From revered to reviled: hunting in the new millennium

Hunting was once accepted as an essential part of daily human life. Many a family lived in fear of shivering through a harsh winter without furs for warmth and a larder stocked with nature’s mammalian bounty to keep their bellies full.

 

While a couple of centuries ago cameras with which to record the outcome of a hunt were yet to be invented, there can be little doubt that a successful hunt would have been an event celebrated by the whole family, if not the entire community. Evidence of this fact can be found in various festivals throughout the world that have been preserved across the centuries, and also in cave-paintings dating back many thousands of years.

The hunter was revered for his skills with the spear, bow or snare and for the pivotal role he played in the sustainability of both his community and his culture. Today anthropologists agree that the development of technologies such as the knapped spear-point and the bow afforded our species the capacity to harvest large quantities of game reliably, and this in turn afforded our ancestors more leisure time in which to explore their intellectual development.

In short, while it is often said that Australia’s early development rode on the sheep’s back, it is also true to say that for countless thousands of years the development of the human race rode on the hunter’s back.

With the advent of ‘civilisation’, the cash economy, butcher-shops and supermarkets the need to hunt – at least in the developed world – gradually approached redundancy. This is perhaps understandable in an increasingly busy, largely urban society, but what is difficult to understand is the hunter’s transition from a once revered figure to the reviled villain he is often portrayed as today.

I have often heard it said that many people are incapable of drawing any parallel between a cow on the hoof and the steak on the styrene in Coles and this is certainly a contributing factor, though I doubt many are truly ignorant of where their meat comes from. No, if anything the vast majority of people know – if only in a plausibly deniable sorta way – that somewhere there are people known as butchers, whom they like to think of as a kind of religious order that oversees the spiritual transition of cows into steak, sheep into chops, and pigs into....whatever it is pigs become in the next ‘life’.

It is the capacity to rely on someone else to make animals into meat which affords people the privilege of looking down on those of us who choose to make our own meat. I call this the “Pontius Privilege”, I wash my hands of it, and so I’m not really to blame! 

But the Pontius Privilege doesn’t account for why so many seemingly intelligent people who claim to have a deep reverence and an all abiding respect for nature and its processes, remain so rabidly opposed to hunting, which is clearly an integral part of nature.

Many of the world’s most charismatic animals – lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, panthers, polar bears, wolves etc – are viscous killers that show no regard whatsoever for the concept of ‘mercy’. Yet the same people who revile the modern-day hunter will sit glued to the tele as a pack of wolves pursues, drags-down and disembowels a reindeer calf while its mother looks on.

My many inquiries of people who are all for animal-violence but dead against hunters hurting warm fuzzy things, reveal that we humans are supposed to “know better”.  We are of a higher order it seems, capable of determining right from wrong, good from evil, humane from inhumane, and this is what sets us apart from animals that kill other animals for food. But whatever your view on whether or not people should hunt, surely we must all agree that carnivores in the natural world have no choice but to hunt. In fact the precarious balance of each and every ecosystem depends on its apex predators, as diminishing their numbers has proven in any number of environments right across the globe.

In short, we respect and seek to preserve the viability of predators and their quarry in every instance, except when it comes to human predators, which so many members of the community will readily denounce as wicked, bloodthirsty or even uncivilised despoilers of nature’s delicate balance.

It seems that when it comes to humans, many believe that by removing themselves from the hunter-prey equation they somehow become members of a superior, more enlightened species. I would have thought it qualified them as a unique species, perhaps even a species ‘alien’ to the natural order of things on this planet, but certainly not superior.

A little further digging reveals that aside from the odd vegetarian who, given half a chance, would have Hyenas on tofu and lentils, it is not our carnivorousness that offends people so much as the fact that we do not hunt ‘naturally’. That is to say we use guns and bows and the like, and these tools are considered cruel and unnatural methods of harvesting meat, so those who use them are condemned.

I can only assume that were I to strip naked and head into the forest with a group of friends to run a deer down until it was cornered, that would be OK? Once cornered, of course, I could drag it down, chew into its neck and throttle it while my buddies in the pack kicked the life out of it before tucking in, and this would be natural...perhaps even an Attenborough moment?

