Guns don’t kill ducks, heartless bastards kill ducks

Against Neanderthal Blood Sports says:

06:04am | 18/02/11

I would pay for a license to join in that, except it needs to be made more like duck hunting so that the new ‘prey’ gets to enjoy their sport from the ground up. To make it fair, the duck hunters should be hobbled, have any meals in the previous week regularly disrupted by the blast of shotguns so that their energy levels are greatly diminished before they have to start their run/flight for freedom and, of course, they have to be unarmed.

TimB says:

06:47am | 18/02/11

“I have purchased the Springfield YMCA.  I plan to tear it down, and turn the land into a nature preserve, where I will hunt the deadliest game of all ... man!”

acotrel says:

07:31am | 18/02/11

That’s what shooting is all about! - killing others.  And hunters would love hunting each other!  I wonder what the Health and Safety laws would say, and whether you could get insurance?

john says:

09:16am | 18/02/11

@John C I doubt there would be anyone left to be preserved with this kind of fire power, @ 30 secs into this clip one wonders how a duck can escape from this onslaught:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLIAxPW8Ng

Would not surprise me the mentality of shooters is like whats on this utube clip.

Keith says:

12:14pm | 18/02/11

Do you eat meat?

Mark W says:

02:33pm | 18/02/11

Shows how sick the world has become, Ducks aren’t shot for sport they are shot to keep the numbers in check so you can have your grains for bread and cereal. Those of you who have an argument to shoot people should be locked up, how dare you threaten poeples lives and lively hood through your own sickness. I will continue with balanced conservation and yes that involves culling rabbits foxes ducks and dear. Knowing I am doing the correct thing by balancing conservation. Your report is biased,dangeous and shows little education for conservation.

John C says:

03:00pm | 18/02/11

So Mark W, is this what you are saying? Your average duck hunter goes out on the hunt with the admirable motivation of keeping the numbers in check so that I can enjoy my Rice Bubbles.

Pull the other one.

And do you really think that I, or other contributors, are seriously suggesting that people kill duck shooters?

And in what way am I threatening peoples’ livelihoods?

And, if you are going to shoot deer, please do them the courtesy of spelling their name correctly.

john says:

04:40pm | 18/02/11

@Mark W - you mean this is how we cull to keep the numbers down?

Its Duck season…shoot the duck..shoot the duck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQjcJgHvkRg&feature=related

Russell says:

08:06pm | 18/02/11

What you have described, John C, is the functioning of natural ecosystems. It won’t end with one hunter left; It will take hundreds of millions of years, but wonderful, biodiverse, multifaceted ecosystems will emerge out of exactly the same energy chaining and natural selection process that you describe. In fact, it already has. Abandon it at your peril.It created you and all life on this planet.

BT says:

02:40pm | 19/02/11

“The good man is the friend of all living things.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Russell says:

09:11pm | 19/02/11

BT, What did Ghandi eat then? Rocks?

We, like all animals, all sustain ourselves by eating other living things. As far as I know, even the Buddha could not photosynthesize.

Jaxon Jay says:

06:57am | 20/02/11

Man has been hunting for thousands of years. Not to hunt is abnormal. We all do it whether it’s a trip to the butcher or peking duck at the restaurant.
What is the difference between catching a fish, killing a cane toed or swatting a fly and shooting a duck? Nothing, except some find ducks cute.
Don’t do it if you don’t like it, and leave others to do what they like.

Uncles says:

04:59pm | 20/02/11

@Jaxon Jay,
“What is the difference between catching a fish, killing a cane toed or swatting a fly and shooting a duck?”
Answer: Cane toads are introduced pests, ducks are not.

Uncles says:

07:35pm | 20/02/11

@Russell
Ghandi was a vegetarian so I guess the rocks are in your head and not on his plate…

Banno says:

09:53am | 21/02/11

I assume the Punch will be balancing the article from the Animal Libber with a comment from an environmental scientist or duck hunter? Journalism is meant to be balanced isn’t it? Or doesn’t that matter when it’s on the web?

Ps. Strange isn’t it how Animal Libbers suggest hunters shoot each other when talking about saving a cat, fox, duck etc. Human life not that important?

Daffey says:

12:20pm | 22/02/11

It saddens me deeply to consistatily hear the same propaganda that anti duck hunters come up with…its cruel, shooters are sick, there is no need for it.  the fact of the matter is that 90% of shooters will put more time and more money into sustaining wetlands and habitats that ducks breed in - its a sport and past time so why would we want to destory something that we all cherish?? 
The fact is all the harm occurs when protestors and other misinformed people try and interfere with the hunting.. there was a recent survey were 3 independant vets accompanied wildlife rangers on a shot - all came back with the same answer - the problem occured when protests would rush and collect a duck (wounded) try to save it - thus prolonging its pain where as a hunter would quickly kill it..
We all in some way shape or form support the industy of animals, leather shoes, belt, clothing..heck you can even argue that we are killing plants - they are living forms aren’t they also?

martin says:

04:59pm | 22/02/11

“You poor misguided, misinformed fools, I don’t suppose any of you own a pair of leather shoes, a belt perhaps, handbag, what about going out to the restaurants eating fish, meat, chicken, all those things were once living animals! live in a house do we? Well the timber in it had to come from bush that animals made their homes out of, They were happily living in it until it was havested so you could build your homes out of it, bricks, have got to come from the bush too (the clay comes from somewhere) what about the food you eat everyday? any problems eating that, that bush had to be cleared so the farmer you despise so much, (you have to as he is responsible for killing and displacing so many native and feral and wild animals so he can grow the grain, cereal, cotton, vegetables etc you all love and cherrish so much.

What about the vegetables you all eat, they were happily growing in the sun and rain until you lot got hungry and decided you wanted to eat them, then pulling them out by their poor little roots whilst still alive, just because they show no signs of discomfort doesn’t me it doesn’t exist for them, what about all that rotting food you throw out each week, it was living before you decided you’d like to eat it thus requiring it to be killed for your own selfish needs! Hypocrits the lot of you.

You are all responsible for the killing of living creatures, whether farmed or from wild sources, some how you justify it as ok, it was farmed - what crap, the bloody cows get an electric fired bolt through their heads, pigs get their throats cut, chickens electricuted, oh thats ok I eat those I don’t mind at all, but if someone shoots a duck - what evil bastards they are, they just killed an animal.

Have a good look at what you are responisble for the death of, on a weekly basis before casting aspersions on others who do what you do but by different means, ie they get off their ass and decide to help the farmers and environment. Maybe we should go back to the old days where poison was used to reduce the number of feral and wild and introduced species then we can all see what real pain and suffering is really all about , days and weeks of poison slowly eating the insides out and killing eventually or a quick shot to the head or body and it is all over. work out which is really a violent and painful slow death. I don’t hunt ducks but I just can’t stand HYPOCRITES who are also complicite in the death of living things and then whinge when someone kills something in a different way to what you do! If you are so anti killing the only way not to be a Hypocrite is to live naked, in a cave and only eat things that have already died!! that way you aren’t responsible for the death of anything at all! Put your money where you mouth is so to speak.”

Uncles says:

07:37pm | 23/02/11

@  Daffey,
“the fact of the matter is that 90% of shooters will put more time and more money into sustaining wetlands and habitats that ducks breed in - its a sport and past time so why would we want to destory something that we all cherish??”
Where is the source for your outlandish claim that “90% of shooters” investing so much money and time into the wetlands? 
As for you citing from the anecdotal evidence of 3 pro-shooting vets from back in the 1980’s is as pathetic as using the hack ex-Weekly Times journalist Ross Williams as a research tool and also makes you look like a tool too.
Also, did you consider that shooting and cherish are an oxymoron and and you are a ‘foxy moron”?  Probably not.

Andrew says:

08:13am | 18/02/11

and buying protein from a supermarket is somehow different??  get over it!!  CSIRO and EPAs in all states agree that most ducks hatched each year, particularly in so-called “good or “wet” seasons, die of starvation before the end of the season, if they haven’t already been eaten by birds of prey, feral cats, foxes or pigs.  The single biggest predator of native birds is the feral cat, the second biggest is the introduced European fox, and the single biggest predator of turtle nests is feral pigs.  The number of birds taken by hunters is far far less than the number that starve to death every year!

Aitch B says:

09:04am | 18/02/11

@Andrew

Did you mean to respond to my tongue in cheek comment? I don’t see much relevance to it in yours.

Perhaps I should have added one of these:

PaulB says:

10:35am | 18/02/11

Most Australians wouldn’t know what you mean Aitch unless they saw it on Sunrise.

Dr Allam says:

10:44am | 18/02/11

To summurise Andrew “Other animals kill ducks, therefore it is right to hunt them”.

Completely screwed up personal justification. If you want to hunt then be honest and don’t try to hide behind weak excuses.

Observant says:

07:08pm | 18/02/11

So Dr Allam, for what good reason should humans be excluded from the so-called ‘food chain’? Oh another real googly is how pray tell would humans have progressed out of the caves beyond the neolithic revolution without resorting to hunting for skins, food, tools and later on farming.

Life eats life eats life eats life eats life eats life… to ad infinitum; surely as a doctor you know this?

Completely screwed up justification. If you want to control people, restrict liberty and property rights then be honest and don’t try to hide behind weak excuses.

Uncles says:

07:33pm | 20/02/11

@Observant
“So Dr Allam, for what good reason should humans be excluded from the so-called ‘food chain’? ” 
Umm, overpopulation and maybe if humans had predators instead of just being them?
Btw, you might not have ‘observed’ this but, the debate is about “Recreational Duck Shooting” ie. Killing for ‘sport and pleasure’ as the term implies, not the food chain and your place in it…

Matt says:

08:23am | 18/02/11

FFS you troll.

Can you please find another forum to spout your ill-informed bile?

James1 says:

08:47am | 18/02/11

This is perhaps the most clumsy attempt to hijack a thread I have ever seen.  And I read Zac’s posts regularly.

Anyway, I had better get back to drowning kittens and people with weak genes, and other highly immoral activity, given that I have no sense of right and wrong.

MC says:

09:26am | 18/02/11

Maybe because there is already at least 1 peice on boat people a day on here?

Bobster says:

10:36am | 18/02/11

Don’t feed the troll.

Jakob says:

01:13pm | 18/02/11

If it wasnt for hunters Hunting Foxes Pigs and Cats to protect the native Fauna what would the Native fauna Do?
We dont go out and Shoot hundreds of ducks each there is a bag limit for a reason,to control how many ducks are taken.
We dont go and shoot just for the fun of it it is a sport and we take the meat for the table.
Mmm Bring on duck season 2011

Uncles says:

07:26pm | 20/02/11

Why don’t you use your literary prowess to write about Julia (same shit- different bucket) Gillard instead of just whinging from the couch?
You sound like one of those whiners who declare that charity should begin at home and makes no attempt to actually start…

Uncles says:

07:04pm | 18/02/11

“Ornage sauce”... or a spiteful halfwit with no justifications, just a compulsion..
Thank you for illustrating the mentality that self serving state governments pander to.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

07:30am | 19/02/11

@uncles, simple spelling mistake as I type to fast and post then cant be bothered with spellcheck the mere fact that some f….... would see that as some sign testifies to the fact that im not the only halfwit.

Uncles says:

11:13am | 19/02/11

Your compulsion is that strong is it?
Pathology or person?
Compulsion or conviction?
How is the star ‘aise’ and your disregard for ducks and others reading your rambling postings?  And, thank you for acknowledging that you are a halfwit. “im not the only halfwit.”
Btw, that’s Uncles with a capital U and also there’s two, too and to and you obviously add up to five….

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

06:56am | 20/02/11

@uncles, change your name to auntie you seriously need to stop posting after drinking a few shandies (oops did I spell that correctly my deepest apologies if I didnt) the discussion is about ducks and hunting not spelling and grammer. Go back and sit in your rocking chair and focus on the original discussion auntie and see if you can come up with something relevant and witty.

Uncles says:

02:34pm | 20/02/11

That’s “grammar” to you, matey….
Grammer, really… *sigh
And if you are so keen on keeping on topic, how about talking about recreational duck shooting, (ie. ducks shot for pleasure), rather than posting your culinary based insults and even poorer attempts at humour. and wit.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

05:11pm | 20/02/11

ok auntie just because of you I decided to have duck for dinner tonight, In your honour.
Go and enjoy your lentil burger with mung beans, Richard Head.

Uncles says:

07:54pm | 20/02/11

Right on Little Ronnie,
Yeah, that’s really staying on topic..
Run out of arguments and reverting back to school yard behaviour?
You ate duck because I was mean to you or because I was winning the argument? 
Quick, go tell mummy how the rational person was mean to you…
Sooky and a sod, most bullies are.
Pick on some one your own size as you’re punching above your weight and firing blanks here.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

06:48am | 21/02/11

last reply to your incoherent ramblings auntie ive had a good chuckle at all your comments, there is only one bully boy here my friend and that can be seen as the tone changes and your ramblings become less and less coherent. Ducks are food, hunters shoot ducks then eat them, no hunter ever wants is animals suffer. Get over it you vegan dick….
Little Ronnie…. hahahahahahaha thats a keeper, not, how long did it take you to think that up Billy Connolly.

Uncles says:

07:34am | 21/02/11

You have no idea of my diet and no idea about much else.
BTW, when accusing others of posting incoherent ramblings, it is always wise to make your ramblings coherent by adhering to basic grammar, capitalization and punctuation so as to not give the impression of being unable to communicate nor comprehend….
And as for your name Little Ronnie, it didn’t take long at all and just popped into my head when talking to a little man…..  Why should a nickname like that take any time at all when it is so simple, much like yourself.

Fatih says:

12:20pm | 18/02/11

Not familiar with the definition of sport?  Hardly surprising considering the idiocy of most anti-hunters.

jf says:

01:57pm | 18/02/11

I reckon that for something to be classified as a sport, all participants have to be happy participate.

Russell says:

07:39pm | 18/02/11

That’s right. It’s not sport. Sports are games. This is reality. Humans sourcing animal food as the have done for millions of years. Not outsourcing it to others or pretending to be herbivores.

Agnes says:

12:24pm | 19/02/11

I think the word ‘game’ originated from the sport of shooting game.  I think ‘sport’ meant a fun thing to do as in The Cat & the Fiddle nursey rhyme in which the little dog laughed to see such sport as cows jumping over the moon, and a dish running away with a spoon.  In those days, after the need for hunting to survive had faded, it became fun to kill game to supplement the food that could be obtained more easily.  It was no longer a matter of life or death of the human but a test of his skill and cunning. Over time, sport and game have come to apply to activities usually involving only other humans, but there are still sports involving horses and camels.  Both of these are under criticism from soft-hearted and soft-in-the-head critics who cry foul at what they consider to be animal cruelty. And they see nothing wrong with euthanasia for animals in severe pain but often object to the same mercy for humans with terminal and painful conditions. It seems to me that this sort of animal lover is really a hater of humans, hiding behind a screen of superiority and stupidity which is a perfect description of Geoff Russell.

Uncles says:

06:34pm | 23/02/11

@Faith,
Because duck shooting is the battle pitched between to evenly matched and consenting contestants who play by the rules?
Silly me and stupid and sociopathic you.

Fatih says:

08:50am | 26/02/11

@Uncles

con·test·ant
A PERSON who takes part in a contest or competition.

Humans and ducks are not the same thing, despite what you stupid, silly kooks may believe.

Uncles says:

02:28pm | 10/03/11

@Faith,
It is not ‘sporting for only one side to be armed.
Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they’re in the game and here’s a quote from Governor Jesse Ventura for you to think about,  “You need to hunt something that can shoot back at you to really classify yourself as a hunter. You need to understand the feeling of what it’s like to go into the field and know your opposition can take you out. Not just go out there and shoot Bambi.”

acotrel says:

07:35am | 18/02/11

I like it when hunters go after lions in the long grass, and get eaten! These duck hunters are chicken shit!

Andrew says:

10:09am | 18/02/11

What you guys are picturing in your heads is not how it really is. Anti shooting groups like to make out that we are evil people sitting in the swamps rubbing our hands together and laughing monty burns style.
We shoot ducks and eat them, we are not shooting everything that moves and leaving dead animals of all kinds around the wetlands.
Come out and see for yourselves how it all happens, i am sure you will find that it is not the evil, mass slaughter that it is made out to be.

WBY375 says:

12:58pm | 18/02/11

Cause if I could fly I would catch them by hand.

What a stupid thing to say “if they could shoot back FFS they are animals.

Kika says:

01:18pm | 18/02/11

Hey Andrew you can always go to a Chinese restaurant and get a duck there. You don’t have to go out and kill a wild one just for ‘fun’. The farmed ones are destined to be killed anyway, but you’d rather go get your own?

Dan says:

04:19pm | 18/02/11

So, kika, you aren’t objecting to the duck’s death, nor to eating it? What then is the moral or ethical difference between you and the person who is prepared to do all the work of killing, preparing and cooking it themself, rather than paying someone else to do it?

Uncles says:

06:58pm | 18/02/11

I’ve been on the wetlands with duck shooters more than once and the ones who behaved with respect and civility were far and few between.  Mostly, I have met vile pathologies with antisocial personality disorders hiding behind cammos and grease paint.  No wonder they call their little shooter sheds hides…

Uncles says:

07:10pm | 18/02/11

@Andrew,
Shooters have often declared on Facebook pages and forums that they would not go out shooting if there were ducklings on the wetlands.
Given that Pacific Black Ducks and other species are breeding opportunistically due to flooding and peak river levels, this season is unlike any for a long time as there will be clutches of ducklings and other native waterbird chicks left to die, across the entire state of Victoria.
Are you staying home this season or are you a monster?

Tinyted says:

08:45pm | 18/02/11

Barney, I bet you would be the first gutless moron to get into the fetal position if we were invaded by ducks with guns, & want our help. You sound like a criminal that bags the coppers then want there help because the neighbour stole your sons bike, grow up dude. I love eating duck, more taste in duck then a long thick carrot stick like you would rather have in your guts..

OddCreature says:

03:15pm | 19/02/11

Dan I like duck. No correct that, I love duck. Peking duck in those little pancakes with hoisin - ooh, yummy!

But yes, like Kika, I object to duck hunting. Because a free-range farmed duck lives a happy little life that is ended in a manner that is as quick, pain-free and humane as possible. A hunted duck is shot with pellets, leaving them in pain until the hunter finds them and rings their neck.

It’s not the consumption of duck that is objectionable, nor is it the killing of the duck, nor the fact you’ve done it yourself instead of paying someone else. It’s the fact the duck had to suffer a painful death, while the farmed duck didn’t. Not only that but it died in pain so the hunter could have “fun”. I believe that is called sadism - taking pleasure in causing pain to others.

Dan says:

10:43pm | 19/02/11

Oddcreature

You are kidding yourself. Your restaurant duck was almost certainly raised in an enclosed shed with thousands of others, with no access to surface water to dabble in, and at the age of about 6-9 weeks it was packed into a crate with its mates and trucked off to a processing plant, there to be suspended upside down by the feet and stuffed headfirst into an open-ended funnel so that despite its fear its throat can be cut without it being able to put up much of a fight. That is the reality, not some bucolic fantasy.

Contrast that with a duck like those in my freezer. Unlike the farmed duck it lived free, never experienced cages or the killing funnel, and grew to adulthood.  It died instantly, hit in midair and falling dead to the ground – unlike the farmed duck and in contrast to any other death it might have suffered, such as being torn apart alive by a predator, or starving.

