WILL HUBRIS KILL THE HUNTER?

Sydney, Australia, 1981 – while taking his lunch-break in Hyde Park, a young man is approached by a radio personality doing vox pops. 

The Iranian hostage crisis has been running more than a year and there is much discussion about how and if the Yanks should end it. Some favour continued negotiations, while others think they should just rush the US Embassy and hang the consequences. 

“Sir (already a bit of a stretch, given my tender years), some say the Iranian Hostage Crisis has reached a pivotal turning point”, he says, demonstrating considerable élan for redundancy. “How do you think the US should proceed, further negotiation or should they storm the US Embassy?”

“I think they should send the terrorists a slide projector”, I say. “I’ve known big burly men to leap through second floor plate-glass windows in abject horror when my dad unpacks his slide projector”, I offer.

And it was true. In those days, nothing spread the influenza virus with quite the speed and efficiency of an invitation to attend the slide-night of some friend recently returned in a sharing mood from...wherever. 

I cannot help but think the hunting fraternity would benefit from adopting a similar aversion to the 3rd Millennium equivalent of the slide-show – posting selfies on social media. 

As I have said on many occasions, I believe the key to maintaining our hunting privileges lies not in convincing the anti-hunters that what we do is humane and responsible, but rather in preventing the anti-hunters convincing the general public what we do is inhumane and irresponsible.

The Australian public, on the whole, does not care enough one way or the other to oppose hunting or support it. But slowly yet surely we are giving the public reasons to think about their stance, graphic, full colour, increasingly high-definition and immeasurably bogan reasons.

Each day tens of thousands of images are shared that, taken out of context, provide ammunition aplenty with which the anti-hunter can undermine us among those who see only hunters smiling over the lives they’ve snuffed out.

Time and again I have heard it argued that such images portray nothing illegal, therefore what the Antis say about or do with them shouldn’t matter. This is a naive ‘argument’ that will be cold comfort when hunting is outlawed in response to public outcry. Public outcry the Greens & Co are already harnessing in their campaign to end hunting in Australia.      

Like it or not, what the public thinks does matter and the arrogant dismissal of the impact our own images have on our cause is one of the biggest hurdles we face in the battle to retain our privileges and preserve our culture. 

Pictures of bloody goat corpses, pigs with their mouths jacked open with sticks, even dead deer adorned with sunglasses and hunting parties posing with weapons pointed skyward ASIL-style, are manna from heaven to the anti-hunter.

Example of image taken from Facebook by media
for negative portrayal of hunters 

Youtube abounds with literally thousands of videos promoting the very worst in hunter ethics and just plain sociopathic behaviour and the presentation of some of our hardcopy publications is not much better. 

Magazine covers featuring unhelpful imagery abound in newsagencies, invariably situated at the eye-level of passing children, where they’re guaranteed to have maximum negative impact on parents loath even to acknowledge the reality that the lamb they’re having for dinner comes from – shock, horror – a lamb. 

The rise of vehement opposition to hunting coincides with the rise of mobile phone cameras and social media.  While once upon a time unhelpful images may have been obtained only by surreptitiously following hunters in the field with a telephoto lens, or by trawling magazines to find an incriminating image that slipped by a jaded sub-editor, these days we actually hang out virtual shingles screaming, "Evidence Within!"

In the final analysis hunting’s future lies, not in the hands of hunters, but in the hands of the vast majority of the voting public who don’t hunt. If we choose to stand by the belief that because something is not illegal the community must tolerate it, we will lose the war on hunting by virtue of our own juvenile arrogance and denial.

Do I think we should stop taking hunting photos? No! But I do think we should consider very carefully how we record our adventures and where we display our pictures.

A little self-regulation might be a good place to start cleaning up our act. If we see pictures posted that are clearly detrimental to our cause, at the very least we should comment to that effect.

Clubs and organisations that host Facebook communities should make certain their security settings are as high as possible. They should also take some responsibility for promoting and maintaining a standard, rejecting images that clearly breach it. 

The hunter should take the time to straighten him/herself up a little in preparation for a photo and the quarry should be cleaned of excess gore and propped in a manner that approximates the animal at rest, rather than head twisted back and tongue lolling to the side in a pool of blood, as is too often the case. 