It is not that we hunt that upsets people so, nor that what we do is unnatural, but rather what upsets them is the fact that what we do is so very natural that we are a constant reminder that humans are not the ultra-superior god-like beings that some people like to think they are. They are challenged by the fact that modern-day hunters are closer to nature’s battle for survival and evolutionary order than they can ever hope to be, and they lack the integrity, responsibility, courage and commitment to be a part of the ecosystems they revere.

Having failed miserably in their bid to be superior beings, they focus their efforts on criticising us for our gun and bow ownership, as a means of promoting a climate of fear and loathing of hunters. They do so in the hope that by comparison, their own flawed philosophies will shine all the brighter.  But that which the chronic hoplophobe calls a weapon, the hunter calls a tool, and while it is undoubtedly a fact that from time-to-time someone may use a tool inappropriately, it is also a fact that not everyone who robs a corner-store armed with a screwdriver is an electrician, and we do not seek to demonise all electricians each time someone robs a corner store armed with a screwdriver.

Ordinarily groups with a social justice bent would say that promoting negative stereotypes is unjust, even offensive, however when it comes to the vilification of hunters, groups such as The Greens have declared an open season!

If one member of the community uses a weapon inappropriately, The Greens waste no time at all in maligning all hunters and gun-owners, demanding their immediate disarmament for the good of the whole community. We are frequently accused of the most malignant intent and the most heinous crimes against man and nature, and our motives for hunting are misrepresented on a daily basis in order to serve The Greens’ political and social management ends. Hunters are routinely painted as untrustworthy, evil people who “kill for fun”, yet I have never met a hunter who claims that killing for ‘fun’ is part of the hunting equation. This appears to be a fiction of the green imagination, or perhaps an assumption based on their understanding of their own drives.

Still, despite the slings and arrows we are forced to bear, and despite venomous campaigns of lies and deceit aimed at eroding community respect for hunters, one unassailable fact remains. Without the activities of hunters throughout thousands of generations of human development, there would be no symphonies, no Shakespeare, no art beyond the cave wall, no great pyramids or cathedrals, no science and no civilisation as we know it.

All these things and more were made possible by the hunter whose bounty afforded his fellows the luxury of leisure time in which to ponder the meaning of life and how its quality might be improved. Even the freedom to denigrate our culture and beliefs today, was a gift from hunters of the past who have always been among the first to lay down their lives to protect such freedoms.

Our gifts and our contributions to society and our fellow human-beings have been many and of inestimable value. Even if The Greens’ and the anti-hunters’ campaigns of intolerance, hatred and bigotry prevail in the new millennium resulting in an end to hunting, its culture and traditions, there is one thing they can never diminish.

It is to the efforts of hunters of the past that they owe thanks for their evolution and the rights and privileges they take for granted and habitually abuse today.

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now...

Don't forget to visit and 'Like' Hunters Against Cultural Vilification of Facebook

The anatomy of Green bigotry

Cultural intolerance, bigotry and hatred, wherever they may lie, are born of two basic elements; fear and the absence of any stake in the thing that is loathed.  This is demonstrated in the comparison between the hunting culture and the culture of Islam, yet increasingly a culture of hunter-hatred is accepted as a reasonable, even a responsible philosophical position, by our politicians and social welfare groups:

a)    “I hate hunters because they kill indiscriminately.”

b)    “I hate Muslims because they kill indiscriminately.”

a)    “I hate hunters because they’re cruel to animals.”
b)    “I hate Muslims because they’re cruel to animals.”
 

a)    “I hate hunters because they’re obsessed with weapons.”

b)    “I hate Muslims because they’re obsessed with weapons.” 

a)    “Hunting should be banned in Australia because it’s cruel to

         animals.” 

b)   “ Islam should be banned in Australia because it’s oppressive to

         women."

a)    “Guns should be banned in case they fall into the wrong

         hands."

b)    “Superphosphate should be banned in case it falls into Muslim

         hands."

a)    “Hunters are evil, low-life, redneck, weekend-cowboy scum.”
b)    “Muslims are evil, murdering scum with no respect for human

         life.”

There is ample evidence to support the proposition that in a very small minority of cases, opinions in both a) and b) categories are applicable. However, it is only opinions in category a) that are promoted daily by politicians, the media and anti-hunting groups, with no fear of repercussions for promoting cultural hatred. Why? The answer is simple…

First and foremost, those who seek to vilify hunters - The Greens for instance - do so in the mistaken and somewhat arrogant belief that they are the final arbiters of what is, and is not, a legitimate culture worthy of respect.

