Quote from Australian of the year2007-Tim Flannery

[Nephew]

I came across this in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald's "Good Weekend" magazine. I think you may like it!
"We must be willing to face the difficult decisions that are inherent in our role as the most powerful force in the environment. That is why I think people who kill their own meat, in as humane a way as possible, are the most moral of us all" he went on to say that people who kill their own meat develop understanding, courage and compassion for life fundamental to human decency , values "those of us who receive our meat in plastic trays have little opportunity to achieve" and that the distancing of society from the origins of our food and other resources was exactly why most Australians are so disconnected from the environment.
Tell THAT to the next dreadlocked greenie or P.E.T.A. member that wants to get on your goat(pun intended!) about hunting!!

[Coach]

Thats the trouble with society ,, we are so distanced from where a product comes from , that we have no idea ,, it has come down to ,, hand money over , get what we want
I would love to take out a few high rollers or Greenies for that matter and show them where their steaks /shoes/ home /mobile phones come from

Greenies use the internet to communicate as well as mobile phones ,, just look at what has been killed to get these products

[wayoutwest]

mobile phones.. where do you hunt them?

[Coach]

mobile phones.. where do you hunt them?

You idiot Luke Trees were killed to put up the towers that handle the mobile network

[Nephew]

Not to mention the people killed mining the Coltan needed for every mobile phone and computer. Always amazes me when I see the resources and skill these folk will put into an online campaign to stop the culling of 'Roos on an Army base during a drought, never thinking of how three quarters of the world live in squalor and hunger to provide these middle class darlings with their coseted life-style!
Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there, just annoyed with middle-class greenie types!! At the local TAFE here in Environmental Studies you get a fair bit of the attitude that somehow tie-dye and dreads equal some sort of moral superiority, yet half these geese still live at home with Mum&Dad, having never lived enough to even make an informed opinion, let alone a moral stance. Doesn't stop 'em though, arrogant little buggers!

[jindydiver]

I like Tim Flannery, he is a sensible bloke who doesn't mind talking about difficult issues.
I had a chance a few years ago to talk with him about wild game (while my long suffering wife was discussing business with him ) and he was very interested and supportive of what we do.

[flyne]

I think he has a very valid point i work in Barham which is a small town that is basically only hear because of the red gum industry and they are trying to turn all of the forests hear into national parks which basically means no more Barham if it all goes threw. I had one of the tree hugers come into work the other day and try to convince me that the town will be better of with a national park at it's door step he just couldn't comprehend that the town wouldn't exist if the red gum saw mills whea to close.

I guse in the end birth control really should be made mandatory for some folk

[Nephew]

Did the tree-hugger have a job himself?
BTW, I'm not trying to say Tim is a woolly headed greenie, he thinks his policies through, and doesn't use emotionally based ideology as far as I can see.
I haven't seen the stats pertaining to your town, but generally can't see how, if done sensibly (Not Gunns style, in other words) you shouldn't have a timber industry in your town for generations to come.

[Lochmoy]

It is vital that all greenies are not tarred with the same brush. I am an environmental science teacher and have never had any problem with hunting ferals or culling various species of natives that are out of control.

I am a greenie but I am also a woodworker and builder and don't have any problem with using wood. And yet I make sure I am not building with any species that I know to be threatened.

Right now your thinking is this possible? Aren't these things contradictory?

It is quite possible if you realise that not every so called "greenie" is the same. There are are broad spectrum of people who you would term "green", from the rabid loonie to the mum and dad who recycle their cans.

Most of us are "greenies" to a certain extent. You need to be more specific when criticising a group when that group is very broad. It's like saying "all hunters are cruel" or "all timber workers destroy forests" We know these statements are not true.

We are all in this together. Everyone has valid points.

[jindydiver]

What I find interesting about your post Lochmoy is that you have identified yourself as a "greenie" rather than as a "conservationist" or any other term that can describe someone who has a great concern for our misuse the natural world and our place in it into the future? It is plain to see that "greenie" in the context of this discussion relates more to the "preservation at all costs" type of campaign supporter who is dreaming of a utopia and has some unreal expectation that making national parks or becoming a vegetarian will lead us to it.