As for your assertions about sadism I know no hunter who takes pleasure in inflicting pain. Quite the contrary. This is just more propaganda, repeatedly debunked in anthropological and psychiatric literature. Hunters work hard to make the kill clean, and it is a matter of pride to do so.

Zoe says:

11:37pm | 20/02/11

@Dan, you are kidding right? every duck you shoot is killed instantly? Give me a break. We’ve all seen the footage of ducks flapping around dying a slow death. I suppose anti huntinting groups just planted them there along with all the empty beer bottles etc. At least be honest. Youre not fooling anyone. I suppose you own a cat which never leaves the yard and doesnt like to kill wildlife too? Guess what? My v8 is not environmentally friendly! Sometimes I yell at my kids! My dog sometimes jumps the fence and craps on the footpath! There, its not that hard, we arent all perfect,  just tell the truth. I dont know why you all dont just go paintballing and shoot the crap out of each other. The bruises arent that bad. If you’re tough enough to take on a killer duck im sure you’ll handle it. Who knows you might even evolve.

Hypocrite Detector says:

08:23am | 22/02/11

Why dont you get a duck suit and a gun and find out!! give me a call and I’ll play the part of the hunter if you like?

Dan says:

02:51pm | 25/02/11

@Zoe

Actually it has been quite a while since I had one which wasn’t dead before it hit the ground, and the dog is there to retrieve quickly so that on such very rare occasions the duck can be despatched within a few seconds. Even then the death is quicker than a farmed duck on the killing floor of a processing facility, and much faster than being eaten by a predator, poisoned or starving.

You may prefer to base your opinions on propaganda films, but how many wounded ducks were actually found and presented to “rescue” tents by the army of activists on opening morning last year?  None!

Pilbarajim says:

09:47am | 18/02/11

Emel, what a load of tripe, Licenced firearms owners are the most scrutinized sportsmen in Australia. Nature is cruel old mate, what we deliver is a quick death , not a lingering one such as death by starvation. I have not met a hunter yet who is cruel for the sake of being cruel, unlike the so called animal lovers we see on the News, RSPCA shows etc.

In fact i know of one hunter who borrowed a truck and flat deck trailer , donated his time, his hay and organised others to donate hay in his area (NSW) so that he could deliver the hay in his own time to the victims of the floods so that they could feed their starving horses….Doesn’t sound like someone who is cruel to animals to me.

emel says:

11:24am | 18/02/11

Pilbarjim, thanks for the irrelevant, acecdotal evidence re: the so-called ‘humanitarian’ hunters of which you personally know about.
Your friend’s efforts to aid starving horses is commendable but hardly a reference for a person who spends the rest of his time killing animals for what you laughably refer to as ‘sport’

Observant says:

07:19pm | 18/02/11

emel, anecdotal evidence is the bread and butter of the environmentalist cause. Don’t cut off your own legs.

If you had a keen eye you’d of noticed that the bulk of this article is probably derived from anecdotal evidence (of which one may presume the author probably has no personal experience with), certainly not data. That’s the thing about emotion: it’s a dead giveaway that facts are being ignored.

But I suppose you’ve never seen a myxo’d rabbit before have you? Trust me, even you would find the sympathy to put a barrel to its head.

Uncles says:

10:03pm | 18/02/11

@Pilbarajim
Humane and quick deaths,my arse!, Especially when according to the DSE and shooting groups own conservative figures from Tom Roster, “At least one in every four birds shot, flies away wounded.” , your argument rapidly falls apart and leaves the rest of us wondering where you got your God complex from….. 
FYI, Tom Roster is the US ballistics expert and duck shooter cited in the DSE;s own Shotgunning Education Handbook 2011.

Dan says:

03:23pm | 20/02/11

@Uncles

Actually the figures you quote are outdated and based on US data. If you read the Shotgunning Education Handbook you refer to you’d find that Roster found that in Australia well under 10% of ducks are wounded but not retrieved, across the board, and of those a substantial proportion are down and dead but not found, due to such things as falling into heavy cover or the shooter not having the assistance of a dog. Even anti-duck activists on opening morning don’t seem to be able to find any wounded ducks.

Roster also points out that all of the factors associated with birds being wounded and lost “can be easily addressed” by such things as selecting the right choke and cartridge, not taking shots beyond the effective range of the gun and practicing sound retrieval strategies (including the use of a trained dog). In this he is right in my experience.

Uncles says:

07:43pm | 20/02/11

@Dan,
What Roster actually said a little background info for you..

Roster’s research documented, wounding rates with either lead or steel were higher than hunters were reporting and waterfowl managers were believing.
Decades of research conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through hunter surveys, showed waterfowlers reported a wounding rate of of 15-20 percent on ducks and 11-16 percent on geese.
The hunter-reported duck wounding rate for 1960-1998 averaged 18 percent with the goose wounding for the same period averaging 13 percent.
Roster’s trained researchers accompanied tens of thousands of waterfowlers across North America into the field on actual goose and duck hunts over several years.
The observers used rangefinders to record the distances at which each shot was taken, noting the angle of the shot, the ammunition and gun used, the choke of the gun, whether the bird was struck or missed and, if struck, was it retrieved.
Results of the research were sobering, Roster said.
The observed wounding loss for ducks was about 30 percent, or almost twice that reported by hunters.
For geese, the observed wounding rate was 36 percent.
“That’s almost three times the reported wounding rate,” Roster said.
Being conservative and splitting the difference between hunter-reported wounding loss rates and those documented by researchers still yields a wounding loss rate of 25 percent, Roster said. That translates into about 4 million waterfowl annually impacted by wounding loss.

“The problem is the horrible image it portrays of hunters,” he said. “It is hard to make a case that (waterfowling) is a nice, honorable activity when wounding rates are that high.”

darryn says:

07:53pm | 21/02/11

Aborigines kill endangered species as dugong and other wildlife other Australian are not allowed too, you lot say nothing, not a word, aborigines also hunt as they always have and even use guns, but no not a word, it is ok because they have always done that it is their way of life, oh hang on hunting is also our way of life. So why are we being picked on, anyone who says only 3 states shoot ducks still is a liar, more ducks are shot in N.S.W without a season, its only the season that’s been removed, it is called permits to cull. So wake up and get the facts right. And as far as I am concerned I am 5th generation so I class myself as indigenous.

Uncles says:

09:21pm | 21/02/11

@Darryn,
Indigenous hunting of dugongs hasn’t been mentioned much because it is not the topic of debate.
Here, we are discussing Recreational Duck Shooting. 
Didn’t they explain that to you on the shooter bulletin board that directed you here?
Btw, nice depiction of your persecution complex…..

emel says:

07:45am | 18/02/11

Kirsty, you need to proof-read before you hit send.
If research about duck-hunting has slipped by you, perhaps its because you aren’t very open to absorbing new information.
If you feel that pig chasing, fox, roo and rabbit/ shooting are all legitimate past-times then sure, what’s the difference?
How about the mindless cruelty? How about the environmental degradation? How about the sociopathic behaviour of adults dressed up in fatigues and blasting the skies with projectiles?
This is not about animal liberation, it is about simple human decency.

Engo says:

07:53am | 18/02/11

emel - I’d like to know what exactly is the environmental degradation associated with hunting feral animals such as rabbits and pigs? These pests are introduced, so surely reducing their numbers is only a good thing for the environment?

persephone says:

08:24am | 18/02/11

emel

pigs, foxes and rabbits all cause major damage to the environment - as can kangaroos, as European farming methods have created ideal conditions for them.

The main breeds of ducks shot by hunters are introduced species as well, which compete with native ducks for resources.

Shooting - properly done, and certainly in Victoria it is strictly supervised, with hunters having to demonstrate their ability to distinguish between protected and unprotected species, for example - is a relatively humane way of controlling the numbers.

The alternatives are far less so. After shooting, poisoning is the most common method of pest control.

It’s much harder to target poison so that it only gets the animals you want. It is not a quick or pleasant death, either.

Hunting is a natural instinct in humans. There’s no evidence to suggest that hunters are sociopaths or are more prone to certain crimes or aggression than anyone else.

Properly controlled and regulated, duck shooting is a reasonable way of controlling duck numbers.

(Not something I’m into, btw!)

Aus Farmer says:

09:08am | 18/02/11

emel,

I don’t normally comment on these sorts of articles, but you my friend, need a reality check.

If you think that reducing feral animal numbers is causing environmental degradation, I’d suggest you consider what your lifestyle is doing also.  That crappy little unit you live in probably causes more damage to the environment than the feral animals do if they are left to survive.

How about instead of purchasing “carbon offset” with your next flight, or “organic chicken breast” for your next meal, you come out to my place and shoot a fox or two - then perhaps my lambs will have a bit more of a chance this year?  Or come and trap some feral pigs (and take them to whatever hippy island you want if you really want them to live), then maybe I’ll get a higher yield from my crops this year also?  And that way, you’ll get cheaper prices on your lamb chops and bread.

You need to do some research on why feral animals are such a problem, and maybe then you’ll change your views on “environmental degradation”.

Aitch B says:

09:50am | 18/02/11

@Persephone

All very valid and well put, Pers.

Geoff Russell says:

10:09am | 18/02/11

Persephone ... you claim “The main breeds of ducks shot by hunters are introduced species as well, which compete with native ducks for resources.”

Who told you that?  Did you just make it up? Its just rubbish. We do have a few introduced ducks in city ponds, but you won’t find them out in rural wetlands and you won’t find them on the lists of ducks approved for shooting when a season is announced. Here is the list from the
DENR Website:
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Plants_and_Animals/Abundant_species/2011_duck_and_quail_open_season/Duck_hunting

“Open season applies across the state for the following:

  * grey teal (Anas gibberifrons)
  * chestnut teal (Anas castanea)
  * hardhead (Aythya australis)
  * wood duck (maned duck) (Chenonetta jubata)
  * pink-eared duck (Malacorhynchus membranaceus)
  * mountain duck (Australasian shelduck) (Tadorna tadornoides)
  * Pacific black duck (Anas superciliosa).”

They are all native ducks. 

So persephone ... why did you say this? 

Kirsty: You ask “what research suggests the use of shotguns as opposed to rifles in hunting.  Another animal liberation piece based on all flap and no figures.”  apart from picking up wounded ducks and watching lots of shooters with shotguns. They use shotguns because its the
law and because it would be dangerous to use a rifle ... and because
its far more “fun” trying to hit a flying duck with a shotgun than using
a rifle to hit a sitting duck on the water (which is easy, but dangerous to
any other person behind the duck).

and if you want figures and references Kirsty, then visit our blog;

http://animalliberation.org.au/other-animals/18-wild-animals/22-duck-shooting.html

Robert says:

11:06am | 18/02/11

Sorry persephone: the main duck species hunted in Australia are natives.  Australian waterfowl populations tend to be highly nomadic, opportunistic and prolific ie they move vast differences to where conditions are good, and once they get there they breed like crazy: in my area, many are now sitting on their third cluth of 8-12 eggs in the last few months.  A population with habits like that can sustain a small harvest in addition to the coming attrition from predation, starvation, disease etc.

persephone says:

11:09am | 18/02/11

Geoff

because I’m talking about species such as mallards, which are not listed as they are not protected in anyway.

Mallards are interbreeding with native ducks, and their hybrids are so vigorous that they put many species in danger of extinction.

Sorry, though, you’re right, they’re not the ‘main’ species, but even with the species you name, the numbers which can be taken - if any can be taken at all - are restricted.

European farming techniques have created some great duck habitats, and - like kangaroos - duck numbers (for some species) regularly reach pest proportions.

emel says:

12:19pm | 18/02/11

Aus Farmer,
I am a 20+ year vegetarian who resides comfortably in a californian bungalow. Please consider the following points.
As a vegetarian, I do not contribute to the immense need for unneccassary agriculture needed to feed meat animals. (including the toxic additions of both pesticide and fertiliser to the soil) Nor do I contribute to the carbon footprint of transporting said feed or meat products around the globe. (not to mention the plastic etc used in the storage and marketing of such products)
I am not anti-farming either.
I grow 50% of my own fruit and vegetables and harvest as much rainwater as I can.
In any case my argument is not about the damage that feral animals do, it is about the idea of hunting ducks for enjoyment. I do not avoid meat purely for ethical reasons,
Pigeon-holing people is fun I know, but you have me wrong.
I don’t like animals. They bore me rigid.
They shouldn’t be massacred in the name of recreation though. Surely.

persephone says:

12:40pm | 18/02/11

emel

as a vegetarian, you rely on food crops which must be protected against animals eating them.

I don’t do anything to deter birds from eating my fruit crop. As a result, I don’t get any cherries, few peaches and nowhere near the amount of apples I should be getting.

If I wanted to live off my produce, or sell it on a commercial basis, I would have to take measures to protect my fruit, by shooting or trapping - just as most commercial growers do.

Commercial wheat growers have to control bird numbers. Commercial rice farmers employ professional shooters to shoot ducks.

And very few vegetable or fruit crops are grown without fertilisers, many of which are sourced from killing animals (blood and bone, for example).

You admit that 50% of your food comes from elsewhere, which means it’s transported in the same way meat is. Given the lower food value per kilo for fruits and vegies, there’s probably not much difference there.

emel says:

01:28pm | 18/02/11

Persophone,
Controlling animals and pests to protect crops is not what this debate is about.
It is about those people who CHOOSE to shoot birds for enjoyment, not those who protect livelihoods and food sources that we all rely on.
As for your final comment, I source all of my food as locally as I can. Not because of some notion about my carbon footprint but because I wish to keep people around me employed.
Stop trying to find my weakness and just accept that if everybody thought the way i do, there would be no need to worry about global warming and we could all still drive fabulously large and exciting cars.

RobJ says:

02:40pm | 18/02/11

“as a vegetarian, you rely on food crops which must be protected against animals eating them.”

What crops do ducks attack?

Dan says:

04:25pm | 18/02/11

RobJ asks what crops do ducks attack? Rice, quite notably (and large numbers are shot to protect that crop in NSW and other states), as well as other grain crops.

persephone says:

04:46pm | 18/02/11

RobJ

rice, for starters.

Pete says:

06:50pm | 18/02/11

Kirsty, thanks for one of the few sensible posts on this topic. I’d like to see some facts and figures on the issue too before making up my mind, although so far I suspect duck hunting is unnecessarily cruel and of no real environmental benefit.

The actual article and for eg. Emel’s response here is typical of the fact-free hysteria you get in the Punch (and elsewhere on the interwebs). Overly emotional, no discernable argument, just a personal tirade. He/she may have had a point (hunters are sociopaths: interesting is it true or has it been studied?), but the post adds nothing to the debate. It’s a shame you have to wade through all this guff to glean real information (just check any refugee article!).

RobJ says:

11:59am | 19/02/11

RICE!

Ouch! Dan… Ouch persephone.

OK, I’d never heard of ducks destroying crops. From my perspective I’m not into it, I don’t think it’s much of a sport, shooting at flocks of ducks with shotguns. Go on, tell me it’s hard to drop a duck and I’ll say you’re a useless shot.

But, I’m not particularly outraged, I would be if the species were endangered, I reckon there are bigger animal welfare concerns, like the battery farming of anything.. When that’s sorted I guess I’ll be more concerned about ducks.

Drunk Guy says:

04:24pm | 19/02/11

EMEL, you just can’t opt out of a society that uses modern farming methods to feed the populous which include eradication of pest species in part of that production. During the mice plague I killed hundreds of them just driving down the road as swarms of them crossed my path, I eat bread, therefore as a consequence i am part of the problem of grain storage and growing that was causitive of the plague in the first place which ended with millions of them killed and equally starving to death. Chosing to starve your body of one sourse of a type of Amino acid that is a requirement for good health is your choice, but claiming a moral victory out of your own denial of you body’s nutricinal needs ( no matter how long one can subsist with out that type of protein) is just sad. When I was on the farm I actually closed the gates and signed “no Hunting” but not to save the pesty ducks but because i was sick of picking up rubbish for a fortnight after they’d been. I’m wondering what peoples attitude to fishing is? scarey that we’ve become so soft that we think food come from woolies rather than for killing and harvesting, wierd.

RobJ says:

11:27am | 20/02/11

“EMEL, you just can’t opt out of a society that uses modern farming methods to feed the populous which include eradication of pest species in part of that production.”

Hunters claim to be conservationists, I beleive them because they’d have nothing to hunt if they killed all the prey but you’re here advocating the erradication of ducks which is absurd! I’m glad you’re no longer on the farm.

The potential to be a pest does not make an animal a pest species. Ducks are not cane toads, they aren’t foxes.

Dan says:

03:15pm | 07/06/11

We import most of our rice - its too dry here to grow it most years. Perse you’re way off the mark as usual.

Bilby says:

07:44am | 18/02/11

So obvious! I’m going to get a big one. Those mynahs won’t know what hit em.

Dave says:

09:37pm | 18/02/11

Engo: No, but simply walking camly behind the ducklings while clapping your hands is more effective for you and less startling to them.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

07:32am | 18/02/11

and then do the roast potatoes in the fat from the cooked duck…nom nom nom

Me says:

12:44am | 19/02/11

The duck will get you back by clogging your arteries…

Dan says:

01:07pm | 19/02/11

Clogging the arteries?  No.

Wild ducks, like other wild game, are very lean. Another point in favour of eating them in preference to the domestic variety, which are quite fatty.

Uncles says:

04:03pm | 20/02/11

Better also remind you that many species are breeding out of season, (eg. Pacific Blacks), due to flooding and peak river levels.  So, clutches of ducklings will be left without parents and to die from predation and starvation as a result of your efforts.  Does that add to the flavour?

Geoff Russell says:

08:10am | 18/02/11

Steve, your claim about NSW is false, not even close to being correct. Since 2003 shooters have shot “only” 84,000 ducks as “pest” control:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20090514
The 1988 Animal Welfare Advisory Committee report puts the number
of ducks killed during open season as about 250,000 EVERY YEAR
and these were always IN ADDITION to ducks being shot as pests.

Either you are deliberately telling lies or just repeating what someone else said without checking. As I implied in the article, you have to check everything a duck shooter tells you ... they lie.  This particular lie about the number of ducks shot in NSW has a long history. I got data from NSW back in 2005 because the lie was circulating at the time. You will find that data on my blog:
http://animalliberation.org.au/blog/85-duck-shooting-2011.html

The lie was repeated in a letter by Matthew Godson read out in the
SA Parliament in late 2009 by “The Hon” Terry Stephens. It was repeated by various politicians who didn’t bother to check during the state election back in March.

iansand says:

08:25am | 18/02/11

Brilliant.  Stop duck hunting by eliminating duck habitat so the little buggers die off.  It’s obvious once it’s explained.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

08:48am | 18/02/11

Steve the voice of reason, unfortunately you will never be able to pacify the fanatical vegan types who want every animal to live a full and spectacular life. I am an animal lover but I also eat meat and understand that with that comes the death of said animal. Some idiots just dont understand that.

Geoff Russell says:

09:10am | 18/02/11

Iansand: Duck habitat loss is indeed the biggest problem facing ducks and it is the thing that has driven most extinctions in Australia. That habitat loss isn’t down to duck shooters, but is the result of land clearing for sheep and cattle. About 70 percent of all land clearing in Australia is down to sheep and cattle. We crop about 24 million hectares, live on about 2 million, have plantation timber on about 2 million,
mine bugger all, and the rest of the clearing is down to sheep and cattle.

persephone says:

10:06am | 18/02/11

Geoff

you’re ignoring Steve’s point - that many wetlands today are protected BECAUSE of the actions of duck hunters in the past.

