SO HUNTING IS CRUEL: YOUR POINT?

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

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

A hunter cruelly about the business of feeding his family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox prepares to eat rabbit volunteer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEN IGNORANCE BECOMES A POINT OF VIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CALL FOR COMPOUND BOWS TO BE BANNED AS WILDLIFE KILLS INCREASE

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

The Sydney Morning Herald

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES

The offending arrowheads Photo: G Pym WIRES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archery coach Lynne Fairhall defended the availability of archery equipment.

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

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

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

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

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

ends

EXPLORING AN ARROGANT REFRAIN

The March 28th NSW State election looms ever larger on the horizon and as is to be expected, formal notices and less formal memes encouraging folk to Vote 1. Shooters & Fishers above the line are increasingly evident on websites and in a multitude of online fora. What is not so expected, at least for me, is the expression of anti-Shooters & Fishers sentiment these posts seem to incite. 

Rants along the lines of “what has the Shooters and Fishers Party ever done for me” abound, betraying a depth of ignorance about the Party’s purpose and activities that is, shall we say, disappointing. 

It’s also unproductively divisive at a time when the future of the outdoors activities we all claim to hold so dear, has never been in greater doubt. 

The extreme Greens continue to lobby with a fundamentalist zeal, against the interests of outdoorspersons – hunters, shooters, archers, fishers, 4-wheel drivers and trail riders, the list of pursuits on the Greens' hitlist is seemingly endless.

Their exploitation of events such as the Lindt Cafe siege in order to further their anti-firearms agenda, demonstrates there is nothing they won't say or do, no facts they won't stoop to twist nor circumstance exploit to further their cause.

Not since 1996 has it been more important that we stand together in defence of the activities, the culture and traditions we loosely refer to as our 'rights'. 

Many of us claim to hold these rights sacred, yet when it comes to demonstrating a genuine commitment to protecting them we are found sadly wanting. For the most part we are in fact all whiny indignation and moral outrage with little coordinated direction. 

Remind you of anyone?

Like the Greens we’re quite accomplished at setting up myriad small ‘representative’ not-for-profits, clubs and community groups in the mistaken belief that in doing so we are somehow ensuring our future by giving ‘voice’ to our concerns. With the best of intentions, these organisations meet on the first something-or-other of each month and discuss threats and develop strategies to rout the enemy’s advances, often listing them in great detail.

Then they argue about who gets to be boss of all the lists, they factionalise, launch coups, breakdown, reconvene, make new and even more impressive lists burgeoning with clever strategies to ensure a better, more democratic way of managing all the shiny new lists they’re creating, they argue about the nature of democracy, breakdown again, reform etc., etc....and so it goes, ‘round and around, with disillusionment and discord their only demonstrable products. 

All this leaves them little time for the practical business of lobbying law-makers, formulating and presenting eloquent rebuttals to outrageous claims appearing in the media and educating the public, all vitally important to the cause and all requiring some genuine skills and political savvy.

Rather than admit such skills are relevant let alone clearly lacking in their leadership, such organisations too often choose to concentrate efforts and limited resources on things such as defending their own inefficiency and procuring a pew on an assortment of national bodies and advisory panels with the potential to elevate and advantage a few individuals above their peers. 

When these 'representatives' do give voice to the burning issues of the day, they do so by preaching to the choir through a variety of newsletters, email lists and facebook pages, through which they pump out terminally inane propaganda justifying their continued burden on an increasingly disenchanted membership. 

Critics of these behaviours are marginalised and often quite mercilessly victimised, as all opposition is summarily crushed under the heel of an increasingly unaccountable executive committee’s jackboot. 

This is the nature of the many baskets in which our sector chooses to randomly distribute its representative eggs and nothing could better please the Greens' and the anti’s, or more ably serve their various shady agenda.

We are our own worst enemies, largely because we refuse to recognise and support what is potentially our most effective ally – the Shooters and Fishers Party.

As I said at the outset, the most common complaints seem to go along the lines of “what do I get for my $30 annual membership?” or “What has the Shooters and Fishers Party ever done for me?” and I cannot help but reel at the sheer arrogance inherent in such questions, not to mention the breadth of ignorance they betray.

It may be hard to see what voting for the Party might return for us in terms of tax breaks, better health care or a lower excise on beer, but that’s not why one votes for a special interest party such as Shooters and Fishers.