Further, the people and groups that promote the sort of intolerance demonstrated in a) are not hunters; they are not interested in hunting, nor do they understand why others are interested in its culture and practices. They have no stake in it at all, so it may be safely disposed of without consequence to them.

They have no stake in weapons ownership either. They fear guns and bows and they fear those who don’t share their fears. In fact the latter they believe to be abnormal, and therefore must be eliminated, not for society’s benefit, but for the benefit of all the ‘normal’ people who have no use for, and fear, weapons.

Of course the anti-gun lobbyist will challenge this proposition with something like;

"We have no evidence that Muslims present a threat to people here in Australia, but we do have examples of gun violence in Australia every day; and examples of mass-murder too in Port Arthur and Hoddle Street.” 

However, these same people are fond of quoting statistics about US gun violence, warning the public about America’s undesirable “guns culture” - which they say is promoted by organisations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) - and they express concern that similar influences exist in Australia e.g. Game Council NSW.

Based on that evidentiary criterion, could it not be said that 9/11 was an act of violence promoted by the organisation known as Islam? If it is reasonable to assert that the "guns culture" is a threat to Australia based on statistics from the United States, is it not also reasonable to assert that Islam poses a similar threat based on the appalling statements and actions of some of Islam’s high-profile representatives around the world? If not, why not?

The media confronts us almost daily with images of masked machine-gun-rattling Muslins making demands and threatening unspeakable slaughter if those demands are not met. The media brings us shocking reports of the oppressive and often extremely violent treatment of woman and girls in Muslim countries. Yet it is readily acknowledged that these atrocious acts are perpetrated and perpetuated by a relatively small group of extremists, and are therefore no reason to lobby against the spread of Australia’s emerging Islamic culture.

Some will say that my analysis is simply justification for the banning of guns wherever they may be, but would that solve the problem?

The doctrinal interpretations used to justify the violence and oppression that many associate with Islam, are not prescriptive about the weapons that should be used to enforce them. Indeed violent enforcement of the ‘fundamentalist’ doctrine can be traced back a thousand years or more before guns were invented. A zero tolerance towards Islam, however, would surely go some way to preventing its establishment on Australian soil.

Let me state for the record that I harbour no fear or objection toward Islam, but like all rational people, I object, very strongly, to unnecessary violence and oppression.

I use the examples above only to demonstrate the philosophical hypocrisy of organisations such as The Greens, who, while actively promoting a climate of intolerance and hatred against the culture of hunting and weapons-ownership of which they do not approave, move swiftly to denounce any person or group that expresses concern about the spread of Islamic culture in Australia, of which they do approve, calling it bigotry and racism. 

Their reason for doing so is clear; it is a matter of personal preference, of likes and dislikes. They like Muslims, but they hate weapons and they do not trust anyone who does not also hate weapons. They hate hunting, and loath and distrust anyone who does not share the anti-hunting philosophy. They lobby ardently for an end to both weapons-ownership and hunting because their hatred of them means they stand to lose nothing by their abolition.

Politicians and lobby groups have for too long, promoted a climate of hatred and ridicule, both in the media and in the community in general, and they have done so with pride and absolute impunity. This has been possible because to date no individual or organisation has sought to prosecute them for their promotion of hatred, their vilification and cultural bigotry. Perhaps that should change?

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now….

Dreams and schemes and circus crowds

I recently attended the anti-hunting rally in Bega and I'd like to make a few observations regarding the rally and subsequent reporting in the media.

First, much was made of Australia’s long and proud tradition of proclaiming National Parks. The first, which is now known as Royal National Park, was proclaimed in 1879. Soon after, it was stocked with deer, foxes and rabbits for ‘recreational purposes’. I understand that some of the deer may even have been a gift from Queen Victoria.

A long and distinguished tradition indeed, which included hunting. Funny how these nuances can be forgotten by public speakers.

A spokesperson claimed that bowhunting was excessively cruel and should be banned. I do not suggest that being shot with an arrow is painless, but nor have I any obligation to ensure it is so. Nature is cruel…very cruel. All wild animals, save for the few that inadvertently hop over a cliff and die quickly by the fall, will die horrible deaths, whether by old age, disease or predation.

