Conservation hunting on channel ten news

[pedro]

where those fines for tresspassing? or where they for shooting a deer without a G license?

[jamie]

i was fortunate enough to sit in on some of the meetings drawing up the draft rules for regulations for the game council.what was presented to the government and what was handed back is alot different ,the system that is in place is not what we were after,but unfortunately we don't get to make the rules ,we just have to live with what we 've got and make the best of it.the issue of deer being a game animal is a good thing,it gives the deer recognition as a resource and by managing this resource we ensure hunting for the future.yes it is a user pay system but if you want to save something make it valueable and people will save it ,if it has no value or can't pay it's own way you will lose it.hunting is always under attack by the greenies and can't do that brigade ,by having the GC and the licencing system we have become a resource to the govt and have made it a little bit harder for anyone to stop our way of life.if you can't see that this system is a benifit to the whole hunting community then i think you are self centered and don't care for the sport.

[The Gnome!]

where those fines for tresspassing? or where they for shooting a deer without a G license?

I believe your answer is here.

[jindydiver]

yes it is a user pay system but if you want to save something make it valueable and people will save it ,if it has no value or can't pay it's own way you will lose it.

The GC is not "user pays". Hunters do not provide the income stream needed to run the GC, never will. The GC is much better than that, it is a system where the average hunters inputs of time energy and skill become valuable to the government, they, in effect, pay us to hunt feral animals on Forests NSW managed land, and we pay a fee to become part of the system.
The fee paid to the GC to hunt deer isn't what makes them valuable, their value is in the economic stimulus to rural areas provided by hunters as they visit our State Forests. If locals look after the deer then they become a draw card, then hunters come from the city and spend money with the local businesses.

[kerrille]

Its a pitty dope dealers and real crims dont get the same.next it will be getting your hand cut of for killing the kings deer

[Coach]

The GC is not "user pays".

I am at a loss to understand this statement Surely if someone wants to use the system , they have to pay , Right ? So the person pays to use the system , then surely it is a "user pays " system .

[jindydiver]

The GC is not "user pays".

I am at a loss to understand this statement Surely if someone wants to use the system , they have to pay , Right ? So the person pays to use the system , then surely it is a "user pays " system .

The original statement referred to user pays in the context of "we pay for it or it is lost". Traditional definition of "user pays" is where the users pay a fee to use something, or access a service, and the users fees pay for the item or service. Think trains, the fare is supposed to run the system (supposed to, we know it does not). The GC is not like that.
There are only IIRC 12 or 14 K licences. Lets say 15K for the illustration. At a fee of $60 15K users means an income through the hunters (the users in the traditional sense) of only $900K. This is far short of the operating budget of the GC (well over $2m per year). The buisness plan of the GC allows for a step outside of a simple tax being used to generate the money needed to operate. The business plan showed that the hunters were making a contribution to the running of the forests (through feral animal control) and that this service would have cost Forest NSW a huge amount (which like all money in Gov' businesses comes from consolidated revenue). When that cost was put against the operating budget for the GC there was a saving for the NSW Gov' of over $3m per year.

So you see in this model the government is paying the GC well over what it generates through fees (like 2.5 times as much) so that it can administer a service provided by hunters. We should all be supporting the effort and hunting in NSW Forests so we can demonstrate our usefulness to the government and so ensure the GC is a lasting institution.

From the
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, MINERAL RESOURCES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE 21
THURSDAY 16 OCTOBER 2008

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Minister, has your department done any calculations on the net public benefit of having the Game Council?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, there is work being done in relation to that. Earlier this year the Game Council of New South Wales completed a comprehensive business plan that provides a cohesive and realistic set of goals, scenarios and performance targets for the organisation. The plan provides for the consolidation of the Game Council as the licensing and regulatory authority for voluntary conservation hunting in New South Wales from 2008-09 to 2011-12. It provides a blueprint for the organisation and was recently approved by the Government.
This consolidation includes: increasing acceptance of the role of volunteer conservation hunting in managing game and feral animals; the growth rates experienced by licensing systems in other States as hunting becomes more understood and accepted; and significant increases in licence sales generated from the Game Council's recent marketing, promotional and public relations efforts to raise awareness.
A survey of licence holders in March 2008 for the business plan revealed high satisfaction with the core services of licensing, website information, booking hunts, access to public land, and conservation.
This level of
satisfaction was achieved within an extremely tight budget. The completion of the business plan highlights the Government's commitment to voluntary conservation hunting in New South Wales—as is the case with all forms of voluntary activity—and is recognition of its positive benefits. Indeed, the net public benefit of the Game Council was estimated at $3.14 million in 2007-08—a benefit of $5.63 million versus costs of $2.49 million. And future benefits are expected to outweigh costs, with the net public benefit potentially increasing to nearly $10 million by 2011-12.

