Federal and state authorities are working to avoid a similar fate for dugongs and turtles. Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the Government is undertaking a strategic assessment of the Torres Strait turtle and dugong fisheries. Meanwhile, the available scientific evidence suggests that present levels of harvesting the sea animals are not sustainable.

Australia is home to 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the estimated world population of 100,000 dugongs. While the large sea mammals - listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as "vulnerable to extinction in the medium-term future" - range widely in the Indian and southwest Pacific oceans, their numbers have crashed due to hunting pressure and the loss of the seagrass meadows on which they feed. The species is especially vulnerable because it is slow-breeding; a female gives birth to a calf every five years on average.

A new study from James Cook University researchers, commissioned by the federal Environment Department's Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, reports that surveys in 2006 estimated a population of 23,500 dugongs in the Torres Strait and northern Great Barrier Reef, about 25 per cent of the world total. This is close to the number estimated in surveys in 2000 and 2001, but substantially lower than numbers noted in 1996.

Modelling for the study suggests that killing more than 100 to 200 dugongs annually in the Torres Strait and 56 in northern reef waters - a fraction of the present harvest - is not sustainable. The study also says climate change may be affecting dugong numbers by increasing the incidence of seagrass dieback.

JCU dugong expert Helene Marsh says it is difficult to accurately measure dugong numbers because the animals roam over large areas in search of seagrass, but there are concerns about the harvest level in the Torres Strait. Says Marsh: "Scientific evidence suggests dugongs may be over-harvested by some Cape York communities and in the Torres Strait. The important thing is to work with indigenous people to ensure the harvest is sustainable."

Surveys indicate that about 5000 green turtles are killed annually for food in the northern Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait and adjoining Indonesian and Papua New Guinean waters. Queensland turtle research program manager Colin Limpus, one of the world's leading turtle authorities, says the regional breeding population, concentrated on Raine Island, was estimated at 50,000 10 to 20 years ago. Limpus says numbers have fallen significantly since then, with hunting accounting for more than half the loss.

"When you can have a single village taking 100 to 200 turtles a year, it adds up to a lot of turtles," he says. "We have concerns for the population's viability."

Nonetheless, Marsh and Limpus are encouraged that indigenous leaders have begun to address the sustainability issue. Six Torres Strait communities are preparing management plans to limit dugong catches under a program funded by a $4.6 million commonwealth grant, although Marsh says more funds are needed to expand the program. Other communities are co-operating with authorities to control turtle harvesting. South of the Torres Strait, the Girringun people of the Cardwell area and the Woppaburra people of the Keppel islands have reached agreements with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to ban the hunting of dugongs and restrict turtle catches. Hunting critics want to go further.

Legal researcher Rebecca Smith, who was commissioned to prepare a review last year on laws affecting dugongs for the Torres Strait Regional Authority, believes hunting is cruel: "Harpooning, a hideous death for whales, is no less hideous for dugongs and turtles. An adult male dugong takes up to two hours to die. People know these things, but they're afraid to tackle the issue."

The conservation movement, always sensitive about its relationship with the indigenous community, finds itself in a quandary over the hunting row. The Wilderness Society's northern Australia campaigner Lyndon Schneiders says the society does not oppose indigenous hunting in national parks when it complies with park management plans. However, as most plans allow hunting, Schneiders contradicts himself when he says the society opposes the use of guns and vehicles for hunting in all national parks.

Indigenous hunting in national parks and other reserves is especially contentious, and management solutions are not easily recognisable when policies vary widely.

In the Karijini National Park in Western Australia, Aborigines can shoot wildlife for food "for themselves and their families". In Katherine Gorge National Park in the NT, the Jawyn people can hunt freely with guns as long as visitor safety is not compromised. In Queensland's Barron Gorge National Park, no firearms can be used without permission and no endangered or vulnerable species can be hunted.

Says Queensland National Parks Association president John Bristow: "National parks are special areas that should be recognised by everyone. Nobody, including indigenous people, should be able to kill wildlife with firearms in national parks."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597963-5013172,00.html

Conerning the points about eco-terrorism Mantra writeS:

Quote.

"The difference is they are trying to preserve life humanely - hunters are taking lives. I wouldn't mind being an eco-terrorist, although it would be dangerous - you would probably end up with a crossbow arrow through your heart by an irate hunter, but I will always sign or support a bill that restricts a hunter from having unrestricted freedom to stalk his prey."

End Quote.

Eco-terrorism can have it's hazards.

Like having to be rescued in a bush search by a SES Volly who is a....gag! ....urrgh.....retch.....weekend ......HUNTER!!

By all means excercise you Democratic freedoms to lobby politicians, sign petitions and vote for candidates whose policies appeal to you Mantra.

I shall support your right to political representation and freedom of speech even though you have contempt for mine.

If you don't like hunting or fishing, then neither I, nor anyone else here is advocating legislation forcing you to do so.

