Comment on Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009
Comment by Rev Hon Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC on
Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009
The recent statutory five-year review of the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 has found approval by the community in the form in which it is currently written, especially the State’s farmers, landowners, pest animal managers and hunters.
Although I do not approve of the killing of any animals other than for survival or food, I must on principle support the culling of feral foxes, goats, rabbits, pigs, wild dogs and so forth because of the economic and environmental impact they have across the State. The situation requires sensible provision of management on the part of the Government.
There is of course passionate opposition by many, if not most, people to hunting. This opposition is based on a variety of arguments: an opposition to the human exploitation of animals, believing that they have their own lives and deserve to live them freely; the view that the hunting is inherently cruel, and that human beings in our modern era should not be seeking such barbaric entertainments;
Some believe that wildlife is inherently different from domestic livestock and should be left alone; others have the view that there is no such thing as a pest species; and that all fellow creatures should be accommodated by human beings – who have been charged with being good stewards of Creation.
A 2007 Morgan Research Poll showed that when they learned that one in four birds shot at are hit and fly away wounded, and that Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland had already banned the activity, 87% of Victorians wanted the shooting of native waterbirds permanently banned there, as well. Ninety-four percent of women were against hunting compared to 81% of men. And 91% of 14 to 17 years old compared to 86% for those 35 to 49. That study reflects the general public’s opinion, and I concur.
The Bill also introduces a provision for setting up Private Game Reserves, which to my way of thinking doesn’t really fall under the category of feral animal control since it allows game to be raised to be killed by recreational shooters paying a fee. In China there are special zoos where hapless living cattle are lifted by crane into enclosures full of hungry wild animals such as lions and tigers – that proceed to tear them apart for the viewing pleasure of the paying customers who have brought their families. That idea appals us, doesn’t’ it? But really, is it very different to delivering captive animals into the hands of waiting predators, who have to perform no hard work to get their kill – but only pay a fee? It doesn’t seem ‘sporting’. And it certainly isn’t about feral animal control.
However, I realise that Private Game Reserves exist in all the other states except the ACT, and are apparently being successfully managed under guidelines from the Department of Primary Industries. With the agricultural and pastoral industries struggling to make a living, there is a move to make productive use of as many resources on a property as possible, to maximise the income. And for many property owners this may be the only thing that may keep them out of debt, letting paying customers come onto the land and hunt the animals that otherwise would be considered pests. It is a seen as a ‘win-win’ for all parties involved, the proponents say, and I can see their point, but I am still profoundly ambivalent about it.
The Bill also seeks to allow hunting in National Parks… Here are some of the things people do in national parks that I can think of from my own experience: walking your dog, teaching your kids to fish, camping with your family, taking a bushwalk, identifying and photographing bird species, taking a great drive or ride on your bike, riding horseback, having a picnic, painting a picture of the scenery, and … shooting the animals? No, that last one is not anyone’s idea of a good thing to do in our National Parks, is it?
However, I understand that so-called ‘conservation hunting’ is already being allowed in other public lands in New South Wales, such as the State Forests. And that there are sufficient safety procedures in place to protect the public while the hunting is being carried out in a given area. So, just extending this type of controlled culling of feral and game animals to the National Parks of the State does not seem that different. It may even be reasonable; it just does not sound good at first to think of anyone with a gun let loose to pursue their shooting in the public parklands. However I also realise that farmers particularly have asked for permission to go into the National Parks that adjoin their farms to help control the feral animals that kill their lambs, and I certainly see the merit in that.
According to the Game Council of NSW, ‘voluntary conservation hunting’ helps reduce feral and game animal numbers in declared State forests in NSW - thereby benefiting the environment, agriculture, and economy of NSW. They maintain that under their well-administered licensing system, ‘Voluntary Conservation Hunters’ on both public and private land are an excellent nature conservation management tool for unwanted and introduced species.
Birds Australia is a science-based conservation organisation that believes there needs to be a strong commitment by the Government to the protection of biodiversity. They point out that the impacts of invasive species will become more severe as a result of the impacts of the climate change that is predicted to cause significantly reduced rainfall over most of Australia.
Climate change will have a major impact on every ecosystem, especially wetlands, and the species that depend on them such as all the waterfowl, including the ones listed in this Bill. They recommend that it is far better to protect all these species today than pay for recovery programs in the future.
Waterbird numbers have already declined across Eastern Australia by a massive 82% since 1983 when Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales first conducted his annual aerial waterbird surveys.
The native game animals now listed for hunting in this Bill include 11 kinds of duck, 2 kinds of quail, the Ibis, Black Swan, Sulphur Crested Cockatoos, Topknot Pigeons, the Galahs, and Corellas, and the Purple Swamp-hen – most of which are part of the attraction of Centennial Park here in Sydney, where they offer their popular seasonal bird-watching walks for families, led by some of the area’s most experienced birding enthusiasts.
Then there are the non-indigenous birds that will now be shot if this Bill passes, including the magnificent Canada Geese (who stay with their mates for life), Blackbirds, Goldfinches, Sparrows, Partridges, Thrushes, and the Skylark, amongst others. Why shoot all these birds?
In the past New South Wales has offered leadership in the protection of waterfowl and other birds, and should not be expected to change its course now.
In the Bill being proposed the licensed game hunters would be required to pass an official identification test of native waterfowl. Why would such a provision be needed? Because in the past there has been repeated shameless slaughter of many ‘protected’ waterfowl – because in their eagerness to kill the shooters have not taken enough care to even identify the type of bird they are aiming at.
But in Victoria the Waterfowl Identification Test has already been in place for nearly 20 years, and every year hundreds of threatened and protected ducks and other waterbirds have been illegally shot. Why should this test make any difference? It is the attitude and behaviour of the shooters that needs to change, not the test.
In general I am against guns, but as I said before I realise that culling feral animals is a sad necessity. However I can’t see the harm these birds are doing, and do not want to be part of writing a death sentence for them. I agree with Birds Australia when they say that there is a real lack of understanding of the economic and social value of birds.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA), a most credible and sensible animal welfare organisation, is adamantly against the proposed Bill, saying that – if it was adopted – it would set NSW back many years in terms of pest animal control. They add that by opening the National Parks for recreational hunting, allowing hunting of native species, and expanding the list of game species, that all of these actions would be a real step backwards for the people, birds and animals of NSW.
I agree with them. And that is why I cannot support this Bill’s objectives.
REV HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC