend to your will. Once the bows and guns are sorted, you’ll start on fish hooks and filleting knives, axes and kitchen whisks that have not been pre-dulled to legislated specifications.

I'd not be at all surprised if lead sinkers and glass marbles were on your hit-list too, for their potential to redden cats' bums and  facilitate the production of particle bombs. 

Meanwhile, sensible people who are not crusaders for the Nanny State know the way to address the regrettable targeting of native wildlife and domestic pets, lies as it has for centuries, in education, guidance and responsible supervision, not more regulation or prohibition. It will never be stamped out. It can only be contained. 

It’s time you put aside the hatred that drives you, along with your chronic hoplophobia and intolerance for European hunting traditions and cultures, so the real business of education can continue unhindered by your deceitful propaganda and predictably manipulative dramatics.

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

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/when-ignorance-becomes-point-of-view.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

CALL FOR COMPOUND BOWS TO BE BANNED AS WILDLIFE KILLS INCREASE

Friday, February 13th, 2015
By Eryk Bagshaw (Journalist)

The Sydney Morning Herald

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES

The offending arrowheads Photo: G Pym WIRES

Animal welfare authorities are at a loss to explain the cruelty that is injuring and killing some of Australia's native animals. 

For four days in January a female kangaroo struggled through the bushes of a golf course in Grafton, pushing herself on until she collapsed from the loss of blood that had trickled out of her right leg.

An arrow as long as her body had pierced her calf. 

The female kangaroo shot through the leg in Grafton in January Photo: P Edwards WIRES

"This animal would have inevitably died a slow and painful death," National Parks and Wildlife area manager Andrew Lugg said. 

On Tuesday a mother carrying a joey was shot through the head in Melbourne. 

The arrow went straight through one cheek and out the other, without inflicting a fatal shot. 

The injuries suffered by the kangaroo in Grafton Photo: Patricia Edwards

The mother plodded around for days, the arrow's compound shaft eventually draining her to the point of collapse. 

In a 'barbaric' case in Canberra in November, an unknown person shot and killed a kangaroo with several arrows, leaving the animal's carcass next to a barbed wire fence.

Eight others have gone just as painfully in the past 18 months. But they are only the ones rescuers have found said WIRES chief executive Leanne Taylore.

Red-necked wallabies and wedge-tailed eagles have also fallen victim to cruelty.

"In these situations we see animals would go through horrific pain and can be alive for days or even weeks before succumbing to their injuries," said Ms Taylore.

The kangaroo shot through the head in Melbourne Photo: M Zabinskas

"The wounds become infected and the animal suffers immensely. Shooting an animal in this way is considered extreme cruelty."

WIRES Macropod coordinator Mairi Mcleod said that the incidents were made so much worse because they appeared to have been born out of pleasure.

"I think it's absolutely appalling that people feel they can do this to animals just for enjoyment, if that's what it's for," said Ms Mcleod.

Shooting an animal with an arrow is illegal in NSW under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

But Greens MP David Shoebridge wants the legislation taken even further.

In July he called for the compound bow to be listed as a prohibited weapon.

Combound bows offer approximately twice the power of a regular recurve bow by including a system of pulleys in their mechanics. They are used both in target practice and for hunting.

"Compound bows are extremely lethal weapons. They're designed to kill, and in NSW there is literally nothing regulating their sale, nothing regulating their use," Mr Shoebridge said. "They are weapons of death which the law simply doesn't touch."

Compound bows are still legally available for purchase in store and online.

Chair of Clarence Valley WIRES Patricia Edwards also called for "all arrows to be coded and traceable to each specific registered bow."

Archery coach Lynne Fairhall defended the availability of archery equipment.

"Archery is not a blood sport. There are people who go out and hunt and 99 per cent of those who go out and hunt are ethical hunters, are doing the right thing," Mrs Fairhall told the ABC.

The NSW Minister for Police, Stuart Ayres, said that he was reviewing the prohibited weapons list.

"Compound bows may be considered as part of broader consultation when comments are sought on the review from the general public, licence and permit holders and government agencies," he said.

Ms Taylore encouraged any witnesses to report incidents to the Police, the RSPCA or The National Parks and Wildlife Service.

"Sometimes this can lead to credible information about the incident and possible perpetrators," she said.

ends