We vote for them not so much for the promise of what they’ll do for us, but rather for what they may stop others doing to us.

Having Shooters and Fishers Party representatives in Parliament and better still, holding balance of power, means that introducing new legislation or amending the old so’s to erode our rights, requires more than just a stroke of the pen.

Ask yourself, should Shooters and Fishers no-longer have a strong presence on the floor of Parliament, who will fill their pews and how motivated will they be to stand firm against attacks on your right to own firearms or bows, to hunt, to fish, to drive or ride in State Forests and National Parks? 

When the next terrorist attack occurs in Sydney and the Greens once again take advantage of the public’s panic and ignorance to call for a total ban on all ‘weapons’, and when a Premier struggling in the polls considers boosting his popularity by declaring NSW Australia’s first gun free State, there may be no-one to oppose the move. And have no doubt, with concern about domestic terrorism growing it would be a very popular move, at least in the short term.

If you believe this could never happen without long and detailed processes of public consultation and much debate, you are sadly mistaken!

There are approximately 250,000 licensed firearms owners in NSW, all of which the antis would like to strip of their firearms. There are around 750,000 licensed fishers (this figure doesn't include indigenous folk, pensioners or children who don't need a licence) and innumerable archers, 4-wheel drive enthusiasts, trail riders and sundry other people with a stake in the outdoors that the Greens would like nothing better than to lock-up for posterity.

Exactly how many registered voters there are in NSW I don’t know; I confess reliable advice on that subject was surprisingly hard to Google, but let’s say the number is approximately lots. The vast majority of those registered will vote either Labor or Liberal and we know that at the end of the day one of the two will govern NSW.

The question we need to ask ourselves is whether we honestly believe the race these two parties are engaged in will run so close that your vote or mine will decide the contest? Of course they won’t. Neither will the quality of government we receive be influenced or ameliorated to any great extent because we managed to vote our favourite local candidate into Parliament. Such beliefs are the stuff of ego and it is our obsession with ego that holds us back and endangers our future.

At the end of the day the majority will see that the outcome of the State election reflects the nature of the largely arbitrary popularity contest it actually is.  But as a specific stakeholder group, it is entirely within our capacity to ensure that regardless of whether Labor or the Liberals win the race, their activities will be scrutinised thereafter by a small group of people absolutely committed to serving our interests and ours alone - the Shooters and Fishers Party. 

Of course by going the whole hog and parting with the princely sum of $30 a year for Party membership (the equivalent of 3 carbon shafts or 2 boxes of high end .22 ammo) one also has an opportunity to determine the nature and shape of the interests one’s political representatives serve. It almost goes without saying there’s a far greater likelihood you’ll be able to help shape policy and direction through membership of Shooters and Fishers than will ever be the case with the alternatives.

As for me, I have assessed the many and various threats to our traditions and lifestyle and I am genuinely concerned, more so than in times past. On March 28th I will vote Shooters and Fishers, not because I believe they represent the best option for NSW government, but because I believe both Labor and Liberal are just about as good and as bad as one-another. Thus, I choose to put my vote to the best use possible, by striving to ensure that at least one thing that's important to me will be protected and perhaps even improved a little.

I will also volunteer at my local polling station in hope of encouraging other outdoorsfolk to Vote 1. Shooters and Fishers above the line, remembering in NSW no party referencing applies, so the only votes the Party gets will be our votes. 

At the end of the day what you do with your vote is your choice of course; that is the great virtue of the system known as democracy. But if you are one of the people who've been known to cry “what has the Shooters and Fisher Party ever done for me”, either on the internet or in discussions amongst friends, I hope you will at least reconsider your position in recognition that it’s not what they do for you that counts so much as what they might prevent others doing to you.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

Note: if you are interested in volunteering at a polling station near you, be sure to contact the Shooters and Fishers Party and let them know via the website here

You do not have to be a Party member to volunteer for polling station duty.  

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

For those wishing to leave comments under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section below. 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.

A TOXIC GREEN BACKFLIP

When I asked my local Greens candidate her party’s position on the use of 1080 poison baits for the control of wild deer in her electorate, I expected a perfunctory response akin to "over my dead body!" Instead, her response couldn't have surprised me more had it included a complimentary box of cartridges, a blessing from the party's chief Druid and directions to a sure-fire hunting spot.

