Hunting under threat

[roscoe]

Very True Wishsong, but this is how our laws are now they like making criminals out of law abiding citizens over night....Roscoe

[looseplucker]

Excelpoint, your ability to adopt a gross-simplification of an argument in order to try and make a point is astoundingly good, that is all I can really say - I am not giving that advice at all - but in a truncated form point out that if a law is so hopelessly unenforceable (as a ban on bowhunting would be - with all the attendant issues with whether you could still buy broadheads etc etc etc to the power of 100) the best way of demonstrating this, is, well to demonstrate it.

And this is part of the issue ARE they going to make laws to ban hunting with a bow? I doubt it - based on a number of things. First, laws such as this are generally now seen as having to be national - i.e. you get COAG agreement. Then there has to be agreement at the jurisdictional level - all States and Territories agreeing to adopt a national law. This is very difficult to achieve - not insurmountable - but more likely, IMHO there would be national laws on archery equipment - although again, there are inconsistencies in the cross bow field for a start).

Assume then that states want to try to go it alone. Who are the prime suspects? Qld and the Territory? I doubt it based on the dollars involved and a bunch of other factors - how do you replace the lost revenue? How do you create the revenue for more professional hunters to do eradication?

NSW? Unlikely also with the balance of power in the Upper House. Victoria? Maybe. WA - perhaps, although they got a bloody nose with the Northam case anyhow.

Tasmania are the only mob to have done it yes?

With all the exigencies associated with any law to ban hunting with a bo, including all those to do with policing and enforceability (meaning that people could largely break the law with impunity) I would doubt that any such plan would get past preliminary regulatory policy scoping. That is the point I am seeking to make - so the advice is not, as you simplistically say, just break the law - the advice is to think all the issues through.

As for getting involved - I have maintained for a long time that archery needs to be a lot more media savvy and politically connected - and I know from first hand experience that it is not. I also maintain, however, that any restrictions WILL come directed toward all archery - otherwise in seeking to regulate on side of it an leave the others alone you create legislation with more holes in it than a second hand target butt.

The future of archery is in the hands of all archers. And nothing you can say will sway me from that.

As for those who would oppose - well, I doubt that presenting them with the stupidity of laws purporting to ban something will sway them one way or the other - this country has a large cohort of ignorant gits with the mantra of 'ban it, prosecute it or deport it' and appeals to reason would be futile. As for the middle ground - mostly sensible people - all arguments based on reason should get a reasonable response - including arguments to the effect that any proposed law is unenforceable as to be pointless.

I would say the biggest threat to hunting is the hairy chested attitudes that one often sees in other fora claiming rights to bear arms, that hunting is a right, hunting is a valid 'sport' and other such nonesense - and acts of hooliganism with bows going largely uncommented on by the national associations.

[excelpoint]

I wasnt making a point and was not trying to grossly simplify an argument. What I was doing was putting across my view on exactly what YOU posted which was that YOU would break the law if it were introduced. That is a simple as it gets and no matter how much spin doctering you do to it, that kind of statement on a public forum has and continues to do our image damage. I would have thought that a person as smart and knowledgable as you apparently are would be able to see such a simplistic view.

How long did it take QLD, NSW, WA to ban duck and quail hunting? A past time that certainly brought in and created far more revenue then bowhunting does.

[jindydiver]

How long did it take QLD, NSW, WA to ban duck and quail hunting? A past time that certainly brought in and created far more revenue then bowhunting does.

You have been sucked in by Green propaganda.
Duck hunting is not BANNED in those states, there is just no open season. Many recreational hunters in those States still apply for, and receive, a permit to shoot ducks on private property. These are called mitigation permits. In WA there are people shooting ducks (wood ducks and shellducks) every year quite legally without even needing a permit.
If you are trying to formulate an argument at least do it using facts.

[Nephew]

It is banned in QLD, isn't it, Mick? I vaguely remember the press release back in '04 where the relevant minister said "Duck hunting is barbaric! For the price of shotgun shells you could buy a frozen duck!" or something very similar and equally silly.

[excelpoint]

Jindy mate. I have not been sucked in by anybody. Ok I admit I worded it badly but I'm pretty confident you knew what I meant Yes WA has limited Duck shooting but not allowed to take Quail. I did mention both quail and duck. In hindsight I should have said "how long did it take those states to lose their open season for ducks and or quail" I do apology if I caused you any confusion.

What I will also say is I have been involved in bird hunting longer then I have been in bowhunting and have also been involved in trying to get bird seasons opened back up there through my time on the committe of the GSP Club of Victoria. Back then we tried long and hard with our counterparts in NSW and QLD to get the required seasons so we could continue to run our utility gundog field trials in those states and never got one. Yes you can get mitigation permits for ducks but an official open season has not been offered since the 06 season was canned I believe.