FWIW the majority of true conservationists, the sort of people who actually do real hands on work to help endangered animals and plants, not the guys who spend a few years living with their hippie mates and protesting anything "anti-establishment", are supportive of hunters or at the very least ambivalent about us as they see we do a necessary task.
I am a moderator on a website populated by "hands on conservationists" and someone ran a poll asking if members thought it was justifiable to kill one animal to save another and over 75% of the respondents said yes. Obviously there were people who believe in the animal liberation view of animal rights and they still try and kid themselves that they are "conservationists" and not just "preservationists", and they like to kid themselves that letting the animals fight it out in peace (and have some die out) is the same thing as caring that Australian ecosystems be protected from invasive pests.

I saw an interesting interview with a leading weed scientist earlier this year and he took the reporter to an area that many people picnic in near Melbourne. He pointed out that this area is the only sort of bush that many people who would engage in debate about conservation in Australia get to see because of their hectic city based lives, and then he went on to point out how sad that was because 90% of what they were looking at was introduced weeds. He had consulted widely over the years on issues like this and was overwhelmed with the number of "greenie types" who were happy just to see any bush area as long as it was protected as a park, no matter how altered that area was because of the effects of white guys arriving in Australia all those years ago.

[Lochmoy]

I definitely fall into the "conservation" as opposed to "preservation" category of "greenie".

What I am trying to alert people about is the labelling of groups. What I have learned in 4 decades of working in and for the environment is that there are no simply and clear answers to any of the environmental threats that abound in this country and the planet. In closing there are some final points I would like to make.

1. This is a democracy and everyone is entitled to their say. Even dreadlocked, hippie, greenies and animal rightists. Even if we don't agree with them. In fact the more they rant, the more people switch off from what they're saying anyway.

2. Try not to judge them. Possibly they haven't done any hands on stuff (but we don't know that for sure). They are young and passionate, if at times naive but will mature and change as we all do.

3. Sometimes they do good by alerting the world to a crises that has gone unnoticed.

4. They actually don't make any real decisions. These are made by governments through pressure from various groups, lobby groups, business groups and voters. They might be loud and colourful and silly at times but they comprise a very tiny and not veryt influential minority.


Cheers everyone

[Steven J]

Just thought that I would jump on the bandwagon too.

I must agree with Lochmoy that labeling groups only serves to alienate us from each other and create further misunderstanding.

I believe that the 'preservation at all cost' type greenies are important, as are the 'cut all the trees down for carparks' developer types. It takes these extreme views to both sides of an argument and therefore provide the full facts that more moderated members of our society seek.

It is those people that are passionate about their causes that can make changes to our world.

If we are seeking to protect our hunting rights, who is best to do the job? Someone who couldn't care either way?

Greenies protect our way of life, by moderating those that seek to fill it with concrete. Those that seek to industrialise our world protect our way of life by moderating the greenies that cry when we eat carrots.

Steve

[Nephew]

I probably shouldn't have generalised like that, because the distinction Lochmoy makes is the same I was trying to use with the term"greenie" as opposed to "conservationist". The people I speak of are people I deal with three days a week at TAFE. I swear these kids are more interested in the environment as fashion than a serious issue. As for judgmentalism, mate, I went into this course with an open mind about folk, but because I'm forty, dont wear "greenie" fashion (I wear flanno's, blue singlet and jeans with steel caps mostly), don't agree with forest protests , don't hate all "establishment" figures, and see a need for culling of ferals, I get called REDNECK! Without knowing anything at all about me, these kids have decided I'm an irrelevant old right-wing reactionary, and ostracise me at every opportunity, then have the hide to lecture ME on tolerance! I dunno about anyone else here, but I had far more respect for my elders than to behave that way when I was a younger man. If you want respect, tolerance, and your opinions given any sort of credence, you have to be willing to reciprocate, and these kids aren't, they just want it all their own way without realising they don't have the life experience to comment anyway!
I stand by my original statements, these people are geese, not serious conservationists like y'self Lochmoy, and I have no time for them at all.

btw, "greenies that cry when we eat carrots"

[Marc Coombs]

In reading these and previous posts I've seen the term conservation used by bowhunters as a rationale for shooting feral animals. I just thought I'd add a biologists perspective on conservation hunting.

