Ducking the main issue on hunting
Mark Argyle writes: Victoria’s 2011 duck shooting season finished on Monday. By allowing a twelve week season this year, the Baillieu government unnecessarily risked the future of our vital wetlands regions.
The purported justification for reinstating a full season was that above-average rainfall in the preceding year had led to improved breeding conditions for Victorian waterbirds. However, these ‘improved conditions’ must be viewed in the proper context.
The last significant breeding period in Victoria was 2001, and waterbird numbers remain historically low throughout the eastern states of Australia. Estimates vary, but well-respected aerial studies by Professor Richard Kingsford from the University of New South Wales have shown an approximately 70% decrease in total waterbird numbers throughout eastern Australia since the early 1980s, with a particularly large drop between 2007-08.
Any recent overall increases in eastern Australia are only marginal, when seen against this broader historical pattern of declining numbers. There are, of course, a variety of environmental factors that have contributed to this overall downward trend, other than hunting: the diversion of rivers for irrigation purposes, extended drought, and loss of habitat.
The recent upswing in population numbers throughout the eastern states should not be seen to justify Victoria’s season. Not all birds targeted in Victoria are migratory; about half of the targeted duck species are Victorian residents. We cannot just assume — or hope –that recent overall increases in waterbird populations in eastern Australia necessarily translate neatly into increases in Victoria’s duck population.
After over a decade of drought, the Baillieu government jeopardised this opportunity for Victorian wild waterbirds to substantially repopulate. Indeed, given the especially large bag limits this past season (ten game ducks per day), the deaths of many adult ducks will have left behind starving young. The full environmental impact of this hunting season will be unknown for some time.
Those species of duck that have been legally hunted over the past twelve weeks will now return to their usual protected status, at least for another nine months. There is something counterintuitive about this. Surely, the burden of proof must lie with those hunting groups who regularly seek exemptions to these native waterbirds’ usual protected status. It is these groups who should be forced to make a compelling environmental case for what seems like foolhardy behaviour: shooting ducks for recreation, when overall numbers are still historically low.
There have been sensible, and welcome, regulatory developments in Victoria. The introduction of a compulsory Waterfowl Identification Test in 1990 was a positive development. Unfortunately, hunters are fallible, and protected species will always suffer collateral damage during duck shooting season. In 1993, half of the rare freckled duck population in Victoria was killed.
It is unfair and counterproductive to demonise hunters. Hunters can play an important role in protecting the native habitat –especially by controlling species that can be both environmentally detrimental and costly for farmers, such as foxes, rabbits, wild cats, wild pigs, buffaloes, wild goats, wild dogs and a variety of introduced pest bird species. These species, if uncontrolled, can cause severe damage to waterways, crops and dams.
But it is time for Victoria to change its regulatory approach to duck shooting. States such as NSW operate under an altogether more rational scheme. The onus is on those farmers affected by the pest behaviour of ducks to request licensed hunting, on a case-by-case basis.
This approach has not worked perfectly in NSW, but it would ensure that the hunting that does take place in Victoria has generally positive environmental outcomes, helps to eliminate pests, and does not unduly disturb fragile wetland ecosystems. More broadly, this move would be an important shift of emphasis — and therefore depoliticise the yearly decision about whether or not to have a recreational shooting season.
Hunting lobbyists — groups such as Field and Game Australia — often spruik the economic benefits of recreational hunters visiting the wetlands in Victoria’s northwest.
However, surely this line of argument exhibits a failure of imagination. There is no reason why regional centres like Boort, Donald and Kerang, located amongst these significant wetlands, couldn’t mimic the marketing strategies used to encourage lucrative eco-tourism in places such as Phillip Island and Warrnambool. Victoria has world-class wetlands — let’s be proud of them.
Mark Argyle is a Melbourne-based freelance writer.
Categories: Biodiversity
You must be logged in to post a comment.