If we posted photos of the skinned carcass, chops and haunches the quarry becomes, with half the frequency we post photos of the animal it used to be, we'd be doing ourselves a great service. The public is not so offended by the idea of an animal that'll make its way to the table, so why not post photos confirming that route?

Watch what you say about the quarry. Sharing stories about how far it ran after the shot and how many follow-up shots it took to finally bring it down, like going into detail about the size of exit wounds, is information you needn't share for the Antis to use against you.

Finally, going to anti-hunting Facebook sites and dumping pictures intended to offend, is puerile! "Hunters Aim To Traumatise Animal Lovers" is not a headline we want to court and frankly it surprises me we've not seen it - yet.

If you must share a sensitive hunting picture with your Facebook hunting buddies, do it via personal message rather than posting on your 'wall'.  You know there are people among your 'friends' who'd rather you didn't hunt, so why provide images for them to share with their other anti-hunting friends? 

In my view social media is not an appropriate medium for sharing hunting snaps. It is certainly the place where immediate validation and ego gratification are assured, but is the five-minutes of fame showered upon us by people we don’t actually know, really worth fanning the flames of opposition and ultimately the loss of our hunting privileges?

Meanwhile, there is an international campaign underway to force Facebook to ban hunting related images for "the offence these disgusting images cause the majority of people." 

Who knows, perhaps without realising it, the Antis are actually doing us a favour.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/will-hubris-kill-hunter.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.

THE GREENS' ENVIRONMENTAL ETHNIC CLEANSING AGENDA

As the Greens turn up the heat on what they refer to as the “cruel and barbaric practice of killing animals for fun”, so their apparent concern for animal welfare gains support amongst those foolish enough to conclude that a vote for the Greens is a vote for “innocent animals”.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Like all politicians, the Greens are consummate manipulators and propagandists. They understand that the best lies are those that are never actually spoken, but rather nourished in such a way as to allow the public’s naivety to weave the lie for them. Thus the Greens ride on a wave of flawed assumption. 

In fact the Greens are not even opposed to hunting as one might be forgiven for concluding, given their aggressive and often quite offensive persecution of non-Aboriginal hunters. 

It is not the killing of “innocent animals” the Greens object to, but rather ownership of the instruments used to rob them of ‘innocence’. 

The Greens are wholly and quite fanatically in favour of the total annihilation of all introduced (feral) species, from rabbits to wild dogs, cats to deer and everything in between, as the more surreptitious of their public statements clearly demonstrate.

Deer 'managed' the Greens' way with 1080 bait

In his February 2013 response to an opinion piece, Greens MP David Shoebridge had the following to confide to the readership of a small rural newspaper: 

“Rather than continue an empty debate, it might be more productive to tackle some of the facts regarding amateur hunting and feral pest management.  For a decade now a government funded authority called the Game Council has supposedly regulated the access of amateur hunters to state forests to shoot, pierce, stab and gore feral animals.  There are now more than 400 forests covering 2 million hectares of public land open for amateur hunters.  However, these ten years of amateur hunting have not controlled a single feral pest species in a single forest.

“Despite these failures the NSW government continues to pump millions of dollars every year into the Game Council. Every cent would be far better spent on targeted feral animal control programs with professional shooters, teamed up where necessary with trapping and baiting, to effectively control feral animals in a given area.  Unlike amateur hunting these kinds of program are more than weekend blood-sports, they actually work.

(Amateur hunting not achieving its target David Shoebridge MP)

It is abundantly clear that Mr. Shoebridge objects not to the killing of animals, but to the fact that more should be killed for the money invested. 

And as though that were not evidence enough, we have the following from Greens’ NSW agriculture spokesperson, Jeremy Buckingham, on the topic of feral deer control:

“The Greens NSW agriculture spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham today announced the Greens policy on feral deer, saying that "the next Parliament should stop protecting deer as a hunting resource and instead declare feral deer a pest species and develop a state-wide control and eradication strategy."

(Media release: NSW Should Declare Feral Deer Pests Jeremy Buckingham MP)

“Control and eradication” are hardly words used by the champions of despoiled innocence. They are terms deployed in unison with the intention of utter extermination.

But I do not hang my hat on these two examples of the Greens’ Davrosian extermination agenda alone. Their own website lists the following objectives under “What the Greens want”:

• Develop a state-wide control and eradication strategy
• Develop well-planned control and eradication programs to protect the environment and agriculture with clear goals and professional execution

And of course:

• 25) end recreational hunting in state forests and national parks while acknowledging there currently are instances where lethal invasive animal control measures are necessary. Greens Animal welfare policy

So in the Greens’ own words it is revealed not only that they do not oppose the killing of “innocent animals” such as deer, dogs, cats, rabbits, foxes, pigs, goats, camels, horses and so on as their supporters assume, but that their primary concern is in fact that too few are being killed to give the taxpayer the proverbial bang for his buck.

The Greens harbour an abiding contempt for those members of non-Aboriginal Australia whom they maintain hunt solely for the "joy of killing”. 

Again, this is a Greens’ construct aimed at nurturing hatred for those members of society they do not approve of and history is replete with examples of political regimes whose efforts to first demonise cultural minorities, have led to far greater evils.

I am yet to meet the hunter who claims he/she “kills for fun”. I have certainly met many who claim they derive satisfaction from being in the wild, preserving age-old skills and cultural activities, while putting fresh free-range, organic meat on the table. 

Deer 'managed' the hunters' way

Many have described the sense of satisfaction they derive from shooting foxes and cats while after their true quarry, thus helping to reduce the impact of feral animals on native species, if only in a comparatively minor way, but for the joy of killing?  No!

It is only hunting’s opponents who make such claims and since when did conclusions born of emotive disdain, fear and ignorance become fact, much less tolerable?  

Were leading members of the Islamic community to say, “It is wrong to label all Muslims violent warmongers just looking for an opportunity for martyrdom”, would we tolerate people calling them liars?  Would the Greens, as they do hunters?

While support for the Greens may equate to support for an anti-European hunting position, it certainly does not equate to the protection of “innocent animals”.  

As I have shown, it equates to the antithesis of that objective - their total eradication - which the Greens themselves complain is not the hunters’ objective. 

But hunters and the Greens have more in common than many may think.

• Hunters value organic harvest and the free-range ethos.
  

• It is illegal to hunt native animals in all but a few highly regulated circumstances and hunters oppose the illegal targeting of Australia’s native fauna. While the Greens may habitually claim this is not the case, they are unable to produce proof that more than an incredibly small fraction of hunters’ transgress annually.
  

• Hunters maintain their activities have legitimate cultural significance.  The Greens habitually refer to hunting in cultural terms, though striving to apply derogatory epithets whenever possible e.g. the hunting culture, the killing culture, the American style guns and killing culture etc. Ergo the question of hunting’s cultural authenticity is not disputed by the Greens, only its desirability and their tolerance of it.

Of course the aforementioned epithets are applied only to European hunting cultures, despite the fact that processed and packaged foods are widely available, even in outback Australia, where Aboriginal people still, quite legitimately, choose to participate in hunting activities, with the open admiration of the Greens. 

Over the years I have met and spoken at length with thousands of the people the Greens merrily stereotype as the very vermin of society; doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, academics, SES and VRA volunteers, Rural Fire Service personnel, teachers, wardspersons, barristers, plumbers, builders, magistrates, butchers, bakers and, yes, even one very talented and imaginative candlestick maker. 

These are the people – men and women – who hunt; the same people the Greens casually and habitually refer to as thugs, cold hearted killers, weekend cowboys, rednecks etc., and generally promote as people deserving of the community’s mistrust, antipathy and scorn.

On their behalf I would like to finish with the three questions my conversations with them suggest they’d like the Greens to answer, honestly and directly:

1. When did the Greens adopt the One Nation-esque position that they are the final arbiters of cultural legitimacy in Australia?
   
2. How did the Greens reach the policy conclusion that the traditional harvest of plentiful, non-indigenous, public larder resources was at odds with the philosophy of low-impact sustainable living?
   