I dont think WA has an open season since 1990. I may be wrong on that one as I didnt travel over there much to trial.

[dmm]

Sometimes the only way to oppose a bad law is to break it. My reasons for so doing are not a "so what, I'm lawless" attitude - but it would be a bad law, it would be discriminatory (as you can bet our indigenous brothers will not be banned from hunting for cultural reasons), impossible to police and to enforce.

I can't actually think of an example of where the "only" way to oppose a bad law is to break it. At best it's one way.
I agree with the others who have said this type of language will not promote the stereotype of bowhunting. In my mind it sounds like the sort of argument you might hear from a dope smoking student about pot. It really isn't going to win over the public or the government law makers. I also suspect it was a throw away line, and that in reality you probably are a law abiding citizen experiencing some frustration with an issue close to your heart.

On your point about Aborigines hunting, I had thought this was to be using traditional methods, so no guns no bows. Is that correct?

[TomMcDonald]

On your point about Aborigines hunting, I had thought this was to be using traditional methods, so no guns no bows. Is that correct?

no, that's not correct.

[jindydiver]

Jindy mate. I have not been sucked by anybody. Ok I admit I worded it wrong but I'm pretty confident you knew what I meant Yes WA has limited Duck shooting but not allowed to take Quail. I did mention both quail and duck. In hindsight I should have said "how long did it take those states to lose their open season for ducks and or quail" I do apology if I caused you any confusion.

But you said it, perpetuating a myth as you did. And isn't your explanation expanding on your comment just as much "spin doctoring" as John's expansion on the point he intended to convey?
If you are going to condense complex issues down into one-liners you are going to distort the meaning, exactly like you did when you paraphrased John, and what you did when you tried to make the point about revenue from duck licences.

On the point about revenue...
How much do you think it cost to ban all those guns back in '96? and how much do you think it will cost to slowly restrict who can trade in archery equipment till you strangle a sport and make it small enough to just wind up?
And being an Olympic sport wont save it if political mileage can be gained from a restriction in participation.
Given the right incentive politicians will attack archery in a heart beat, just look at WA.

DMM
People of the correct aboriginal decent can do just about anything they want in terms of hunting, anywhere they want, and many laws that you and I are bound by have specific "indigenous Australian" exceptions available to those people that qualify.

[excelpoint]

Jindy mate. I have not been sucked by anybody. Ok I admit I worded it wrong but I'm pretty confident you knew what I meant Yes WA has limited Duck shooting but not allowed to take Quail. I did mention both quail and duck. In hindsight I should have said "how long did it take those states to lose their open season for ducks and or quail" I do apology if I caused you any confusion.

But you said it, perpetuating a myth as you did. And isn't your explanation expanding on your comment just as much "spin doctoring" as John's expansion on the point he intended to convey?
If you are going to condense complex issues down into one-liners you are going to distort the meaning, exactly like you did when you paraphrased John, and what you did when you tried to make the point about revenue from duck licences.

On the point about revenue...
How much do you think it cost to ban all those guns back in '96? and how much do you think it will cost to slowly restrict who can trade in archery equipment till you strangle a sport and make it small enough to just wind up?
And being an Olympic sport wont save it if political mileage can be gained from a restriction in participation.
Given the right incentive politicians will attack archery in a heart beat, just look at WA.

DMM
People of the correct aboriginal decent can do just about anything they want in terms of hunting, anywhere they want, and many laws that you and I are bound by have specific "indigenous Australian" exceptions available to those people that qualify.

Jindy I dont see it that way but that is the beauty of having a differing opinion. My expansion was to include "facts" as you so rightly pointed out that i had got wrong so as to help dispell the myth you talk about instead of perpetuate it. My origional comment to John was based exactly on what he said "I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it."

I have no idea how much it cost to buy back all those guns. Do you? I would be interested to know.

[wishsong]

being a massive fan of all things Robin Hood . nerdy as that is , I am the last person to scorn the illegal sojourn to the Kings Forest to have a crack at his over populated Fallow herds ...

However ... I fear that all this talk of disregarding any future law, however unlikely, irrelevant, illogical or immoral is in no way helpful in promoting Bowhunting nor archery .

More than likely , many of us would take up bushwalking anyway ... with a well laminated , fibreglass Yew encased "walking" stick and a leather case full of feathered "Tent poles " .....

Many ways to skin a cat ...

[dmm]

My origional comment to John was based exactly on what he said "I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it."