22 Eurasian Coot
10 Black Swans/cygnets
8 Grebes (Australasian, Hoary-headed & Great Crested)
5 Plumed Whistling-ducks
5 Australian Magpies
5 Purple Swamphens
3 Musk Ducks
3 Dusky Moorhens
2 Little Ravens
2 Galahs
1 Little Button-Quail
1 Freckled Duck
1 Barn Owl
1 owl (unidentified)
1 bird of prey (unidentified)
1 Blue-billed Duck
1 Australasian Pipit
1 Black-winged Stilt
1 cormorant (unidentified)
1 Yellow-billed Spoonbill
Even if you don’t know what these are, you’ll notice most don’t have ‘duck’ in their name.
It’s a list of the 70+ protected and endangered species shot and abandoned on five wetlands during the duck-hunting season.
Note carefully: coots, magpies, owls, swans. None could be mistaken for a duck.
Perhaps, as Argyle says, hunters are fallible. Perhaps protected species are the collateral damage of the hunting season.
Perhaps, too, some hunters shoot at anything that moves. That’s a good argument to not authorise any more duck seasons.
by 017df024cff489c6ee213bf2280010ca on Jun 16, 2011 at 4:15 pm
really great list
if you actually had all those birds I’m sure you would be showing them to all and sundry
sounds like a typical lie to me as for the article
“therefore depoliticise the yearly decision about whether or not to have a recreational shooting season.” that’s all i agree with the rest sounds like twisted facts to me.
regards
ben
by ben s on Jun 17, 2011 at 1:12 am
Can you back those figures with a link to a reputable, non bias scource?
Coming from a user name with no identity, 017df024cff489c6ee213bf2280010ca I find it a bit hard to do anything but discount them from consideration.
Using your logic “Perhaps, too, SOME hunters shoot at anything that moves. That’s a good argument to not authorise any more duck seasons.” Do we apply that to all protesters being criminals and ban there presence in the wet lands during duck season? From memory there have been 4 protesters prossecuted this season.
Im not interested in duck hunting personally, nor am I interested in protesting against someones interest or past time and their right to puruse it. I dont even mind that people want to protest on behalf of their beliefs. But the irrational, biased and non factual lies spread in the blind attack on duck hunters has all the marks of a bored, innercity environazi and does nothing to endeer the general fence sitting public to your cause.
Unlike this article.
Well done Mark Argyle for putting a case forward showing pros and cons of hunting without resorting to the old red neck, blood sport neanderthal type of insults.
Although im not sure whether envirotourism and tourists will put/bring in the kind of money that the hunters do. Not forgetting how many wetlands would have been destroyed in the name of progress if it wasnt for hunters lobbying for protection.
Yes hunters want habbitat protected to continue their hobby, but its not the initial motivation its the outcome that counts when it comes to the bigger picture and wider outcomes.
by Ian Jeffery on Jun 17, 2011 at 6:22 am
From my initial reading of the article, I am unsure of what the author means from the title “Ducking the main issue on hunting” particularly as the argument is put that: “By allowing a twelve week season this year {2011}, the Baillieu government unnecessarily risked the future of our vital wetlands regions.” Rather than articulating the unnecessary risks & how they “risked the future of our vital wetlands regions” & proposing ways of overcoming these risks & effects, it appears solely to be a piece arguing against waterfowl hunting, or rather what is commonly known as “duck hunting”.
The article continues with the “purported justification” for reinstating a full season as being the “improved conditions” but then argues that they must be viewed in “the proper context”. In support of this argument about “the proper context” of the “improved conditions”, selective reference is made to the work of Professor Richard Kingsford, who is quite rightly acknowledged as a very well-respected, worldwide expert in this field. His knowledge of this field is extensive, & his output & contribution is vast as evidenced by even the most rudimentary online research. This selective referencing ignores Professor Kingsford’s many other contributions through works such as “Aerial survey of waterbirds” [UNSW], “Relations between waterbird ecology and river flows in the Murray-Darling Basin” CSIRO Technical Report No. 5/97; June 1997 or much more recently “Developing a sustainable harvest model of Victorian waterfowl” Department of Sustainability and Environment Technical Report Series No. 195 2010 to name but a very few. The scientific rigour with which he presents his findings is very refreshing.
The argument that “a recent upswing in population numbers…should not be seen to justify Victoria’s season” appears to deliberately ignore the link between good seasonal rain or flooding and the improvement of waterfowl breeding & numbers that has been well established by Professor Kingsford & other researchers in the field. In previous years the counter-argument of the “environmental impact” of droughts that lead to reduced numbers of game birds was rightly used to reduce or even cancel of the “duck hunting” season as the conditions dictate. Apparently, for some unknown reason, this is the only side of this argument that appears to be acceptable.
To suggest that hunters “regularly seek exemptions to these native waterbirds’ usual protected status” displays a profound & fundamental ignorance of the situation regarding waterfowl. The “native waterbirds’ usual protected status” is just that; their status is one of protection & not of open & unregulated hunting. This is because the Victorian “duck hunting” season is restricted to times outside the breeding & moulting seasons, limited in the number & species hunted & as previously mentioned, further modified as various factors dictate.
How the Victorian “duck hunting” season should be conducted has been the subject of some comprehensive work by Professor Kingsford & the other members of the Expert Scientific Panel & their findings are very well presented in the DSE Technical Report referred to above. The Victorian DSE Waterfowl Conservation and Harvesting Model [WCHM] as presented in the report is an adaptive model addressing not only the “environmental impact” of hunting but the many other factors impacting waterfowl populations. The section 3.7 Concluding Remarks of the report highlights key benefits & requirements of such model & approach; they should be read by all that are interested in this issue.
The article quite rightly points out some “sensible, and welcome, regulatory developments in Victoria. The introduction of a compulsory Waterfowl Identification Test in 1990 was a positive development.” & that unfortunately, the effects of hunting are not always limited to the target species. This last point, I am sure, will be an ongoing source of vexation for all concerned including hunters.
The article continues: “It is unfair and counterproductive to demonise hunters” but any positive contribution appears not to be valued. “Hunters can play an important role in protecting the native habitat” but only in those activities deemed as beneficial or acceptable to those that claim to be the “true conservationists”. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of game hunting especially “duck hunting”. Game hunting is an activity with the purpose of catching or killing wild animals for food. It is about a personal involvement in finding, killing & preparing your own food for consumption not some sanitised, impersonal involvement in the process. We unfortunately live in a society increasingly detached from & ignorant of the realities of food production. No…meat does not just appear on the supermarket refrigeration shelves on polystyrene trays, portioned, glad-wrapped, labelled, weighed & priced; eggs are not produced in cartons of convenient quantities; milk does not come from cartons or bottles. Being detached from the processes involved in getting food from the “paddock” to the table makes it easy to judge the actions of others that are involved as being unacceptable.
Although I was born in Queensland, I have lived in all of the 3 Eastern States of Australia. This has given me an insight & understanding of the ‘unshakable belief in the innate natural superiority of Victorians’. This could possibly be the reason behind the suggestion of taking an “approach has not worked perfectly” in another State & introducing it in here. It will of course work perfectly here…in my experience, no. It will still remain a flawed system & so is unlikely to produce the desired benefits. A closer examination of the DSE WCHM system shows that it will “depoliticise the yearly decision about whether or not to have a recreational shooting season”; a comment that implicitly supports a continuation of recreational shooting & hunting. Heaven forbid that there should have a depoliticised process; that could take away the whole raison d’être for quite a few people.
The following comments are also concerning: “Hunting lobbyists – groups such as Field and Game Australia – often spruik the economic benefits of recreational hunters visiting the wetlands in Victoria’s northwest. However, surely this line of argument exhibits a failure of imagination.” Again the most cursory of online research would reveal the paucity of these comments. Field & Game Australia’s [FGA] actually started in 1958 when a group of hunters in Sale Victoria took action on their concern about the loss of wetland habitat for the game birds they loved to observe & hunt. This was at a time when wetlands were not valued as they were considered useless for agriculture. This was the start of some of the “world-class wetlands” of which we can be rightly proud. Radical action displaying imagination & foresight indeed that continues today. In ignorance, it is easy to ascribe attitudes or outlooks to others, & dismiss their arguments & achievements.