3. How do the Greens justify promoting responsible hunters to the Australian community as heartless murderers of “innocent animals”, when the Greens’ own feral animal policies clearly support total eradication, including the use of poisoned baits condemned as inhumane by all animal welfare agencies, in that objective?   

In my view, these are questions the Greens' own supporters should feel compelled to ask, though I am oddly confident the Greens will not feel ethically compelled to respond.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now... 

Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/the-greens-environmental-ethnic.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.

HUNTFEST THE GREENS AND INSULATED MILLINERY

A couple of weeks back I blogged on the economic costs associated with Greens’ efforts to sabotage HuntFest, the rural outdoors & hunting expo in Narooma NSW.  An expurgated version was also published by the Bega District News.

This week and quite reasonably I might add, the Bega District News published a response by Greens MP David Shoebridge.

As is the custom of the Greens, Shoebridge did not answer a single question I’d posed in my opinion piece, nor did he refute any of my claims. In fact, he verified a number of them, an act of unaccustomed generosity for which I will be eternally grateful.

Mr. Shoebridge did, however, make a number of claims of his own, which, it must be said, betray a concerning lack of aluminium foil in his hat. 

My response to his latest and strikingly unoriginal conspiracy theories may be found below.  Whether it will be published in the local paper, only time will tell. In the meantime...

Dear Editor,

I’d just read David Shoebridge’s response to my opinion piece of June 4th, when I said to myself, “Self”, I said, “what have you done for the Greens, that they’d want to give you an early Chrissy pressy?”

Where oh where to begin? Eeny meeny miny ‘immoderate’. Mr. Shoebridge accuses me of intemperate language and emotionally charged hyperbole. Now don’t that beat all?

This from a man who refers to HuntFest variously as an “arms fair” a “celebration of killing” an “attempt to arm the community” and the latest, a “gun expo.”

A man who not so very long ago and in this very publication, referred to hunters as “thrill killers”, “weekend cowboys”, “rednecks” and “followers of the killing culture”. Sorry, my mistake, “the American-style killing and guns culture.” It’s important both that I do not misquote David and that I acknowledge his deep disdain for Americans.

There were a total of 57 exhibits at HuntFest 2015, one of which sold guns. 

The bulk of exhibits related to boats, fishing, camping, archery, all terrain vehicles, navigational aids, tanning, outdoor smokers and BBQ equipment, home preserving, binoculars and scopes, knife making, still & video photography; there was even a working smithy.

But you go for it David. No emotionally charged hype in calling HuntFest an arms fair or a gun expo.

“Propaganda and vitriol doesn’t serve the public” you say. Look, I think I’ll leave that alone. Anyone who’s kept up with correspondence from supporters of the Greens and SAFE knows I’m a rank amateur.   Or perhaps a gun expo?

Yes, HuntFest was sponsored by the Sporting Shooters Association NSW this year. Last year it wasn’t, nor the year before. Next year, who knows?

Perhaps you could give the organisers a list of non-genetically modified, environmentally friendly, certified organic fair trade, carbon-negative, fuel efficient, solar-powered-vegan sponsors to be going on with? 

But let’s face facts, David, HuntFest could be sponsored by the Country Women’s Association and you’d still get all cross.

It seems you’re miffed because HuntFest has changed and grown over the past 3 years. Far be it from the Greens to commend initiative and success. Perhaps you could share a list of festivals that have not evolved in response to lessons learned and response to public demand? 

The Narooma Oyster Festival for instance, no amendments to its licence/permits I suppose?  Actually, it’s my advice that other events have sought many more amendments to their permits than HuntFest, in their second and successive years.

As for HuntFest “morphing”, didn’t the Greens’ Animals in the Wild photo competition morph its little hempen socks off to become a vehicle for promulgating a political ideology, undermining a festival organised and financed by a local not-for-profit sports club and feeding minority community dissent by attracting media attention to the controversies the Greens ignite and fan?

If anyone’s guilty of bringing the South Coast into disrepute, it’s you David, with your self-serving media harlotry.

Incidentally, the definition of jihad is “a war or struggle against unbelievers”. You seem to imply its use was unwarranted?