Predators have no concern whatsoever, for animal welfare.  Once an animal is unable to evade its predators it will fall victim to them, whether that predator be ants, crows, dogs/dingos, foxes or opportunist feeders. None of the inevitable death-by-predation scenarios includes passing away peacefully in the bosom of family and friends, nor painless euthanasia followed by tributes to the strains of Auld Lang Syne. A hunter’s obligation is to ensure that the death she/he metes out is not unusually cruel. All hunters I know and associated with strive for the swiftest and most humane kill possible, using equipment often far more efficient for the purpose than tooth, claw or talon.

If anti-hunters are serious about animal welfare, I am sure they will be happy to endorse the following proposal i.e. that the speed-limit on the highway between Bega and Canberra should be halved to 50km per hour. Doing so will double the reaction times of both driver and the profusion of native animals presenting themselves each week as targets for motor vehicles. The number is more than we see on the roadside of course, as many slip off into the undergrowth to die of broken hips, concussions and internal injuries which may not take them until days after the event. Of course this suggestion, however logical, will not win the support of the anti-hunters because while they have no use for bows or guns, they certainly do have a stake in getting to Canberra in under 5 hours.

We could go the whole hog of course and, taking a leaf out of The Greens’ and Anti-Hunters’ Rules for Community Engagement, decide that any one irresponsible driver who breaks the new speed limit will be taken to be representative of all drivers. She/he will be publically humiliated and vilified in a campaign aimed at creating a climate of intolerance and hatred towards drivers, culminating in the permanent closing of the Highway.

On to HuntFest and the misinformation disseminated at the rally. HuntFest has never, does not, and will not encourage people to hunt in National Parks or in the Narooma area for that matter. It is the equivalent of a camping and outdoors expo with a hunting element included. It ‘celebrates’ a legal activity steeped in thousands of years of history, tradition and culture. Intolerance towards that culture should be decried publically, along with all other forms of cultural intolerance and bigotry. If individuals don’t like the idea of HuntFest they can choose not to attend, but running it down publically, trying to fuel community hatred against it and its organisers, is simply irresponsible.

A great deal of time effort and money has been invested in HuntFest by members of the community whom many of us know and work with. Trying to destroy an event simply because you hold a philosophical opposition to it, or what it stands for, is irresponsible and inhumane to the many humans who will be disadvantaged as a result of hate-driven, sabotage and white-anting protests.

Attendance at the rally – I really have to wonder if getting 200 largely directly invited guests to the rally was actually indicative of broad community support for no-hunting in National Parks as the organisers have claimed? I would have thought the true measure of support lay in how many of the “average men or women in the street” were willing to join your rally, on the spur of the moment, on one of Bega’s busiest shopping days. If this is the true measure, the rally was a bit of a failure from the casual observer’s perspective.

Let me put it another way, had I turned up with even 500 hunters to march down to Andrew Constance’s office with a thankyou note for the O’Farrell government, would the anti-hunters accept that this was an indication of broad community support for hunting in National Parks and satisfaction with the O’Farrell government’s sound policy decisions? I think not! What the rally proved is that there are people in the community who are strongly opposed to hunting in National Parks, but we knew that, just as we know the 200 do not necessarily speak for the Valley’s 28,850 residents who did not join the rally.

Regarding the “Perverts kill animals for fun” sign hung on my gate in the wee smalls – I wish to thank a member of the media who approached me at the rally to say, “I am sorry about that sign hung on your gate.” The journo in question was not claiming responsibility, but simply expressing neighbourly concern for the impact of a cowardly attack on my home and family. I will not mention the person’s name; for fear that they too may come under attack. They know who they are and they have my family’s sincerest gratitude for their concern. What a shame that concern was not shared by other notables present. My partner approached one such notable, asking if, as a community leader, they would take the opportunity to denounce both the person who hung the sign and the act itself. The response? “Why should I? I didn’t do it!”  This person’s associate then accused my partner of being “just an unethical hunter.” That announcement resulted in a man barrelling towards my partner with what she describes as “burning hatred in his eyes.” My partner also informs me that had it not been for the intercession of the aggressor’s wife she fears she may have been assaulted. Bravo!

For the record, my partner will not so much as empty water from a bowl in the garden for fear mosquito larvae may be harmed.