[alaninoz]

Sounds like I missed all the fun while I was away for a few days - even better than the discussions about what's traditional and what's not!

When I said:

Sure, I'd prefer that the licenses were free and all, ...

it was in the same way that I object to paying car rego, stamp duty, etc. I've got an R license but haven't yet used it. Maybe I will hunt again someday, and I look at having an R license as a way of preserving my ability to hunt when I get the opportunity.

As I said before, there's more anti's than there are of us and they'll win if we let them.

[Coach]

So the fact that it shows that hunters are not supporting the system and there is a shortfall and the general public has to make up the rest IE 2.5 times

So you see in this model the government is paying the GC well over what it generates through fees (like 2.5 times as much)

Surely that would tell "someone " that it is not a viable proposition . I am sure that the general public that is anti hunting would be really ****** off to know that their taxes are supporting a system that they are really against !
Please excuse me for my simple thinking . But that is just the info that the antis need to shut something down . Because I know damn well that people are ****** off when a PM takes a trip for his own pleasure at the tax payers expense . And that seems to be what is happening here . IE hunters are granted the luxury of a Game Council to go hunting at others expense due to the fact that hunters arent funding /supporting the whole cost of the Game Councils being . Now I am sounding like a anti But can you see the point ?
IMO , looking from the outside , the funds that were given to the GC , would have been better off given to schools and hospitals , rather than given to people who couldnt be bothered finding their own properties to hunt ! And thats all it comes down to , "oh lets open up the State forests to people and collect a fee " which in hindsite hasnt really covered costs .
I will always be opposed to the whole concept until it is self sufficient. I dont expect the general public to fund my hunting !

[jindydiver]

So the fact that it shows that hunters are not supporting the system and there is a shortfall and the general public has to make up the rest IE 2.5 times

So you see in this model the government is paying the GC well over what it generates through fees (like 2.5 times as much)

Surely that would tell "someone " that it is not a viable proposition . I am sure that the general public that is anti hunting would be really ****** off to know that their taxes are supporting a system that they are really against !
Please excuse me for my simple thinking . But that is just the info that the antis need to shut something down . Because I know damn well that people are ****** off when a PM takes a trip for his own pleasure at the tax payers expense . And that seems to be what is happening here . IE hunters are granted the luxury of a Game Council to go hunting at others expense due to the fact that hunters arent funding /supporting the whole cost of the Game Councils being . Now I am sounding like a anti But can you see the point ?

As far as seeing the point goes, you obviously don't. Did you even read my post?
Hunters, through the GC, provide feral animal control services worth over 5 million dollars to Forests NSW each year. The Government pays two and a half million to get those services. It is laid out in the quote from estimates I provided, hunters SAVED taxpayers $3.14 million dollars in the 07-08 tax year, and it is projected to get better every year after.

[Coach]

OK maybe I got it wrong ,, but seeing as how you are throwing figures around , could you please tell me how much money the GC got from the Government this year ?
Oh , and if

Hunters, through the GC, provide feral animal control services worth over 5 million dollars to Forests NSW each year.

why should the hunters be paying them for it , shouldnt the hunters be Charging for it ? Surely if I am providing the Government with a service , I should be paid for it , NOT PAYING for it ?

[jindydiver]

This year they were guaranteed 12 point something million dollars for the next 5 years.

As you can see from the quote, the GC (read HUNTERS) are saving the government some big money. The savings in the 2011-12 tax year are projected at $10m. Almost as much saved in one tax year as the GC costs to run in five. If anti's can find anything there to bitch about they must not care about feral animal control or they don't care about how much of our tax money the government spends. Could of course be both The watermelons are often animal libbers and many of them are paid out of our taxes rather than pay any themselves.

