Nothing stopping you from hunting foxes in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs, with your bolt action rifle, Baron.  Except of course the need to get a hunting license and being able to guarantee that you won't occidentally shoot some suburbanites with your overs or unders.   Of course, all would be hunters are such dead shots they never miss, do they?   

Traps and baits are easier to use, in urban environments, Baron.   They are safer and more sure, than people blazing away into the darkness...   

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:


The Eastern suburbs are zoned residential Brian, it's against the law to shoot in residential areas, you can only shoot in areas zoned rural, iwould say the law stops LAFO shooting in residential areas.
The hoplophobes who squeal the loudest appear to be profoundly ignorant of our laws.

Traps and bait are considered inhumane compared to the instant death from a well placed shot.

Fox numbers are rapidly increasing, the fact they are in residential areas like North head and the Eastern suburbs in evidence of that.

Quote:


Then we have this idiocy from the greens-
Quote:

I regard foxes as part of the natural ecosystem now. Everything had to come here sometime (boat people excluded).

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 14^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:


Oh snap! You gave him both barrels there!

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 14^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:


There's a name for that.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 14^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

Idiocy? From the greens? Surely not!

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:


The article I linked about foxes eating penguins in the OP answered your absurd claims about trapping and baiting being easier than shooting.

They said they were baiting year round at North Head,despite this year round indiscriminate baiting this method did nothing to remove these foxes who were shot by a NPWS officer.
There were 150 people involved in that operation for 2 foxes with only 2 marksmen from the NPWS, the foxes were shot by marksmen who had fox whistles so what futile efforts did the other 148 people contribute to removing these foxes?

A non lethal dose of bait can cause animals to develop an aversion to baits,there was a study which had around 20 foxes fitted with GPS collars who were released into an area before a baiting program,they found only 3 were killed by baits and 20 days later when the collars were set to be released around 15 foxes were still alive,2 were killed by hunters.

Trapping is inhumane IMO and far more work than shooting,when a trapped animal is caught they usually shoot it before removing it from the trap.
Quote:


A well placed head shot results in immediate death, the baits take hours/days to kill with severe suffering for the animal.
Quote:


Your hoplophobia is making you think trapping/baiting is an alternative when it actually increases pain and suffering for the animals compared to an instant death from shooting.

Trapping and baiting is inhumane,it results in more work and money,  I cite the efforts of the 148 people involved at North head to remove 2 foxes that were shot when trapping/baiting failed to achieve anything

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 10:30pm:


And so are you - in opposition!

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 11:24am:


I've never been afraid of a gun either, but then I've never been confronted by some nut pointing one at me. Have you? It's not the weapon I fear, it's the predators at large in our society (as we all are).

All that, however, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't know whether you've witnessed the effects of the old 1080 baiting campaigns back in the day, but I have. So to argue that baiting is a better solution to feral fox problems merely illustrates that you have never hunted foxes for a bounty.

Indiscriminate baiting will never replace targeted eradication effectively, simply because of the 'collateral damage' to other species. Unless, of course, such damage is considered 'acceptable'. Fortunately, these days, such damage in usually only acceptable in warfare - something that, despite our concerns for animal welfare, we have never been able to eradicate from the political sphere.

So, in reality, we shouldn't use guns to kill animals - we should reserve their use for killing people, only if engaged in a politically sanctioned arena of conflict. Firearms should  only be possessed by those in charge, and the rest of us at times when we are encouraged and allowed to become cannon-fodder.

As for feral animal control, we'll just poison the general environment.

That sounds sane.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:


In suburbia, Brian, I'd have to say that 1080 would be much more deadly. In the bush, I'd have to offer the same opinion.

You should know better, Brian, if you'd done a little homework on the residual effects of 1080. It's lethal effects carry on down through the food chain, unlike a bullet.

And I have to comment on "some idiot with a gun blazing away into the darkness". How many registered shooters behave in this way, Brian? The vast majority are all too aware of the restrictions and penalties in place for idiotic and irresponsible behaviour. It's your imported criminal element that's always (unidentified) in the news that creates an anti-gun sentiment in this country. The reason that has gained traction in recent years is because of negative press by the MSM ever since that idiot Bryant cut loose in Port Arthur.

While Australia has not had a mass shooting since (thank heavens), the statistics on shootings has risen despite the gun laws enacted soon after.

Care to guess why? It's the criminals, dummy, that haven't heeded the law. Man Monis would have lasted about 10 minutes in a Texas cafe.

While I'm not supporting a scenario where we walk around like Texans, a Government willing to exclude such trash would help make our country safer. Didn't they get the warnings about that bloke? And how many like him are already ensconced on welfare since the gun laws came into effect?

In your opinion, Brian, should we encourage efforts like this, which are demonised by the MSM and people like yourself:

" Shooters hand in 300,000th fox scalp under Victorian Government bounty, but program labelled ineffective in reducing populations .... " http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/shooters-hand-in-300000th-fox-sca...

Or continue with baiting programs that have long-lasting negative impacts on non-target species?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 4:59pm:


Nice deflection there, Brian!

You asked me a question, I answered it.

No comment on the reply to your question?



And since when has attempted character assassination become a debating tactic? I'm not in the same league as some I could mention.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:


Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 4:51pm:



Brian Ross wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 5:17pm:


I have offered my opinion. You have yet to reply.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 6:20pm:


There is no antidote for 1080 which makes it deadly for humans and anything that eats it,its use is highly restricted in urban areas.

A bit of hyperbole from bwian calling all gun owners idiots blazing away into the darkness.

A pulsar thermal imaging scope on a 22lr or shotgun would be the go for night hunting.
australianshootingservices.com.au/pulsar-products/4584781026

Shooters used night vision equipment here to cull rabbits when poisoning failed to achieve anything,no innocent people were killed despite hoplophobes like brian claiming they were blazing away in darkness-
www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/werribee-mansion-rabbit-plague-culled-by-ssaa...

