TIME FOR A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARROW-SHOT WILDLIFE PHENOMENON

Shooting a duck a goose (or even a duckgoose), or any other native or domestic animal with a target arrow is irresponsible and unethical. It is also, more likely than not, the act of a child and not a hunter.

Having said that, the so-called ‘spate’ of five such attacks reported today by Phil Hickey (PerthNow, August 26th, 2013 here) is anything but a reflection of a growing weapons mentality within the community, as the Greens and the Antis would have the public believe. Rather, it is a perfectly predictable response to a recent ‘spate’ of movies featuring heroes/heroines of such prodigious ability that they can shoot the wings off a fly, or nail bouncing tennis balls to a wall.

In my day it was Dennis the Menace with his trusty shanghai in his back pocket who reigned over a period of bulbul and sparrow slaughter of Biblical proportions. Society ‘banned’ the shanghai and went on its merry way, safe in the knowledge that the slaughter had been halted. 

Like hell it had!

Kids simply started carrying backpacks, in which to conceal their shanghais along with an impressive arsenal of clay balls, marbles and ball-bearings each with its own specific target or killing properties, and the hunt continued.

Boys, and occasionally even girls, will be boys!

Unlike the arrow incidents that have featured in the press of late, a bird shot with a shanghai falls to the ground with no telltale projectile protruding from its body. The casual observer sees only a dead or injured bird, whose injuries are indistinguishable from those sustained in an encounter with a windshield or window, the pellet having long-since disappeared into the grass.

No doubt the Antis will cry-out for regulation or even prohibition of bows, but how does one regulate books, trees, reeds, feathers and string? I had a bow when I was a nipper, and it was a pretty effective little demon too as I recall, but I didn’t buy it from a sports store, I made it myself, just as I made my many trusty shanghais....oops, sorry, "bait casters".

Banning or attempting to regulate the use of bows as a response to a relative handful of acts by over exuberant kids would be an over-reaction of quite stunningly self-indulgent proportions. So what’s the alternative...do nothing?  Well yes almost, although as a first course of action we could show a little respect for our youth by acknowledging that despite the existence of a world of pressures encouraging them to kill and maim just for the hell of it, the overwhelming majority will choose not to.

The Australian community – hunters and archers among them – already promotes responsible and ethical animal welfare principles, and has done since way back before Adam played fullback for Jerusalem. This should continue, but it should continue with some perspective...

• The Australian population (21mil approx) is greater than it has ever been,

• Bow and arrow are readily available and cheap in all states and territories,

• There is a profusion of video games, movies and even cartoons glamorising violence, including violence with bow and arrow,

• The capacity for the public to capture images of impaled wildlife has never been greater than it is today,

• The national media is lucky to come up with 2 dozen cases of arrow-shot wildlife annually, and

• One notorious 20klm stretch of the Snowy Mountain Hwy alone claims 400+ eastern gray kangaroos annually....and that's just the 400+ that stay put when they're rundown. Who knows how many more continue into the scrub to die slow agonising deaths just out of site?

Decreasing the speed limit on the Snowy Mountains Hwy to 60klm per hour around dawn and dusk when car/kangaroo encounters are most common would increase both human and kangaroo response times considerably, thus saving countless lives.

But while the Antis would not be inconvenienced in the slightest if bows were banned, they would be astonishingly inconvenienced if the time it took them to get to and from work [sic] doubled.  Thus, bows should be banned, but road-kills, while deeply regretted, are an unfortunate fact of life.

The Antis will say that I’m wrong, on all counts. They’re a notoriously contrary lot....though I’m sure they would not agree.

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

PORCINE SMUGGLERS AND MEDIA MANIPULATION

In recent weeks the media has reported a number of incidents of illegal feral pig transportation.  The first report was concerning enough, but subsequent reports have increasingly inferred that ‘hunters’ are transporting the feral menace in order to seed new hunting grounds on public lands close to metropolitan Sydney.

This morning I had a conversation with a journalist, who, while ostensibly calling to ask me what I thought about the transportation of feral pigs in general, was clearly on a fishing expedition.  She wanted to know why hunters would be intent on infesting our precious bushland with a menace as ecologically devastating as feral pigs. My response was brief and to the point – 

“Responsible conservation and/or cultural ‘hunters’ would not. Irresponsible people might. There is a difference between the two!”

What followed was an hour long conversation about the difference between hunters and people who simply derive recreational satisfaction from killing animals.  I may as well have been trying to convert the Pope to Islam, but the conversation did yield some troubling information about where the media’s slant on the transportation issue might be heading.