To the person who declined the invitation to behave as a community leader should, I would point out that one does not have to be responsible for an act in order to denounce it. You’re certainly not backwards in coming forwards to denounce human rights abuses overseas for which you are not responsible. But you do have to be a responsible community leader.

Finally, I say again that I am neither in favour of nor against hunting in National Parks and I will not make up my mind until the detail of the proposal is released. But I am definitely dead against misleading the Valley, hate campaigns and sabotaging local community projects simply because they are not to your philosophical liking and I will continue to speak out against such activities regardless of the intimidation and bullying that may result.

Anyway, I'll get outa ya way now...

What drives intolerance

The objections and activities of the anti-hunting in national parks

movement, are predicated on two things: 

•  a hatred/fear of all ‘weapons’, and 
•  notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk

Little or nothing can be done to ameliorate the fear and loathing that drives people who would have weapons of all kinds banned. That which they see only as the agents of death, we hunters see as tools that enable us to engage in a legitimate cultural practice associated with thousands of years of human evolution and tradition.

Their closed minds make them deaf to discussions about partnership and compromise that they automatically engage in and accept in so many other day-to-day activities that are a thousand-fold more dangerous than hunting wherever it takes place. To everyday examples of the public’s willingness to tolerate an element of acceptable risk are driving and beach-going.

Each time I sally forth on the states highways, I accept that I am sitting in a 15,432,358 grain projectile travelling at around 91 feet per second (legally). My projectile is aimed directly at another of at least equal mass and speed, heading directly at me on a course that allows for a margin of error of about 1.5 metres, that being the distance at which my projectile will pass theirs.

Chances are I don’t know any of the thousands of people who are launching their projectiles in my direction. I simply accept that most will be skilled managers of their projectiles. I accept that they will hold the appropriate licence for its deployment, and that they will abide by the rule that forbids them to cross a 10 cm-wide white line along their projectile’s trajectory.

But along with everyone else on the State's highway system, I also know that every day thousands of projectile managers break the rules.

Many will be travelling at speeds that exceed the legal maximum. Many will be operating substandard projectiles, and many will be managing them under the influence of alcohol and elicit substances. Many will not be wearing the correct prescription spectacles as they pass me, and many-many more will be talking on mobile phones.

At times the projectiles may be travelling at night with very limited forward vision, and despite this their velocity will remain unchanged from daylight to dark.

In short, statistics and my own knowledge of the world combine to tell me that there are many things that may cause my projectile to collide with other. And this is reinforced by the fact that along with all the other projectile occupants in NSW, I know someone who was killed when a mechanical failure or a breach of the rules governing safe projectile management were broken. Yet sally forth I do, each and every day, along with a million others.

The need outweighs concern for my personal safety, though logically it should not and this acceptance is known as ‘tolerance’. The anti-hunting lobby shares this tolerance with me, because the anti-hunting lobby finds cars convenient and useful. They are intolerant of the perceived risks associated with hunting on public lands, simply because they have no use for weapons or hunting.

As Australians we have a very strong beach and surfing culture. Yet there are innumerable instances of surfer-swimmer encounters that result in serious injury or even death when an errant surfboard slams into a group of swimmers.

In my youth a good friend lost consciousness and drown after being hit in the head by a surfboard, and I carry a scar on my back from an encounter with a surfboard while snorkelling. Yet we do not ban surfing from all beaches. Instead, surfers and swimmers are encouraged to remain apart, keeping to allocated areas of the beach so that all can enjoy the environment.

There are no real laws or penalties associated with this arrangement. We simply comply (mostly) because it is in everyone’s best interests to do so, and we accept the risk when we visit the beach even though no-one there has any real power to enforce any rules about safety or separation.

There are many day-to-day activities that are high-risk, but because we all have a stake in those activities, we accept the risk and, often, we laugh at others who suggest the risk is too great. The risk to the public associated with encounters with hunters on public lands is not great and the vast majority of "the public" recognises this fact.

As a result, they have not engaged in the scaremongering of engines like the National Parks Association and The Greens, preferring to laugh them off as the silly concerns of a risk adverse generation obsessed with control and banning that which they do not approve of..

Despite what they may say, The Greens and the National Parks Association etc object to hunting primarily on philosophical grounds, because they despise weapons and hunting. They are happy, therefore, to denigrate it and demand the abolition of that which they neither understand nor respect.

This is the nature of bigotry and intolerance. 

Anyway, I'll get outa ya way now...