On the policing point, I had similar thoughts about the Victorian 50# requirement for deer hunting.
I was chatting to an aspiring deer hunter at the archery club a while back, and was surprised when he told me that he had actually been stopped by rangers, and they did measure the actual draw weight of his bow in the field. It was fine, but he also told me that the bow had a variable weight range. He had actually considered winding it back a bit for practice shooting, and was very glad he hadn't.

[dmm]

More than likely , many of us would take up bushwalking anyway ... with a well laminated , fibreglass Yew encased "walking" stick and a leather case full of feathered "Tent poles " .....

Ben that really isn't helpful

[looseplucker]

Sometimes the only way to oppose a bad law is to break it. My reasons for so doing are not a "so what, I'm lawless" attitude - but it would be a bad law, it would be discriminatory (as you can bet our indigenous brothers will not be banned from hunting for cultural reasons), impossible to police and to enforce.

I can't actually think of an example of where the "only" way to oppose a bad law is to break it. At best it's one way.
I agree with the others who have said this type of language will not promote the stereotype of bowhunting. In my mind it sounds like the sort of argument you might hear from a dope smoking student about pot. It really isn't going to win over the public or the government law makers. I also suspect it was a throw away line, and that in reality you probably are a law abiding citizen experiencing some frustration with an issue close to your heart.

On your point about Aborigines hunting, I had thought this was to be using traditional methods, so no guns no bows. Is that correct?

Oops - 'only' -thinking too fast for typing - meant to say one of the only ways.

Anyhow - no, it aint that simple as an argument - and you would be surprised - civil disobedience on bad laws has won many an argument. But look at the entire big picture as to what would need to be done to ban bowhunting and enforce it - the whole big picture - totally futile and doomed to failure on a land mass the size of Australia - then there are the costs to business - primary and secondary, the on-costs to Government in ensuring equipment that might be used for bowhunting is restricted. It is a regulatory and enforcement nightmare - and therefore breaking the law would serve to demonstrate that - as it has done in the examples cited beforehand - and there are others.

I am generally law abiding. I pay my taxes, I don't poach, I try to avoid speeding in school zones - but where Govt seeks to curtail freedoms for no good reason than to pander to the Issue Du Jour or look like it is doing something and well, I become a dissident and if necessary a law breaker. That is my moral decision.

At the end of the day I probably don't give a duck's nut what the organisations do - provided they do something than sit around talking about the fact they need to do something.

[looseplucker]

"My origional comment to John was based exactly on what he said "I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it."

Fair point - but I did go on to develop the issue - particularly on the policing -and that is the major issue - do you think that vast resources are going to be expended in trying to police and enforce something that is not policable or enforceable? No - so my line is a simple one, but it does point out the futility of them going down that course, and the costs that will be incurred. On a cost benefit analysis I cannot see it being justified.

OK - while I can understand a reticence to openly discuss how folks would deal with a ban, I still say it is valid in this debate to suggest that a person could break the law without much fear of repercussion as the law is largely unenforceable in any real or meaningful way. I fail to see how that negatively impacts on bowhunting per se - in fact it shows analysis of a large amount of variables.

If a member of the opposition cherry picks this to say that bowhunters are a pack of lawless bogans....big deal - are they saying anything they have not said before - and this will only be their preaching to their converted and I doubt it would sway anyone of reasonable mind. In fact, I know that it would not - as those in the middle have shown themselves to be just as exasperated by the bloviating of the opposition to hunting as they might be by the 'right to bear arms' fraternity.

[wishsong]

[quote
At the end of the day I probably don't give a duck's nut what the organisations do - provided they do something than sit around talking about the fact they need to do something.[/quote]

Sums it up nicely ...

@ dmm ... I know

[excelpoint]

"My origional comment to John was based exactly on what he said "I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it."

Fair point - but I did go on to develop the issue - particularly on the policing -and that is the major issue - do you think that vast resources are going to be expended in trying to police and enforce something that is not policable or enforceable? No - so my line is a simple one, but it does point out the futility of them going down that course, and the costs that will be incurred. On a cost benefit analysis I cannot see it being justified.

OK - while I can understand a reticence to openly discuss how folks would deal with a ban, I still say it is valid in this debate to suggest that a person could break the law without much fear of repercussion as the law is largely unenforceable in any real or meaningful way. I fail to see how that negatively impacts on bowhunting per se - in fact it shows analysis of a large amount of variables.

If a member of the opposition cherry picks this to say that bowhunters are a pack of lawless bogans....big deal - are they saying anything they have not said before - and this will only be their preaching to their converted and I doubt it would sway anyone of reasonable mind. In fact, I know that it would not - as those in the middle have shown themselves to be just as exasperated by the bloviating of the opposition to hunting as they might be by the 'right to bear arms' fraternity.

