Some correspondence about hunting in National parks

Late Breaking news from the Sydney Morning Herald!  It is only temporary but does over-ride much of what follows!

This morning I read an early version of an article in the SMH about the proposal to allow friends of the Game Council to use silencers when blazing away in National Parks.  At that time the Premier hadn't ruled silencers out.  My initial reaction was to send an email to the journalist including (the rest was just my opinion on a few things) this:

I am also intrigued by the risk assessment that is being noised about.  I wonder what probability is attached to the death of an innocent person using the Parks for the purposes for which they were intended?  My expectation is that it is something like 'low' - which could be 0.1% or 1/1000 - or 'very low'  (say 1/100,000) or minuscule (say 1/1,000,000).  It would clarify what was on offer if the numbers were quoted rather than the camouflaged weasel words.

The relevant part of his response was:

The risk assessment doesn't offer hard numbers. It simply presents a risk rating of high, medium or low for the risk of park visitors being shot.

This latest draft says the risk is now "medium" because of the move to zoning.

Before receiving that reply I also sent an email to my local member of State Parliament John Barilaro:

Dear Mr Barilaro

Tomorrow I expect to go to Tallaganda National Park with a group of friends to study the plants growing there.  It is an interesting area from the view of natural diversity.  Unfortunately this may be the last visit we make to this area since the Government of which you are a member is allowing shooters into the area in the near future.  The risk to our lives will have to outweigh the value to knowledge of our endeavours.
I had hoped that your Premier would come to his senses and reject this proposal at some stage.  Unfortunately that seems not to be the case.  As the details of what is proposed become clear they seem to include:

• allowing 12 year old children to be part of the activity;

• use of otherwise illegal silencers;  and 

• unaccompanied shooting in many areas.

The problems evident in each of these proposals could be spotted by Blind Freddy on a moonless night, but all seem to be outweighed by your need to  accept the desires of the Shooters Party. (Note added to blog entry: The silencer proposal has been ruled out as shown in the linked SMH article. Probably the Premier foresaw other uses for these tools - perhaps nearer to places he goes.)

I have read that there has been a risk assessment of this proposal.  Could you advise me what probability is attached to an innocent Park user being:

• shot and killed; or

• shot and wounded

by these shooters?  Please note that I am interested in a quantitative value such as 0.1% and not flexible words such as 'low' or even 'miniscule'.    When - and I deliberately do not say if - such an event occurs the responsibility for it will rest squarely on the shoulders of the members of the O'Farrell Government who have permitted the practise. 

Let me also illustrate a flow on effect of us giving up going to the area.  We pass through Captains Flat on our way home and most people in the group buy an ice cream or soft drink in the store.  While the resultant added sales by the store are not great, add in the value of purchases by other Tallaganda tourists and I would expect there to be a significant contribution to the viability of the store.  Take it away and the store closes, with a great decrease in the benefits of a local store to Captains Flat. 
Please ask the Premier to cancel the extremely unwise proposal to introduce shooting in National Parks.  

Mr Barilaro is normally quite prompt in replying to my musings.  In this case the following message in reply was sent within 5 hours of his Office opening.  Possibly this speed reflects a standard letter being sent as the reply.

Dear Martin, 

Thank you for your email and for bringing your concerns to my attention. Feral pests and animals do great harm to our National Parks by destroying habitats, flora and fauna. Feral animals also cause problems on agricultural land. The cost to agriculture across Australia has been estimated at over $600 million per year. 

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) removed over 54,000 feral animals, including pigs, dogs, cats, foxes, deer and goats, through its existing pest management program from national parks and reserves in 2011–12. The NSW Government is now extending these efforts using restricted game licence holders in a Supplementary Pest Control program in 77 national parks and reserves. There are more than 860 parks and reserves in NSW, and under no circumstances will this program operate in any metropolitan area, wilderness or World Heritage area. 

The new arrangements will be subject to the development of appropriate management and access requirements, to be approved by the Government. A $19.1 million package of new funding has been allocated over 5 years to ensure the program is properly resourced. The package includes $11 million for the NPWS and $8.1 for the Game Council and NSW Police. 

This program is being carefully developed by a steering committee in consultation with safety specialists, job experts and union representatives. Other similar programs that are currently operating safely and effectively in NSW state forests and public lands in Victoria and South Australia are being reviewed. 

The program will commence only after the completion of a number of preliminary steps including a detailed risk assessment of each of the 77 parks. I will give at least 30 days’ notice before the commencement of the program, which will not be before 30 April 2013. 

Only those persons who hold a firearms licence, a restricted game licence, and written permission from NPWS will be able to be involved in the program, which will be limited to those areas where the safety of staff, visitors, other park users and neighbours can be assured. There will be no shooting at night, from vehicles, or across tracks and trails. Firearms will be required to remain unloaded at all times except when a safe and humane shot is ready to be taken at a positively identified pest species, and hunting dogs will not be permitted. 

No native animals can be killed in the program, with fines of up to $220,000 for harming a threatened species. 

Information about the program will continue to be available on the Office of Environment and Heritage website atwww.environment.nsw.gov.au. Signage will be in place in areas where the program will operate, and further information for each park will be available in the lead-up to the commencement of the program.

I will pass on your concerns to the Minister and push to ensure that they are addressed in the final framework for the program. 

If I can be of further assistance, on this or any other matter, please feel free to contact me at any stage. 

Yours sincerely,

 John BarilaroMP

Member for Monaro

My response to this pablum:

Dear Mr Barilaro
Thank you for your reply.  Unfortunately it does nothing to reduce my concerns due to incidents such as that reported in http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/game-boss-suspended-over-illegal-hunt-claim-20130122-2d5nn.html.  In effect you are saying 'Trust the Game Council."  Following from the linked article, and unlike British Paints, the response would have to be "Sure can't."

If the NPWS is doing such a good job in removing feral pests - with far more effective tools than amateur shooters - why do we need to establish a further, widely derided as ineffective, mechanism.  Save the $8.1m allocated to the Game Council and let the NPWS keep their funding to do a more wide-reaching job.  

I note that your answer does not say how many feral animals the Shooters expect to kill.  It also does not provide the quantitative assessment I requested of the probability that an innocent bystander will get killed or wounded.  Surely these would be absolutely basic building blocks of any coherent policy of this nature.

Noting that there is a "medium" - what ever that means it is certainly bigger than negligible, insignifiant or miniscule - risk of an innocent bystander getting shot I have to wonder how many clients the White lady will get before this Government realises just what sort of Pandora's Box they have opened.