"1080 is being a realist, and is far far more effective control method than rec shooters who like to leave more for next season" she advised. (Note the requisite attack on hunters, despite the courtesy with which my question was posed)

My request for Greens’ Party policy came as a result of reading the article Farmers and Greens agree that deer are feral pests and need tougher controls (ABC Rural, January 26th, 2015) in which a number of agencies claim that deer must be reclassified a pest species in order that their numbers might be more effectively managed.

As I have indicated in previous articles, I do not believe deer represent the same threat as that posed by feral species such as pigs, cats, foxes or even goats, all of which have a far greater impact on the environment. In my view it makes no sense to declare deer a new enemy when so many battles in the war against introduced species are already being fought and roundly lost on existing fronts.

1080 poisoned yearling deer.

Further, in a country where, save for special circumstances, it is illegal to pursue all native sources of free-range organic meat, I do not think it unreasonable that deer at least should be controlled rather than exterminated. Deer stand at the pinnacle of the Australian hunter's very limited legal quarry and their economic potential is yet to be adequately explored locally, much less as an international tourist draw-card.

At present deer are classified a game species as opposed to a pest species. As such they’re a valuable public resource that may be harvested by hunters possessing the requisite Game Licence. The main difference between the ‘pest’ and ‘game’ classifications lies in the application of specific seasons in the case of game animals, during which the resource may (and may not) be legally harvested. Bag limits also apply.

Unlike feral animals such as pigs and goats that breed year 'round, most deer breed in seasons specific to their species and hunting seasons are set in an effort to ensure that does/hinds are not hunted while carrying or nursing fawns; a concession, I might add, granted at the behest of animal welfare agencies.

Few would deny deer numbers require management and I am certainly not opposed to the use of humane means of control, including, at a pinch, the responsible use of appropriate poisons.  However, I remain unconvinced that the use of 1080 for deer control is either appropriate or responsible.

My local Greens candidate, however, has no such reservations, advising that "Feral Bambi is not the same as the animals on a deer farm or on the movie screen" and "The Greens support scientifically based feral animal control, which may include some baiting carried out under very strict procedures."

I found these revelations most surprising, since the following was forthcoming from the Greens not so very long ago, in response to a similar question:

"Thank you very much for your questions. We always appreciate the chance to clarify our position! We strongly oppose the use of the cruel 1080 poison. Always have! For example, Tasmanian Greens Leader Peg Putt introduced legislation to ban its use in Tasmania in 2002, only to be voted down by the other two parties."

In a relatively short period the Greens have gone from strong opposition to the "cruel 1080 poison", to, "1080 is being realistic." So why the change of policy, why is 1080 no-longer out of the question and what exactly is 1080?

1080, or Sodium fluoroacetate, is a poisonous compound found in trace quantities in the foliage of some Australian vegetation, where it serves as a disincentive to over browsing. As a result, some species of Australian native fauna possess a tolerance to its toxic effects. A tolerance not an immunity and only in trace quantities at that.

Fluoroacetate disrupts the citric acid cycle (also known as the Krebs cycle) by combining with co-enzyme A to form fluoroacetyl CoA, which reacts with citrate synthase to produce fluorocitrate.  A metabolite of fluorocitrate binds very tightly to aconitase, thereby halting the citric acid cycle. This is a very complicated way of saying that an accumulation of citrate develops in the blood, depriving cells of energy, resulting in death.

The use of 1080 has been banned in most countries. At present there is only one manufacturer (USA) and 80% of its product is consumed by New Zealand, where the use of 1080 can only be described as rampant. For details, see a seemingly endless assortment of youtube videos produced by concerned citizens, among them the very informative Poisoning Paradise by the highly regarded NZ documentary videographers, the Graf Boys.

The remaining 20% of the world's production of 1080 is consumed by Australia, where it is used to control feral animals such as pigs, foxes and dogs and by Mexico, Japan, Korea, and Israel where 1080 is used as a rodenticide.

Death may be relatively swift, around 4 hours after ingestion, though that is not assured and death, by all accounts, is seldom merciful. Death may be extremely painful and lingering, depending on the quantity consumed and the species consuming the 1080. Reptiles, for instance, due to their slow metabolic rate, can take weeks to die.

1080’s knock-on effects are well documented. Animals that consume the carrion of bait victims are also at risk of poisoning.  Victims of this 'by-kill' affect include mammals such as quolls and sundry marsupial carnivores, birds of prey such as hawks and eagles and of course myriad insect eating creatures that feed on the bugs that aid the decomposition of baited animals.