So if grazing is the biggest cause of loss of habitat, and loss of habitat is the biggest driver of duck extinction, why are you getting your knickers in a twist over a few duck hunters?

Surely there are bigger issues to be tackled!

Steve Garlick says:

10:11am | 18/02/11

Geoff, wait for this years figures!!!

And at the end of the day do you want ducks shot as pests and tipped into a pit or managed as a resource and utilised as food?

You and your animal libber mates have written the manual on lying and obsfucation of facts mate!  Hunters have nothing to fear from facts.

Steve Garlick says:

10:26am | 18/02/11

Oh forgot to add Geoff, those 84,000 ducks were shot to protect your precious ‘sustainable’ agriculture.

Again mate, your argument is totally screwed!!  Ha!

r3830 says:

10:53am | 18/02/11

Steve - You’re quite correct. There is no ‘controlled’ duck season in NSW now. What in fact has been created is an all-year-round open season. Protection is gone - thanks to the efforts of the ill-informed! The upside of this is that at least there are no longer fools attempting to place themselves in the firing line for the odd but spectacular publicity shot. The Police are quite pleased about that! Perhaps the most peculiar thing is that the complaints seldom came from the country areas involved in the activity. They came from the metro areas - from people with limited or next to no country exposure whatsoever, and equally, no understanding of the country way of life.
Geoff Russell - you state that Steve may be deliberately telling lies…. interesting! Back in the time when there was a season in NSW - how many of the anti-freedom dictators claimed to have been shot by the hunters? Do you recall any prosecutions for these ‘claimed’ matters? You do remember the ‘rent-a-crowd’ mob of yahoos who attended opening day of the season - surely! Now think carefully on that question Geoff - as I’m well aware as I’m sure many others are, that you’re organisation is blindingly honest in its claims and ‘opinions’.
It would be so much simpler if everyone could change their way of thinking to yours. Freedom of choice really doesn’t amount to much - does it?

And - to the author of the article…. when you work out your reloads, would you please pass on the loading data appropriate for roofing nails ..... preferably in 12gauge please.

Keith says:

10:58am | 18/02/11

Wow Geoff,
Really? Animal LIBERATION? Got a hidden agenda here mate?
Saying that duck shooters lie? Animal liberation groups terrorise, lie, cheat and steal. There is a PROVEN track record on that. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If you are going to give data as scientific evidence, please see that the data used is peer reviewed, unbias and actual evidence not just what you and your criminal mates make up.

Rev says:

11:00am | 18/02/11

This article has ensured I will be eating duck for dinner tonight.
Mmmmmmm.

hermes says:

12:50pm | 18/02/11

OMFG, I never thought I’d ever agree with Persephone for ANYTHING, but good comments!!!  For example, in Southern Africa, the only reason wildlife became protected was because hunting gave it value…before it had value, the landowners used to just shoot anything they felt like, especially animals that predated upon their livestock. I don’t think anyone can criticise hunting unless they are vegetarians. And seriously, has anyone ever watched what happens when predators kill their prey, it’s not exactly kind. I grew up in remote areas, and only ate native animals. Anything shot was killed humanely, and quickly; stressed meat is tougher anyway. I’d far rather, from a moral and ethical perspective, eat something that I had killed and dressed myself, than something, like for example, battery chickens, which live in appalling conditions.

Mario says:

02:11pm | 18/02/11

Pathetic, Jen. What gets your goat is that the shooters enjoy what they do. Or do you also object to culling of introduced species (birds, foxes, rabbits, wild dogs and cats) to protect the native species as cruel, too?  And enjoyment of shooting defenceless ducks is the point of this article. Ducks in agricultural areas can be pests just as feral pigs and goats are and let’s not even start on the cane toad’s destruction of native species.  Or are you opposed to the killing of cane toads, too?  And you, Geoff Russell, if I get a really big thrill out of killing cane toads, would you object to that, too?

Zoe says:

12:01am | 21/02/11

@Mario.. Ducks in agricultural areas can be pests… As mentioned before, most of the ducks shot are natives. The crops they supposedly ruin are rice. Is rice a native crop? Isnt rice one of the reasons the Murray had previously been dying? Irrigating rice upstream and leaving orchards etc downstream without sufficient water. Maybe the ducks are smarter than some people here. If it wasnt for recent flooding the Murray would still be in trouble, so as usual nature seems to be right. Go the mighty ducks!!

Zoe says:

01:28am | 21/02/11

What an emotive ill-informed comment yours is. Do you really think there is just one group of people who are anti everything. Most people have different views from each other. Just because I dont agree with amatures shooting ducks with varying accuracy, leaving their young to starve in nests, it certainly doesnt give you the right to presume you know all of my or anyone elses opinions on everything. It would be like me generalising and saying that if you like shooting the defenceless then you must also like abusing everything that cant fight back. So does everyone who likes to shoot ducks also like to bash their wife and kids, run over the neighbours cat, kick dogs at random, or push people in wheelchairs down stairs? I think not. I grew up in the country with brothers who were duck shooters. Ive lost chickens to foxes and sometimes wish I had a gun to protect the poor things, so im not anti everything. Same as all shooters probably arent red neck bogans.

damo pollock says:

10:10am | 19/02/11

I agree, all the upset people bloody better be vegans & be seen protesting regularly outside supermarkets & butchers because otherwise you can’t be taken seriously. Duck hunting is no different to fishing yet i see no articles crying it down as cruelty. I’m sure the cattle slaughtered daily simply love the bolt through the brain but i reckon at least half the people complaining have eaten beef sometime this week without a second thought. yet another sign of the molly-coddling world we are becoming where everything has to be perfect & we have everything but no-one pays or suffers, what a load of shit.

Rach says:

11:20am | 18/02/11

OMG, are YOU serious? Do you even understand the definition of sentience? Ducks most certainly do have the ability to ‘feel’ - to feel pain and to suffer. Any halfwit scientist/biologist will be able to confirm this for you. And I don’t know about you, but I have enough compassion to extend towards both humans and animals. Are you seriously implying that a person can only champion one cause? Yes, there is a lot human suffering but that doesn’t mean that we have to turn a blind eye towards animal cruelty. Oh, and I know another saying. It goes something like this - “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated” - it’s from a man called Mahatma Gandhi. Ever heard of him? Given your post, I’m thinking probably not…

reggieman says:

01:33pm | 18/02/11

Umm I think I do Rach. Sentient means “self aware”, as in “I am just an innocent duck, why am am I being shot at”? All animals, no matter how close they appear to mimic Hunan behavior are simply acting by instinct. It’s simple biology. Once we begin to ascribe human feelings and emotions to dumb animals that’s when arguments such as this arise.

Zoe says:

12:19am | 21/02/11

Yup and how many murderers etc start off with animal cruelty? There is a very strong proven link. And why do you presume that just because someone cares about animals that they dont care about people? If you are a compassionate person you are more likely to be compassionate to all living creatures including humans. How does your shooting ducks help prevent people from freezing to death cause they cant afford electricity? It doesnt. Same as someone protecting ducks doesnt. So what has that got to do with anything?  apart from trying to make yourself feel better by pointing out something worse than what youre doing. If you care so much about curing preventable diseases etc maybe YOU could spend your spare time doing something about it?

Coxy says:

01:03pm | 21/02/11

@ Reggieman
“It is just like man’s vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.” - Mark Twain

Drunk Guy says:

04:00pm | 19/02/11

Ha ha , haven’t got the stomach for the killing, bet you have the stomach for the eating though.

Uncles says:

10:24am | 26/04/11

Then maybe pretend conservationists like FGA should take down their nesting boxes built especially for Wood Ducks and farmers should consider a class action against them….

Uncles says:

06:59am | 22/02/11

And wild ducks don’t magically appear either.
Another dead beat shooter wheeling out the tired old supermarket tray argument again…
Considering that farmed duck numbers are not threatened and they are killed outright instead of one in every four flying away wounded to die of its injuries, your argument and emotive language leave you looking like the ‘slavering zealot’ and a heartless & dumb bastard to boot considering you obviously didn’t follow the maths within the article.

Uncles says:

07:04am | 22/02/11

”  Why is it that, in so many natural resource management areas, the mainstream allows the policy to be made by slavering zealots?
Yes, the Hunting Advisory Committee should be shot and shut down as they are only self interested members of the gun lobby and not representative of all aspects of natural resource management at all.

Reply

RealWorld says:

09:31am | 18/02/11

I am not sure either.. if we ban all hunting, do we also ban, for example, aboriginal hunting of dugong? Or, are the good people south of Cooktown who still like to hunt dugong (sometimes with shotguns) also ” cruel Neanderthals”. I’d love to see some of the commenters here head north and suggest that.

This is classic Northcote-logic. Save the world through the consumption of highly processed soy-products, pretend that nature is calm and gentle and that death does not exist, then wax lyrical about the fabulous Peking Duck pancakes you scoffed down at Friday night work drinkies alongside your favourite micro-brew.

Uncles says:

07:49pm | 23/02/11

The issue being debated is about the “Recreational Shooting of Native Waterbirds” - i.e. Duck-shooting Season.  Shooting ducks for pleasure and ‘sport’....
You might be confused because shooters try and throw in distractions instead of debating the facts.

Dan says:

08:59am | 18/02/11

Wouldn’t it have been more humane just to break it’s neck rather than trying to ‘heal’ it. It would have been quicker and less painful for the duck and you could have kept your feeling moral superiority. Futher more you could have cooked it up and had a nice dinner.

Lee says:

11:23am | 22/02/11

Dan, after reading your rude, compassionless response to Jill - whose only crime was to try to help severely wounded ducks - it’s clear that she IS morally superior to you.

Marty says:

11:27am | 18/02/11

Well if the swamps were drained to irrigate for more Tofu and Lentils, this “useless slaugther” would stop. Duck hunters of course were instrumental in saving the wetlands in Victoria in the 60’s and 70’s from just such a fate.  Maybe Mary, you should stop duck hunters from putting up breeding boxes and the like to increase duck numbers.  That might help stop duck hunting too….after all…no habitat = no ducks = no “useless slaughter”.

Bloggs says:

01:26pm | 20/02/11

Mary, there is nothing you can do.  Human animals hunt. Life is not easy and sometimes quite nasty and beastly.  You have no choice at all - get used to it!

Chris says:

09:35am | 18/02/11

The smug self-righteousness of the protected classes is the root of much evil. These arrogant people get their meat from the supermarket, paying others to kill it where they cant see; then wish for the deaths of the people that kill for their own table. The Australian middle class PC crowd always were prejudiced swine, whether damning the poor for their licentiousness, or bringing in the White Australia Policy to protect white jobs.

Chris says:

09:56am | 18/02/11

And you saw all this - or were you infected by the anger over one or two that broke the law so outrageously? You say you are a witness but your words are obvious rhetoric not fact. Manhood of shooters? Were you proving your manhood with that drill rig, you Gaia rapist? Or just doing what good people do, making a living in accord with the resources given you, like I think you were.

Jim says:

01:21pm | 18/02/11

What frikkin drugs are you on Chris???

Yes, I saw it, several times in fact. Seeing a swan once dragging itself up the bank with no beak and it’s insides trailing behind it was not a pleasant sight. The company even canned the drilling program the following year as it was too dangerous…what’s it to you?

Why would you go on the attack over a simple observation and ensuing opinion??

Chris says:

05:21pm | 18/02/11

Because your over-the-top post attacked every shooter in that region.  The illegal acts you describe are very much the exception Why do you back up a feral like the author of this post, when you have shown you have the rationality to hold a job in the real world? Anti-shooter writing like this is to show the writer morally superior to others, like most activist nonsense. Those who participate in ‘moral superiority’ by kicking the heads of the innocent hunters are being conned.

RealWorld says:

09:34am | 18/02/11

Clap Clap Dan! I’m with you.

Paul says:

10:01am | 18/02/11

@Dan - this just about perfectly describes me as a kid with my dad in the 70s in NSW and SA.  Having gown up I’m now all urbanised and not a shooter but it was part of growing up (bowl in the middle of table for shot from your dinner).  I was up the front of the boat grabbing the ducks from the water.  I have nothing but fond memories of that period and those experiences.  What it’s like now, who knows, but I doubt my dad (were he here) would be in the least convinced by Geoff’s rant.

emel says:

01:17pm | 18/02/11

Dan,
You, like so many other hunting supporters begin your baseless tirade by having a go at ‘city folk’ with reference to ‘lattes’ and the like. What’s the story? Is it only legitimate when it comes from a rural based pen? Lets not forget that the main reason that rural business exists is because of urban development. Lattes depend on a lot of milk.
As for your psuedo-psycho babble regarding men and sons and nephews and whatever, what a load of shite. Respect at a critical stage eh? Which stage would that be? Is it when the bullet explodes into the ribcage of the defencless creature? Or maybe it is the respect for Smith & Wesson and their fine engineering/manufacturing skills.
Boys with fathers who take them shooting aren’t lucky. They are sad. To children, the mixed messages of ‘be kind to this while butchering that’ only limits their intellectual growth at crucial stages of development as confusion and bewilderment dominate their immediate thinking.
Perhaps you could include God into their nature loving, bird killing outing…..you know the sort of thing,....all Gods plan etc.
Apparantly even heartless bastards like you Dan can still see the wonder of nature.

hermes says:

02:29pm | 18/02/11

Actually emel, the majority of mainstream conservation organisations support hunting, it’s only the extreme fruitcakes that are against hunting. In addition, many of the pioneer environmentalists, people who began the movement to protecting natural areas - it is only in recent history, you know, that humans have valued the environment, it used to be seen only as a resource - came to their insight because they lived in the wild, off the land…aka hunted for their food. Now let’s see, on the other side, what is natural in the urban environment. Urban daddy wakes up in his unit, constructed over what was once a wetland, uses a multitude of goods, manufactured mostly in China and contributing to environmental and social degradation, walks down the street with little kiddie, and has a coffee and muffin at some multinational company, which sources its food from overseas, cash crops which have displaced many local subsistence farmers, who no longer have enough to eat; then go for a drive, burning fossil fuels, to go and see the cute and cuddly animals in the zoo…I rest my case. Which lifestyle is more detrimental to the environment? A simple hunting and camping trip, or the typical urban environment? And which has a deeper, and more lasting effect on the youth? I argue that people who actually know what it is like to kill and eat something for themselves have far greater respect for that animal, and for the wonder of nature, than those who buy their meat from the supermarket. For example, most Indigenous peoples offer prayers and thanks before and after killing something. Everyone kills, even the Jains.

emel says:

05:34pm | 18/02/11

Hermes, where do I start with your bigoted response. Perhaps you could try avoiding the us and them notion of urban and rural dwellers. Then you could consider the lack of imagination and independant thought you expound by referring to coffee as all of you’re pro-duck hunting peers do also.
Is it only city people who drink coffee? It reminds me of the mindless rubbish about working class types recieving the baby-bonus only to spend it on flat screen TVs, that so many earthy types with lovely home/farms went on and on about.
I do not eat meat so your reference to buying it instead of killing it is void.
I do not live my life pretending that everything is OK either. I think about what I buy, where it is coming from and who is selling it. I do not use large supermarket chains I source food from the market here in Adelaide and I grow most of it myself anyway.
I drive a small 4 cylinder car and ride my pushbike if i dont haver to pick up my kids from school.
You seem to rely on the demonisation of people who oppose your point of view even if none of your assumptions is correct.
Cloud the issue if you like by referring to hunting for need instead of for sport but it will not win any new converts to your cause.
I simply do not like the idea of grown men and women displaying this kind of behaviour in front of children.
Just because you and others may have fond memories of doing it with your fathers and what a terrific bonding experience it was, does not make it right.
My Dad took me to the bush every year and we never killed anything.
We bonded believe it or not.

Dan says:

07:00pm | 18/02/11

emel, even though I can’t say I really know where you are coming from, I’m glad you had fun out in the bush with your dad. I don’t agree with you vegitarian lifestyle either but each to their own, good luck with it.
As for the reference to coffee, it’s because yes we drink coffee too and we hear the people around us talking about things they know nothing about in shocked terms, when the very coffee they drink contributes to the problems they are so shocked about. Do you also think it’s ironic that the only greens seat in oz is in the middle of Melbourne?
The respect at a critical age is when a boy is turning into a man and trying to find himself. Respect for his elders, respect for the law, respect for animals etc etc. It’s really very simple and their is nothing sad about that.
Anyway, I’ll do you (and Mr Russel) a deal, I won’t tell you how to live your life if you don’t tell me how to live mine.

persephone says:

09:58pm | 18/02/11

emel says that the bush relies on city dwellers because ‘lattes depend on a lot of milk’ and then questions why another poster refers to city dwellers and coffee??

You’re the one who introduced the stereotype, emel!

emel says:

10:28am | 19/02/11

Dan, Persophone,Realword and the rest,
Your suspicion of the Green movement must surely be countered in part by the fact that the Earth is in deep trouble. Species dissapearing (often due to feral species and human development) and global warming, ocean pollution etc. etc.
Just cast your eyes back to the eighties and see what the Green movement was saying then.
Back then it was ‘fringe loonies’ who alerted the world to the impending problems. Now their objectives arte embraced by both Labor and Liberaly parties.
Your time will come also.

Dan says:

01:21pm | 19/02/11

@emel
Our suspicion of the “Green” movement arises from the fact that the name “Green” has been co-opted by interests which are from the other side of the colour wheel and have little to do with the genuinely “green”. Hunters have been involved in the husbanding of land and resources for far longer than the current “Green” movement, and are responsible for practical steps like habitat preservation and for concepts like reserves and National Parks. Hunters also recognised long before the 1980s the problems associated with population pressure and human development and share an interest in preserving the wild.

The thing about all too many “Greens” is that they aren’t about practical steps but symbols and ideologies – some of which are completely uninformed by reason or science or are even adverse to good environmental husbandry – and some which have nothing at all to do with the environment.

persephone says:

04:22pm | 19/02/11

I have no suspicion of the green movement. I’m willing to bet (well, I would be if I hadn’t been raised a Methodist, and some quirks still remain in my system) that I have achieved more for the environment than most Green members, and probably more than most Green MPs.

I’ve achieved that by being active politically, at all levels of politics and within my community.

Blind acceptance of ‘green’ principles, however, can lead in practice to greater problems - vegetarians demanding soy products, for example, is one of the contributors to forest clearing; biofuels have led to food shortages; solar cells rely on the mining of rare metals, which causes environmental damage, and so on.

Any principle you have, however obviously ethical it may appear to you, should be constantly questioned and examined for flaws.

It’s impossible for us to live on this earth without doing damage; there’s too many of us and a vanishingly small percentage of us live anything like a ‘natural’ life. Of course, we should all do the best we can.

When you think about it, hunting is very natural to humans. It’s practised by those vanishingly small percentage of humans who live a ‘natural’ life. It’s only our ‘civilised’ whitebread upbringing that makes us view it as somehow ‘dirty’.

If we all had to go out and hunt for our food, we’d be living a lot closer to the way nature intended us to. We’d be eating more the way we were intended too, as well.

Getting enjoyment out of hunting does not make it evil. We do lots of things we enjoy, and generally we recognise that that’s a feedback mechanism from nature, to tell us when we’re doing something we should be.

persephone says:

10:10am | 18/02/11

Yes, that’s foxhunting.

Ducks are definitely eatable.

Amy Sturt says:

08:51am | 19/02/11

Not sure I’d really want to eat one after it was shot by a shot gun, Pers.  I mean, I could try eating around the shells, I guess…

persephone says:

04:26pm | 19/02/11

Amy

funny how so many of the hunters manage this perfectly well….and come back for more!

