You are hereForums / By Discipline / Mountain (off road) / By Location / Australia / NSW / NSW Trail Advocacy / Do you want shooters in parks you ride?
Do you want shooters in parks you ride?
Dunno about anyone else, but this news makes my blood boil:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ofarrell-over-...
Hunting in state forests has been discussed here before (see 'Conservation' Hunting in NSW State Forests) but if you thought that was a stupid idea, what about letting shooters into National Parks?
A group of cyclists are riding some tracks in XX National Park unaware that on a track 100 metres away is a hunter stalking his prey. This hunter is also unaware that the cyclists are on the other side of the trees. He takes aim.........he misses his prey........and the bullet continues on.........
Look at the picture in the article linked above? And these people claim to be conservationists? WTF!?
They also want shooting included as a school sport, and I think we've all seen what happens when you give troubled adolescents access to lethal weapons and teach them killing is 'sport'.
What do you think? Should bike riders be given more access to National Parks and should MTB (and other bike) skills be taught in school, or should we just forget that and give the kids guns instead? 
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
it's just plain crazy. There is nothing anyone can say to sway my view on this. i'm happy to be wrong, but i just cannot see how allowing shooters into national parks does not place other park users at risk. NZ have gone down that road. Some poor lady was shot while brushing her teeth on a camping trip a few years ago. Hunter thought her head lamp was a deers eye's reflecting the light back from his spoty.
There is simply no good reason to do this. It's not to keep feral animal numbers down. It's simply the shooting party gaining access to hunting ground for their members.
just as if the Greens may hold a balance of power in years to come & lock up any form of bushland to anything but feet-til we the MTBr's get the same political clout some of us will feel cheated,ripped off or just plain ignored there is nothing that those who oppose this can do.
Best thread ever.
I'm going back for seconds on the popcorn. Anybody else want some?
Lots of emotion, not much intelligence... very entertaining
Is that really necessary Hawkeye?
not going to bite
Well, when folks are shooting from the hip like they are here... yes.
There isn't enough information available to make any kind of informed conclusion. Not by a long shot
What we know
* The BOF is prepared to break core promises
* Guns are a highly emotional subject
* Shooters will be allowed in *some* forested areas they were excluded from previously.
* Not very much else
Most of the comments here are coming from peoples' emotional scripts about guns, nowhere else.
I don't see one other fact in this whole dicussion. Don't shoot the messenger.
I can see merits. I can see risks. I can see problems with the current situation that are not being addressed. Until there's a concrete proposal to analyse, people are just flapping their gums.
maybe so Hawkeye, however surely you have better manners than to call another user/s stupid. I don't agree with Pancakes and others, however i would point out that we have been able to keep the argument civil.
Flapping gums is how you form opinions and beliefs hawkeye. It is actually a very important part of the process. You don't really expect people to sit around and wait for the proposals and policy to be developed do you??? Maybe, it is the flapping of the gums that informs some of the policy development.
Imagine what would happen if all us MTBers didn;t flap our gums when NPWS were going to shut down some of our local trails.
I guess I get shirty from time to time when people talk something to death in a vacuum with no information. I mean, what's the point? It's about as useful as sitting in front of the Time Vanisher for hours on a weekend and then complaining you're unfit.
Pull your (not you personally, talking generally) finger out and write to your local polly telling him you're not happy with what you're hearing and want better information NOW about the proposal because - quite frankly - it scares you.
DO SOMETHING, don't just jaw about it on an internet forum. *That's* the difference between flapping your gums and taking action.
If my lack of manners rubs you up the wrong way sometimes, well I'm sorry about that.
I ain't perfect and sometimes I'm prone to being a cranky old fart.
Occasionally, though, I get things done.
Here's a link to the NZ incident
http://www.theage.com.au/world/teacher-mistaken-...
Shirty is fine and i agree with writting to your local member. But i would argue that gumming about it helps inform that letter writing process as well.
I have made the odd attacking post as well, so i will not claim to be on the moral high ground, however of late i have been trying to phrase a post in the frame of "would i say that if the person was standing in front of me?"
Back to the question at hand though.
"Do you want shooters in parks you ride?" Hell No
I read a headline somewhere this morning about Parks staff either protesting or taking industrial action because they're concerned about their safety.
I have to admit that's an issue I'd failed to consider. NPWS staff are the ones who have to enforce the rules. In their shoes I'd be very uncomfortable being unarmed and having to give a potentially angry and emotional armed shooter an infringement notice, or even be known to be in the vicinity if they were somewhere or at sometime they weren't supposed to be.
If they're the type to break the rules then, it's not such a big step to go further if they see you as a threat. Being a humble mountain biker or hiker you're not intrinsically a threat to them unless you're obvious about collecting evidence, but being a NPWS staffer would be a different matter, and I'd be unhappy too.
