Reader's Poll
Ballarat East MLA Geoff Howard says duck shooting should be banned. Do
you agree?
http://www.ballarat.yourguide.com.au/home.asp
Vote To Retain Duck Hunting...
Moderator: Moderators
Is there any particular reason why they want it banned? Other than the generic "we don't like it so it should go" excuse the anti's are fond of using. I voted no just out of principle. 
RC- might just go and invite some waterfowl home to dinner tomorrow...
RC- might just go and invite some waterfowl home to dinner tomorrow...
That which doesn't kill me better run for cover...
Just the cruelty aspect, as far as I can make out. They point out the numbers of wounded birds floundering in the water on opening day and make capital out of that.
I'm hoping Dennis looks in soon and enlightens us. I think he’s up with Jeff at the moment, so maybe you could give him a hoy Jeff?
Erron
I'm hoping Dennis looks in soon and enlightens us. I think he’s up with Jeff at the moment, so maybe you could give him a hoy Jeff?
Erron
-
Dennis La Varenne
- Posts: 1776
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
- Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia
To all,
The Shooting Sports Council of Victoria, Field and Game Australia, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic) and the Victorian Hunting Advisory Committee to the Minister for Susainability and Environment, knew about this campaign quite a few months ago when it first got up.
The Coalition Against Duck Hunting (CADS) yet again had been putting it about that it had 'uncovered' vital new evidence that the shooting of ducks with shotguns resulted in up to 45% of ducks were being shot and wounded and flying away to die lingering deaths over 2 or 3 weeks, etc. etc.
It turns out that the research is some material from the USA of seriously doubtful applicability to the Australian circumstance.
There has not been any research into wounding rates in Australia since the 1960s and this was very limited in scope suggesting only that perhaps 10% of birds may be wounded.
It was far from conclusive, but indicated that there may be a problem, the extent of which was not ascertainable from the available data.
Since then there has been nothing more than a computer modelling program done by a boffin at a University in SA in the 1980s which showed that the modelled shotgun patterns generated by his computer produced an expected result.
The model demonstrated that the model worked, but little else.
However, CADS leaped about with orgiastic passion at this conclusive proof that duck hunting was 'cruel' and 'barbaric'.
The bottom line is that they have failed in their previous attempts to convince the Australian community that -
1. Australian waterfowl were in danger of imminent extinction from hunting; and
2. That Australian waterfowl were in danger of imminent extinction from lead shot over the past 20 years of their campaign.
The ducks continued to proliferate except in drought years and the loss of semi-automatic shotguns and the introduction of steel shot prevented the second from occurring very successfully, although CADS is now making some use of the available data regarding the inferior ballistic performance of steel shot against duck hunters to further the case that duck hunting results in unacceptably high wounding rates.
Their last ditch is the cruelty aspect which they are now featuring instead of having as an ambit argument as they did in their earlier campaigns. It is a serious argument against hunting of any kind because it is very easy to make a case for cruelty and very difficult to disprove it.
It is also difficult to realise what the community of Victoria will tolerate in regards to acceptable levels of cruelty.
It is clear that most reasonable people will accept some degree of pain and suffering inflicted on animals if certain other safeguards are met.
It is up to the Victorian hunting community to demonstrate that any pain or suffering which occurs is accidental and incidental to the act of hunting, and not a normal part of it, and that all hunters take every reasonable effort to ensure it does not occur.
That means that we must be able to demonstrate that we abide by clear and unambiguous ethical standards and codes of practice which are directed at preventing or minimising it.
If we can demonstrate that, we do not have much to fear, I believe.
However, get on the website which Erron has listed and express your support in a polite manner, telling this bloke why you hunt and support hunting.
Do not badmouth the antis other than to say that you do not agree with their beliefs and that this is not about cruelty or environmental issues, but rather about whether the beliefs of one section of society should be forced upon the rest when the evidence is far from conclusive.
Dennis La Varenne
The Shooting Sports Council of Victoria, Field and Game Australia, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic) and the Victorian Hunting Advisory Committee to the Minister for Susainability and Environment, knew about this campaign quite a few months ago when it first got up.
The Coalition Against Duck Hunting (CADS) yet again had been putting it about that it had 'uncovered' vital new evidence that the shooting of ducks with shotguns resulted in up to 45% of ducks were being shot and wounded and flying away to die lingering deaths over 2 or 3 weeks, etc. etc.
It turns out that the research is some material from the USA of seriously doubtful applicability to the Australian circumstance.
There has not been any research into wounding rates in Australia since the 1960s and this was very limited in scope suggesting only that perhaps 10% of birds may be wounded.
It was far from conclusive, but indicated that there may be a problem, the extent of which was not ascertainable from the available data.
Since then there has been nothing more than a computer modelling program done by a boffin at a University in SA in the 1980s which showed that the modelled shotgun patterns generated by his computer produced an expected result.
The model demonstrated that the model worked, but little else.
However, CADS leaped about with orgiastic passion at this conclusive proof that duck hunting was 'cruel' and 'barbaric'.
The bottom line is that they have failed in their previous attempts to convince the Australian community that -
1. Australian waterfowl were in danger of imminent extinction from hunting; and
2. That Australian waterfowl were in danger of imminent extinction from lead shot over the past 20 years of their campaign.
The ducks continued to proliferate except in drought years and the loss of semi-automatic shotguns and the introduction of steel shot prevented the second from occurring very successfully, although CADS is now making some use of the available data regarding the inferior ballistic performance of steel shot against duck hunters to further the case that duck hunting results in unacceptably high wounding rates.
Their last ditch is the cruelty aspect which they are now featuring instead of having as an ambit argument as they did in their earlier campaigns. It is a serious argument against hunting of any kind because it is very easy to make a case for cruelty and very difficult to disprove it.
It is also difficult to realise what the community of Victoria will tolerate in regards to acceptable levels of cruelty.
It is clear that most reasonable people will accept some degree of pain and suffering inflicted on animals if certain other safeguards are met.
It is up to the Victorian hunting community to demonstrate that any pain or suffering which occurs is accidental and incidental to the act of hunting, and not a normal part of it, and that all hunters take every reasonable effort to ensure it does not occur.
That means that we must be able to demonstrate that we abide by clear and unambiguous ethical standards and codes of practice which are directed at preventing or minimising it.
If we can demonstrate that, we do not have much to fear, I believe.
However, get on the website which Erron has listed and express your support in a polite manner, telling this bloke why you hunt and support hunting.
Do not badmouth the antis other than to say that you do not agree with their beliefs and that this is not about cruelty or environmental issues, but rather about whether the beliefs of one section of society should be forced upon the rest when the evidence is far from conclusive.
Dennis La Varenne