[jindydiver]

Oh , and if

Hunters, through the GC, provide feral animal control services worth over 5 million dollars to Forests NSW each year.

why should the hunters be paying them for it , shouldnt the hunters be Charging for it ? Surely if I am providing the Government with a service , I should be paid for it , NOT PAYING for it ?

You can't have it both ways, weren't you just arguing we should be paying for the lot
If you are having a hard time understanding the concept, maybe it would help to think of it as user "contributes". Hunters contribute cash to access the system, and NSW Forests pays to gain our services.

It is common practice for volunteers to pay into a system to offset administration costs. In Victoria you pay your $40 for a permit (it pays for the paperwork) and in NSW you pay $60. Not a bad deal to get fair access to millions of hectares of land to hunt on.

[Coach]

As you can see from the quote, the GC (read HUNTERS) are saving the government some big money

So , Once again , the HUNTERS are saving the government some big money,, yet we , the HUNTERS are being charged for it . Thats like charging the Plumber to come and clean my pipes . Thats so funny I have no more to add ! Goodnight

[looseplucker]

Time to revisit this issue, as it came up again on the other thread I started.

I have no difficulty with the concept of a licence to hunt on public land and paying a fee. Historically licence fees are designed to cover the cost of providing various services etc - it does not take too much imagination to work out that there is a cost to maintaining roads etc in public areas like Forests.

But, this licence and fee to hunt deer etc on private land, when you have the permission of the landowner is a rort. Just what service is being provided by the State, or its instrumentality in such a scenario? And they want $60 for it? For goodness sakes a fishing licence is only $30. And it is still good law that a licence fee that does not bear a reasonable nexus to the cost of providing a service etc (and there can be none in relation to private property) is a tax - and if it is not specifically imposed as a tax it is invalid.

If anyone deserves the dough it is the landowner.

It speaks volumes that it only applies to 'prestige' game - or animals normally associated with the hunting by the big end of town. I thought the royal prerogative re the King's deer was dead and gone.

[ichiban]

wow do you boys need some tissues for you issues?
how much dose a licence cost?
is it more than all that meat?
and the hide?
and all the fun?
god knows its unfortunate that that hunters are seen in such a bad light as it is, the last thing bow hunters need is to be known as poachers aswell.

count your blessings boys in germany bow hunting is just flat out illgal.....

[looseplucker]

Dave

It is not about tissues for issues, this is a rational debate about rational matters. Having now looked at the legislation and the 'justifications' I am of the view that requiring a licence for only particular species on private land where I have permission from the landholder, indeed his/her blessing, is an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into a private arrangement for revenue raising purposes. It certainly has nothing to do with the orderly or responsible hunting of particular game species.

I have enough calls on my wallet for a mortgage, costs of living in terms of household bills and raising kids, taxes and so forth without some statutory authority hopping into me for $60 in pursuance of a hobby on private property and for no reason other than to skim a little more off the top.

To suggest that my opposition to this rort risks hunters being called poachers is similarly silly. If I am on private land with the permission and blessing of the landowner I am not poaching.

And I have no difficulty in paying for something if I am getting something of value in return - from the mob that I have given the dough to. But what do I get for my $60 to the game council? A piece of paper and a warm fuzzy feeling that I am not breaking the law on a mate's property if a deer happens across my path and I a plug an arrow into it? The GC has not provided the deer, the land or the permission. They have done nothing to contribute to that experience. Why are they entitled to levy me for it?

[jindydiver]

If we are to believe that deer (or any other game we hunt) has some value (and we know people believe this as we often here people talk of how undesirable it is to talk of "eradication") then is it not reasonable to have some limits on the hunting of deer in order that ALL hunters have equal access to them?
This is the premise that the game laws in Victoria were built on and it is the rationale behind having hunters value the deer(and yes, in Victoria you need a game licence to hunt deer on private property). How do you ask a farmer to allow the deer to live on his property free from the harassment of spotlight wielding pro hunters, or ask the forestry managers to accept that hunters will not totally remove the deer (knowing that the deer are what bring many hunters that also shoot other species undesirable to the silviculturists) if the hunters themselves don't value them enough to pay a fee to access them?