It was no news to me that bowhunters are about to be used as pawns (again!) in the anti-hunting lobby’s push to eliminate hunting of all kinds by means of a public fear & smear misinformation campaign.

Regular readers will be aware that I have touched on this issue before i.e. the portrayal of examples of inappropriate bow and arrow use for the purpose of painting all hunters as cruel individuals, without regard for the law or the basic tenets of animal welfare. Bowhunters are particularly vulnerable to this unscrupulous strategy. While an animal that is not successfully retrieved by a responsible shooter may be hard to distinguish from one that died of old age, poisoning or a chance encounter with a car, the bowhunter’s errant quarry may be found months or even years later with 20 or more inches of evidence still in situ. I am referring of course to the arrow.

This makes us sitting ducks for opportunists who are constantly on the lookout for a visually confronting image with which to punctuate their ant-hunting messages. Indeed it has been suggested that with the purchase of a dozen target arrows from eBay and with the assistance of a little road-kill collected by night, the dedicated anti-hunting activist can fabricate ‘evidence’ aplenty with little fear that anyone will challenge their claims or concern themselves with the expensive business of establishing the animal’s actual cause of death.

It seems that following on the heels or recent pig transportation reports, the media is developing a Machiavellian scenario with which to portray bowhunters as the very personification of ecological vandalism, cruelty and disregard for public safety. The scenario currently under development for exposure to an impressionable public goes something like this...

Hunters have been intercepted transporting feral pigs (and lord knows what else) in areas approaching metropolitan Sydney, but what could they possibly hope to achieve? After all, hunting on public lands has been comprehensively scuttled by Premier O’Farrell, and national parks in close proximity to Sydney were never going to be opened to legal recreational hunting anyway. Sure the parks could be seeded with pigs, but the first gunshot to ring-out would draw rangers, concerned citizens, police swat teams et al quicker than you could say, “Not Happy Barry!”

Likewise doggers with cages full of dogs aboard their utes. Find a utility with a cage on the back parked in a national park and in no time flat it’ll be under guard and the bush will be swarming with Rangers with open notebooks looking to 'interview' the owner.

But what about bowhunters?

They drive ordinary vehicles that betray no indication of a hunting raison d’être.  A bow and arrows can be carried in a backpack, along with camouflage clothing etc, until the hunter has walked far enough into the bush to be out of sight. The bowhunter can then assemble his/her gear and move silently through the bush until a quarry is found and of course firing a bow results in no telltale report so the public need never know they’re sharing the bush with dangerous hunters.

Could the recent spate of feral pig transportations be a preparatory measure associated with shooters’ who are concerned about diminishing access to public lands? Maybe they intend to change disciplines so they can shoot illegally, undetected, close to home?

The only way to ensure the continued safety of ‘our’ national parks is to restrict the sale of archery equipment, perhaps place the bow & arrow under the same administrative controls as firearms. After all, bowhunting is the equivalent of shooting with silencers and it should be banned!

It remains to be seen if this devious line can achieve any traction in the public domain, but the fact that the Fairfax media may be weaving such a web of deceit, illustrates just how vulnerable bowhunters are.  Moreover, it demonstrates how desperately we need a strong, cohesive and above all a vigilant and proactive representative voice for our discipline.  Without it I fear the day may soon come when we’re subjected to a bow buyback program.

Think it can’t happen? That’s what many shooters thought in 1996...and again in 2003. I know, I was one of them!

On Wednesday August 21st, 2013, a meeting will convene in Sydney. The purpose of this meeting will be to launch Australia’s first Field Archers and Bowhunters (FAB) state branch of the Shooters and Fishers Party. The meeting will include the election of basic office bearers and the discussion of initial proprieties.

The purpose of the FAB will be to further the objectives of its stakeholders. The details of exactly how we will achieve this goal will be determined after thorough consultation, but some initial priorities have been identified by listening to stakeholder feedback. They include:-

• the identification of immediate priorities,
• the identification of key long-term objectives and the development of a strategic plan,
• the creation of a reference group that will provide expert advice and guidance to the Shooters and Fishers Party’s political representatives on issues affecting field archery and bowhunting, and
• the development of robust and reliable mechanisms to facilitate regular consultation with field archers and bowhunters within the Party, to seek direction from them and determine their ongoing priorities. 

The launch of the Field Archers and Bowhunters (FAB) branch has the enthusiastic in-principle support of the Shooters and Fishers Party of NSW. 

The evening will commence with a welcome from Shooters and Fishers Party MPs Robert Brown and Robert Borsak, who will provide some background and an overview of the evening’s objectives. They will also be available to answer any questions you may have about the Party’s priorities and strategies for reclaiming ground recently lost as a result of the O’Farrell government’s abolition of Game Council NSW, the suspension of hunting on all public lands and the exclusion of bowhunting from the proposed trial of hunting in 12 NSW national parks, due to begin in October 2013.

