In doing some research for debates on a proposed new law on hunting in New South Wales, I've been surprised at the level of angst between the Game Council and the Invasive Species Council. The Game Council is a NSW Statutory Body whereas the Invasive Species Council is a lobby group reminding us all of the impacts of weeds and feral animals and of the importance of biosecurity.
In a recent media release, the Chairman of the Game Council went as far as saying “In fact, if we are talking about ‘feral pests’, well that name describes ill-informed nuisance organisations such as the Invasive Species Council.”
The Invasive Species Council's Tim Low came back with what must have been a frustratingly calm answer in a return media release: "In NSW state forests over the past two years, recreational hunters licensed under the Game Council have killed on average just 350 deer a year. This is only a few more than the 300 rusa deer that need to be killed annually in one small national park (Royal National Park) to achieve slight population reductions (0.4 per cent), according to estimates by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation".
The ABC's Bush Telegraph presenter Michael Mackenzie did a great job moderating a debate between Tim Low and the Game Council's CEO Brian Boyle a few days after the media release exchange, and both got to present their side.
I know a quarter of the Game Council's board as well as the Invasive Species Council's Tim Low (as the author of Feral Future and many other natural science books, almost everyone with an interest in feral animals knows of Tim). The vitriol in the Game Council's media statement is a bit over the top. I guess to an extent I can understand them saying Invasive Species Council is "small", "unofficial" and even a "nuisance" (they are a lobby group after all) but I reckon the Game Council is missing the mark saying the Invasive Species Council is "ill-informed".
As much as both organisations might want the other to disappear, neither is going to shut up shop any time soon. If the debate becomes too polarised, we may even end up with worse outcomes than both organisations want. For example, I heard ex-Chairman of the Game Council and current MLC, Robert Brown, on radio deriding the use of poison baits in National Parks and claiming a big impact on quolls and birds. It might be time to start discussing the realities. Shooting can form part of an integrated pest control program, but it can't simply replace larger programs. The Game Council often quotes the case of "Operation Bounceback" in South Australia, where shooters played a vital role in an excellent program (and continue to do so), but that's an integrated program, not an ad hoc one.
The quality of the work coming out of the Invasive Species Council is very high. It isn't going to be discredited by dismissing it. ISC's "Deer Mistake" report warrants a much more thorough debate than simple name calling. I imagine some biofuel advocates are frustrated by the ISC report "The weedy truth about biofuels", but a simple media release "up yours" response is not going make important questions go away. It would be better to set out to more clearly demonstrate the role shooting can play in feral animal control.
Simply quoting the number of animals killed by Game Council licensed hunters is not enough to demonstrate value. We all go on about measuring impact, not numbers, so there needs to be a demonstration of a positive impact. In Game Council's defence, it is a young organisation whose initial job has been to set up a license system. Now they can start to demonstrate a conservation benefit from shooting if they want to bear the title of "conservation hunters".
For example, I would think it would be well within the abilities of the Game Council to organise intense conservation culling of, say, foxes in a particular forest or two, along with appropriate monitoring of native species recovery.
The table below is one of the many "informed" bits of material I steal from time-to-time from the Invasive Species Council's website. I use it to demonstrate that we need to work together on feral animal issues because they are too important to ignore.
Top Threats Table
|
Threatened species |
Threatened ecosystems |
Riparian zones |
Important wetlands in Australia |
|
Feral animals |
Grazing pressure |
Grazing pressure |
Grazing pressure |
|
Changed fire regimes |
Feral animals |
Exotic weeds |
Exotic weeds |
|
Grazing pressure |
Exotic weeds |
Feral animals |
Feral animals |
Source: Modified from Invasive Species Council (2009)
Recent Comments