Uncles says:

06:21am | 24/02/11

@Persephone,
The work is edible and your comments are unpalatable.
Never liked tripe…...

Kika says:

09:25am | 18/02/11

There’s a very fine line between taking what you need, and taking just for fun.

Ando says:

10:55am | 18/02/11

Kika,
Do you live on only what you need? Invite me over to your place to seperate what you actually need from those things which are luxuries and have cost the environment more than the death of a duck. Cant wait for dinner.

Kika says:

01:12pm | 18/02/11

Ha, yeah ok. Sure. The thing is Ando that there is only 1 duck lost, there are a lot more than that. And a lot more animals killed for sport everywhere else. Killing for fun is and always will be abhorrent.

Hunter with a green heart says:

01:13pm | 18/02/11

Kika,

So there is a need for duck hunting. I’m glad you agree.

Kika says:

01:49pm | 18/02/11

When did I say there’s a need for duck hunting?  I never agree with hunting. It’s archaic and stupid. I will never ever agree with anyone who enjoys killing an animals life. Not here ENJOYS. If you kill with respect for the animal whose life you took, fine. But if you don’t care at all, I never will agree. My grandmother had ducks as pets - wild ones. They came everyday at the same time to come have a drink in her yard and have a feed on some seed she gave them. They were beautiful, loyal things. I will never understand anyone who enjoys killing them. Don’t ever say that I do, because I don’t.

And don’t twist my words. ENJOYING the kill is what’s wrong. If you go hunting for whatever noble purpose you have, make sure you cry when that duck dies.

Geoff Russell says:

02:36pm | 18/02/11

Many groups dedicate time and energy to habitat restoration ... Trees for Life members don’t demand lumber rights, RSPCA volunteers don’t think their good works entitle them to hold the occasional dog fight.  The article was about cruelty, but many of the hunter comments are trying to run an environmental line ... but they, like you, don’t get “green” at all ... its really about per-capita use of resources. Which would be better for the environment, 22 million Australians trying to live on fish from the oceans and rivers plus ducks and kangaroos and koalas, or 22 million living on factory farmed pigs, chickens and cattle or 22 million vegans?  Its no contest, wild meat uses a huge slab of resources, far more than the factory farm meat eaters, and many, many times more than a vegan.  I will of course be accused of being self-righteous, but that’s what people do when they run out of data in an argument.  My statements about the cruelty of duck shooting don’t imply that I think crippled chicken at KFC is fine ... I don’t. Nor do they imply that I don’t care about human suffering, I do. One of the key ways to reduce human suffering is to reduce food insecurity and the only way to feed the planet while minimising animal suffering is to reduce meat consumption.

Kika says:

04:15pm | 18/02/11

I totally agree with you Geoff Russell and I wish the whole world were vegans or at least vegetarians. But they aren’t.

Russell says:

09:17pm | 18/02/11

That’s great, Kika (‘I wish the whole world were vegans or at least vegetarians’)—do you wish the same of all species, or are you discriminating only against organisms of the species Homo sapiens?

If the former, you are wishing for the complete dismantlement of every ecosystem on the planet, all of which depend crucially on secondary consumers, not to mention tertiary, quaternary and so on. Do you really think nature stuffed things up so fundamentally and universally?

Does your ‘wish’ also connote a value judgement? Do you think carnivory is bad, and therefore, every ecosystem is bad, and therefore, the entire living world is bad? You are welcome to that belief, but at least admit that it’s anti-ecological and anti-environmentalist.

If the latter, what you’re proposing is an extension of racism.

persephone says:

07:27am | 19/02/11

And if the whole world became vegans and vegetarians, cows, goats, sheep and pigs - for starters - would become pest animals, competing directly with us for food.

I’m not sure what people think will happen to the billions of animals whose lives depend on the meat industry (and quite large numbers of them live out happy and healthy lives without ever seeing an abbatoir).

I’d rather be a beef cow than a dairy cow. And I’d rather live than not exist.

Widescale vegetarianism would see the permanent loss of billions of animals and very possibly the wiping out of entire species.

Zoe says:

01:00am | 21/02/11

Well said Geoff Russell. Hunters act as if there would be no ducks if it wasnt for them. Just because they build a few nesting boxes doesn’t give them the automatic right to shoot them. Of course its in their interest to know where the ducks are nesting. Makes their gutless passtime even less of a challenge. And what happens to the babies left in the nests after the parents have been killed? Left to starve to death while the hunter feels good about himself, convinced that every duck dies an instant death.

Eleanor says:

12:38pm | 18/02/11

To add: I’m not anti duck-hunting. As a certified carnivore, that would just be hypocritical. However, I do think it would be a good idea to ban duck hunting with a 12 gauge shotgun, and make it so ducks can only be hunted with a .22 rifle. That would even out the playing field a bit, I think.

Michael says:

09:59am | 21/02/11

Using a .22 rather then a 12 gauge? For a pro hunter you’re miss informed there. Using a rifle would be incredibly dangerous to other hunter, police, dse and even the protesters on the swamps. Rifle rounds travel a lot further then shotguns, that’s why it’s illegal to hunt ducks with a rifle.

James1 says:

09:53am | 18/02/11

In a nice laksa with noodles, it tastes wonderful.  Or the breast with skin on, roasted and then fried to crisp up the skin with orange sause, tre bien!

nossy says:

11:18am | 18/02/11

@James1 - sounds like a gastonomic delight James - cant wait.

mary says:

09:46am | 18/02/11

‘heartless bastards’ .. second that.

Pilbarajim says:

10:35am | 18/02/11

tell me Lex, do you eat meat or a you a Vegetarian, purse carrying nancy boy who has separation issues because you have to leave your mums house to go to work…............

Phill says:

10:42am | 18/02/11

Only if you admit to eating meat that someone has done this to without comlaint.

Robert says:

11:02am | 18/02/11

Lex, I don’t know many hunters who are fat or overpaid.  I know none who kill for mere fun.  I know many ordinary people who gain great satisfaction from learning about the habits and habitats of their quarry, ensuring the conservation of those habitats, and taking a small proportion to eat.  They love the thrill of the hunt, not the thrill of the kill.
Can you even tell a pink ear from a white eye?  Can you even tell us something of the ways a chestnut teal’s preferred habitat and habits differs from that of a wood duck?  Do you understand that trophy hunting and duck hunting are very different activities?  I doubt it.

Zoe says:

12:47am | 21/02/11

@Pilbarajim.. Take a breath. Jeez anyone would think you just got backed into a corner. Lex has a point, it obviously hit a nerve didnt it? so why reply if all you can come up with is schoolyard insults. You dont do yourself any favours.

Ando says:

11:03am | 18/02/11

Comments on Fishing?

Kika says:

01:16pm | 18/02/11

I don’t like fishing. I remember being mortified when I went fishing with my Grandad once and watched him keep this poor thing in a rockpool and then proceed to gut the poor thing alive.

You didn’t read what I said. If you go fishing and you put the fish back, fine. Not a problem. If your just fishing and taking as much as you can, why? Over fishing is a huge problem. If you’re actually going to use the fish, fine. Then the kill was for a purpose. If you’re just going to throw them away, massive waste.

Mike says:

10:27pm | 18/02/11

Kike: “If you go fishing and you put the fish back, fine. Not a problem” Seriously? This is nothing but torturing fish for fun. At least if you eat the fish it suffered for a reason.

Roy says:

10:35am | 18/02/11

KJ - You have missed the point by a mile.  Everyone can distinguish between culling to maintain ecological or agricultural sustainability, slaughtering animals for food and hunting animals for sport. 

You don’t have to be a vegan or ignorant of the realities of life to think less of someone that kills things for their own pleasure.

Kika says:

04:18pm | 18/02/11

Hunting out of ‘need’ compared to hunting for ‘fun’ is the issue. It has nothing to do with whether you eat meat or not. The simple facts are most hunters actually enjoy killing the animal more than the purported noble purpose they are doing for killing the poor thing. Capice?

Dan says:

04:33pm | 18/02/11

Roy

What, apart from propaganda like the article here, makes you think that people hunt ducks or anything else solely for “sport”? Ducks are shot for food - you don’t see them left behind - as well as for protection of crops such as rice.

Uncles says:

11:07am | 26/04/11

@KY,
We can then assume that you are not a hypocrite and that you never ever buy farmed meat….? 
Yeah, right!

persephone says:

10:25am | 18/02/11

No one who eats meat, cheese or eggs, drinks milk, wears leather or wool, or uses blood and bone or any other animal sourced fertiliser, should see anything wrong with killing ducks.

Noone who eats rice or wears cotton should either.

Noone who drives a car, lives in a house, eats vegetables or fruit, eats bread or other grain based foods, should see anything wrong with killing ducks.

All of these activities - and many, many more - either directly or indirectly cause death and suffering to other animal species.

We all impact on the environment we live in adversely. It’s not just the ‘fault’ of modern lifestyles - the settlement of NZ by Maoris and of Australia by aborigines were followed by major extinctions.

All we can do is recognise that we cause damage and do what we can to amend it.

And even in that context, there are still good justifications for shooting ducks.

Firstly, the major target species are introduced.

Secondly, as with kangaroos, man’s inteference with the environment has been good for duck populations (all those lovely dams).

Thirdly, ducks compete with humans for food (rice, in particular).

Fourthly, duck shooting is highly regulated, so that only species which are high in numbers are targetted, hunters are expected to hunt ethically (and can lose their license if they don’t) and both hunters and hunting are supervised on the ground.

There’s a whole lot of activities I don’t enjoy or don’t really see the point of. That doesn’t mean I have the right to say that other people shouldn’t do them.

Bobster says:

11:36am | 18/02/11

Perse, that’s hardly a fully developed argument.

There is a major difference between killing or polluting to fill a need and killing and polluting for fun.

Anyone who joyfully kills is a twisted individual.

But that doesn’t extend to eating meat - eating meat is, largely, a necessity.

We have abbattoirs and butchers. Meat is in abudance and it’s not hard to get your hands on ducks.

To say, I don’t believe in killing for sport but I like to eat meat is not hypocrisy.

If I want to eat something that used to be alive, all I need to do is go to Woolies.

Killing something else just because I like to do the killing personally is, pardon the pun, overkill.

Moreover, it says an awful lot about the people who just like to kill for killings’ sake.

It is needless, it is cruel and it is sickeningly self-indulgent, but it doesn’t make hypocrites out of unarmed carnivores.

persephone says:

12:21pm | 18/02/11

Bobster

I enjoy vegetable gardening. I eat the produce I grow. Does the fun of growing it make eating it somehow wrong?

I can’t see any real difference between a hunter who enjoys going out to shoot his own food, a fisherman who enjoys catching his own fish, and someone who likes buying his steak already killed.

If hunters were going out there mindlessly shooting everything that moved and leaving carcasses lying all over the place, you would have a point.

They don’t. They shoot the ducks, they take them home, and they eat them.

I can’t see why having fun doing it somehow makes the end result suspect.

I’ve had a lot of fun shooting bunny rabbits in my time. We certainly didn’t eat all we killed, but then again, we weren’t killing them for food, but for pest control.

Bobster says:

12:42pm | 18/02/11

That’s a completely false analogy.

My point is they don’t need to shoot them - they just want to.

Nurturing a plant is absolutely different to killing an animal - plants don’t have brains and they don’t feel pain.

I’ve been rabbit shooting too - I don’t mind eradicating pests (or giving it a go at least) but I’m not exactly encouraged to see the joy with which people do it.

I’ve been pigging too, and that’s an eye-opener.

Granted, the pigs, too, are pests but the see the glee in people’s eyes as they sick the dogs on the animal and then charge in with blades drawn is just downright frightening.

Culling roos, pigs or rabbits for a living is fine.

You’ve got to eat and we’ve stuffed the environment to a point where these measures are needed, but I just can see no excuse for killing things just because it makes you feel good about yourself.

persephone says:

01:24pm | 18/02/11

Bobster

I suppose if they wanted to eat duck, they could eat a duck someone else had killed.

Is that what you mean?

I would prefer to be a beef cow than a dairy cow. I would also prefer to be a wild duck than a caged one.

So I think it’s more humane to eat a wild duck than a caged one.

I also think it’s far more ethical to eat an animal that you’ve killed yourself than to ‘outsource’ your killing to someone else.

At the very least, if you’re unwilling to go out and kill your own meat, refrain from criticising someone who is prepared to do the dirty work you won’t.

A wild duck killed in mid flight has had a happier death than any farmed species you’d care to nominate.

And really, I can’t understand why hunting being enjoyable makes it immoral. 

Unless, of course, you’re the type who thinks dancing and sex are also wicked, and I hear lots of people do those things just for the fun of it.

Kika says:

01:33pm | 18/02/11

I have to agree with Bobster. The noble hunter stuff - whatever. The fact is most people I know who go out hunting rarely have sympathy for the animal - they actually take pleasure in the kill. Just as my cat enjoys killing lizards just because, they enjoy killing regardless of the actual purpose of why they are doing it.

An animal has given their life for our benefit. You should be thankful for that. Whether it was to make sure we had rice, fruit, meat or whatever. Going around killing animals with reckless regard for them is morally corrupt.

Bobster says:

02:37pm | 18/02/11

That’s exactly my point, Perse.

There’s enough duck for everyone to eat already.

Deciding you want to help out and kill a few more just so you can get some extra satisfaction out of dinner worries me.

persephone says:

04:34pm | 19/02/11

Bobster

Oh, OK, then.

We’ll just raise more ducks in battery farms so that we don’t have to shoot a few who - until the second they were shot - were living free.

I repeat: I’d rather be a free duck and take my chances than live out my life in confinement.

Of course, you probably have some romantic vision that any meat you eat comes from an animal which led a free and happy life and then one day decided its time had come…

Bobster says:

10:43am | 21/02/11

No Persephone, I’ve been in abbattoirs, piggeries and battery farms. I know where it comes from. I’ve been covered in the blood and I’ve done my best to get the smell out of my skin.

My point, as much as you’re trying to railroad it, is that it takes a different type of person to kill for pleasure when there is no need to do so.

You might have a point if, for every free duck shot, a farmed duck was pardoned. But that doesn’t happen so you’re still stuck on a half-thought out position.

An individual who kills for pleasure is an unbalanced individual. If you need a sport, go to the YMCA and take up squash or go to the RSL and take up lawn bowls.

Killing is not a sport and we are not hunter gatherers, so there is no excuse for killing things just to make yourself feel better.

emel says:

10:38am | 23/02/11

Persephone/ Bobster
This is a thoroughly engaging debate. Unfortunately Bobster I don’t really see your point when you suggest people should source their meat from woolies or whatever. Factory farming is worse than hunting.
I suggest that if people can’t consume resources without resorting to cruelty or environmental degradation, then they have no right whatsoever to do so.
Persophone is also wrong to suggest that,
“Noone who drives a car, lives in a house, eats vegetables or fruit, eats bread or other grain based foods, should see anything wrong with killing ducks.”
That is like saying that anyone who has lost their temper before shouldn’t criticise others who have murdered out of rage.
How about this.
Don’t do to ducks what you wouldn’t do to dogs.
Now that’s rational.

Waz says:

11:28am | 23/02/11

@ emel

I shoot dogs and leave them to rot in the paddock. At least ducks are a regulated, sustainable source of food.

Waz

MK says:

02:59pm | 19/02/11

Don’t get him started, Geoff is a level Five Vegan!

Steve Garlick says:

12:16pm | 18/02/11

Ah Sue, that private wetland you write of was once degraded agricultural land purchased by hunters and being returned back to wetland by hunters for the benefit of game, native animals and birds.  The conservation value to the community of hunters doing that is enormous.  The water that was let out (while illegal) stopped further environmental degredation due to the drought from water pinched upstream to service Melbourne and grow mung beans for the likes of you.

That this wetland you mention, and other wetlands nearby, are being regenerated by hunters with not a so-called environmentalist ignoranus like yourself anywhere to be seen shows who’s doing the real work lady ...it ain’t you, Geoff or any other trite whinger!

Geoff Russell says:

12:01pm | 18/02/11

Hi Johhno ... yes, I’ve been a vegan for decades.  As for your
comment “Taking an animal down with the correct ammo ...”  You didn’t read the article did you? How do all those ducks end up with pellets embedded in their bodies ... as found in X-ray studies? Many times when shooters think they missed, they didn’t. Correct ammo or not.  The duck was hit and kept flying. Maybe it will die, maybe not.

Adam says:

12:54pm | 18/02/11

@Geoff:The duck was hit and kept flying. Maybe it will die, maybe not.

If it doesn’t die, no problem. If it does die, sad but nothing lives forever.
Point is, you nor I should ever hope to cause anyone else to adopt our emotional view of an activity over their own judgement. Hunting and for that matter fishing are legal activities. If that rankles, run for parliment and try to change it.

Robert says:

11:20am | 18/02/11

You’ve only been once?  That’s not a lot of experience of hunting and hunters, Chad.  You made the right choice not to go again with that person if you felt unsafe, but I’d contend that the average hunter - who usually stays on something approximating unload or load DOWR until ready to shoot is just as safe, if not safer, than the pro who remains at action…  I’ve seen both professional and recreational firearms handling.  I wouldn’t say one is generally better than another at all.

Except under very limted circumstances, lead alternatives are mandated for recreational duck hunting.

John C says:

01:26pm | 18/02/11

Yep, as long as it is legal, that makes it good. Smoking is legal, and thus it must be good. Pity about those who have been afflicted over the years by passive smoking. Getting drunk out of your mind is legal too, so it must be good. Pity about the victims of alcohol abuse. We could go on.

Pilbarajim says:

12:22pm | 18/02/11

You don’t seem to understand at all, the guys who hunt ducks ( i don’t but will defend the rights of those that do) enjoy hunting them. Of course they do or they wouldn’t be doing it ! More to the point they love eating the ducks that they have shot and processed themselves. They are not shooting them to leave them lay on the ground and rot but to feed themselves and their families.

Neither do they knowingly leave the ducks they shoot to suffer unduly, dispatching them as quickly and humanely as they can. Animals that are left wounded and stress out are not much chop to eat , after all that is why these blokes and women hunt, to eat their prey
.

Patrick says:

01:37pm | 18/02/11

Bort just because you’re a f&*king pussy, doesn’t mean everyone else is.

Andrew G says:

03:18pm | 18/02/11

Ha, Yeh Patrick, killing Ducks makes you tough ! Inbred.

Ross Thornton says:

01:17pm | 18/02/11

What is more if they could not get any shooters they would simply lay poison wheat around and poison them by the hundred ..
    Dont give your point of view unless you know the facts ...

Kika says:

01:44pm | 18/02/11

Well the dugong is being used to feed their family - it’s not exactly being justified as making sure feral dugong populations aren’t hurting our seaweed crop, but really they’re killing it because they enjoy it.

Pilbarajim says:

09:46pm | 18/02/11

Kika, you don’t seem to understand at all, the bloody ducks will ALL be eaten by the hunters family you moron. How many people have to post exactly that to get through your thick skull.

The way the aboriginals hunt turtle and dugong is not at all ethical with the animals sometimes being tethered and taking hours to die, but hey you wouild have a clue wouldn’t you.

LC says:

04:32pm | 18/02/11

A bullet is one of the fastest ways to kill something. Don’t see how you could get more “humane” then that.

jf says:

04:44pm | 18/02/11

LC says:04:32pm | 18/02/11

“A bullet is one of the fastest ways to kill something. Don’t see how you could get more “humane” then that.”