Eastern Quoll: one of many threatened species prone to feed on contaminated carrion

1080 is also toxic to the human mammal and unlike native mammals we do not possess any level of tolerance born of consuming trace amounts of Fluoroacetate in our everyday diets. Symptoms of 1080 poisoning include convulsions, vomiting, cardiac failure and respiratory failure. Sublethal doses can cause damage to organs including heart, liver, lungs, testes and kidneys. Organs with high metabolic demands (heart, testes) are the most affected.

While I suspect the Greens will claim desperate times call for a regrettable hardening of the heart to embrace desperate measures in the fight against the ever-present and growing feral threat, to me there is one issue that should be considered above all others before embracing the use of a poison. 

How readily available and how effective is its antidote?

Horse poisoned by 1080, for which there is no antidote

There is no antidote to 1080 poisoning – none, zip, nada – and the only treatment consists of maintaining life support in the hope the poison expires before the patient. 

One could be forgiven for thinking this fact alone would render 1080’s use in the environment anathema to the Greens and so one is left wondering why the apparent policy back-flip?

The answer, I believe, lies in a cynical strategic objective born of sheer political desperation.

The Greens, across the country, have failed to attract the support they desperately need and crave. In fact they are losing relevance in a world they grow increasingly out of touch with. While the Greens dogmatically oppose hunting in all its forms, increasing numbers of Australians are looking at it with open eyes. 

The popularity of lifestyle programs such as Gourmet Farmer and River Cottage has inspired Australians with a new appreciation for the legitimate role hunting plays in the pursuit of a simpler, grass-roots lifestyle. This includes the responsible and ethical harvest of free-range organic meat.

Unwilling to compromise increasingly unpopular ideals, the Greens are desperate to develop a new support base. Enter the rural farming community, the support of which in the past, Greens policy has largely alienated.

Plagued by the damage wrought by feral animals which, were it not for the Greens’ hoplophobic hatred of firearms, might be checked, at least to some extent, by conservation hunting, farmers have ever suffered for the Greens' dogmatic anti-hunting, anti-baiting disinformation campaigns.

It is my belief that by conceding the point on 1080 baiting as a control measure, they hope to both garner new support among desperate farming communities, while at the same time sealing hunting’s fate in a characteristically Machiavellian manner.

The Greens' new position that baiting is a realistic strategy in the fight against the feral menace adds weight to their claim that conservation hunting is ineffective compared to measures such as 1080 and therefore completely unnecessary. Thus they strike a blow for their true enemy, which is not hunting, but rather the guns and bows employed in its pursuit.

If the ownership of ‘weapons’ no longer has a responsible, practical justification, it’s one more nail in the coffin of the “legitimate reason for ownership” incumbent upon every firearms licence applicant to demonstrate. 

Should recreational hunting/vermin control be undermined as a legitimate reason for firearms ownership, the use of poisons stands to increase as governments of the day become more desperate for solutions to a problem that can only be compounded for want of volunteer conservation hunters’ efforts.

Poisoned deer rots in stream-bed

Notices will increasingly appear in the media and nailed to posts warning the public that 1080 baiting is in progress. As a result, the impetus to take-up hunting will be undermined and along with it the desire to apply for the relevant licences and permits as public larder resources such as venison, chevon and pork are robbed of the de facto organic certification they currently enjoy as wild foods.

Voila, one cynical concession stands to unlock the potential of a previously hostile and largely untapped support base, while simultaneously undermining growing public appreciation for the benefits of hunting and responsible firearms ownership.

Of course I have no evidence to support any of it; no leaked memo, no quiet word or email from a disgruntled senior Greens apparatchik. All I have is the sudden reversal of the Greens’ previously absolute opposition to the use of 1080 in any form for any purpose, and a mildly Machiavellian mind of my own, which I choose to turn to the light side of the force.

Regardless of whether my suspicions are correct, and aside even from the question of its humaneness, the fact remains there is no antidote to Sodium fluoroacetate poisoning. I cannot help but wonder if the public would support the Greens' push to introduce yet more poison into public environments and catchments, if they knew what a very final poison 1080 is.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/a-toxic-green-backflip.html

For those wishing to leave comments under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section below. 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.

Razor sharp broadheads
Fast & reliable postal service
Very reasonable prices
Click the image to visit the website