An absence of facts should never get in the way of a scurrilous allegation

Once again, one of  our community’s high profile Greens has sought to slur the collective character of archery enthusiasts in the Bega Valley, by submitting a highly emotive letter - "Picture tells a thousand words" - to the Bega District News (Friday, February 8th, 2013). 

The Green in question is Ms Harriett Swift, whose letter to the editor castigates the paper for dedicating too much space to an archery club’s response to controversial statements made in Council session, by Councillor Keith Hughes (The Greens), whom, as it happens, Ms Swift fails to identify as her partner.

Ms Swift has provided a photograph to punctuate her letter – a wallaby pierced by an arrow – and she outlines in some detail, the victim's painful and ultimately fatal ordeal.

No-one in Bega Valley Traditional Archers advocates the hunting of native wildlife. Nor is there any evidence that anyone from Bega Valley Traditional Archers was involved in the incident. In fact the incident took place 150klms north of Bega, near Batemans Bay, yet the letter claims that the photo is proof positive that “an archer” is the culprit, that archery is bad and that therefore her partner’s opposition to Bega Archers' applications for National Youth Week and Seniors Week event funding was entirely justified. See Hughes takes aim at archery for details.

And now for the facts:

A quick call to Bateman’s Bay police reveals that no charges have been laid, and no persons of interest have been identified in relation to the incident. The sum total of available evidence exists in the form of a photo of a macropod with an arrow protruding from its body. End of story.

So, allow me to do what Ms Swift clearly did, and make up a story based on a whole lot of presumptions. Presumptions that are, nonetheless, every bit as credible in the absence of detail/evidence/charges, as Ms Swift’s contention that “an archer” is responsible.

My alternative scenario will be deeply offensive to Greens, who will claim that one of their number would never do what I am about to suggest. However, they think nothing of attributing the most heinous crimes and intent to archers that would never dream of targeting a native animal; people the likes of whom Ms Swift and her ilk do not know, have never met, yet have absolutely no problem portraying as irresponsible, coldblooded killers. 

The alternative explanation:

There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue of hunting on public lands – Forests, National Parks etc. The Greens have been very vocal in their criticism of hunting on public lands, and they have deployed every weapon at their disposal in opposition to it. There can be no doubt – they hate it and they are out to put a stop to it!

A particularly hard-line member of the party-faithful (we’ll call him Iva Green-Bias) is tired of the relative lack of broad community support for The Greens’ opposition to hunting. Iva decides that it’s time to play hardball, and what better way to do it than by contriving an incident that will graphically demonstrate “hunter cruelty”, thereby promoting a negative image of hunters while also creating a highly emotive icon for the cause. 

Iva pops onto the net and in 20 minutes he has bought a light bow and some basic target arrows for $150. It’s little enough to pay, he thinks, for a photograph that will keep paying for itself well into the future, and off he pops to a very high profile park near Bateman’s Bay.

Iva reckons that shooting a wallaby in a touristy area will maximise the chances of the wallaby being found, either dead or alive, but either way, with an arrow protruding from its body.

Because a bow makes little sound, Iva is able to take many shots without drawing attention to himself before actually hitting his target. Iva’s target is not killed outright and he is unable to retrieve it.

Not to worry, he thinks, it was shot in a very high profile area, so with any luck someone will find it for me. This act weighs heavy on Iva’s conscience, but he figures the sacrifice is warranted, given the magnitude of the cause.

The Wallaby is later found and rushed off to animal welfare workers, who immediately attribute the act to cruel hunters. Mission accomplished and all suffering thus justified for the greater good.

The End

Is this what actually happened to the wallaby in Ms Swift’s photo?  I haven’t got a clue, and nor do you in the absence of any witnesses or evidence, other than the presence of the arrow.

It could have been a hunter. It could have been a Green extremist. It could have been an alien from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. One does not need to be an “archer” to discharge a bow. One merely needs hands, inclination and opportunity.

In short, Ms Swift’s accusations and assertions about the photograph are simply speculation born of her desire to punctuate the point she is intent on making. This is the emerging nature of the intolerance fostered by the zealots within The Greens. Facts and evidence are unimportant, as is the principle of innocence until guilt is proven.

What's important is misleading the public in order to achieve your ends, which always justify the means.