Did you even read the article LC? Can you read?

LC says:

01:19pm | 28/03/11

@jf

I wasn’t responding to the article. I was responding to Eve’s concerns.

Zoe says:

01:59am | 21/02/11

Ha Ha were talking about ducks, not man eating grizzly bears. Men with substance… Thats a good one. Do you wrestle crocodiles too?  Punch great whites? Too funny really. Beware the killer duck!!

Zoe says:

02:13am | 21/02/11

Totally agree about battery hens, But I bet duck shooters still buy supermarket chicken too. So it really has nothing to do with the issue. I doubt that they boycott battery hens even though they are all so concerned for their welfare on here!  If anyones on their high horse I would say its all those dribbling on about nature when really its all about shooting something. And just out of interest my daughters boyfriend who is part aboriginal can throw a boomerang etc, learned as a child in classes, but wasnt taught the humane tradition of the shotgun.  Funny about that.

Mike says:

10:30pm | 18/02/11

Great idea Johnno, let’s use a crap tool that means animals suffer horribly. I’m sure the ducks will thank you.

Julia says:

09:13pm | 19/02/11

We farm beef. I know some posters will consider this a shameful activity although we care about our animals, are as organic as possible and , unlike the stereotype being floated, do not feed them on grain. Currently we have an orphan calf. Why? Because when she was 5 days old her mother died. Despite the best efforts of a capable vet she died of salmonella. Where does salmonella come from? Birds carry it (and it is transmissible to humans) and large numbers of wild ducks fouled up the dam in that paddock -feathers, faeces etc. Roll on duck season!

Matt says:

09:56am | 21/02/11

Yeah and this fool Geoff Russell has been photographed at a rent-a-crowd protest at an Adelaide golf course trying to stop the culling of wood duck holding up a sign saying “Duck droppings are great free fertiliser”.. I think you will find they are a great way to spread pathogens… What a goose! I would never…ever… trust a word out of his mouth

Michael R says:

05:56pm | 18/02/11

Both you idiot!

AnthonyG says:

02:45pm | 18/02/11

prefer the freckled ones myself.  ha ha just kidden

NicoleG says:

03:14pm | 18/02/11

Not in my kitchen MrG!

Stewart Henstock says:

03:31pm | 18/02/11

I don’t know… you may like bending over in jail….maybe that’s your intention.
You’re not satisfied with substituting your little wang for a big gun,you have to shoot someone to go to jail in pursuit of more intimacy.

Stewart Henstock says:

04:06pm | 18/02/11

I agree…yours is….
Who cares about your motive or any motive to kill a defenseless bird or animal.
You just get your rocks off when you squeeze that trigger knowing you’re going to end a life.
Has it ever sunken in that skull of yours that once you take life it never comes back or are you just pschycotic enough not to care.
Oh…i’m not a “tree hugger”...but i did shoot a duck once…i sat there staring at it’s motionless body….it never woke up.

Chris says:

06:55pm | 18/02/11

Stewart, please provide scientific evidence that shooters ‘get their rocks off’ from killing. We cant help your emotional faliure to grow up, but we can educate you with rationality. The enjoyment of hunting is not in any way sexual, its just good wholesome outdoor pleasure with skill and family tradition. The way ignorant people sexualise their hateful beliefs of innocent others is quite twisted; such people should get psychiatric help.

Stewart Henstock says:

06:54am | 19/02/11

Your the one killing defensless animals and i need psychiatric help?
LMAO
Oh…and you can prove it’s not sexual?
Killing is good wholesome family pleasure???
You’re not related to Ivan Milat are you…
The scary thing is that they let weirdos like you have a gun in the first place.

austin 3:16 says:

10:25pm | 19/02/11

So Stewart what do you do for sustenance photosynthesis ? Or do you eat something that’s been killed ?

persephone says:

07:18am | 20/02/11

I like the way Stewart thinks it’s other people who have the problem….

emel says:

07:07pm | 18/02/11

John,
I for one would like to see standards for humane treatment of animals enforced across the board.
If animals receive uneccessary cruelty due to cultural hunting methods, then they should be stopped.
I dont care for cultural diversity if it contravenes decency.
I also don’t care for these debates around which animal is more important than another.
If duck hunting is OK then bring on the whales.
History means nothing.
We also have an unbroken tradition of polluting, over farming and building useless churches (now empty) all over the now barren countryside.
What does any of it mean?
Please don’t ever refer to you or me as ‘poor whiteys’ again.

Baby Duck says:

07:12am | 20/02/11

Considering that most Australian shooters are white males aged between 35-50 and their numbers are declining…..
No wonder they are working so hard to recruit women and kids.

Stewart Henstock says:

04:10pm | 18/02/11

Neighbours??
Right!!!!!

JD says:

04:17pm | 18/02/11

Actually, being a responsible gun owner, I stay away from paintball as it violates the number 1 safety rule: don’t point it at anyone!

Stewart Henstock says:

05:51pm | 18/02/11

Responsible???
You kill things for the excitement of killing….hello

Craig Mc says:

06:09pm | 18/02/11

“I lol on that one because the memories still bring up tears after being shot in the nutts once.”

That explains everything.

JD says:

08:57pm | 18/02/11

Stewart, I do target shooting and occasionally cull feral animals when I need to protect my livestock.
Then again, you just proved you’re more interested in personal attacks than facts.

Kika says:

04:20pm | 18/02/11

This is the exact reason why humans will eventuate into the realm of the dinosaurs. We are rendering ourselves extinct by our own corrupt exploitation of the earth that sustains us.

Chris says:

06:45pm | 18/02/11

Kika you are amusing. Thank you for your enlightenment. I dont like duck muself, I eat rabbits that I shoot. WIth prunes, olives and capers you make a WONDERFUL traditional Italian dish!

Russell says:

01:30pm | 20/02/11

Kika, your argument applies equally to all heterotrophs, i.e. all animals, fungi, protista, bacteria, etc. If you wish to abandon all animals (all of which rely, for their energy needs, on exploiting other species) and obliterate the genetic fruits of the last half a billion years of life on Earth, fine… I just hope you don’t consider yourself a naturalist or environmentalist!

Curt says:

05:46pm | 18/02/11

I like ducks too.   
On my plate is where I like them.

Russell says:

08:16pm | 18/02/11

You and several others publicly declare a wish to kill people, and at the same time have the nerve o accuse others of atrocities? What an outstanding display of utter insanity.

A real exemplar of the animal rights movement! Keep it up!

Doc says:

09:08pm | 18/02/11

That’s why I also grow my own veges and raise my own beef. The cattle are treated so well, they come running when they see me.

I don’t hunt ducks, but that’s not the point: Some academic opinionated twit has taken up the soap box and bad-mouthed some of the most law-abiding, regulated adults in the nation.

Curt says:

05:22pm | 18/02/11

Yes, speaking of Laurie, I wonder how his frozen ducks are going? The ones he’s dropped on the steps of the Victorian Parliament must be getting like Laurie, passed their used-by date.

Uncles says:

08:27am | 19/02/11

@Curt,
You mean the ducks retrieved each year that Laurie leaves on the steps and DSE officers have to remove? 
Don’t even try to present that as a fact if you are to retain a even the slightest shred of credibility or intelligence…

Curt says:

09:51am | 19/02/11

Uncles, Just one question. How many ducks were taken to the so-called “rescue tent” by Laurie’s rent-a-crowd at Dowd’s Morass at the opening weekend last year?

Uncles says:

04:20pm | 19/02/11

@Curt.
Don’t know but I suspect not many as there were no birds to shoot at in Sale last year.  One thing I do know is that VAFA members and duck rescuers found 2 pairs of Grey Headed Flying Foxes’, (listed state and federally as threatened),  four corpses that were riddled with lead shot on Lake Connewarre last year…  Wonder who did that when there were duck shooters shooting in the area that day…?

Curt says:

07:54pm | 19/02/11

Uncles, I’ll answer my own question for you, there were NO wounded birds brought to the “rescue tent”, so doesn’t that bring into question your reliance on the findings of Tom Roster and his wounding rate, which incidentally was based on duck hunting in the United States and had nothing to do with duck hunting in Australia

Bloggs says:

01:15pm | 20/02/11

Ah, new people…. Their planet is the one where modern warfare still kills innocents.  Their planet is the one where new young people are trained in the army and navy to fight and die. Their planet is the one where they now have to watch their kids 24 hours a day because of social lepers stealing them, which didn’t have to happen happen in the 50’s.  Their planet is the one where men marry man legally and adopt babies to bring them up as homosexuals. Their planet is the one where school kids take knives into class and stab each other.  Their planet is the one where elderly people get raped and mugged - by these new gen people - for a few cents.  Their planet is the one where they are too lazy to work for a living and demand more and more social assistance.  Yeah, David.  The old guy will die out.  The new guys will keep killing themselves, and ducks.

Uncles says:

08:20am | 19/02/11

@BJ
Your name should be BS as you are a shooter reading from script from a shooter bulletin board..  I’ve checked and these little men are running scared again and are urging all their members to pass comment here.
This guy is trying to pretend to be a disinterested person who happened to stumble across this page and just happens to introduce the tired old eat meat argument that shooters use to try and detract from the issue of the cruelty that they are inflicting..
As for the broiler chickens argument, buy free range and know that the animals are slaughtered quickly and in one go because with duck shooting, “At least one in every four birds shot,  flies away wounded.” Tom Roster US Ballistics expert and co-author of the DSE’s own Shotgunning Handbook 2011.  Those birds either die slow and painful deaths of infection, predation and starvation and the ‘meat’ is wasted.
  or they struggle to survive on our wetlands with pellets in them.

Dan says:

03:30pm | 20/02/11

Actually the figures you quote are outdated and based on US data. If you read the Shotgunning Education Handbook you refer to you’d find that Roster found that in Australia well under 10% of ducks are wounded but not retrieved, across the board, and of those a substantial proportion are down and dead but not found, due to such things as falling into heavy cover or the shooter not having the assistance of a dog. Even anti-duck activists on opening morning don’t seem to be able to find any wounded ducks.

Roster also points out that all of the factors associated with birds being wounded and lost “can be easily addressed” by such things as selecting the right choke and cartridge, not taking shots beyond the effective range of the gun and practicing sound retrieval strategies (including the use of a trained dog). In this he is right in my experience.

BTW in relation to dying of infection, starvation or from predators well, that is the typical death for ducks which _aren’t_ shot. They don’t pass away from old age in their sleep.

Russell says:

09:28pm | 18/02/11

That’s great! Brings to mind the shop “Gamehunter” in Vic. It sits next door to a Subway. Which shop do you think accounts for the greater number of animals killed? And of those animals killed by each, which lived the happier, freer lives? And, which engendered a deeper connection between the consumer and the environment?

Ah yes, fast food… communion with nature…

Uncles says:

03:00pm | 19/02/11

Make sure that you take lots of happy snaps to send to Feathers and Fur so that other psycho bastards can get excited over the shooter porn they publish in that voyeuristic and illiterate rag… 
You know, the only other people who keep trophies and pose with their kills and prey, are serial killers, rapists and pedophiles. 
And, the persons who post inane comments like yours, are walking antisocial personality disorders..  You fear domination, so you seek to dominate and get off on killing… 
Thanks for illustrating the inadequacies of the duck shooting fraternity so well.

Russell says:

06:10am | 20/02/11

Uncles, you forgot fishermen, fisherwomen, and fisherchildren. Launch an ad hominem attack, then extend it to a third of the population. Noice.

country doc says:

09:12pm | 18/02/11

Well said. The ducks on my property may taste great, but I don’t know, as I don’t shoot them. Only the ferals are in danger (rabbits, a declared pest in my state), and aren’t wasted when culled.

Uncles says:

10:25pm | 18/02/11

Duck shooting is not a humane alternative to factory farming as although abattoirs are hell holes that need exposing, they do not release at least one in every four animals that enter their doors to die of their injuries.  That would be a cruel, wasteful and inefficient way of ‘harvesting’ meat.  Now, according to the DSE and shooting groups own conservative figures from Tom Roster, the US ballistics expert and duck shooter cited in the DSE;s own Shotgunning Education Handbook 2011, “At least one in every four birds shot, flies away wounded.” thus by using shooter figures and methodology, your argument rapidly falls apart.

Geoff Russell says:

11:05pm | 18/02/11

Factory farms are not esteemed by me at all ... quite the reverse. Because they are cruel, unnecessary and cause massive food shortages, because, while they are more efficient than eating wildlife they are less efficient than eating plant foods. It is nonetheless undeniable that they are the most efficient form of meat production from an environmental perspective. Australians cleared 70 million hectares to farm sheep and cattle and feed them 4 million tonnes of grain annually. The Danes produce about 3/4 as much meat with a total land area of 4.3 million hectares and grain from about 2-3 million hectares.

Russell says:

06:35am | 20/02/11

They certainly are efficient, but as you yourself say, efficiency isn’t everything—in fact, it’s just about nothing. When we are destroying the planet already, devising a method to do so more efficiently is not to be applauded.

We need fewer people, not more, and we need lower impact ways to feed them, not necessarily in terms of total resource use but in terms of the degree to which the spaces used to do this monopolise that space to the exclusion of all other species. Efficient grain farming ventures create vast, ecological deserts. At least in grazing pasture land there is some chance of native plants and animals coexisting.

As for the animal cruelty argument, efficient grain farming is not possible without pest control. Even considering mouse kills alone, the number of animal deaths per kilogram of protein produced is higher for wheat production than it is for beef.  (Not that I accept animal death as inherently bad. In actual fact it is the foundation stone of natural ecosystems, natural selection and biodiversity.)

When it comes down to it, your real argument is nothing to do with efficiency, as efficiency leads to battery hens. Your real argument is animal rights. But maybe you didn’t think that would sell so well in the lead article, so saved it for the comments section?

Be that as it may, a final comment on the fixation on per-capita resource use. To carry that to an absolute impact, you need to multiply by participation rate. Sure, if 22 million Australians wanted to shoot ducks, or even 10 million, we would have a problem. But they don’t. The number is about 3 orders of magnitude smaller. And in any case, it may not be an insurmountable problem: the US manages 10 million deer hunters and an unsustainably rising deer population. What if 22 million Australians wanted to be farmers, or surfers, or radio-controlled aircraft flyers? Similar difficulties would be faced. An argument against universal participation is not an argument against any participation at all,.

Bloggs says:

01:07pm | 20/02/11

John, there’s nothing wrong with farmed animals that get smacked in the head with a bolt or get their heads cut off.  Neither is there anything wrong with shooting your supper.  Both kill animals that we then eat.  Look around you, human animals kill, but then so do ducks which hunt and kill other animals and so do lions and tigers and rats and all.  Animals kill for food and fun. You can’t stop it and your whining doesn’t change anything.

john says:

03:55pm | 22/02/11

@Bloggs, From witnessing, and trained by my father who served in the military, I know first hand most people are useless hunters, often only kill for sport and leave animals maimed to die slowly.  I have no qualms about those you do it professionally, or farmers who usually use shot guns so they can’t miss, to put food on the table, or professional cullers who are skilled and train for the purpose..

That’s why I prefer most people just go buy farmed animals if they wanna eat meat.

Uncles says:

10:11pm | 18/02/11

Correction, a heartless and ignorant bastard who is using the same tired and predictable distractions in order to avoid answering the difficult questions.  Geoff’s diet is irrelevant because if he did eat meat, he wouldn’t be buy it from abattoirs where at least one in every four animals that entered the abattoir’s doors left wounded to die of it’s injuries.  However, according to the DSE and shooting groups own conservative figures from Tom Roster, “At least one in every four birds shot, flies away wounded.”, your argument rapidly falls apart. 
FYI, Tom Roster is the US ballistics expert and duck shooter cited in the DSE;s own Shotgunning Education Handbook 2011.

Dan says:

03:33pm | 20/02/11

Actually the figures you quote are outdated and based on US data. If you read the Shotgunning Education Handbook you refer to you’d find that Roster found that in Australia well under 10% of ducks are wounded but not retrieved, across the board, and of those a substantial proportion are down and dead but not found, due to such things as falling into heavy cover or the shooter not having the assistance of a dog. Even anti-duck activists on opening morning don’t seem to be able to find any wounded ducks.

Roster also points out that all of the factors associated with birds being wounded and lost “can be easily addressed” by such things as selecting the right choke and cartridge, not taking shots beyond the effective range of the gun and practicing sound retrieval strategies (including the use of a trained dog). In this he is right in my experience.

john says:

09:37pm | 18/02/11

@Stewart LOL @ ” I suspect would be an inner city urban vegan, professional “intellectual idiot” living in an inner city green constituency.”

Stewart, have you seen his photo? He looks like a bogan who would look more at home being your neighbor in your neck of the woods. I haven’t seen anything like him in inner city area where I live, guys around here are married-to each other and have identical cats and fluffy puppies, and spending their time going to various salons! they look nothing like Russel.
-Oh…and they EAT MEAT.

Uncles says:

10:16pm | 18/02/11

Stewart,
We fear that your degree sounds like it was from the University of Verandah Intellectualism or the School Of I Reckonistic Crap….
Get off your predictable old soap box, drop the chip on the shoulder rhetoric towards those who hold concerns for our native waterbirds and try doing some real learning.

Curt says:

09:11am | 19/02/11

Mr. Russell reminds me of a relic from the Flower Power era.

Russell says:

07:12am | 19/02/11

You say you don’t understand it, yet you somehow feel confident enough in your lack of understanding to accuse a sizeable proportion of the population of being latent murderers? I’d hate to see what you declare when you do claim to understand something!

What you propose is analogous to saying that all men are rapists, because they possess the equipment for sex and the capacity to enjoy it.

I take it you have never garnered satisfaction from whacking a mosquito, or uprooting a carrot.

If hunters do transfer any of their dealing with animals to humans, it is in the positive sense of accepting the resonsibilities of self-control and carefulness that come with holding the power of life and death in one’s hands. Certainly, none of the hunters in this thread have made flippant remarks about wanting to commit mass murder, but several supposedly peace-loving anti-hunting nutjobs have.

Barney says:

08:48am | 19/02/11

Respectfully Lou,
Are you a virgin or a person 100 times more likely to commit rape? Totally ridiculous.

Hypocrite Detector says:

03:36pm | 24/02/11

Never mind Lou,

Better luck nextime trying to make sense of something you really have very little understanding of - going by your answer!

So you are ok eating something that has been transported for miles, penned in cramped yards, waiting to be killed be electricution? You really are a callus old thing aren’t you, you are responsible for animals suffering for many days on end, at least duck shooters kill quickly and with minimal pain if any at times.

Uncles says:

09:44pm | 19/02/11

Your ‘food’ has been ingesting lead shot pellets that were left in our waterways from duck shooters in the 80’s and 90’s…
Eat up, knowing that lead poisoning causes brain impairment and your “organic meat’ is toxic…

Uncles says:

02:16pm | 19/02/11

When shooters have to use something as evil as factory farming as a comparison to make themselves look good, they have lost the argument.

Mike says:

10:45pm | 19/02/11

If you’re a vegetarian or a vegan, you can take the moral high ground. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite. Where do you think your meat comes from? I love animals (used to have pet ducks even) but I know a cow had to die to make my Big Mac today. It’s sad but humans generally eat meat, and we (either directly, or we pay someone else to do it) have to kill to do it.

Uncles says:

10:26am | 19/02/11

Funny about that because the findings of Tom Roster, (the US ballistics expert cited in the DSE’s own Shotgunning ‘Education Handbook 2011), were that “At least one in every four birds shot, will fly away wounded.”
Those are shooters’ own figures, (and therefore conservative), and have you been out and x-rayed birds to see how many are living with pellets in their bodies lately?
Also, if you have even the slightest idea about nature, you would know that foxes smell, seek and dispatch wounded birds very quickly overnight and also that shooters enjoy ending the lives of the wounded ducks that they can be bothered to retrieve,  with their bare hands.  I have seen this myself, many times.  Their sneering and grimacing when killing, is almost sexual.
Also, the DSE only bothers to regulate on opening day when they are forced out onto the wetlands by the media’s presence and the opportunity of arresting bird rescuers.  Btw, how “regulated” do you think that this year’s season will be considering that the DSE’s budget and manpower has been eaten up by the recent flooding.
And finally, about your fashion sense on the wetlands and your choice of grease paint make up, are you compensating for something or do you just like to frock up?

Geoff Russell says:

04:16pm | 19/02/11

There are a number of links to X-ray studies in the longer article
on the ALSA blog:

http://animalliberation.org.au/blog/85-duck-shooting-2011.html

So Jason, over to you ... find me one single study where researchers
went out and x-rayed a reasonable sample of ducks and found none or
a small number with pellets embedded in their bodies.  The most recent one I know of was Greenland ... 22% of eider ducks had pellets from
one or more woundings.  Eider ducks are a little bigger than Mountain
ducks, so the high number is to be expected.  As for your claim above about differences in rifles and shotguns being debunked ... show me one piece of science that demonstrates efficient reliable killing with a shotgun.  Even when shotgun makers in the 70s hung up and shot
ducks by the thousand under perfect conditions (duck always
in the “dead center” of the pattern,  death wasn’t guaranteed.

Back when the RSPCA accompanyed Tasmanian wallaby shooters in
the late 1980s ... they watched 23 wallabies get shot with shotguns. 5 were killed by the gunshot. 11 were disabled and beaten to death and 7 escaped. Keep in mind that these were hunters who knew they were being watched. Shotguns are just like that. Even poor bastards who try to commit suicide with a shotgun tend to survive.  One US study of
516 human shotgun victims (not just suicides)  ( “Management and outcome of abdominal shotgun wounds. trauma score and the role of exploratory laparotomy “) found a mortality of 50% if people were shot in the stomach and 20% if shot elsewhere.

Dan says:

03:45pm | 20/02/11

@Uncles

Actually the figures you quote are outdated and based on US data. If you read the Shotgunning Education Handbook you refer to you’d find that Roster found that in Australia well under 10% of ducks are wounded but not retrieved, across the board, and of those a substantial proportion are down and dead but not found, due to such things as falling into heavy cover or the shooter not having the assistance of a dog. Even anti-duck activists on opening morning don’t seem to be able to find any wounded ducks.
Roster also points out that all of the factors associated with birds being wounded and lost “can be easily addressed” by such things as selecting the right choke and cartridge, not taking shots beyond the effective range of the gun and practicing sound retrieval strategies (including the use of a trained dog). In this he is right in my experience.
As for the camouflage if you knew much about ducks you’d know that they have very good eyesight and excellent colour vision, unlike most mammals (other than man). The camouflage allows the hunter a better opportunity to get close, one of the factors in reducing wounding rates- surely you aren’t objecting to that? And surely you aren’t objecting to shooters retrieving and quickly despatching the ducks which aren’t instantly killed, with your sick allegations, or perhaps projections, about their motivation?

Dan says:

04:07pm | 20/02/11

@Geoff Russell

Interestingly the CSIRO study linked to your AL site doesn’t seem to upport your arguments:

“Presence of pellets in body tissues seems to confer no disadvantage, since recovery rates, and distances travelled to recovery locations, were not significantly different for birds with or without pellets. …”

and

“ …examination of waterfowl for pellet content offers little for the more effective management of the resource, since it provides, at best, post hoe information from birds whose source, and previous exposure to shooting, is generally unknown…”

It is also worth pointing out that this data is old, as is the material from the US in the 70’s. Among other things shotguns and cartridges have undergone considerable development, and we now also have reports like Roster’s more recent material identifying the reasons why wounding rates are so much less here now than the “one in four” you and your supporters quote.

As for the suicides it is well known in forensic circles that many who attempt to shoot themselves flinch at the last instant. People also can survive horrible injury too – I met a man once who’d survived losing a substantial part of his brain to an Argentine sniper’s bullet in the Falklands for example. A 12 bore to the middle chest or brain is not generally going to be survivable however, nor is the middle of a pattern of the right size pellets for a duck. Having said that, the comparison, and your attempt to capitalise on the tragedy of suicide, is odious.

Uncles says:

10:43am | 19/02/11

You also have a spiteful streak and poor impulse control.  Did your anxiety abate or did you get hard when you posted here and won the argument for the author?

Baby Duck says:

10:09am | 19/02/11

Try the teenage activists Clementine Round and Jack Styles of the Duck Army!
They are bright, funny, fashion wise, savvy and fantastic advocates for both veganism and youth.  Plus, they use animal product free soap often and, they are tackling duck shooting and the shooters, head on!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/DUCK-ARM-Y/306316356363

Curt says:

12:56pm | 19/02/11

It seems strange to me seeing some of the comments by the vegans, they appear to have to justify being vegans to not only other people, but to themselves as well.  Crazy!!!!

Zoe says:

11:21pm | 23/02/11

Ok if you dont want to go Hollywood and use people such as Pink or Drew Barrymore (not sure if they are vegan or vego) I certainly know fun vegans. Obviously cant name them on here. I can also say that as a PT some of my fittest, healthiest clients are vegan or vegetarian. They are also full of energy and although not the most muscled up women I know, they are very lean. Have been out drinking with one and she is definately a fun person - plays base in a band - very well groomed and you wouldnt find a nicer person.

Uncles says:

08:40am | 19/02/11

“Perspective” does not rationalize animal cruelty and even if the author is guilty of these terrible sins of modern life, then so are you. 
However, you have no way of knowing how the author lives nor the size of his carbon footprint plus, you’re killing native waterbirds as well as sucking the life out of the planet with your consumerism, as I suspect that you too own a computer or laptop made in a factory too.  So, whilst you’re flinging your vile, un-researched and self opinionated mud,  let’s talk about who is probably worse and perspective when it comes to hypocrisy and stupidity because you take the cake!  Or should I say Mudcake…..?

Uncles says:

09:59am | 19/02/11

Talk to the Yorta Yorta about duck shooting and then crawl back in your hole…  Turtles and dugongs are not pertinent to the discussion as we are discussing duck shooting and shouldn’t your name be Hill Billy?

Billy Hill says:

07:43am | 20/02/11

Killing is killing Uncles, whether it be duck or dugong the question is relevant.

Uncles says:

09:55am | 19/02/11

@Lex,
Bravo and where is the “Like” button on this page?

gastrognome says:

11:07am | 19/02/11

Lost interest in the anti hunting arguments some time back.  Not one of them has the guts to admit that their real reason to oppose hunting is the thrill they get from shrilly demonising anyone whose moral choices are at variance with their own.  I am a meat eater and the nearest supermarket is 30kms down the road where I have the choice of buying pen raised, lot fed, beasts and fowl of a few types types, part of a system that industrialises mass slaughter for the masses.  A little closer are paddocks, bush, dams and swamps where I can get my own.  If you don’t need to hunt ducks as a means to survival and you don’t consider it trophy hunting then one of many possible reasons is that you like to exercise a choice more varied than abbatoir killed sheep, beef, pig or chook, exercise greater moral responsibility than the handing over of 30 pieces of silver to the system that did the killing for you, in an enviroment more real than a fluoro-lit fridge.  I’ve spent 8 years carrying a rifle and dressed in spotty green and it really does look like some of you intellectual antis despise the people and way of life - with its choices, freedoms, rights and responsibilities - I’ve sworn with my life to defend.  There are too many ignorant, meddling do-gooders in our society as it is.  Give up, satisfy your urge to demonise anything or anyone whose choices you don’t like by having a good look at the pent-up frustration of your own disconnected, short sighted, indulgent urban existence.

Pilbarajim says:

11:43am | 19/02/11

You only lasted 3 years, how come ?

The ducks are not trophies, they are hunted for meat. Is there something about that which confuses you mate ?

Survival is not the only reason people hunt, some do it as a free choice with the aim of filling their freezers with Free Range meat . That also seems to confuse you.

Are you some sort of gay simpleton?

Lex says:

02:49pm | 19/02/11

To Pilbarajim…wishful thinking there I think Jim. You’ll probably be disappointed to learn that, no, I’m not gay. Keep up the search though.  Maybe it’s time to get to the real issue here. Three years in the military was well and truly enough for me. Didn’t like it much but it certainly taught me to have a healthy respect for weapons. As far as I’m concerned there should not be a single firearm available to anyone except Police and Military personnel and farmers with a genuine need. Guns were created for one purpose and one purpose only..to kill. Strange isn’t it. Still not one of you has had the guts to admit you like killing. With some of the venom that comes out of your keyboards, it genuinely frightens me to think that some of you are the owners of guns.

Uncles says:

03:11pm | 19/02/11

*

@ Pilbarajim,
Your question, ” Are you some sort of gay simpleton?” is offensive on so many levels.  Your vilification of those with disabilities and different sexual orientations to you is shameful, reflective of poor empathic development and even poorer education and exposure to the ‘real world’ - something you hicks carry on about, but never quite experience yourselves…
Maybe, it is you who are the one who is “confused” and perhaps thou dost protest too much…...
When you hold your gun, do you pretend it’s someone else’s….?

Damien says:

03:19pm | 19/02/11

Ok i’ll admit it i love blowing big holes in little fuzzy critters what of it.
You like to eat plants for fun and smoke a bong atleast i get out into the wilderness

Uncles says:

08:53pm | 19/02/11

@ Damien.
Believe it or not but the average conservationist doesn’t need to chug down a coupla cones as compensation for not blowing holes in fuzzy little critters nor are they agoraphobic…. 
Are you from Gippsland and is your father your brother too?

Mike says:

01:52pm | 20/02/11

“Guns were created for one purpose and one purpose only..to kill.”. Military-style semi-automatic rifles were designed as weapons. Sporting firearms are designed for either hunting, protecting livestock, or target shooting. Militarty guns have large magazines and high rates of fire, sporting arms do not. A .22 round has literally a tenth of the energy of a military round, yet .22s are by far the most commonly used round used my sporting shooters.

Uncles says:

09:53am | 19/02/11

Wrong and wronger.
1. Indigenous groups are furious that they are not being listened to when it comes to duck shooting.  Try having a word with the Yorta Yorta people and you might learn something..
Last year, in a double cross with the two major shooting groups, (SSAA & FGA), Gavin Jennings lied to conservation groups like VPNA and indigenous groups by saying that duck shooting would not be allowed in the newly formed Murray River Redgum National Park whilst at the same time he was doing secret deals with shooters.
The result?  Duck shooters have been given access to over 34,000 hectares of the new NATIONAL PARK and the wishes of 87% of Victorians were ignored so that the Brumby Govt could fail in their pathetic attempt to pander to the gun lobby and try to widen their power base. 

Go to http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=184787&id=306316356363 to see the evidence of Jennings’ dirty dealings obtained under FOI.
2. I think that you will find that those campaigning hardest to improve the lot of factory farmed animals that flood the shelves at major supermarkets and smaller butchers are also the ones who are campaigning against duck shooting too.
BTW. The merits of abattoirs are irrelevant unless you want to discuss cruelty and wastage because “At least one in every four birds shot, flies away wounded.” Tom Roster US Ballistics expert and cited expert in the DSE’s own Shotgunning Education Handbook 2011.

gastrognome says:

10:37am | 19/02/11

Not appetizing to you, Amy, but clearly very appetizing to a bunch of people who make the considerable effort to procure just such a meal.  In Europe a lot of fancy restaurants do serve wild shot game, too - pellets and all - for a price.
The anthropomorphising of the human idea of suffering deserves scrutiny: injuries which would cause obvious distress and debilitation in humans appear to have very different effects on wild animals…

Pilbarajim says:

11:38am | 19/02/11

Amy, your reasoning is flawed lady, the hunters can and do eat the ducks the hunt. The ducks are not destined for a fancy French restaurant so WTF has that got to do with anything?

And just to make it clear, ducks are NOT traditionally hunted with shotguns! Shotguns are mandated by law to be the omly bway of hunting ducks so how bout some of you rabid anti’s get your facts right for once.

Dan says:

11:58am | 19/02/11

You don’t have a problem with the hunting, and perhaps you wouldn’t have a problem with the way they are killedeither if you weren’t so misinformed about it. Of course, there’s been a lot of emotional and/or pseudoscientific claptrap written about shooting ducks, so it is not surprising. Shotguns are actually mandated for the purpose - rifles are prohibited - and the reasons are essentially that the shotgun offers the best means of humanely killing the duck and minimises the risk to other people and creatures in the vicinity. The shotgun fires a dense cloud of pellets so that a duck caught in the pattern will be struck by several and killed, but the pellets have a limited range and fall harmlessly to earth within a couple of hundred metres. The same is not true of a rifle, and used over water or fired in the air the risk of a ricochet or a stray bullet hitting someone is too high. Hunter safety courses cover these sorts of risks in some detail and responsible hunters know better than to try these things.

Those few ducks brought down not immediately dead are quickly retrieved and dispatched - unless stolen by the well-meaning but ill informed. Compare any other means by which wild ducks die - torn to pieces by a predator, starvation, disease, or the agonies of a death by poison, and shooting stacks up very well. It is also a highly selective method, unlike such agents as poisons, for control.

As for whether you can eat them well of course you can - most pellets punch straight on through, and the few that remain are easily found and removed. The eating of the ducks (and serving them to family and friends) is indeed the point - that and the experience of going out and gathering your own food - as you can’t buy wild ducks (and domestic ducks are fatty and bland by comparison, and no substitute). Restaurants overseas have no compunction about serving field-shot game birds. They don’t do so here simply because it is illegal.

Baby Duck says:

09:51pm | 19/02/11

@Dan,
“You don’t have a problem with the hunting, and perhaps you wouldn’t have a problem with the way they are killedeither if you weren’t so misinformed about it. “
Here’s a little information for you from the shooter camp.
“At least one in every four birds shot, flies away wounded”  Tom Roster, US Ballistics expert, duck shooter and “researcher” for the
SSAA, FGA, Winston Olin and the now defunct Brumby State Govt.  Tom Roster is also one of the authors of the DSE’s own Shotgunning Education Handbook 2011.

Dan says:

10:02am | 20/02/11

@Baby Duck

Actually the figures you quote are outdated and based on US data. If you read the Shotgunning Education Handbook you refer to you’d find that Roster found that in Australia well under 10% of ducks are wounded but not retrieved, across the board, and of those a substantial proportion are down and dead but not found, due to such things as falling into heavy cover or the shooter not having the assistance of a dog. Even anti-duck activists on opening morning don’t seem to be able to find any wounded ducks.

Roster also points out that all of the factors associated with birds being wounded and lost “can be easily addressed” by such things as selecting the right choke and cartridge, not taking shots beyond the effective range of the gun and practicing sound retrieval strategies (including the use of a trained dog). In this he is right in my experience.

Uncles says:

09:18pm | 19/02/11

In case you didn’t notice, this debate is about “Recreational Duck Shooting”, not farmers culling next to grain/rice crops.. 
Btw, it is really obvious that you are a shooter who is pretending to be a moderate.  If you’re going to lie, don’t call yourself a hunter as you are only a girl in the reeds with no brains and no votes if you are who I think you are…  Debbie M?
If you are going to insult our intelligence with your misspelled and incoherent ramblings, at least have the decency to spell ‘feral’ correctly as we can’t stand a girl who can’t spell a description of herself properly.
In fact, seeing a girl without basic comprehension skills posting here is as attractive as a drunk girl vomiting at a Blue Light ‘Disco… 
And as for solving duck conservation problems with a 12 gauge, take that to the next election, and see how many people don’t like you, again…..

Uncles says:

10:06pm | 19/02/11

How are the ducks in South Australia, seen many baby ducks on the wetlands lately or do you only visit them to just shoot native waterbirds?

Uncles says:

02:49pm | 19/02/11

Maybe you and the not so Aussie and not so lovely Aussie Steph could hold hands singing Kumbaya in a soy forest on the outer fringes of Utopia as you both seem to be in dreamland…
If you were using a method of ‘harvesting’ that doesn’t leave at least one in every four birds shot, to fly away wounded , you might have a point..  But since you don’t, then you don’t.
If you kill your bag limit with Pacific Black Ducks for 10 days over the 86 day season.  You will not only kill 100 ducks, another 33 will fly away wounded and you will also be responsible for the deaths of the Pacific Black Duck’s offspring too as they are opportunistic breeders and will have ducklings on the water this year.
Who wouldn’t want a bit of that kind of meat on their consciences?
FYI, The wounding rates are conservative as they come from Tom Roster, the US Ballistics expert and duck shooter who co-wrote the 2011 Shotgunning Education Handbook for the DSE as his research found that “At least one in every four birds shot, will fly away wounded…

Uncles says:

02:50pm | 19/02/11

Maybe you and the not so Aussie and not so lovely Aussie Steph could hold hands singing Kumbaya in a soy forest on the outer fringes of Utopia as you both seem to be in dreamland…
If you were using a method of ‘harvesting’ that doesn’t leave at least one in every four birds shot, to fly away wounded , you might have a point..  But since you don’t, then you don’t.
If you kill your bag limit with Pacific Black Ducks for 10 days over the 86 day season.  You will not only kill 100 ducks, another 33 will fly away wounded and you will also be responsible for the deaths of the Pacific Black Duck’s offspring too as they are opportunistic breeders and will have ducklings on the water this year.
Who wouldn’t want a bit of that kind of meat on their consciences?
FYI, The wounding rates are conservative as they come from Tom Roster, the US Ballistics expert and duck shooter who co-wrote the 2011 Shotgunning Education Handbook for the DSE as his research found that “At least one in every four birds shot, will fly away wounded…

Dan says:

03:48pm | 20/02/11

@ Uncles

Actually the figures you quote are outdated and based on US data. If you read the Shotgunning Education Handbook you refer to you’d find that Roster found that in Australia well under 10% of ducks are wounded but not retrieved, across the board, and of those a substantial proportion are down and dead but not found, due to such things as falling into heavy cover or the shooter not having the assistance of a dog. Even anti-duck activists on opening morning don’t seem to be able to find any wounded ducks.
Roster also points out that all of the factors associated with birds being wounded and lost “can be easily addressed” by such things as selecting the right choke and cartridge, not taking shots beyond the effective range of the gun and practicing sound retrieval strategies (including the use of a trained dog). In this he is right in my experience.

Uncles says:

02:33pm | 19/02/11

Rambo, you’re firing blanks and I am surprised that even someone as mentally deficient as yourself, can’t see the irony of your online name.
What scientific evidence or mathematical theory do you have to back this ludicrous claim of sustainability that you are making?
Numbers were checked in 2008 by Prof Richard Kingsford of the Uni NSW and he found in his long running aerial surveys that 82% of Eastern Australia’s native waterbirds had disappeared since 1983 and that waterbird numbers fell in Victoria by a staggering 60% over the period of 2007 and 2008.  Then, we had the Black Saturday Fires and two more duck shooting seasons as the Brumby Govt tried unsuccessfully to widen their power base by chasing the gun lobby’s vote… 
Oh, that’s right.  Shooters, or hunters as they like to romantically call themselves, never seem to be able to produce data and insult our intelligence, (and the debate), by dragging out the tired old meat tray argument,  and made up statements without sourcing any facts…
And talking crime, wasn’t it Gary Howard and FGA that stole water from the Latrobe River for 5 days after the Black Saturday Fires in order to flood their privately owned wetlands for paying customers and have you read any university published and peer reviewed studies that show clear evidence that kids who grow up hunting, have higher rates of criminal activity and violence in adult life? 
There’s plenty out there to read.

hermes says:

07:36pm | 20/02/11

Uncle, Richard’s data is based on research into habitat loss, ie artificial wetting and drying of wetland, draining of wetlands for agriculture, pest species, and drought. It has nothing to do with hunting. Hint, try the database Scopus or any academic journal for information on wetland degradation. In addition, you might find references to some of the biggest wetland habitat restoration works - funded by duck hunting organisations. Google is your friend. Research is objective.

gastrognone says:

06:03pm | 21/02/11

What are waterways and waterbirds doing at the moment in your area, Uncles?  Where is your country?  In mine the dams and swamps are as full as anyone can remeber in living memory, and many birds are raising second and third clutches of 8-10 eggs for the 12 months to now: Australian ducks are a prolific lot when the conditions are right for them… Kingsford has many curious things to say: that recreational hunting is a major cause of decline is not one of them as far as I’ve seen.  I’m curious to know what studies you have to show country people, hunters etc have any higher or lower crime rates than any other spurious and artificial demographic you care to viciously attack.

Rambo says:

06:31pm | 21/02/11

Hey uncle I do see the Irony in the name that is why I picked it. I don’t need rambo fashion accessories either because I am hiding from animals not people.  So my Kids are going to be crims. I think not. To hold a gun licence you have to be pretty clean and stringent police checks are done to ensure you are a responsible person. A history of violence will prevent you from getting a licence or holding one. My kids are employed and respectable with manners. Where is your evidence to back this up. Also 2008 data means nothing in 2011.
I do not fire blanks either because when I shoot something it is dead. I do not hunt ducks though because the taste is not for me. I prefer rifles to shotgun also. Might have to give the duck shooting a try one day just to see what all the fuss is about.
Animals live then we kill them and eat them. That is the cycle of life. But do not forget that plants are living things to so think about that when you are eating your vegetables.

Uncles says:

09:20am | 22/02/11

As Australia’s foremost expert on native waterbirds, Richard Kingsford is opposed to duck shooting, fact.

Uncles says:

02:36pm | 19/02/11

You and Aussie Steve should get a room somewhere…
Preferably off shore, because shooting Australian native waterbirds for recreation, is both bloody and bloody Un-Australian.

Uncles says:

02:37pm | 19/02/11

He might just be the guy to beat your dreams out of you… <3

Curt says:

04:59pm | 19/02/11

Uncles, as you didn’t answer this question I asked of you earlier, I’ll ask you again. How many ducks were taken to the so-called “rescue tent” by Lauries rent-a-crowd at Dowd’s Morass at last years duck opening weekend.

Uncles says:

09:01pm | 19/02/11

Actually Curt I did answer your question in a different thread.
Get with the program… I mean we are used to duck shooters being thick but at least read the print, no matter how fine, before opening your ignorant mouth…

austin 3:16 says:

10:33pm | 19/02/11

Well if you answered the question before it should be no problem to answer it again. How many?

Curt says:

06:46am | 20/02/11

Uncles, you are so typical of a rabid anti, play the man not the ball.
If you hadn’t been so slow I wouldn,t have had to ask twice.

Jaxon Jay says:

07:14am | 20/02/11

Don’t forget that Hitler was the founder of the Green movement and an avid vegan. And opposed the hunting of animals. Yet he was the worst mass murderer of all time. Makes you think doesn’t it.

Curt says:

08:43am | 20/02/11

Uncles, seeing you have a very slow reaction time i’ll repeat this for you as well.
Uncles, I’ll answer my own question for you, there were NO wounded birds taken to the “rescue tent”, so doesn’t that bring into question your reliance on the finds of Tom Roster and his wounding rate, which incidentally was based on duck hunting in the United States and has nothing to do with duck hunting in Australia.

Uncles says:

09:56am | 20/02/11

Then refer to the thread in which I replied…
And, if you were there, you would of realised that there were no birds to shoot at after 13 years of drought and the excellent efforts of rescuers to keep the birds away from shooters’ guns.
I know of one duck that had to be euthanised by Melbourne Zoo, after it was shot in the back by members of your fraternity.
Now, what about the four Grey Headed Flying Foxes, (listed both state and federally as threatened), found floating dead on the water at Lake Connewarre last year with their corpses riddled with lead shot. after duck shooters were shooting in the vicinity?

Curt says:

11:16am | 20/02/11

Uncles, regarding the flying fox episode. Do you have proof that it was duck hunters? It’s just as feasible that the ANTIS shot the flying foxes just so they could lay the blame on the duck hunters going about their lawful pursuit, things like this have apparently been done before.
So until you can prove it, STFU.

Uncles says:

12:57pm | 20/02/11

Curt,
Dream on and tell yourself that, because you are the only one who will believe that a group of volunteers from all over the state would agree on taking such irrational and cruel actions to promote their cause.
Shooters act with little conscience and shortsightedness enough to devise such a flawed plan, but rescuers don’t.
An example of shooter flawed planning is when they were caught stealing water for 5 days from the Latrobe River to flood their privately owned wetlands in the lead up to the 2009 duck shooting season, just after the Black Saturday Fires.

Curt says:

01:39pm | 20/02/11

Uncles, i forgot to add, if it was duck hunters they would have been using steel shot, not lead shot as you’ve stated. So I think you speak utter bullshit. You haven’t commented about Tom Roster’s findings about wounding rates pertaining to duck hunting in Australia, no just trot out the same old shit that has nothing to do with duck hunting in Australia, but then again that’s all the antis deal in, ill-informed crap from idiots like you. They haven’t got the mentality to think for themselves.

Baby Duck says:

09:22pm | 19/02/11

Bullshit, you are a shooter operating under instruction, who hunts ducks, wants to appear moderate and needs to blame vegans for your poor behaviour…  Which shooters’ bulletin board sent you here?

Brian says:

09:39pm | 19/02/11

Baby Duck’s reply sound a little bit suspect to me…it sounds like Geoff Russell replying?

Geoff Russell says:

06:37am | 20/02/11

Brian: I never ever comment on any blog/website under any name other than my own ... sometime naming rules make be grussell or something similar, but its Geoff when ever possible. There are occasional examples where anonymous contributions are defensible, but I’d prefer full and open identification. People should own their comments not hide behind some non-descript label. Blogs would probably become more civilised and sensible.

Lee says:

02:17pm | 22/02/11

Leslie, the stunning unintelligence and immaturity of your statement that the “raving vegans” have convinced you to start hunting ducks would make any reasonably sane person concerned that you’re allowed to own shotguns.  How sad that people like you exist.  You’ve decided to go out and slaughter ducks - not to eat, not as a recreational “sport” but as an “up yours!” to people who are genuinely concerned about cruelty to animals.  Your Mum must be so proud.

Uncles says:

08:58pm | 19/02/11

So, in order to strike a balance, we need to impregnate ducks and abort their offspring?
How does the choice a woman makes with her own body and life direction have to do with duck shooting and how low will you idiots sink to detract from the cruelty you commit?
If the ducks had guns then it would be a sporting chance.  As it stands now it is duck versus deluded and unscrupulous psycho with a penchant for dead babies…
Sod off until you come up with an argument that bears any weight. and credibility you sad little and twisted bastard..

Leslie says:

11:52am | 20/02/11

Baby Duck,

I really dont care what you believe but you can rest assured you and your vegan mates will be responsible for me looking at taking up duck hunting and enjoying eating them.  Lol.

Uncles says:

09:37pm | 19/02/11

Or, we have a psycho in our midst who has no empathy for the creatures they hurt…...
According to shooters own conservative figures,  at least one in every four ducks shot, flies away wounded and therefore you are wasteful, inefficient and cruel.  As indefensible as abattoirs are, they are better at harvesting meat are more efficient in their methods and less cruel than duck shooters who don’t just miss by hitting a wing or two. 
BTW, if you need factory farming as an example of how you are better, you have lost the argument….

Uncles says:

10:48pm | 19/02/11

Any creature that is killed in unnatural circumstances, ie. at the end of a shotgun, has not led a full life.  Rather, it has been deprived of it.

Realworld says:

07:47am | 20/02/11

Nice one Evolved 19. Why dont you come along with some of my Koori mates next time we head out in the bush and suggest that? Seriously. Or - next time you head to a small Indonesian village and some of the locals kill a few wild pigs in honour of your arrival - tell the the sick creeps to evolve - because believe me - they relish the hunt and the kill as much as anyone.

I have seen traditional rituals conducted in various corners of the world that have involved huge numbers of domestic and wild animals killed over a number of days for purely ritualistic reasons - more than they could really eat.  But then, they are just primitive creatures and dont really know any better, hey?

Unless you can apply your little tanty above to every man or woman, anywhere in the world, who kills an animal with their own hand, then you are just being an elitist wanker.

Uncles says:

08:54am | 20/02/11

@Realworld,
Indigenous hunting is not the topic of this debate.  However, “recreational” duck shooting is.
Comparing imaginary tribal activity to men in cammos and shotguns who are killing for ‘sport’ and pleasure, (as the term recreational implies), is completely irrelevant , pointless, tragic and rather lends itself to your arguable noble savage fantasy and God complex.

Russell says:

11:01am | 20/02/11

Uncles, maybe you should go and watch some indigenous hunting. For starters, they will most likely be using a shotgun or rifle—which after all is what we have evolved to do over millions of years: use the most convenient technology yet devised by our species. Secondly, they will be pretty well camouflaged because of their skin tone, hair and maybe body paint. Us whiteys adapted to cold climates to have lighter skin (possibly Vitamin D benefit) and hair and to cover this for warmth with fur and fibre, i.e. camo. (Only the rise of luridly coloured clothing has necessitated the creation of special purpose camo clothing.) Thirdly, do you think recreational hunting is not enjoyable? Once you’re done observing them, why don’t you ask them if they enjoyed it? Of course they do.

So what’s the difference, in the end? Skin colour. Thanks for your discrimination.

RealWorld says:

11:05am | 20/02/11

@Uncles. As difficult as it is to decipher any real point to any of your posts, I think you are trying to accuse me of engaging in a ‘noble savage’ argument, which is ironic considering this is exactly the argument I was trying to debunk.

Pleasure and enjoyment exist on a continuum - who’s to say where the enjoyment ends and the resigned, emotionless killing of a feral pest begins? Can those engaged in shooting ducks to protect rice paddies enjoy their work? When a tribe goes on an organised, ritualised hunt - are they engaging in a recreational kill? The reason you are steadfastly ignoring making a clear distinction of these things is that to do so, you will either have to expose your own hypocrisy or you will have to admit that you think that our modern, Western civilization has, unlike others, evolved beyond this barbarism.

I await a reasoned and thoughtful response, but somehow I doubt we readers will be so lucky.

Uncles says:

12:42pm | 20/02/11

Realworld
“@Uncles. As difficult as it is to decipher any real point to any of your posts,”
Sorry, didn’t realize that I needed to dumb it down for you and I don’t have to draw any of the irrational conclusions you suggest, as I do have a brain and I don’t have a God complex…
If you were attempting to debunk any noble savage syndromes iwith your analogy of ritualistic pig kills, waste and gluttony in you honour you are failing sadly.
Killing feral pests are a completely different debate to the one of killing for pleasure as the term recreational implies.
Ducks are not introduced pests on the wetlands nor do they do any harm, unlike duck shooters..

Uncles says:

12:48pm | 20/02/11

@ Russell,
“Secondly, they will be pretty well camouflaged because of their skin tone, hair and maybe body paint. Us whiteys adapted to cold climates to have lighter skin (possibly Vitamin D benefit) and hair and to cover this for warmth with fur and fibre, i.e. camo. (Only the rise of luridly coloured clothing has necessitated the creation of special purpose camo clothing.)”
How racist are you and when did the first camo appear in caveman paintings or was it actually invented in the 19th century?

Russell says:

01:02pm | 20/02/11

LOL Uncie, talk about grasping at straws. I have no idea whether what you claim is true, but apart from being extremely tangential, both the 19th century and cave painting occurred in the very recent past, in comparison either to the emergence of white skin or of technology, weapons, meat eating, hunting, cooking and brain size.

How about you stop dodging the issue. Who’s allowed to hunt? Everyone? Only people with black skin? Only non-humans? Only non-tool-using non-humans?

RealWorld says:

03:05pm | 20/02/11

@uncles. Well, once again you have responded with an overly emotive, hollow and useless personal tirade that proves nothing nothing at all, except that you are losing the argument. As you have not responded to my simple, ethical question I will assume that you do not wish to be outed as either a) a hypocrite or b) a cultural supremacist

What did Macbeth say?  It is a tale…told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. ...

observer says:

08:20am | 20/02/11

aaaaw you quoted Wiki…well done. In the real world you get a great big F for using wiki….but don’t let the real world scare you. Mum wont throw you out of the basement for a few years yet.

Uncles says:

08:42am | 20/02/11

“Shooting stuff is fun. Meat taste good.”
Translation
I like to kill indiscriminately and enjoy the taste of my victims

“Its done because its easy, its done because it hard.”
Translation
I am lazy and get a boner when I kill.

“btw/ I don’t have numbers, but the majority of the duck meat production in Australia goes to domestic asian customers. “
Translation
I don’t do research but make up fictional “facts” to distract from the truth and I am not respectful enough of other cultures to bother with capital letters when trying to blame them.

Uncles says:

08:44am | 20/02/11

“Shooting stuff is fun. Meat taste good.”
Translation
I like to kill indiscriminately and enjoy the taste of my victims

“Its done because its easy, its done because it hard.”
Translation
I am lazy and get a boner when I kill.

“btw/ I don’t have numbers, but the majority of the duck meat production in Australia goes to domestic asian customers. “
Translation
I don’t do research but make up fictional “facts” to distract from the truth and I am not respectful enough of other cultures to bother with capital letters when trying to blame them.

Uncles says:

08:32am | 20/02/11

I’m flattered and you’re wrong!

Curt says:

06:25pm | 20/02/11

Jeez Uncles, to be flattered by being likened to Laurie Levy, WOW, you haven’t got your sights aimed very high, have you. (pun intended.)

Uncles says:

07:07pm | 20/02/11

Am still flattered and you’re still wrong…..

Uncles says:

09:16am | 20/02/11

Talk about missing the point and perhaps a cell or two….
You better go run and tell the DSE that the researcher they paid our hard earned taxpayer dollars to, (in order to write a flyer for 0.43% of the population), is a dud and then skip on down to Google and have a read of the studies that show how many birds are living on the wetlands with pellets still in their bodies.

Uncles says:

12:31pm | 20/02/11

Ducks are not pests, their numbers are low after 13 years of drought and duck shooting causes pain, suffering and rubbish on the wetlands.  (Be it shell casings, wadding and pellets scattered with every shot or the rubbish that shooters leave behind.)
Would it not be more humane for shooters who are to be performing any culls to practice with clay and other non animal targets rather than inflicting pain and suffering upon Australian native waterbirds? 
What possible rationalization can you offer to justify killing one set of animals as training to shoot others when other options are available other than you are another duck shooter pretending to be a moderate.

GC says:

03:13pm | 20/02/11

Geoff,
Your argument is now flawed. First you say its the cruelty inlvolved and quote some US finding. I can find US studies that say homicides are down when CCW are prevelant but that is NOT relevant to Australia. Since you lost the cruelty argument you are now harping on about the ‘recreation’ side of the issue.

Firstly is a shotgun used by a farmer now OK with you but not by a recreational shooter?? Your argument seems to be asserting that this is the case??
Having lived on 4000 acres of rice for 7 years I can tell the farmer dont care and just wants the bloody things taken off his rice. He will shoot them and leave them there or employ other people (such as myself) to destroy them on his behalf. Now a recreational shooter spends his own time and money taking his alloted amount and USES what he shoots. That seems to me to be a better use for a culled animal.

Your second issue which is supported by “uncle” has to do with some sexual issues.
You need to have a good hard look at yourselves. If someone ENJOYS something it doesnt need to be SEXUAL. I enjoy a strong coffee and a filtered cigarette, I enjoy a sunset by a campfire, a fine single malt scotch, a good book and building sandcastles on the beach with my kids. NONE of those things are SEXUAL. It seems that Geoff and Uncle only equate enjoyment with sex. I think you guys are the ones that need some physcological help here. Add to the this the fact that you seem to be endorsing the killing of other human beings for sport and you are downright sociapaths.

ENJOYMENT does not have to be SEXUAL. I will repeat that for your tofu rotted brains. ENJOYMENT does not equal SEX. I know plenty of people who ENJOY golf but they dont go around the golf course with ‘woodies’ as some of you suggest us hunters do.

I do ENJOY hunting. I spend hours fine tuning my equipment and techniques. I spend thousands of dollars a year on equipment and trips. There is a sense of satisfaction when after hours of patience I drop a fox in its tracks. The satisfaction and ENJOYMENT that I feel isnt in the actual killing, it is in the belief that I have actually done some good for my environment. I have saved countless native birds and reptiles from a fox or a feral cat. I have helped the farmer secure his lambs for the season. I take ENJOYMENT in this fact. I also take enjoyment from the culling of rabbits. Last time I went hunting my son and I shot 23 rabbits over one warren. We moved after an hour and sat and watched for half an hour as the big wedgies came in for a feed. They were simply beautiful to watch.

This brings me to my third point about hunting and family values. My son hunts with me all the time. Whilst we hunt foxes and feral cats we also cull thousands of rabbits. Despite what some of you so called ‘social experts’ on here would have us believe it hasnt turned him into a sociapath. Do you know that my son does to earn his pocket money? He breeds domestic pet rabbits at home. He tends to them with the utmost respect and care and then sells them. Hardly a sociapath. He knows the difference between a domestic pet and a feral pest.

Now for those on this board that eat meat but dont agree with hunting to provide meat. Your argument is based on HOW it gets to a plate. If you arent eating hunted species its none of business. The fact that I can take my own food shows a greater understanding of our environment than some of you that deplore the killing of animal and then sit down to a bloody steak. You live in place called DENIAL !!

My last point is MYOFB!. When all the sydneyites where harping on about the cross city tunnel I didnt get on some website and give some bullshit opinion. Why cause I dont live in Sydney, I dont know all the pro’s and con’s of the issue and dont have a degree in civil engineering so its none of my F’ing business. Guess what guys and girls, What goes on in the country is none of your business when it doesnt AFFECT you AND you have no real world experience in the actual ISSUES. The fact that Geoff knows SFA about firearms is so well highlighted in his original argument when talks about using rifles on ducks. Geoff you showed all of us who do use guns what a imbicile you are. If your gunna argue anything about firearms at least have a clue what you are on about.

To the so called ‘moderates’ on here that dont hunt but see the need for culling of species and dont have a problem with the use of an animal I SALUTE you. Having the courage to openly support something you dont do takes a calm rationale and a respect for other members of society. Good on you ALL!!

Im sure Geoff and Uncle will be able to justify their now flawed arguments but for those out there with an ounce of common sense will see you as the fringe lunatics you actually are.