Most of the photographs I see posted on this forum are of male animals (ferals) whether it be pigs, goats or deer. Culling these animals is trophy hunting and has little or no conservation value. You need to be shooting females if your intention is to reduce the size of the feral population in the next generation. Any larger males removed by culling are immediately replaced by smaller males which would not otherwise have had an oppurtunity to breed. These smaller males are just as effective at fertilising all the available females as the bigger males.

So next time you've stalked in on a mob of goats or pigs, ignore the big sets of horns or tusks and SHOOT the FEMALES. You will then have had a positve, longer term impact on numbers of feral animals in this country.

[jindydiver]

Marc
The scientist in you would know that there would be a bias inherent in the sample you base your assumption on, just because guys like to show off good trophies doesn't mean they aren't shooting other animals as well, and it doesn't mean those hunters aren't fully aware that hunting males doesn't have long term affect on animal numbers

As an example, I don't post pics of any dead animals here (simply because I don't use my trad bows for hunting much) but I have killed 11 deer this year (1 male), 25 deer in 2006 (4 male), 15 deer in 2005 (4 male), and the list goes on. I am sure there are others like me (in fact I know there are).

I think it is fine to use conservation as "a" rationale, hunters have a lot to offer the conservation cause, and I see conservation as being one of the many reasons I hunt.

[Marc Coombs]

Mick

Point taken. It would be interesting to see what proportion of bowhunting kills are male vs female. If your figures are representative then that's great.

I guess in the broader picture, bowhunters are a very small drop in the bucket when it comes to feral animal control. The most recent estimates I've heard for feral pig numbers in this country was 20 million.......thats a lot of pigs to shoot! While any effort is worthwhile, the reality is that strategies such as baiting will be more effective.

I consider myself a conservationist and my gardens as green as I can make it given the drought.....and Given the oppurtunity Ill be knocking off as many ferals as I can (boys and girls!)

[Sparra]

I think we had better change your name to JINDEERDIVER....

[jindydiver]

I think we had better change your name to JINDEERDIVER....

Got to feed the family somehow



Marc
Those figures can't be seen as representative of "bowhunting" just as plain old "hunting". The deer are shot with a rifle and are selected based on a few criteria laid out as part of a QDM program (as well as our preference for particular animals for the freezer). We are still not keeping up with them and we would have no chance in hell of keeping up with the job if it was done with bows (at least if it is me with the bow ). 2 other guys hunt the place with bows, one of them brings his rifle when he needs to actually kill something and the other has good success with around 4 deer a year (2 being female).

Bowhunters do have a place in the mix though. We have a place where some deer need to be removed each year and last year it was rifles and the locals were very uncomfortable with them. Next year if we get the nod again it will be bowhunters in tree stands that will thin the deer. I am sure that they will be able to get the same results and have the added bonus of keeping the neighbors blissfully unaware.

Like I was saying about rationale, bowhunters have a right to claim conservations as one of the reasons they hunt, and I am yet to meet a bowhunter who would try and claim conservation as the only reason the hunt.

While any effort is worthwhile, the reality is that strategies such as baiting will be more effective.

While baiting is used to control huge numbers of pigs in Australia, hunting also takes an incredible amount of the population out each year. Around 120,000 pigs are shipped of to Europe each year and the majority of those are caught by guys hunting with dogs. Shooting with rifles also plays a part and a report by Tisdell in 1982 claimed that recreational hunters in Australia killed between 15% and 20% of the total pig population each year. His figures are disputed by those that point out that the number of pigs thought to be in Australia varies widely depending on the seasons and the study cited, somewhere between 3.5 million and 23.5 million. I am sure that if we are talking about dry years (like we seem to have too many of now) the 3.5 million figure is believable as is Tisdell's figure for pigs killed.
I am sure that bowhunters take a portion of the pigs killed each year (like they do with all animals it is legal to bowhunt), what that figure would be though is unknown.

[Marc Coombs]

And here's me thinking that was your bowhunting tally!

I'm all for eating what we shoot or catch. I lived in Moree (NW NSW) for a few years and fished for yellowbelly and cod primarily to put a meal on the table (I also enjoy fishing).

I recognise that many other avenues of hunting (rifle, dogs etc) also have a significant impact on immediate feral numbers. .....but as you say its difficult to keep up! Keep knocking off those does for the feezer and you will have done your part.

[Len]

Just a thought, without the introduced animals that people go on about affecting our enviroment what would we hunt ? Wallabies ?Wombats ?

[jindydiver]

Wallabies, possums, roos. Just like they do down in Tasmania

[buzz]

As we seem to be in educated company, what are the current prevailing concepts in the "green" arena with regards to the domestic environment/public spaces/forests/ecology etc?

I would have thought that preservation, logging, leaving stuff alone, hunting, hands off etc are all methods of achieving the goal of managing an area and would result from analysis and planning, and the the steps themselves shouldn't be the end in their own right. For example ending logging simply because someone doesn't like logging shouldn't be the outcome, but rather it should be the outcome of an analysis that determined the impact of logging was too great on the collective ecosystem.

I also agree that it is funny hearing of people trying to preserve areas that are are patently not in original, native condition. At one stage we had a lot of locals trying to retain the local pine forests, and wanted them replanted post bushfires. Another mob wanted a road stopped because the area it was going through was pretty and "natural".... but had previously been replanted, so was hardly natural, regardless of the new ecosystem it was supporting.

[TomW]

Every person/group who complains about hunting being cruel ought to be made by law to spend a couple of days in each of a beef, sheep, pig and chicken abbatoir and be exposed to all aspects of the "process".

I would then like to hear their opinions about what constitutes cruelty.

For me, the most humane was to kill an animal for food or for culling is with a well aimed bullet through the brain whilst it is free and contentedly grazing in its own environment.

[jindydiver]

For me, the most humane was to kill an animal for food or for culling is with a well aimed bullet through the brain whilst it is free and contentedly grazing in its own environment.

Discussions about what constitutes the "most" humane way to kill an animal just invite comparison between the methods used by hunters. These comparisons divide hunters and they ignore the baseline we should really be comparing hunting to, that is the way nature itself sees fit to end animals lives.
Listen to the screams of a deer as a pack of dogs pulls it to the ground and starts eating its ring out while it is still very much alive and tell me hunting can be more cruel than that (rhetorical and not asked of TomW )
Cruelty should always be defined by the intent (or negligence) of the person to cause unnecessary suffering and not by the mechanics of what they are doing.

[TomW]

My posting wasn't meant to raise issues about the various ways of hunting per se (except that I still stand by what I said).

My point was that the vast majority of people have no idea of how their meat gets into those neat little plastic covered packages in the supermarket and if they do, then they'd rather not be exposed to the process.

It isn't pleasant and I don't consider it humane in the least and if you've never experienced it then it is educational to do so, even if it is a very unpleasant bit of schooling. Best not to think about these things, while we are tucking into a particularly well cooked steak, what?.

Definitely a barbeque stopper type of conversation.

[jindydiver]

Definitely a barbeque stopper type of conversation.

Not at my BBQ's, no handwringing over the origin of venison at our place

[Lochmoy]

In regards to logging, essentially it is important to leave as much as possible forests that are at least 120. The older a forest is the more diverse and stable it becomes. Unfortunately much of this forest type in tassy and Victorian water catchment areas is still being clearfelled and biological diversty being put at risk not to mention water in this dry time.

There is more than enough wood in plantations at present but as governments require very low royalties per tonne from native forests More expensive plantations will not be utilised more until governments say no more old growth native forests can be logged.

Current logging rotations in already cut forest are between 60 to 80 years Not enough time to became very diverse so any old growth forest we have have left outside of reserves needs to be looked after.

[Mick Smith]

What do you think about using nuclear energy for generating electricity Lochmoy?

Mick

[Blinkybill]

I agree with Tom W. Most people have absolutely no idea of where their meat comes from. It could have come from anywhere and the animal could have been killed in any way possible and most people would be totally unaware of it.

Ben

[Lochmoy]

I believe in the safest nuclear energy Mick. That of the sun and that's about as close I want my nuclear reactor to be. In this sun drenched land we lag way behind other modern countries and States when it comes to Solar power. There is a myth perpetrated that alternative energy cannot provide base load power. This is not so and in California and Spain they are currently planning base load solar/wind arrays.

In Australia every house roof should have solar panels feeding power back into the grid and saving on power bills and this will be the case when technology enables price parity with cheaper coal fired power. Base load power wil be suppliemented with cleaner gas power stations.

Nuclear is an expensive and potentially dangerous irrelevancy in the Australian context. The uranium industry is also not that keen as it makes a tidy profit exporting the stuff overseas.