I wonder how The BOF is going to handle that one? Govt has to provide a safe workplace. I can't see how that would work without adding costs like armed backup on site or allowing NPWS officers to go armed, which adds a significant organisational burden in systems, training, recruitment and cost... not to mention staff turnover among their current employees.
The whole shooting in parks thing is a diversion to take the heat off the selling off of our power generation.
The shooters are going to be that regulated that the only danger is those cowboys already out there shooting with out a license.
The power sell off on the other hand is massive blow that has been neatly swept under the table by all the hoo haa.
It wouldn't surprise me that after the sell off the BOF back flips on the shooters and "bows to public pressure" declaring park off limit again, of course by then it will be too late to save our power stations
Flynny's nailed it. It's been a masterstroke tying these two issues together. As shown by the tone of comments in this thread, allowing shooting in NP's is a highly emotive issue and has, as far as I can see, completely swamped any negative press about the generation sell off.
I also agree that the strategy that may be employed re the shooters legislation is to make the conditions so restrictive as to be unmanageable thus pushing shooters elsewhere.
We all should be concerned about:-
Dark days ahead for NSW I'm afraid.
Is the shooter thing that wide spread in the media?? I hadn't noticed. Only really listening to radio news at the moment. I'm having a crack here because the shooter thing is the topic of conversation. That being said. Selling infrastructure such as this is pretty dumb I agree. Back to the shooter thing though. I'd be surprised uf it gets any attention once the sale of infrastructure gets closer. A perfect opportunity for the shooter party to slip under the radar.
there are plenty of people around (me included) that have no faith in arms of govt to run much more than a chook raffle - there is no fundamental need anymore for govt to be the purveyor of electricity - some people are more concened about other parts of infrastructure (eg fixing up the delivery of electricity to households, roads, rail, that sort of thing), and getting money to do that work, apart from borrowing it from China et al - the preferred option of the greens.
That said, the happenings in national parks are relevant to mountain biking, electricity privatization of assets is completely and totally irrelevant to mountain biking. So perhaps keeping to mtb relevant topics might be helpful?
Pharmboy, I, like I'd imagine most riders in NSW, do the vast majority of my mountain biking on Crown land and in state forest. These have both had regulated hunting for a few years now and we've all survived (I doubt many would even be aware of it).
I don't see the issue with it in NP so long as it's regulated. The emotionql gunk getting thrown about on the subject is very reminiscent of the uninformed, emotional rantings of the anti MTB brigade.
Turning the attention off the power sell off, because one net cop decides it's relevant is exactly what was planned by tying the two issues together.
Flynny,, if you go back to the political happenings of the weeks before - the govt that won 80% of the state seats but still doesnt control the upper house in NSW, has been putting legislation through. in order to get any legislation through, they need either the greens, labor, or the shooters party to agree and pass the legislation.
Most of the ALP that supported sell off lost their jobs last time round, the greens oppose any sort of privatisation, and want bigger govt not smaller. that leaves the shooters, who decided they were against the legislation, and said they'd support it with a change to national parks total ban - ie they were representing their members.
By accounts, this agreement was hatched in a long late night meeting without feedback to the greens or Labor. Any party could have simply supported the legislation (which btw was first brought by the labor party - and opposed by the the coalition lol), and this wouldnt have even been close to happening. I cant see it as a smokescreen, certainly not an effective one - both because the facts show a simple vote in exchange for a deal done, and secondly, because this has been a long running issue, with little fundamental disagreement in the media, and little post legislation protestations in the media.
Its conceivable that someone thought it would run a smokescreen, but at the same time, it has to be palateable to the voters in general (ie those that care a lot vote the other way anyhow, and most dont care). There has also been a massive effort and imo disinformation campaign by a left wing union that is by an large reponsible for the in efficiencies that are the very reason a sell off was first pushed by the labor party. Any statment coming from the unions against this is mired in self interest.
The govt wants both issues to go away, and i guess are quite confident that when the next election comes round, the sell off will have all gone fine, with none of the crazy predictions coming to fruition.
I have a contact - an acquaintance - who is across this issue in the Liberal party.
His off-the-record summary of the issue to me was:
* It only affects 10% of national parks
* It will occur only in parks in which culling by shooting is already performed either by Parks staff or contractors
* Not any licenced shooter can participate. Additional licences and qualifications are required to be allowed do this work, which effectively limits those who can take part to the top 10 or 5 percent of shooters. This is to keep the rednecks and crazies out.
* It will allow a *reduction* in the period for which Parks are closed to the public due to culling, by leveraging these qualified amateur shooters to increase the manpower available. Previously this culling was performed by Parks staff directly over a number of weeks. This may for example allow a closure to be collapsed up to one.
* The process will be managed on the ground directly by Parks staff.
* The existing process for publicising culls and closing parks will be maintained
* Fines for shooting species that are not on the cull list are north of $210,000, and I think he said that's per animal.
I don't see a whole lot to be concerned about here
This is absolutely disgusting and won't help their cause
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/editor...
in Wingello no less