Michael says:

03:31pm | 20/02/11

“He who shoots the Ducks, Plucks the Ducks”

Love it, honestly, and most hunters would probably agree with me here, the best thing about the Duck Opening isn’t the shooting, it’s the whole atmosphere of the weekend. Setting up a camp, having a good BBQ feed, chatting with camps around you, and this year promises lots of camps as well :D

Uncles says:

07:02pm | 20/02/11

Legal doesn’t mean right as as slavery was once legal too.
Your arguments sound like those put forward by the South..

Michael says:

09:36am | 21/02/11

Right or wrong is a matter of opinion, not an absolute.

Geoff Russell says:

10:31pm | 22/02/11

We are ... I made a submission on the use of shotguns in wallaby hunting last year.

Michael says:

09:11am | 21/02/11

Bloodthirsty yobbo’s? Let’s see, in my hunting group this year I have:
- A CEO of an Australia Corporation
- A Police Officer
- A Telstra I.T. Geek
- A Lawyer
- A Student (who spends most nights out with the SES helping the public)

So I guess if we’re stereotyping, you must be wearing hemp clothing, with dred locks tied back, living in a mud hut out in the sticks right?

Wake up to yourself, you talk about kind hearted inncoents dieing and wish death on hunters, I’ve yet to see a hunter state that any person should die.

Uncles says:

08:14pm | 23/02/11

A CEO - watch The Corporation
A Police Officer - Ever heard of police brutality…
A Telstra IT Geek - Aspergers?
A Lawyer - Lawyers are famous for their morality and scrupulous dealings and fees.
A Student - With nocturnal activities of dubious truth and whose grades would probably improve if he spent some time out of his jumpsuit and actually studying..
And, what role do you play in this band of ‘merry men’, are you the village idiot?

Curt says:

04:11pm | 21/02/11

What and lead a dull life like you in an urban office doing exactly jack-shit.

I Eat Ducks - they taste great, do you want some? says:

10:01am | 22/02/11

Sorry, I dont frequent latte lounges, and I don’t eat tofu and mungbeans darling!

Another laptop crittic with no Idea about the real world, only the crap preeched in school and Uni! from other drug affected wannabe’s. Have another bong and munchie attack and have a big sleep!

This whole nightmare will be over soon! poor little pet.

The enjoyment that you ask about comes form being able to be self sufficent and not having to rely on others to do the dirty work for you ie going down to Wollies and buying meat wrapped in plastic already killed for you, so you dont have to do it yourself, you are a pathetic excuse for a human.

Uncles says:

06:28pm | 23/02/11

Duck shooters don’t hunt an animal down. 
They are lazy bastards who dress up like Rambo and hide in the reeds waiting to ambush their prey.
The enjoyment is in having such utter control over a creature that they can take its life and also in sinking tinnies from the eskies that their large derrieres are attracted to.

Hypocrite Detector says:

03:17pm | 24/02/11

CURTIS,

You sound like a human with experience (I’d use the world man, I thought it might confuse you as you’ve never been called one before!) I wouldn’t want your brain to overload and completely shit it’s self, I mean like who’d fill the bong then hey man, wow my head hurts man, quick another bong bro!

Hypocrite Detector says:

08:04am | 22/02/11

I’m just sending over the duck suit for you to wear, what size are you? Exstremely bloody large, not sure how the suit will go getting over the hairy legs and you are going to have to shave the armpits sweetheart.
P.S. I’ll send another one over for your lesbian friend as well just PM me with her size.

Uncles says:

06:24pm | 23/02/11

Nice homophobic and gender vilification there HD, not.
No wonder duck shooters are renowned for their compassion and their wit, not.

Leslie says:

03:36pm | 21/02/11

Margaret Bowman,

I too will soon be enjoying wild ducks in flight as I line them up in my shotgun sight and for dinner afterwards. And I also agree that we are part of nature too. Me predator , ducks prey and dinner.

Off course if it hadn’t been for the raving of the extreme vegans on here I would never had thought of ever taking up duck hunting.  Lol.

Hypocrite Detector says:

09:28pm | 21/02/11

You can have them for the other 10 months of the year - how about you learn to share! Selfish little cretin! Yes I’m a doctor and I can tell you have a thyroid problem!!

Uncles says:

06:18pm | 23/02/11

Leslie,
Your understanding of ecology and your pathetic grandstanding is pitiful.
Duck shooters are introduced pests on our wetlands and should be eradicated.

Curt says:

04:15pm | 21/02/11

Hello, Get Real has finally woken up and spoken the only half-sentence it knows.

Hypocrite Detector says:

07:06am | 22/02/11

No! cowards like to eat wild duck!!  They taste fantastic, I think I might just take up duck hunting, after all this talk I feel like eating em now!! Yum, anyone got any good recipes for wild duck?

I don’t mind being called a coward, it’s only a word, I know the truth! I’m going to buy a Shotgun and start hunting ducks!!!

Please send me any good duck recipes won’t you.

Get Real says:

01:06pm | 23/02/11

A lack of compassion is one of the most destructive and unattractive traits of a humans character.  The word coward is not just a word in your case, it’s who you are.

Leslie says:

04:25pm | 21/02/11

Shorty,

Many things other than food and shelter are not necessary. Cars kill thousands of animals and people world wide everyday. But cars are not necessary for survival . Shouldn’t they be banned too?
Fishing is also is not necessary and injures and kills lots of fish, crustaceans etc too .Why aren’t you trying to ban fishing?
As for clay targets,  unfortunately they dont taste very good so hunters will keep hunting and eating wild ducks.

Hypocite Detector says:

09:00pm | 21/02/11

What do clays taste like any good?  you idiot!

Uncles says:

06:14pm | 23/02/11

@Leslie.
It can be argued that cars serve a purpose, you can’t say the same about duck shooting unless bloodlust and personal gratification are arguable points in the 21st Century…

Hypocrite Detector says:

06:16am | 25/02/11

TRISTAN

I’ll send over a big bag of Cotton Balls and a big plastic bubble and you can live in there and not have to deal with the big ugly people in the world!.

Oh yeh and a splint for the wrist, I’ve detected that its a bit limp! Your boyfriend is on his way over with a Barbara Strisand CD and a jar of vaso, that should put the smile back on your dial ol mate! pucker up!

Curt says:

06:52pm | 21/02/11

Robert, I think that Uncles suffers badly with Hoplophobia, in fact I think the reason we haven’t seen him today is because he’s off seeing his psychologist about this terrible affliction.
I really feel for him.

Uncles says:

06:04pm | 23/02/11

The guys who dress up in cammos, paint their faces with grease paint and hold an arguably phallic instrument that shoots their wadding/load, (all whilst enjoying the kill), says that I have a fetish…...
Pull the other leg, if you can get your hand off your own todger…...

Hypocrite Detector says:

09:34pm | 21/02/11

What has money got to do with it? If people want to eat wild duck let them! what is the problem? Thats right, we all have a choice to partake in Duck hunting or not - you choose not to that’s fine but don’t tell other people they caren’t just because you don’t! I don’t drink Coffee,  I think we should start banning coffee shops, cafeine makes people hypo, It’s going to have to be banned I’m sorry I don’t do it so you can’t either! only fair really.

Uncles says:

09:57am | 22/02/11

“we all have a choice to partake in Duck hunting or not - you choose not to that’s fine but don’t tell other people they caren’t just because you don’t! “
What about the work of volunteers from wildlife and ornithological groups like Birds Aust?  What gives you the right to destroy their hardwork by slaughtering the birds and their offspring that they have worked hard to preserve?  You know, real conservationists, not a few shooters pulling weeds and luring birds to nest in a shooter’s den for the shooter’s personal gratification and shooting groups’ paying customers….

hamish says:

04:36pm | 22/02/11

but its cheaper to get it yourself and totally legal so why not? why go to a restuarant and pay 30 bucks for a fillet when you can get one for aroun 50 cents, just doesnt make sence

Uncles says:

05:51pm | 23/02/11

What makes ‘sence’ is that you have not factored in the cost to the at least one in every four birds shot that flies away wounded.
Nor have you thought about the fact that the duck belongs to all Victorians and that even though you have the protection of state sanctioned violence to hide behind, morally you are stealing that bird from the 87% of Victorians who oppose recreational duck shooting.

Hypocrite Detector says:

03:21pm | 24/02/11

UNCLE

We factor that in, it goes to the eagles, fish, yabbies, foxes, etc and fertiliser. Bit like humans really, once your dead, your worm food (unless you get cremated, then you just a pile of ash and carbon!

Uncles says:

08:44pm | 27/02/11

What does the rate of decay of a human corpse or mode of ingestion have to do with the fact that the birds do not belong to just duck shooters but all Victorians and that you are trashing the property and work of volunteers from wildlife and ornithological groups like Birds Aust? And, how about the yabbies and foxes who will get an extra feed from all the dead ducklings after you kill their parents this year?  Ducks are breeding out of season due to recent flooding and rains and if you go out onto the wetlands this year, you’re a monster, (not your , for future reference - might like to Google apostrophes?)
There’s your, yore and you’re but you add up to yawn…...

Uncles says:

12:28pm | 26/04/11

@ Hypocrite Detector aka Big Fella Scott,
You also feed foxes, feral cats and feral dogs..  Thus, you increase their populations… Not really good for the environment nor the work of real conservationists, is it?

Uncles says:

05:42pm | 23/02/11

Why do duck shooters always think that if someone is anti their BS, that someone doesn’t know where his shoes come from…?
Thanks for the enlightenment but not the BS…
p.s. Do shoes come from the fridges at Woolworths?
p.p.s. Ever thought that one doesn’t have to be a “HYPOCRITE” nor be sentenced to a lifetime of PVC shoes to be opposed to little men hiding in the reeds with grease paint, guns and hard ons when they kill and did you know that SHOUTING in capital letters does not endear you to rational debate at all?

Hypocrite Detector says:

02:53pm | 24/02/11

UNCLE you still haven’t acknowledged the fact your are also responsible for the deaths of may animal to satisfy your own personal needs have you? Bit hard to swallow that one is it, I’d imagine it would be hard to find a way to justify the points I made, welcome to the real world sweetheart, about bloody time!

Uncles says:

09:42am | 22/02/11

What Tom Roster actually said, as per Longtime Houston Chronicle outdoor writer Shannon Tompkins.
Roster’s research documented, wounding rates with either lead or steel were higher than hunters were reporting and waterfowl managers were believing.
. Decades of research conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through hunter surveys, showed waterfowlers reported a wounding rate of of 15-20 percent on ducks and 11-16 percent on geese.

The hunter-reported duck wounding rate for 1960-1998 averaged 18 percent with the goose wounding for the same period averaging 13 percent.

Roster’s trained researchers accompanied tens of thousands of waterfowlers across North America into the field on actual goose and duck hunts over several years.

The observers used rangefinders to record the distances at which each shot was taken, noting the angle of the shot, the ammunition and gun used, the choke of the gun, whether the bird was struck or missed and, if struck, was it retrieved.

Results of the research were sobering, Roster said.

The observed wounding loss for ducks was about 30 percent, or almost twice that reported by hunters.

For geese, the observed wounding rate was 36 percent.

“That’s almost three times the reported wounding rate,” Roster said.

Being conservative and splitting the difference between hunter-reported wounding loss rates and those documented by researchers still yields a wounding loss rate of 25 percent, Roster said. That translates into about 4 million waterfowl annually impacted by wounding loss.

“The problem is the horrible image it portrays of hunters,” he said. “It is hard to make a case that (waterfowling) is a nice, honorable activity when wounding rates are that high.”

Unless you can guarantee that EVERY shooter who is permitted onto the wetlands has undergone training and testing, you cannot argue that wounding rates have improved.

Uncles says:

08:36pm | 23/02/11

No response…
Who can’t hack open debate, eh?’  It is hard when you’re wrong and you are wrong in oh so many ways….

Hypocrite Detector says:

11:22am | 22/02/11

You sure its for fun James? He may just be havesting his own meat, do you eat at all James, if you do you are responsible for the death of living creatures, just to satisfy your own selfish needs, I guess that’s ok though it came from wollies, Hello James it was walking around a paddock mooing a week or 2 before you bought it, it didn’t just die and fall into little pieces and wrap it’s self in cling wrap and head straight down to woollies James, wake-up you whining little insipid example of a man! Put a dress on mate, if you going to act like a girl, start dressing like one!

James says:

02:36pm | 22/02/11

Wow you must be so brave, just like hunters are brave when they are after an unarmed duck, if the duck had a gun I’m sure they would sh*t themselves.  The guy is no Davey Crockett he is loaded and doesn’t need to kill ducks, he kills ducks for fun and is therefore mentally suspect

Hypocrite Detector says:

08:37pm | 22/02/11

Again James what has having Money got to do with hunting ducks? My guess is he likes the taste of wild duck, have you tried any James? Completely different to the mass farmed, force fed, overcrowded environment that the farmed ducks come from.

Or can you suggest where a person can buy wild ducks? Not sure if they are willing to just drop out of the sky into the woolies basket or not, I suspect not.

James says:

09:14am | 23/02/11

@Hypocite, please cut the f-ing BS.  He likes shooting ducks, sure you can eat meat but if you get your jollies wading around a swamp dressed in cams pretending you are an army man and shooting ducks, that is just tragic.

Uncles says:

04:28pm | 23/02/11

Probably…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

Uncles says:

04:26pm | 23/02/11

You obviously didn’t follow the maths in the article….. Hmmm.
Abattoirs are vile places but they do not release at least one in every four animals that enter their door, to die of its injuries… YOU do!
(Tom Roster, US ballistics expert, shotgunner and researcher for the DSE’s own Shotgunning Education Handbook 2011.)
Oh, that’s right, every shooter disputes the wounding rates because they think that they are exceptions to the rule and prefer anecdotes to factual evidence…

Hypocrite Detector says:

03:02pm | 24/02/11

UNCLE You’ve missed it sweetheart! If you have ever used any part of an animal you are also responsible for the deaths of poor sweet beautiful cuddly little fluffy animals! Work it out! You should be able to count ok as you only wear thongs! maybe its just the huge amount of pot you lot smoke each day that’s clouding the thoughts! eh! or possibly its the lack of descent protein in the system? nevermind keep eating the alf alfa sprouts, you are looking fantastic! yeh I wish I looked that pale and emaciated.

Uncles says:

07:05am | 25/02/11

Hey HD,
Don’t call me sweetheart and I won’t call you needle dick…

Tristan says:

02:41pm | 22/02/11

Nice flaming, ill take that.
Got pets, anton? Start by eating them

Lee says:

03:00pm | 22/02/11

Intelligent stuff, Anton…*sarcasm alert*  Although I do see merit in replies like yours.  It makes it far easier to coax others from the dark side when they see such drivel from the unevolved.

Uncles says:

04:20pm | 23/02/11

Yeah well, duck shooters are like that.  It’s part of their God Complex..

Uncles says:

08:17pm | 23/02/11

“Tried Cat and Dog whilst overseas. Latter is stringy, Former is ok. Horse when properly cooked is delicious.”.... But I’m a really nice guy…. BS!

Uncles says:

06:14pm | 25/02/11

Note how Roster’s research was conducted and then confirm that every shooter that enters the wetlands this year has been tested for competence, vision and ability and then confirm that they have all undergone a formal training program and you might have a point. about wounding rates being addressed in any way shape of form.
As you can’t, you won’t.

Uncles says:

06:20pm | 25/02/11

“Being conservative and splitting the difference between hunter-reported wounding loss rates and those documented by researchers still yields a wounding loss rate of 25 percent”, Tom Roster.

Uncles says:

07:15pm | 28/03/11

Better start respecting then, Geoff Russell is a long practicing vegan!

Uncles says:

02:18pm | 27/02/11

“Every hunter has passed a firearms safety training course to demonstrate competence and safe handling skills long long before being allowed to own any firearm….”
Translation
Long, long ago are the keywords and shooters aren’t tested regularly nor again ever.  In fact, a child can sit their WIT test two years before they get a firearms licence and the child will never be tested again in their entire life.

“Every hunter worth his salt will shoot a form of clay target shooting such as DTL, Trap, Skeet or Simulated Field in the off season to keep in practice. Most will hunt other game during the year.”

Translation
In my anecdotal opinion, shooters who are worth their salt will undertake training and I have no way of ensuring nor proving that they do.

“Simply put, a poor skill level means an empty belt and winged birds, and despite your hysterical claims to the contrary, no hunter wants that.”
Translation
Simply put, I use phrases like empty belt and winged birds instead of acknowledging the wounding and pain I inflict.

Uncles says:

08:23pm | 27/02/11

Quote from Governor Jesse Ventura: You need to hunt something that can shoot back at you to really classify yourself as a hunter. You need to understand the feeling of what it’s like to go into the field and know your opposition can take you out. Not just go out there and shoot Bambi.

Uncles says:

08:18pm | 27/02/11

And if your prey ain’t feral, you are!

Uncles says:

07:21am | 28/02/11

1. It can be reasonably argued that cars serve a purpose it cannot be argued that duck shooting is the same. 
2. Cars are not designed to kill, guns are.
3. Your best evidence is anecdotal and not from any sourced information provider.
4. You dispute the figures accepted by your own fraternity.  If Tom Roster was as irrelevant as you claim, why does the DSE cite him as the expert contributor to the DSE Shotgunning Handbook 2011?
5.  Where is your evidence that all shooters practice out of season?  You are the one who raised this point, can you back it?  Maybe figures of how many shooters belong to gun clubs and how often they attend training sessions?
6. Where is your sourced evidence that debunks Tom Roster?  You make a lot of noise but where are your facts or studies to the contrary? 
7. You think that shooters don’t want wounded birds but I have witnessed shooters firing into fog when they couldn’t see 10 feet in front of themselves, at Sale in 2009.  They were just there to take pot shots at anything that moved.  The DSE officers were furious and several shooters were charged with shooting before the season had actually begun.  You can check those claims by using Google and/or Youtube.
8.  This year, due to flooding and peak river levels, several game species are breeding opportunistically and the wetlands are currently full of ducklings, (Pacific Blacks, Grey Teals and Shovelers), many only a few days old as we speak. Those ducklings will be orphaned and left to die when duck shooters kill and/or injure their parents.  Is that ok or considering the different conditions and breeding patterns this year, should shooters be allowed to go out onto the wetlands when there are so many clutches of young?  You said yourself that no shooter wants to injure birds, was that inadvertently too or just directly?
9. Given your compulsion, I’d say you’re the guy who would shoot the signpost and cry ‘fowl’ if your prey shot back.
10.  A thought for next time you’re hiding in the reeds..
Quote from Governor Jesse Ventura: You need to hunt something that can shoot back at you to really classify yourself as a hunter. You need to understand the feeling of what it’s like to go into the field and know your opposition can take you out. Not just go out there and shoot Bambi.
11. Are you the Peter Whelan who secured 2.25% of the vote in NSW and who is pushing for State gun registries to be closed and who falsely claims that this has already happened in Canada? (Canada is no longer in the process of gun registries being dissolved as Bill C-391 was defeated.)

Uncles says:

08:30am | 01/03/11

And there was me thinking that you were working hard to improve the public image of compassionate and intelligent duck shooters….

Uncles says:

12:36pm | 26/04/11

Actually, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has been calling for a ban on recreational duck shooting for many, many years on the grounds of animal cruelty.  You know, the same reason it was banned in NSW, WA &  QLD…. 
As for your logic that all those opposed to duck shooting must be strict vegetarians, (are you grappling with the term ‘veganism’?), would hold some weight, if ‘hunters’ didn’t frequent Maccas, butcher’s shops and Woolies themselves, and weren’t just jumping on their soap boxes for 3 months every year…
Get your facts straight and your arguments in to some semblance of logic as you are firing blanks so far.