If you are a member of the Shooters and Fishers Party who is interested in joining us on August 21st for the launch of the FAB; if you have suggestions for priorities, ideas about strategies or resources that might be of use to the FAB, or if you’re just interested in being kept in the loop, please contact the facilitator at fabnsw@gmail.com

There will be limited seating at the Sydney launch, so if you’re keen to attend please let us know as soon as possible for seating and catering purposes.

If you’re not yet a member of the Shooters and Fishers Party, for just $30 you can correct that oversight here

You may also wish to consider signing the “Barry O’Farrell – Stop your attack on law-abiding hunters” petition here

And of course don't forget the rally in Sydney on Wednesday August 14 for the reinstatement of hunting rights. You'll find details about that event here

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....

OF INEFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION, AND OLD CHESTNUTS TOO

Recently, a concerned bowhunter contacted his peak body expressing concern after the abolition of Game Council NSW, the suspension of hunting in 400+ NSW state forests and Crown lands, and bowhunting’s total exclusion from the proposed trial of hunting in 12 National Parks.

The response from his peak body – the Australian Bowhunters Association – serves to highlight growing concern about the state of all-pervading inertia and general apathy that threatens our culture and practices.

It also serves to demonstrate why so many people are discussing the pros & cons of launching of a new peak body that is not motivated by self-perpetuation and magazine sales, but rather the preservation of our rights and our way of life, through proactive lobbying, public education, activism and, above all, service and accountability to its stakeholders.

What are your thoughts...is this the response you would expect from the country’s largest peak/’representative’ body? Have you had a similar experience? Do we need an effective, proactive voice to represent our interests and is that voice anywhere to be found?

At this point I will share only one view of my own. When you sit at the centre of an organisation with millions of dollars in assets and resources; an organisation that is the largest of its type in Australia, and commands the greatest potential pool of member-resources just waiting to be tapped, it is gutless and disingenuous to deploy the old “remember none of us gets paid” chestnut!  Nowhere on the ABA's membership application form do the words, "we may not be able to represent your interests effectively because none of us gets paid" apear.

I have changed only the name of the member who made the original inquiry. The rest of the following exchange is as it transpired.

As always, your comments are welcome. You may also be interested in a related post on the Hunters Stand "As we look into the Abyss" here

Anyway, I'll get outaya way now.... 

Email from concerned bowhunter to Australian Bowhunters Association:

Subject: NSW Bowhunters left out in the cold

What do you plan to do to protect our rights now that they have been stripped away. If bowhunting is not allowed in National Forests then State Forests will be next. How did we go from a great prospering culture to being wiped off the map in one day. Time for you people at ABA to step up your game instead of sitting on your hands. Bows will be a licensed firearm within two years if you and the Shooters and Fishers party don't do something. You are our governing body! You represent US. It's time to prove that you are not just a figure head with no power as is bandied around all too often. Restore our culture and our faith.

'Michael'
-ends- 

Australian Bowhunters Association's response:

Hello 'Michael',

Thanks for your concerned approach.

I can assure you the ABA exec do as much as they can but none of us get paid for what we do.
Believe it or not most of us have to make a living but we are happy to give up our time in persuit of what *we think is the benefit of archery/bowhunting.

In the case you are refering we haven’t had “anything wiped off the map in one day”. NSW has never had any hunting in National forests so anything that is allocated is a plus. Would I like to see bowhunting in these places? Absolutely. Is it likely? Probably not. The government want to eradicate feral animals and the bow is not the tool for that. *At this stage I am hoping the current hunting process will continue in State forests, but time will tell.

(I can assure you that we will do our best to be a part of that process but I doubt that we will see a conclusion prior to the National Election as I am pretty sure the whole thing is about votes.)

Believe it or not the Game Council was never about hunting, it was about feral and pest animal control, the government was using private hunters to help in this regard. Let’s face it, the bow is not going to cut it in a numbers game and numbers are what the GC are about. If the Game Council worked 100% efficiently and effectively it had a use by date anyway, as some time in the future there would not have been any pest animals left to hunt. In this regard the government has now decided there is a more efficient way of handling the current arrangement hopefully it will continue on with a similar process of the GC but it will be handled by an established department (DPI ?) and the GC will be no more.

This has no effect on private property hunting which historically has been the only way hunting could be conducted in NSW.

So what’s to be done? Numbers is the Game. Politicians and governments only care about numbers. So I’ll give you a challenge 'Michael'. Get everyone you know to join an archery/bowhunting association. The more numbers we can quote to these people the more chance we will have of them listening to us. But working against us will achieve nothing but division, and that will get us nowhere.

Mark Burrows,
VP Bowhunting Division.
ABA.

AS WE LOOK INTO THE ABYSS

For some time bowhunting, and indeed archery as we know it, has been under threat from the anti-hunting, anti-weapons lobbies. They perceive archery as part of an unhealthy "weapons culture" on route to a growing "guns culture" and they want the purchase of bows & arrows, and hunting, to be  at least as tightly regulated as shooting and the purchase of guns and ammunition.

The Greens and Antis use graphic images of arrow-shot native wildlife to punctuate emotive claims of extreme cruelty, and their demands for an end to hunting in all its forms, whether on public or on private lands.

These claims are beginning to win-over the public, and this is due in no small part to the deafening silence of archery’s sundry peak organisations, which appear to have no strategy to counter misleading and uninformed claims and media reports.

Now that the culturally intolerant Antis have had what they no-doubt perceive to be a ‘win’ in the form of the abolition of Game Council NSW, and the suspension of all hunting on public lands, we can expect them to redouble their efforts to draw our culture and practices into disrepute.

An example of the success of the Anti's smear campaigns to date is manifest in the fact that bowhunting will not be included in the NSW Government’s proposed trial of hunting in 12 selected National Parks, scheduled to commence in October 2013.

I emphasise – bowhunters have been specifically excluded from the proposed trial of hunting in National Parks.

Field Archery and Bowhunting have lacked effective representation for far too long. We desperately need a strong and articulate voice, along with a public relations and education strategy. Above all we need a plan to ensure the equitable inclusion of our culture and activities in all discussions and in all trials affecting us, now and into the future.

Should we fail in this objective, bowhunting and field archery will continue to serve as the silent pawns of those who wish to cast hunting in a negative light, and as a convenient and graphic scapegoat for cynical, opportunistic governments that wish to curry favour with an impressionable public that has only negative imagery upon which to form its opinions.

As a first step in achieving our goal of robust representation, a meeting will convene in Sydney on August 21st to inaugurate the first Field Archers & Bowhunters (FAB) division of the Shooters and Fishers Party. 

The proposed FAB will act as a voice for archers and bowhunters within the Party, and as a ready reference group and source of expert advice for Shooters and Fishers Party representatives. Affiliation with the FAB will in no way diminish Shooters and Fishers Party members’ right or capacity to “have a say" in the full spectrum of outdoors/recreational activities the Party seeks to represent, preserve and expand, nor will it inhibit participation in any of the Party’s other activities.

It will, however, create robust lines of communication and consultation between key stakeholders and the Party machine.

If you are a current member of the Shooters and Fishers Party, or if you have been thinking about joining and would like to lend your support to the FAB, you are invited to attend the inaugural meeting in Sydney on August 21st.  The meeting is supported by Shooters and Fishers Party MPs Robert Brown and Robert Borsak who have confirmed their attendance.

To register your wish to attend and for further information, please contact me (Garry Mallard) at huntingcommunity@gmail.com as soon as possible.

It is important to stress that the meeting will be open only to Shooters and Fishers Party members and those wishing to join the Party. Committee/executive positions on the FAB will be filled by Party members on the night.  Party membership forms will be available at the meeting and you are strongly encouraged to join the Shooters and Fishers Party as soon as possible, regardless of whether you will attend the inaugural FAB meeting.

Make no mistake, we stand at the precipice and the ground beneath us is far from firm.  The future of our culture and practices may still be in our hands, but if we fail to act now; if we leave it to someone else to speak and lobby on our behalf while we sit idly by, we will have no-one to blame but ourselves when the bow & arrow buyback begins.

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

GOVERNANCE REVIEW OF GAME COUNCIL OF NSW - "DUNN REPORT" 2013

The final report on the Governance Review of Game Council NSW is out, and in the spirit of providing you with up-to-date information, I have provided a download link below.

I will post updates as the story unfolds, so watch this space!

• Final Report - Governance Review of Game Council of NSW - Dunn, for Independent Consulting .PDF

• Government Response to the Recommendations of the Governance Review of the Game Council of NSW .PDF

 

A GREEN DECEPTION IN PROFILE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref: Parliamentary Hansard, Tuesday June 16th, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dr Bricknell,

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

------------------
 

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

Dear...

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Dr Samantha Bricknell
Senior Research Analyst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....

EXAMINING THE SECOND LUCKY ATTACK....AGAIN

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

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

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

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

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

Confused? I was!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...