You claim HuntFest’s growth is part of a grand conspiracy. Do you have evidence to share or are you just channelling Fox Mulder?

If so, trust me, you’re going to need a better haircut and a much sharper suit.

You say “Greens councillor Gabi Harding with a great level of foresight got council to agree to a public consultation if the licence conditions were amended again”. Isn’t it the case that public consultation was the usual course in such circumstances and Councillor Harding did not in fact get Council to do anything that wasn’t already a matter of process?

Really, David, credit where credit’s due and all that, but next you’ll be claiming Narooma had a bridge alright, but it was Gabi who got the river!

Hip-pip hurray! You have finally revealed the truth about the 80% community opposition the Greens and SAFE have been selling the media. 

I see it’s now 81.5% (that would be statistic creep), but at least you have admitted publicly that the percentage relates only to the number of submissions received by Council during the consultation we’ve just established the Greens didn’t instigate. 

That’s a total of 166 HuntFest opponents as you say, or just a hair over .4 of 1% of the Eurobodalla community. Not “80% of the community” (or 27,384) as the Greens and SAFE have very widely promoted.

You mentioned hyperbole in your response, did you not, David?

I’m also very grateful for the clarification about the petition of 940 signatures from the “electorate of Bega” presented to the Legislative Assembly. 

Now David, I know you’re a busy man, what with your crusade against Australia’s wrong thinking majority and the search for the perfect half-caf, double-tall, non fat, whole-milk foam, bone-dry, half-pump mocha, half sugar in the raw, double cup, no lid, cappuccino....to go, so you can’t possibly be expected to know every little thing. But here’s something that as a politician you should probably try to get under your belt.

The electorate of Bega encompasses both Bega Valley and Eurobodalla shires and their main population centres of Bega, Tathra, Merimbula, Eden, Bemboka, Moruya, Batemans Bay and of course Narooma. 

Now it might just be my dodgy grasp of geography, but I could have sworn Bega, Tathra, Merimbula, Eden and Bemboka were not actually in the Eurobodalla.

Yet in your response to me, you complain that “the gun lobby organised its (out of area) people to flood the consultation” clearly indicating, as SAFE has done, that people outside the Eurobodalla should not be given sway over Eurobodalla’s decisions regarding HuntFest.

I’m sure the reason is staring me in the face, David, but could you tell me why pro-HuntFest submissions from outside the Eurobodalla should be disregarded, but anti-HuntFest signatures from outside the Eurobodalla are just the ticket?

By the way, the electorate of Bega boasts a population of 67,586, making the views of your 950 signatories a majority of 1.4%. 

Dave - I may call you Dave by now, mayn’t I? - I’m having trouble comprehending your concept of majority opposition.

While I think of it, Dave, I must confess I am remiss in failing to welcome you to the Eurobodalla. 

Clearly you have relocated to the area, along with the ABC film crew you invited to visit HuntFest. I mean, you wouldn’t be engaging in the debate if you weren’t a resident, would you? Not after complaining (along with SAFE) that people from outside the Eurobodalla should butt out. 

Surely a paragon of virtuous political representation such as your good self wouldn’t dream of using the national broadcaster to bring the wrath of your albeit marginal national support down upon the residents of Narooma.

Not only would that be hypocrisy, but tantamount to bullying, given SAFE’s very clearly articulated objections to foreign busybodies.  

So welcome, Dave. And of course the ABC...possibly the Herald and the Canberra Times. Oh, and the 40,000 Latvian, Uzbekistani and  Ibiruvian signatories to the anti-HuntFest petition Cr. Harding presented to Council, whose resettlement in the Eurobodalla is no-doubt imminent.

Welcome! 

You say “Narooma is a peaceful and tolerant town renowned for a love of nature rather than a love of hunting and killing.” I think you’ll find Narooma is a farming and fishing community.

Now you might want to stand clear of sharp corners before reading on, but the fact is the fishies, the bah-lambs and moo-moo-cows don’t shed their flesh annually in order to feed you city folks.

They’re killed, Dave, and it ain’t voluntary euthanasia.

Some are even eaten by Eurobodalla residents, shhhh!