You guys need to build a bridge, seriously, this has been the way it is in Victoria for longer than any of us have lived and in NSW for 6 years now. Why you would want to pick the eyes out of the only Gov' institution set up by hunters, for hunters, and run by hunters is beyond me. I thought your efforts would be better spent fighting the anti-hunters, obviously you guys don't agree (which is your prerogative, we being a free country and all).

[looseplucker]

Jindy

A point of clarification - a licence does not give all hunters equal access as not all licensed hunters have access to the same private property. And if you have a regime whereby on private property you need to have a licence to hunt deer, meaning that only licenced blokes can do it legally, then the access is still not equal. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but it is just pure logic.

And the fact of licensing or not does not prevent the anti-social behaviours of a minority of hunters, who will carry on like that on private or public property as they have no respect for the law either way. To think otherwise is fanciful.

If certain game on private property have a value and a fee ought be charged then that fee ought be paid to the landowner. I have no difficulty with that. Similarly I have no difficulty with levying a charge for hunting on public lands (leaving aside whether I agree with it or not). I hold a NSW fishing licence and am happy to pay to fish in public areas and where I know that public funds are expended to further that fishery etc.

But I fundamentally object to being charged a fee by a Government agency to do something on private property arising out of an arrangement that I have with the owner of that property.

And to date I have not seen any cogent argument supporting the proposition that a fee to take certain 'prestige game' (which are all feral and some are pests) is warranted when the hunting occurs on private property.

Jindy, I am more than happy to build a bridge - but what say you meet my position half way and come up with a sensible argument to support the G licence. With respect, I have seen nothing much thus far that really advances the propostion other than vague comments that seem to be throwback to the days of Royal Prerogative and the King's Deer.

[jindydiver]

Why would I meet you half way, I have never liked the idea of the G licence myself, and if you go back 6 years through the forum you will see that (not that I expect you to, I assume you will just take my word).

You asked what we got for the $60 and I have told you how the Governments of 2 States see the issue. If you don't accept the argument put forth then that is fine.

I believe that just having a Government institution run by hunters strengthens our position, to get that institution the Shooters Party had to do a lot of hard negotiation and accept the imposition of over 100 amendments to the Bill during debate in the House (obviously many had outcome predetermined by negotiation). That some of the bill rubs some of us up the wrong way is inevitable. You can of course bypass your angst over the G licence by buying a R licence for the same price, then you would get something much more tangible for your money (which is what I did). And yes, you would have to be a member of an AHO, but really, if you are interested in the future of hunting in Australia you might want to become a member of a hunting organisation and support their fight for our freedom to hunt anyway

[looseplucker]

Mike

I'll take your word for it - I may disagree with you but I am not going to call you a liar. And we are probably half way anyhow. I don't like the G licence, either do you. As for an R licence I really have no issue with those as I think I have made clear. Nor do I have a problem, in principle with institutions such as the Game Council. I also accept that in dealing with Government there have to be trade offs and compromises. All well and good when dealing with public resources - it is far better to have a seat at the table. I don't think there is anything in my opposition to the G licence that could be taken to be anti the council or indeed some of its objectives (leaving aside my view on some of its claims re conservation hunting)

BUT that does not provide any justification for the position that a fee can be arbitrarily levied for taking certain game species on private property where the hunter has permission etc. This has not been adequately answered, and this is because there is no adequate answer. This is a revenue raising measure pure and simple and most probably the result of a trade off - I cannot imagine it being not in the mix of bargaining chips.

That these species are seen to have value and there should be a cost - all well and good, but the arguments pro are paper thin and riddled with poor logic and also have a faint whiff of sanctimony. If there is any value then on private property that value should be transferred to the landowner. How much of the $60 fee is sent to those landowners who allow hunting of those specified species on their land?? I also think it an unwarranted interference with the rights of the landowner to have whomsoever he or she wishes on their land for a particular purpose.

I utterly fail to see how it is justified or helps hunters 'rights' - If there are any such things these are only conditional anyhow - licenses for this that and the other, permission for this, a fee for that. An accretion of compromises.

I guess it is a question of just how many conditions and compromises you are prepared to accept in fighting for your 'rights'.