Ms Swift – thinking it is so, contending it is so, trying to make other people believe it is so, does not make it so. But attempting to incite hatred by incessantly seeking to portray a specific cultural group within the community as intrinsically evil, is the essence of bigotry.

This leads me to wonder about the official Greens position on a related matter about which The Greens have been very quiet indeedy. Their spokespersons have decried ‘amateur hunting’ as dangerous and inhumane. They have rejected the suggestion that for many it is a highly spiritual pursuit and they have even said it has no place in a civilised society.

I respect and even relate to the spirituality embodied in Aboriginal traditional stories of the Dreaming that so often figure around hunting, and I respect traditional indigenous hunting rights and practices. But what of The Greens…do they also believe that indigenous hunting should be limited to “the professionals”…are Aboriginal people cruel, irresponsible and uncivilised?

I trust that The Greens objections to hunting are not limited solely to people they perceive to be of white Anglo-Saxon heritage? 

Anyway, I'll get outa ya way now.... 

They just can’t help themselves

Well, as was inevitable, Greens spokesperson David Shoebridge has responded to my opinion piece, “Green the colour of intolerance” (Bega District News January 29, 2013).

His reply, entitled "Amateur hunting not achieving its target" (Bega District News February 5th, 2013) filled me with a mixture of joy and despair. Joy because it is uncharacteristically devoid of the many insulting epithets habitually applied to hunters by Greens spokespersons such as Mr Shoebridge, in media releases, parliamentary hansard and ‘Tweets’, and despair because his restraint did not extend to misleading the citizens of the Bega Valley. 

Mr Shoebridge says that I argue that “campaigning for safer gun control laws and for humane and effective feral animal control is some form of racial vilification”. This is absurd and untrue. My opinion piece very clearly acknowledges his right to lobby, based on issues.

My objections centre solely on the practice of applying offensive and abusive epithets such as ‘weekend warriors’, ‘weekend cowboys’, ‘thill-killers’, ‘Rambos’ and the like, to demonise hunters in order to achieve his goals.

The Greens have the right to lobby. They do not have the right to insult, humiliate, abuse, mislead or incite cultural hatred and intolerance.

I note also that Mr Shoebridge describes my contention that his activities in this regard may be actionable under Racial Vilification laws, as “one-eyed”.  He does not, however, claim that my contention is legally flawed, and I find this of particular interest given that Mr. Shoebridge is a Barrister.   

Mr. Shoebridge's response strives to portray me as a “shooter”. For the record, I am not. I neither own nor use guns and I have no particular views as to their place in society. 

Mr. Shoebridge then proceeds to roundly criticise Game Council NSW and the conservation hunting philosophy. Again, I respect his right to do so, sans offensive epithets and misleading statements. But he also refers to “the emerging gun and hunting culture in NSW” over the past decade being brought about by “back-room deals struck by successive NSW Governments” and this statement, clearly about political point-scoring, may well explain why he is not spokesperson for Indigenous Affairs.

The “hunting culture” in NSW has its foundations in indigenous history, culture and tradition, reaching back some 50,000 years before the colony of “NSW” was established. The only thing that has emerged in the past decade is The Greens’ demonstrated intolerance for such culture and traditions.

All that aside, perhaps what I find most interesting about Mr. Shoebridge’s response is his advocacy of the use of “professional shooters” and, “where necessary, baits” as the Greens’ preferred alternative to conservation hunting.

Both the RSPCA and Animals Australia describe the use of baits as inhumane. In fact, the Animals Australia website (control methods) advises that, “Head shooting of animals, causing instant death, is generally agreed to be the least inhumane method of killing a wild animal.”

I suspect that Mr Shoebridge would contend that “professional shooters” boast superior skill-sets and accuracy levels to those possessed by mere volunteer conservation hunters. I would dearly love to see the research demonstrating that. In fact, I would like to know what the “professional hunter” accreditation process involves.

I suspect that in this context, ‘professional’ translates as “derives primary income from” and little more.

Recent efforts by local Greens to paint the sport of archery in a dim light  for their own ends (Hughes takes aim at archery, BDN 25 January, 2013) appear even more sinister when assessed against advice contained in a letter from Mr Shoebridge dated July 22nd 2011. In the letter, Mr Shoebridge advises that:

"Traditional archery as a sport does not pose a significant threat to community safety. As you wrote in your letter its practice, in a responsible manner, can contribute to the building and maintaining healthy community releationships. The Greens do not oppose it. 