“Gun dealers lobbied for HuntFest in Narooma to promote a gun culture and put more weapons into circulation”, and I’ll bet the buggers did it all from a grassy knoll?

Dave, these grand conspiracy theories of yours, while doubtless very troubling to you, are a bit like the voices old son, they’re not real!

It’s a bit like me looking at your support for legalised marijuana and claiming the Greens have striven for representation on every Shire Council to promote a drugs culture and get more bongs in circulation.

It’s silly, Dave, really-really silly!

You quote a fellow by the name of Peter Fitzsimons, I assume because he’s famous and in quoting his apparent disdain for HuntFest you believe the simple country folk will be swayed by celebrity disapproval?

Because I’m not really au fait with the gentleman’s reputation and accomplishments, I brought Google to bear as one does in this age of technological marvels, and I have a question.

Is this the paragon of virtue who reportedly got so drunk and boorish at a childhood cancer support charity gala he started eating food off other guests’ plates and as a consequence was asked not to return?

Now Dave, it has been fun ‘til now (really, lots of fun) but here’s where I have to get a bit serious.

It appears that like you, Mr. Fitzsimons doesn’t like America, what with your apparent shared belief that association with 'Alabama' is a humiliating analogy sufficient to cause a community to shun HuntFest. 

Perhaps there are people who will think his analogy clever, but here’s the rub, Dave, and I’ll do you this little favour because I hate to see a man open his mouth only to change feet.

Regardless of whether it’s referring to “crazy Arabs”, “lazy blacks” or “rednecks from Alabama”, invoking negative cultural stereotypes with a view to denigrating people is what’s known as bigotry and it smacks of xenophobia.

It’s not clever, David, it’s puerile and low and the fact you think it a thing worthy of deploying in your defence says a lot about the Greens’ cherry-picking approach to cultural tolerance, not to mention the calibre of its representatives these days.

Again, thankyou for verifying that the level of community support for the anti-HuntFest movement is not 80% but in fact .4 of 1% as I have previously stated, and that SAFE is not concerned about support garnered from beyond the Eurobodalla when it furthers their cause.

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

Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/huntfest-greens-and-insulated-millinery.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.

THE GREENS THE HERALD AND FLUFFED STATISTICS

There was a time when the mainstream media would check claims and numbers – in particular, unlikely sounding statistics – before publishing them as though fact. 

Certainly the broadsheets endeavour to check details when issued by the major Parties, in hope of highlighting a politician’s statistical creativity.

Not so when it comes to the Greens. 

Increasingly, whether due to thinly veiled allegiances or bone idleness, the media appears more than happy to stipulate to the ‘facts’ as reported by Greens prosecutors, without so much as cursory scrutiny, much less something that might find them accused of professional diligence. 

As a Party that talks a lot about ethics and principle while demonstrating precious little of either, few are surprised when the Greens employ deception in pursuit of their objectives.  After all, in politics the ends justify the means and the Greens are just politicians like any others, willing to do absolutely anything, including deceive, to further their political objectives.

Take the latest release regarding Narooma’s HuntFest, issued by Greens MLC David Shoebridge.  

The Herald journalist Kirsty Needham is happy to promulgate the Greens’ claims in exactly the way she’s been bid, apparently without any concern for the truth whatsoever, much less the balance that comes of checking claims and  even fleshing statistics out a tad.

Ms Needham reports that “Last year, the Greens' photography competition was run head to head with a photography exhibition at Huntfest that celebrated shooting and carcasses.”  She does not report that last year, the Greens photography competition featured, yes, you guessed it, shooting and carcasses. In fact it was a category in their competition, just as it was this year.

Last year’s Animals in the Wild exhibition included the rotting corpse of a wallaby and a dead kangaroo being heaved on the back of a ute.  Apparently this stuff is only offensive at HuntFest, not at the Greens’ own poorly attended parallel sabotage event.  

Ms Needham also fails to mention the very pertinent fact that HuntFest does not display images of illegally hunted (poached) native species, nor award a prize for the best picture of same as the Greens’ competition does with its Category D: “The image that best conveys the reality of the hunting, guns and killing culture.”

HuntFest does not support the hunting of native mammals as the Greens' competition category cunningly implies. Hunting native mammals is illegal, save for exceptional and highly regulated circumstances such as professional kangaroo meat harvesters and farmers who cull for land management purposes. 

But let’s move along. We’ve a lot to cover...

Ms Needham, along with the Greens and their arms-length urban guerrilla group Stop Arms Fairs Eurobodalla (SAFE), are happy to milk the dramatic cow by bandying about the term “arms fair”.  Now I could be wrong, but I’ll hazard the guess that if you were to call Ms Needham with the scoop that an international drug cartel had been broken on the strength of your neighbour finding an ecstasy tablet in her 16yld daughter’s washing, your story wouldn’t get much of a run. 

Yet here we have the Herald reporting that HuntFest is an “arms fair”, not once, not twice but a total of 6 times in the one article. 

How does Ms Needham (the Greens and others) justify such an extravagant description of what is, in reality, a rural outdoors and hunting expo? Well...

Due to the NSW Firearms Registry’s unfortunate application of grandiose terminology over which HuntFest has zero control, the licence required to temporarily exhibit arms in a venue other than a shop, is known as an “Arms Fair Permit”.
Of course to a Greens politician wandering the political wilderness, this unfortunate designation is emotive manna from heaven.  

The fully enclosed and supervised mobile SSAA air-rifle range

The permit is required even if the ‘arms’ on display number a grand total of 1 'arm' and even if said arm is an air-rifle such as many will be familiar with seeing at carnivals and agricultural shows, which oddly seem to evade the arms fair designation.

Never-mind, I’m sure the Herald will look after that... 

• Loads of fun for the whole family at the Royal Easter ARMS FAIR!

• Roll-up! Roll-up! To the summer seaside ARMS FAIR! Ride the dodgems. Try your hand at the RIFLE RANGE and maybe win a plush toy for your girl, all at the ARMS FAIR!!

• Oh sure, it’s all shits and giggles until someone’s head is blown clean off at Luna ARMS FAIR Park!

An Arms Fair Permit is not required to sell guns in a shop, such as the sports stores found in the shires surrounding the Eurobodalla, all of which carry the same guns and ammunition etc one may find at HuntFest. 

These establishments are left completely unmolested by the media, SAFE and the Greens simply because the headline, “Community outrage as guns sold in rural sports store” lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. 

Of course one must take into account the journalists’ obligation to beat-up a story that no one would otherwise read. This is the key to successful (as opposed to good) journalism. 

The headline “Outdoors expo includes hunting equipment” is hardly the grab-line that “Narooma Huntfest protesters oppose arms fair and combat guns with cameras” is. 

But a quick Google, or even a peek at the Wiki, soon reveals what people might expect to see at a real “arms fair”.

Military weaponry, the latest in stealth aircraft and laser guided missile systems, rocket launchers, automatic weapons, body armour and armour piercing munitions, compact ICBMs, Strike Drones, perhaps some fast deployment anti-personnel fairyfloss and the latest in 3-kiloton palm buzzers and so on.

When the public thinks HuntFest, this is what the Greens, SAFE and the media want the public to visualise.

I am sorry to be the bearer of disappointing tidings, but nothing of this nature is included at HuntFest and it never will be, if only because it’s dashed tricky landing a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy at Moruya airport. 

Despite the imaginatively deceptive hype, HuntFest is permitted to display and sell only those firearms and accouterments of hunting and camping that a comprehensively equipped sports and outdoors store may be found selling on any and every day of the week. 

But let’s move on to the fictional statistics Ms Needham has helped the Greens promulgate. 

"A council survey conducted last year found 80 per cent of residents opposed an arms fair", She reports. That’s an impressive level of cohesion from a Eurobodalla community of some 37,230+ residents. It is in fact 27,384 souls worth of impressive cohesion. It is also utterly untrue!

Wouldn’t you think such a claim might warrant just a wee bit of investigation...a little simple math perhaps?

Here’s the thing. The 80% support the Greens and minions claim they have for their efforts to scuttle HuntFest, actually relates to the percentage of people who responded to a Council community consultation relating to the broadening of HuntFest’s event licence. 