[jindydiver]

You can easily dismiss the notion that paying a Gov organisation a fee gives the deer value, I did too until 2006 and then I saw why this was actually a bit of forward thinking instead. Of course it is hard to quantify such esoteric ideas as "value" when we are talking about deer (or any animal a farmer or land manager has to feed but not make a quid from) and if people are looking for hard data that supports the fee they will be looking for a long time. Maybe some of us have finally drunk the kool aid and just accept that now that the fee is there we should just live with it.
Anyway, back to 2006.
The Government passed a bill called the Deer Act 2006. It put deer in the same category as declared pest animals in NSW making them the fourth vertebrate animal for which a pest control order can be issued. This order is issued against a land owner and it forces him to take action to reduce the number of deer on his property. Maybe it was good forethought that the G licence was introduced because now the RLPB has to involve the GC in the process to have deer slaughtered under spotlight by the issuing of one of these orders.

An example of how the GC gives hunters a say in what happens in NSW......
From the Harsard 2003

Mr Robert Oakeshott to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—

(1) What is the status of the feral deer eradication program application put in by the Kempsey RLPB with the support of the National Parks? ....

The Rural Lands Protection Boards State Council advises that:
(1) The request by the Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board for a pest control order for deer has highlighted the ambiguous status of deer.
On the one hand deer are a farmed animal, yielding high status velvet and venison products. Deer farmers are concerned that labelling deer as a pest animal could undermine public perceptions about deer products and their efforts to build new markets.
The legal status of escaped deer and the power of private landholders to control them is also unclear under current provisions of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998. Deer are also defined as game under the NSW Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002, providing opportunities to involve recreational hunters in deer control programs.
NSW Agriculture is currently developing new arrangements for controlling deer which enable the orderly control of feral deer to be undertaken when required, but which also recognise their status as both a farm animal and game. The State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards is involved in this process.

From the Deer Act

9 Consultation and approval before making deer control order

(1) Before making a deer control order the Minister is to consult with each of the following:

(a) the Department,

(b) the State Management Council of Livestock Health and Pest Authorities,

(c) each livestock health and pest authority constituted for a district in which there is land to which the order is to apply,

(d) the Game Council of New South Wales,

(e) each local council for a local government area in which there is land to which the order is to apply,

(f) each public authority that occupies land to which the order is to apply,

(g) the New South Wales branch of the Deer Industry Association of Australia or such other body as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Failure to comply with this section does not invalidate a deer control order.

Obviously it can be argued that if the GC had no interest in the deer on private property then hunters would have no place in the consultation process. Now that hunters have to pay to hunt the deer, and by doing so we place a value on them, we have a say in how those deer might be managed. I wanted more value than some nebulous idea that paying would increase hunters influence so I bought a R licence as soon as they became available.

I am sure you understand, but others might not, this doesn't stop landowners doing what they want with deer on private property, but it stops another Gov department coming in and demanding the removal of deer on private property (possibly, but at the very least it gives us a say).

[looseplucker]

Cheers Jindydiver.

Of course, this is all your fault - because if you had not made that point about the Game Council membership/licence thing I would not have started sniffing about.

In terms of the hard data can I just point out that if there is no hard data to quantify the fee then it is not a fee it is a tax and a tax can only be imposed by a specific tax law (a control on the rapacity of the Crown!) and therefore the licence fee is invalid.

The other points you make are good ones and I certainly appreciate the time you have taken with this. I do, however, remain unconvinced regarding the G licence - and that if I was so minded I would take the step of obtaining an R licence as I would be far more satisfied that I am shelling out my hard earned for a good reason.

Regards
John

[jindydiver]

Cheers Jindydiver.

Of course, this is all your fault - because if you had not made that point about the Game Council membership/licence thing I would not have started sniffing about.

Anyway, not much time left this arvo, I have to go get organised so I can fill my freezer and help a farmer reduce the impact deer have on his land

[looseplucker]

Bag one for me.

[Coach]

Anyway, not much time left this arvo, I have to go get organised so I can fill my freezer and help a farmer reduce the impact deer have on his land

Hopefully with the bow and we will get to see pics etc

[ichiban]

all i can say is that at least we still have the oppertunity to hunt, unfortunatly now its a privlage not a right, i forget where it was but there was a tread about weapons proficiancy tests, i think that and bag limits would be a beter alternative.