OK mantra, let's try a different approach, one idea at a time. First up, you claim that people's motivation is most important, and that stopping people from having fun is more important than reducing animal suffering or helping the environment. This is wrong on so many levels:

1) It is what people do that matters, not whether they enjoy themselves while doing it. This is especially improtant when it comes to legislation.

2) You appear to be using an absurdly simplistic metric to measure the suffering of animals. To you, if there are two legal ways for animals to suffer, there is twice as much suffering. If you remove one legal way, that halve the suffering. At least, that is what you appear to be arguing. Yet in practice you would remove the more ethical option and force people onto the one that causes more animal suffering. You appear to acknowledge that factory farming causes more suffering, but basically say that you don't care because hunters enjoy themselves and that enjoyment must be stopped. This takes us back to point 1. Do you see how your logic is totally flawed in this?

3) You also claim that hunting should be targetted over crueler methods of supplying meat because hunting can be stopped, whereas factory farming cannot. This argument does not make sense either. If your goal is to reduce animal suffering, your proposal must be judged on whether it reduces animal suffering, not whether it can be achieved. If your proposal makes the situation worse, then the fact that it is (or to you appears to be) acheivable from a political perspective is beside the point. You need to first argue that your proposal is first beneficial, before arguing that it should be adopted because it is easy.

4) You claim that factory farming should be allowed because it is necessary. It is not necessary. Regardless of whether it is necesary, this is not a valid argument for banning hunting, if the net effect would be to push people onto crueler options. This would be like saying that coal is necessary to supply our electricity, and that because wind turbines cannot replace coal entirely and have their own (albeit minor) impact on the environment, they should  be banned. I know that sounds stupid, but so does your argument. You implied that for hunting to be justified on the grounds that it is less cruel, it would have to replace factory farming entirely. This is an absurd argument.

5) You claim that it is better for hunters to be motivated by money. This is a rather strange claim to make. If you look at what it did to the farming industry, the profit motive is what created the cruelest farming methods of all. It is nothing short of naive to assume that being motivated by profit is going to make hunters act more ethically.

6) You appear to equate the enjoyment of hunting with the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty to animals. They are not the same thing.

7) You have made a series of arguments that hunting at this time is unnecessary, or does not solve every single problem in the world, or some other BS argument. This boils down to judging it by an unreasonable double standard. It must merely improve the situation for those involved. If it means one person can obtain free range meat more ethically without funding industrialised farming, then this is a good thing. Demanding that it only be done on a needs basis is not a valid argument for banning it, especially as you cannot even show how a ban would be an improvement for animal cruelty. Being able to ban an activity without people starving to death as a result is not a justification for banning it.

8) You also claim that hunters have to breed the animals to hunt them. This is wrong. Wild animals breed all by themselves. If breeding and releasing feral animals is a problem, then ban that practice, not hunting. I think you will find that it is not hunters, but farmers (who you see as the solution) that are doing this.

9) You claim that overhunting or past mismanagement of hunting is a valid reason to ban it. This is also a double standard. Farming and just about everything else we do has caused problems. This is a valid argument for better management, not a ban. As someone who admits to being ignorant of the finer details of modern natural resource management, you are in no position to judge what the appropriate response is, which is perhaps why all you can come up with is 'ban it'.

I hope that by simplifying my criticisms of your argument you will be able to address them. So far all you seem to do is repeat your argument, sometimes just switching between them. For example, you post argument 3, I post the corresponding criticism. Instead of addressing that criticism, you simply post argument 4. And round and round in circles we go. Hoepfully this will make it easier for you. I apologise if this comes across as condescending, but this argument has been going for 4 pages and so far we have not moved beyond you posting a flawed argument, me posting a criticism of it, then you moving on to another flawed argument, or simply reposting the same one. If you could address the actual criticisms I posted, rather than simply changing the topic, I would appreciate it. Use the numbers if it helps. Remember, these are logical flaws that do not hinge on evidence. I will leave the issue of evidence until after you have adressed the logical flaws in your argument.

PJ:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1239324093

We lost a lot of posts when the site went offline. Nothing personal. I don't recall reading your response. I had to repost that thread.

Most legislation hasn’t got anything to do with pleasure FD – it’s supposed to be put in place so that we can live in harmony and be protected, although often unethical groups have major influence over our politicians and bad decisions are made.

There are two sorts of animal production, factory and free range. We would all prefer free range, but no matter how much objection there is to factory farming, our voices are drowned out by the multinationals and elite shareholders. They have a voice in our parliament, so do the hunters – but the ordinary protestor doesn’t.

Most developed countries are far ahead of us in regard to hunting. How do you think the english aristocracy felt when fox hunting with hounds was banned? That was not only their pleasure, but a tradition.