To be dismissive of the economic benefits of recreational hunters continues to display a lack of understanding. The introduction of a shooter’s licence & its associated fees was part of the initial FGA resolutions adopted in 1958: “To organise a deputation to the Chief Secretary seeking the establishment of a shooter’s licence to fund game conservation.” They saw the need for funds to support the outcomes they sought & provided a solution to that issue; a laudable action for anyone concerned for game conservation. Here I use the word “conservation” from its meaning of ‘to prevent waste’ & ‘to use or manage natural resources wisely’ not from a ‘do not touch’ or ‘do not use’ perspective. From shooter’s & Game licences alone, income from an individual hunter would range, in today’s fees, from $69.20 to $136.98 per annum depending on concession status, Game Species & length of licence obtained. This income is produced even when a “duck hunting” season is not declared. On top of this is the initial purchase of equipment to be used with associated permits & the ongoing purchase of consumable items, accommodation at the hunt location, food, fuel & transport when there is a declared season to name but a few. I am sure that the towns near the “duck hunting” areas are more than aware of the positive “economic benefits of recreational hunters”.
The campaign to stop “duck hunting” is a very good example of the law of unintended consequences; stop “duck hunting” but lose funding for game conservation; a negative, unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the action. The “lucrative eco-tourism” proffered as a replacement to “duck hunting” will only go part way to offsetting the “economic benefits of recreational hunters”. Many of the aspects of the income generated by either hunters or eco-tourists visiting these areas remain comparable; food, fuel, accommodation & transport & the like. However a major source of income is lost from annual firearms & Game licensing fees.
To compensate for the loss of firearms & Game licence fees I propose a “Conservation Scheme”. This should be welcomed & embraced by all concerned for “the future of our vital wetlands regions.” Under new “Conservation Law”, a “Conservationist” licence would be required with all “Conservation Activities” limited to a highly regulated “Conservation Season” of say 3 months. The “Conservation Season” can be declared, limited or even closed depending on many factors. For this privilege of being involved in the “Conservation Scheme” all “conservationists” will be levied an annual fee of $100 per annum, after undertaking suitable compulsory training courses & police checks of course. All activity during the “Conservation Season” will undertaken at additional expense to the licence holder & will be closely regulated & monitored &. All licensed participants would be required to produce their “Conservationist” licence on request. Failure to do so or acting contrary to the “Conservation Law” would result in the cancellation of the licence & confiscation of any “conservation” related equipment in their possession as well as fines being levied. It should also go without saying that their will be criticism from people opposed to such “conservation” activities & the campaign to shut the “Conservation Scheme” down will be unrelenting especially from those ideologically & philosophically opposed to the “Scheme” for whatever reason.
The introduction of the “Conservation Scheme” should be enthusiastically welcomed & widely embraced by all “true conservationists” as this will “fund game conservation” & greatly enhance “the future of our vital wetlands regions”. I wonder how many takers there will be for such a scheme. Many hunters already do so.
Ian McLaren, Licensed Firearm Owner & Victorian Game Licence Holder
by Ian McLaren on Jun 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm
@Ian McLaren — just a heads up: I manage this blog and wrote the headline simply because I liked the ducking pun.
@Ian Jeffery — also, I am not 100% sure, but there’s a current flaw in Crikey that turns people’s usernames into long lines of numbers and letters without them doing it. That may have happened here.
by Amber Jamieson on Jun 20, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Recreational shooting” – The sanitised term for the morally bankrupt practice of killing things for the sake of entertainment. How many ducks get eaten? Let alone owls, swans, magpies etc. When it’s not duck season do you go out and hunt cows? Or are you a vegetarian for the rest of the year?