The exact number of submissions from residents of the Eurobodalla opposed to HuntFest remains a little sketchy, but it is believed to have been in the order of 240 in total. 

80% of 240 is, drum roll... brass flourish ...192. Hardly a groundswell of grassroots support for the anti-HuntFest putsch. More an indication of the niggling opposition of a bunch of vexatious petitioners I’d have thought, especially given the grounds upon which HuntFest's opponents solicited support were as politically contrived, deceptive and unbalanced as the Herald's reporting of the consultation's outcome.

It should be said that around 260 pro-HuntFest submissions were also received, which the Greens and SAFE insisted should be discounted if every one of them was not from Eurobodalla residents and this brings me to a glowing example of Greens/SAFE hypocrisy of truly supernova proportions.  

Shortly after demanding that all pro-HuntFest submissions be rejected if not representative of local opinion, SAFE presented Eurobodalla Greens Councillor Gabi Harding with the results of an online anti-HuntFest petition boasting 40,000 signatures, which Cr. Harding accepted on Council’s behalf. 

Not 40,000 local signatures mind, oh no. Signatures from people all over the world, from regions as remote as Uzbekistan, Venezuela and the wilds of Patagonia. These opponents of HuntFest, the Greens and SAFE argued, must be considered because they represent people all over the world who may never visit Narooma....because of HuntFest. 

Really?  

To be fair, it is also claimed that 6,000 of the 40,000 signatures were contributed by Aussies, and that an infinitesimally small percentage of that 6,000 (1%) may have even heard of Narooma...probably thanks to HuntFest.

This is the calibre of the people the Australian media is going out on a limb to support. This is the stature of the Greens’ integrity and maturity. This is pathetic! 

But wait, as they say, for there's more...

The Greens/SAFE then proudly produced yet another, very similar, altogether different, totally predictable and much more biggerer, yet simultaneously (and at the same time) considerably smallerer petition to the NSW Legislative Assembly.

This petition boasted 900 signatures and while not all of them could be attributed to Eurobodalla residents, as the Greens/SAFE dictated all petition signatories and letters of support should be, it must surely force Government to cancel HuntFest’s event licence, right?

They were sore miffed to discover that’s not quite the way it works.

And the petition had such a lovely cover too.

You see, gentle reader, even if all 900 signatures had been traceable to Eurobodalla residents/ratepayers, which they could not be, 900 of 37,234 is not 80% opposition, but just 2.4%. 

You think that's not relevant, Ms Needham, really? 

Am I building a picture here, perhaps one Ms Needham and sundry colleagues should have attempted to put together before swallowing the Greens’ bait, hook, line and sinker and portraying Narooma to the Australian community as a hotbed of division?

Exactly what does the media, or for that matter the NSW Greens, get out of leading the populations of our major cities to believe that if they travel to Narooma to visit HuntFest they are likely to be greeted by 29,787 angry locals all chanting “We hate HuntFest, visitors go home!”

And what of the Shire Councillor whose devotion to her Party’s extremist hoplophobic ideology nourishes these strategic falsehoods, ensuring they'll grow and flourish abroad?

Harding to demand independent inquiry

What impact have these deceptions had on HuntFest’s growth and development, given that it must be agreed that it is specifically HuntFest’s growth and development they’re contrived to sabotage?

How much economic benefit could HuntFest bring to the community during the quietest long-weekend of the year, if permitted to develop without deception and media misrepresentation shoved in the faces of millions who know no more about the event than the falsehoods the press irresponsibly promulgates? 

The Greens and SAFE have made it abundantly clear in their various statements that they believe HuntFest brings the wrong type of people to the Eurobodalla. If they win this battle on the strength of a free ride from a national political entity and the Australian media, what might this south coast equivalent of the Harper Valley PTA oppose in the future? 

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how city folks will scurry away from the rat-race for the peace and sense of community cohesion one associates with rural living, only to spend the rest of their lives telling the people who built those communities they’ve got it all wrong! 

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

Follow the blog on Twitter &Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/the-greens-herald-and-fluffed-statistics.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.