"I am sure thought you will agree that it is the irresponsible use of weaponry that is the issue."

Given the recent activities of Cr. Hughes (The Greens) one could be forgiven for suggesting that The Greens do not oppose archery, until it pleases them to do so, but yes, it is indeed the irresponsible use of weaponry that is the issue and in the same letter, Mr. Shoebridge acknowledges that:

"There are many hunters, like you, who are respectful of the life they take and responsible in the actions they engage in to protect private land".

 
…and further:

"While there are people like you who are committed conservationists, and hunt for this purpose, the establishment of the Game Council and the relaxing of firearms laws in NSW has made it easier for irresponsible individuals to engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting in the name of conservation.”

While in correspondence Mr. Shoebridge is willing to acknowledge that there are committed, responsible, humane and respectful conservation hunters in the community, I can find no similar acknowledgement in the public domain. Why he might think that hunters would abandon these principles when hunting on public lands remains a mystery.

Are parks and forests strewn with mind control devices perhaps?

If Mr. Shoebridge and the Greens are against hunting because they hate weapons, period, let that be their platform, rather than attempting to dupe the Bega Valley into believing they are motivated by utopian ideals of animal welfare, humaneness and public safety.

In January 2013, Game Council NSW advised police of a claim that two Game Council employees had been seen hunting in a place and in a manner that was in contravention of the law. Immediately NSW Primary Industries Minister, Katrina Hodgkinson, suspended both men pending the outcome of a full police investigation. One has since been reinstated after demonstrating that he was nowhere near the location of the reported incident, while the other is expected to be reinstated shortly. 

When The Greens learned of the accusations they jumped for joy! They praised the Minister for suspending the two accused, while opportunistically seizing any & every opportunity to demand the  immediate abolition of Game Council NSW. 

One wonders (one REALLY does!) if the NSW Parliament and The Greens party machine will act as quickly and as decisively as did Minister Hodgkinson, when the hunters of NSW - tired of being portrayed as irresponsible and cruel louts - band together to formally complain about the cultural vilification they suffer at the hands of Mr. Shoebridge and his increasingly intolerant and opportunistic kith.

Anyway, I'll get outa ya way now....

Referrence: 

The practice of maligning or ‘vilifying’ hunters, based on their cultural beliefs and practices is widespread among anti-hunting lobby groups. Their aim in using descriptors such as “weekend warriors” and “thrill killers” is clearly to sway community opinion against hunters, as is the Greens’ habitual practice of associating hunters with drunkenness, recklessness, dangerous irresponsible behaviour and cruelty, and it is my belief that this strategy may have legal implications for the perpetrators under, of all things, Australian racial hatred laws.

Australia is obliged under international human rights law to prohibit incitement to racial hatred (Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The Commonwealth, every state, and the ACT (but not the Northern Territory) make racial vilification at least ‘unlawful’, and at times a criminal offence. In such laws the words ‘racial’ and ‘race’ are used not for a pseudo-scientific purpose, but as shorthand for the many ways that a person’s own and perceived identity turns on personal attributes such as their physical appearance, where they were born and raised, their culture, and their traditions. As a result, ‘racial’ vilification laws protect against hateful conduct that occurs because of, for example, a person’s nationality, ethnicity and culture. [Simon Rice OAM, Director of Law Reform and Social Justice at the ANU College of Law.]

The advice above may not only have implications for Australian indigenous hunters, but also for the many people from foreign shores who now call Australia home and whose countries of origin may have longstanding or even ancient cultural hunting traditions. Bowhunting is perhaps the oldest traditional hunting practice still practiced today, and given Australia’s status as a “cultural melting-pot” I would be very surprised if a large percentage of bowhunters did not have some legitimate ‘cultural’ links to archery as a practical cultural necessity as opposed to a simple sport. For those of us who are unable to claim such a link, the definition of “ethnicity” may also be of interest. Many believe, erroneously, that ‘ethnicity’ means foreign. In fact the Oxford Dictionary defines ‘ethnicity’ as “traits, background, allegiance, or association.” Ergo, might it not be said that coming from a rural background and being allied with principles of feral animal management, in association with an Approved Hunting Organisation, hunting is in fact my ethnicity?

 

To read "Green: the colour of intolerance" click here