Real recreational shooters stick to non living targets.
by merlot64 on Jun 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Mmm, owl soup. Yum.
by kd on Jun 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm
I own a bit of dirt in north-east Victoria and for the past 12 years have watched a drought come and go. Ducks, on the other-hand never left, due to the prolonged absence of a duck shooting season and their numbers swelled from 20 to >300 in the intervening period. I like guns and shooting, but a childhood raised on greasy braces of dead geese has me turning my nose up at Peking Duck and all the trimmings…
My point is that there is now plenty of water, and fowl to go-around, but let’s only shoot what we can reasonably eat … It’s no different than seafood and fishing.
by dunph on Jun 21, 2011 at 1:21 am
Stop ducking and weaving- duck hunting is brutal, primitive stupidity.
Killing protected native wildlife for fun. That’s what it is.
I’m a licensed shooter. I kill introduced vermin when they invade my property: foxes, feral cats, rabbits etc.
by Frank Campbell on Jun 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Some simple truths – duck hunting is performed by amateurs.
Given the nature of the terrain (densely vegetated swamp over 20,000 + sites), it is impossible for the activity to be adequately policed.
There seems to be no consensus on wounding rates, but studies range from over 50% to 10% – meaning there’s a duck wounded for every duck killed outright, up to one duck wounded for every 9 ducks killed outright. This likely varies given hunters individual skill and the distance between them and the animal they are aiming at. But again this seems to be underpoliced – 40m is the guideline but many shooters have claimed they have aimed at birds at a much greater distance than this.
Another important fact – duck season does not lead to the reduction of meat produced by farmers. It is therefore not neccessary, and any wounding that occurs because of it renders it unethical.
It is these reasons and more that have lead to duck hunting being banned in other states, and one would assume it is only a matter of time before Victoria follows suit.
With the likelihood of more severe droughts in coming decades, it seems the most environmentally friendly and ethical thing to do.
by Gen O’Keefe on Jun 30, 2011 at 12:04 am
Like most Victorians, Australia’s gold medal winning Olympic shooters, as well as elite members of the Australian Defence Forces, are opposed to recreational duck shooting. This is because of the unnecessary, inherent cruelty involved. The pain and suffering inflicted by a small number of duck shooters is no longer socially acceptable.
Given the problems of climate change and the threat of more severe drought, it is also foolhardy and shortsighted to allow recreational duck shooting when birds are only just starting to recovery after 13 years of drought in Victoria.
According to Professor Richard Kingsford, the leading expert on wetlands and waterbirds, there is insufficient scientific evidence to show that duck hunting is sustainable. In a recent paper, ‘Ducking and weaving: should we be hunting in Australia’s wetlands?’ (March 29, 2011), Professor Kingsford stated that despite the recent increase in waterbird habitat and breeding, “decision-making for duck hunting in Australia remains rudimentary, lagging sophisticated approaches used by northern hemisphere managers.
“There is little knowledge of the true impact of duck hunting on different species,” he states. “We don’t know how much breeding occurs each year so it is difficult to decide how many ducks can be sustainably shot. Little is learned about the long-term impacts of hunting or loss of wetlands.”
According to Professor Kingsford, waterbird numbers in southeastern Australia have fallen dramatically to only about 20 per cent of the 1983 figures (when his annual aerial surveys began). He also recently stated that waterbird numbers might never return to previous levels.
Ian McLaren misrepresents Professor Kingsford. He selectively refers to a 2010 report that was commissioned by the shooters and the DSE and was only about finding some model to determine sustainability in order to justify duck hunting.
People like Ian McLaren who put forward the ‘conservationist’ argument always fall short – they don’t care or even register that the birds they shoot feel pain and suffering from gunshot injuries (without being retrieved by the hunters).
Changing the name to “Conservation Season” cannot disguise the unnecessary cruelty involved. Even the DSE and US ballistics expert and duck shooter Tom Roster have recognized that the standard wounding rate of at least one in every four birds shot (that will fly away wounded) is not acceptable.
Add to this the illegal shooting of protected species each year (including those listed above). The DSE could confirm the 2011 toll of over 600 native birds that were shot and left to rot on the water, including 75 so-called ‘protected’ species.
Instead of allowing a tiny and shrinking number of duck hunters to destroy their natural assets, country towns would get far greater, long-term economic benefits from promoting their wetlands to international birdwatchers and other tourists.
by Carol on Sep 30, 2011 at 11:19 pm