Fair enough LP. I still do think they could and would put a ban on it if politically they could see some value in doing so. To put the ban or restrictions in place would be the easy part to win votes for an election. The way they policed it afterwards would be anyones guess. If it was questioned by the general public I'm sure the old handball would come into play.

I have had less favourable experiences with the middle ground folk. A good example is a local property owner who has horses was having a few issue with fellow deer disturbing them. She wanted some shot. When approached about bowshooting them her reaction was that after seeing and reading (kangaroo with arrow in it, wood duck with arrow in it etc etc) about the way so called "bowhunters" conduct themselves she would rather see bows banned altogether rather then let them be used to help solve her problem. this sentiment was also shared by the surrounding property owners (all her neighbours and friends). Mind you in the past their attitudes towards bowhunting were a lot different. No amount of explaining how responsible bowhunters act would sway them.

This is one of the experiences that make me believe how we are percieved by the middle ground lot, does matter. The more middle ground votes we lose the easier it will be for restrictions, bans to come into play.

[dmm]

I have had less favourable experiences with the middle ground folk. A good example is a local property owner who has horses was having a few issue with fellow deer disturbing them. She wanted some shot. When approached about bowshooting them her reaction was that after seeing and reading (kangaroo with arrow in it, wood duck with arrow in it etc etc) about the way so called "bowhunters" conduct themselves she would rather see bows banned altogether rather then let them be used to help solve her problem. this sentiment was also shared by the surrounding property owners (all her neighbours and friends). Mind you in the past their attitudes towards bowhunting were a lot different. No amount of explaining how responsible bowhunters act would sway them.

That's an interesting story. I imagine, she felt guilty about wanting the dear killed, and if it had to be done, she wanted it done in the most direct/humane way possible. Lets not start on about whether arrows kill humanely, but I think the perception is bullets kill things dead everytime.

I wonder if her position would have changed if you said that the bow was a much shorter range weapon (than a high powered deer rifle), and therefore much safer for other animals like her horses or her for neighbours,

[excelpoint]

I have had less favourable experiences with the middle ground folk. A good example is a local property owner who has horses was having a few issue with fellow deer disturbing them. She wanted some shot. When approached about bowshooting them her reaction was that after seeing and reading (kangaroo with arrow in it, wood duck with arrow in it etc etc) about the way so called "bowhunters" conduct themselves she would rather see bows banned altogether rather then let them be used to help solve her problem. this sentiment was also shared by the surrounding property owners (all her neighbours and friends). Mind you in the past their attitudes towards bowhunting were a lot different. No amount of explaining how responsible bowhunters act would sway them.

That's an interesting story. I imagine, she felt guilty about wanting the dear killed, and if it had to be done, she wanted it done in the most direct/humane way possible. Lets not start on about whether arrows kill humanely, but I think the perception is bullets kill things dead everytime.

I wonder if her position would have changed if you said that the bow was a much shorter range weapon (than a high powered deer rifle), and therefore much safer for other animals like her horses or her for neighbours,

I wish that were the case mate. She has a butcher lined up and given someone I know permission to cull a couple with a rifle. The horses will be moved to a different paddock while the shooting is done. All reports says she is looking forward to some venison so i dont think she feels too much guilt.

[looseplucker]

My experiences are opposite, maybe they are not representative but I am very active in the folk music scene. Yeah, hairy vegan hippies etc. Not once have I ever experienced antipathy to hunting or fishing. The most common response is people thinking it is pretty cool to harvest meat and fish yourself and wishing they knew how (so do I).

I cannot say I have the answers, only opinions, which are just like bum cracks. But something tells me, as an insider on Govt, that it is being played naively. Given my druthers I would sit down and write a full strategy plan (I've done the media part) for how archers and organisations can organise to ensure that the voice is heard and also what it represents in the bigger picture.

But that would need a degree of cohesion that I think is lacking at the moment.

[dmm]

Yeah, hairy vegan hippies etc. Not once have I ever experienced antipathy to hunting or fishing. The most common response is people thinking it is pretty cool to harvest meat and fish yourself and wishing they knew how (so do I).

I think perhaps your hippies aren't really Vegan, but they may well be hairy

Veganism is the practice of eliminating the use by human beings of non-human animal products. Ethical vegans reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose, while dietary vegans or strict vegetarians eliminate them from their diet only.[1]

[looseplucker]

I was using a bit of licence. But here is a thing, did you ever hear of a person who eats meat trying to convert a veggie? Nope, me either, so whay can't they leave us alone?

[dmm]

Believe this is a picture of a pro hunting protester in the UK.