A bill is going to be introduced shortly to have bear hunting banned in Canada and the banning of culling of baby harp seals under a year is also banned in Russia.  Hunting in the Caspian Hyrcanian forests and other protected forests and wetlands in Iran is also banned. Even South Africa has the strictest of hunting regulations and the European Court of Justice has issued  interim measures ordering Malta not to open the 2008 or 2009 spring hunting season.

These are only a few examples and these countries are far more primitive and in desperate need of food than hunters here in Australia - but we have always lagged so far behind other first world countries and are more equal to a third world country in many of our habits.

How does banning hunting in our National Parks increase the suffering of animals?  You’ve already seen the examples of hunting by our indigenous people and even their leaders are beginning to say enough is enough as there aren’t enough animals and marine life to sustain this traditional way of life. Animals are becoming endangered and some on the border of extinction because indigenous hunters demand their rights to continue to hunt, although it's no longer necessary, apart from those living in remote areas.

I'll say this again FD - you are not living out in the great wilderness where there is an abundance of wild animals and even saying you only kill feral animals doesn't make sense because in the next breath you say you do it for food. And you didn't say how you transport the carcasses either - 4WD's maybe?

Oh - and these aren't my words - but they sounded relevant.

Throwbacks prefer stalking living animals with a bow and arrow for pleasure, as their Neanderthal ancestors did from necessity,

   

Hi Mantra.

You write:

Quote.

"Yes you have been quite civil and restrained Warrigal - more so than Locutius and FD and you have also offered some substantial responses, rather than just continually redirecting the argument back onto me."

End Quote.

Thank you Mantra.

I have found you to be a sincere, albeit, not dispassionate opponent.

You add:

Quote.

"I will also admit that I am a little out of my depth, because I'm not a hunter, and no matter what research I do or whatever "uncanny grasp of the obvious" I offer I will not deter you or any other hunter from this sport."

End Quote.

If you are out of your depth Mantra, I would respectfully submit that this has nothing to do with your being a non-hunter.

More likely it is result of confining your information gathering to what appear to be, exlusively anti-hunting "authorities."

To find out about hunting and the reasons why a strong body of non-hunting conservationists such as Dr. David Bellamy endorse sport hunting and why so many hunters and hunting associations have been so pro-active in the field of wildlife conservation long before it became trendy amongst the cafe-latte crowd, please research the literature and study the history of conservation hunting and the scientific papers of the pro-hunting scholars, such as, but by no means limited to, the works of the afore-mentioned Dr.Bellamy.

When you say:

"no matter what research I do or whatever "uncanny grasp of the obvious" I offer I will not deter you or any other hunter from this sport."

I think that you are not only selling "us" short, but just as pertinently, you are short changing yourself.

If your research is scientificaly validated, impartial and presented in an articulate and above all, non-judgemental fashion, you probably won't persuade hunters into abandoning their sport,but you might very easily persuade institutions such as the NSW Game Council to alter, or even reverse certain policies.

Major hunting associations might very well insist on ethics and policy changes, as they did with the lead shot issue, when they insisted that only non-toxic forms of birdshot be legal for waterfowling.

You also write:

Quote.

"The article I last posted on this thread about indigenous hunting in our national parks indicated that this is creating some significant problems which does give support to my argument.  "Hunting and gathering" is creating a drastic reduction of wildlife, therefore non-indigenous hunting in our parks would be exacerbating it."

End Quote.

The article concerning indigenous hunting is interesting.

Sports hunters are subject to a very wide range of legal restrictions governing what types of game they may legally take, how much may be taken and when and where it may be taken etc.

I must needs do more detailed research regarding what exceptions and excemptions apply to indigenous communities.

If there is a serious problem to be addressed there, then I would say that those excemptions need to be reviewed and if needs be revoked.

Other hunters are obliged to conform with hunting laws, so I don't think that there is any problem there.

But there could be a problem if indiginous hunters are not subject to laws such as bag limits, for example.

However, I must reserve judgement until I know more about this area of hunting law.

You conclude:

Quote.

"Unless FD has already started a thread somewhere on "sustainable hunting" which he probably has - I'll look a little deeper into this and not make the debate so personal. It doesn't really matter if I am right - I doubt anyone would admit it on principle - but your polite responses are appreciated Warrigal and I won't categorise all hunters as rednecks again."

End Quote.

I wish to address this section of your last paragraph Mantra.

You say:

"It doesn't really matter if I am right - I doubt anyone would admit it on principle"

Mantra. - Facts are facts. - Therefore, if you can prove that you are right on a particular matter then no reasonable hunter/fisherman or anyone else will disagree with you "on principle."

Warrigal

locutius wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 1:06pm:


you should be embarrased about your little rave about rifles , the "finer points" of loading and shells, when its clear you get all your info from the movies/TV... Mr Wild Bill..this is an embarrassment Loc, and I didnt say so to make you feel inadequate, I just answered your post without the harsh put downs..be a nicer man.


Mantra is doing you the courtesy of conversing with you.. appreciate that.