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 11:01am:



You'll notice, Baron, that he still hasn't answered my question.

Instead, he resorts to name-calling.

What about 1080, Brian? Safe for use in urban areas?

Safer than "some idiot with a gun blazing away into the darkness"?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 5:02pm:


Your attempts to distract discussion about the relative merits of feral fox control by either baiting or shooting are probably best discussed in other threads, Brian. You know, all those ones about immigration and racism that one you so often frequent.

Now, about 1080 - in response to your "yes and yes".

" ... 1080 poison is a slow killer. When ingested (usually through baited food) the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Herbivores take the longest to die � up to 44hrs, while carnivores can take up to 21hrs before finally succumbing to final effects of the poison. The speed of death is dependent on the rate of the animals metabolism.  ... " http://www.wlpa.org/1080_poison.htm

' ... In 2011, over 3,750 toxic baits containing 3 ml of 1080 were laid across 520 hectares between the Tasmanian settlements of Southport and Hobart as part of an ongoing attempt at the world's biggest invasive animal eradication operation – the eradication of red foxes from the island state. The baits were spread at the rate of one per 10 hectares and were buried, to mitigate the risk to non-target wildlife species like Tasmanian devils.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate

Given the brevity of your responses, I am led to conclude two things:

a) That you don't give a rat's about collateral damage to indiscriminate baiting programs.

b) That you consider ALL gun-owners in the light that you just portrayed them.

Well done!

Not only are you guilty of discrimination, you display a distinct lack of caring for the environment and its inhabitants.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:


Baron is also correct. Guns are THE most effective and controllable method of pest eradication, because the only animal killed is the one aimed at.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 12:44am:


No need to 'assume', since all feral pests, in this case foxes, are equal in any eradication scheme.
Sorry, I should have included 'with a halfway decent shooter'.

Well to be honest, competence isn't a prerequisite for very much in the real world, whether shooting or driving or raising children.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 9:08pm:


To be honest, anyone who'd go out shooting feral pests would be a halfway decent shot anyway.

What casualties do you mean?? Contrary to what you may believe, most sporting shooters (95% to 99%) are NOT drunken yobbos.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:


Sure, hunting for pest control requires being able to drop the target in 2 shots or less, otherwise it's way too expensive in ammo.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:


Perhaps not in those words - but there is this:

" ...  The Firearms Safety & Training Council Ltd  runs an aaccreditation program specifically for kangaroo harvesters.
The course includes a shooting accuracy test; a safety check of harvesters’ rifles ... " http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/kmp/10160hbkangharvesters.pdf

And this:

" ... In NSW and Queensland there is a requirement for commercial kangaroo shooters to undertake a firearms competency test. This is voluntary in South Australia (compulsory from July 1, 2002), and has been developed in Western Australia but not yet made compulsory.

The firearms competency test is similar for the three States, with one important exception in South Australia (see below). In NSW, South Australia and Queensland, the test involves shooting five rounds in an 80 mm diameter circle at a distance of 100 m. ... " http://www.environment.gov.au/node/16658

Not the greatest degree of accuracy, but as Gizmo states, why waste ammo when it represents an expense. I don't consider myself a great shot, but I can hit a 20c piece 4 out of 5 at 90m any day of the week with the right .22 and a good 'scope (but that's laying prone and taking my time)..

One imagines that the rules for culling feral horses by helicopter, using semi-automatic rifles, would have similar requirements for accuracy so as to minimise suffering by the target species.

You like to target those who would decry Islam, and Muslims as a whole, because of the actions of a few.

I accuse you of doing the same thing to law-abiding shooters - when you know better.

Shame!

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:


The shooting test for a rimfire rifle is done at 50m,the centrefire tests are done at 80-100m.

I would say every target shooter in Australia could easily pass the shooting test for pro culling,most hunters are capable of shooting 1MOA at 100m which is 25.4mm
I think the standards are fairly low for the shooting tests.

The semi auto rifles used for aerial culling are not as accurate as a good bolt action unless you are talking about a GAP-10.
1 MOA is considered acceptable (GAP-10 capable of 0.25 MOA).
The rules state every animal must be double tapped (shot twice) from the air with a .308 semi auto.

As for bwians comment on Kangaroos not being foxes that is true, they both have similar sized heads.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 12:12am:



Perhaps that's because Baron, like Lionel and I, knows how to shoot?

Btw, 'perfectly aimed' isn't really necessary. Well aimed will do, as long as the fox is fatally wounded, or killed outright. A head shot isn't required, a heart shot does just as well.

So, Baron, the hunting is done for reasons of pest control not recreation?  Do you enjoy filling your blood lust? 

Lionel, I can thankfully state I have never hunted anything.  I find my food in my backyard, growing in the ground for the most part.  I am a vegetarian.

How would I deal with the Fox problem?  I'd not have introduced them!  As they have, I'd clone Thylacines and train them to hunt Foxes.   

Why do you keep trying to quote NSW legislation at us Baron?  Few of us live there.   

Agnes wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:


Wow! Have to be hand-loaded, I'd imagine. Never seen store-bought ammo for one of those.

I've heard of the wildcat .222's but have never used one myself. I'd imagine they'd push a smaller pill than the usual 40-50 grains at a much faster velocity than 3,100 - 3,300 fps.

With such a light pill weight and the assumed velocity, such a projectile would almost always detonate internally, would that be a fair comment?

I'd reckon it would be awesomely accurate in the right conditions, a flat shooter - but would be subject to drift over longer ranges in winds.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:


204 ruger would be a good thing, it's a .223 necked down, push 40gr pills at over 3800fps.