In basing a political party on a set of political ideologies, the Greens are not unique. It is true that many of our choices of political parties have, deep in their foundations, an ideology which molds and shapes their approach to policy and power.
Quite aptly, Wikipedia includes in its explanation of political ideologies, among other things, doctrines and myths. Quite apt because this is largely what sets the Greens apart from other mainstream political parties.
The other aspect that sets them apart is their dogged and unwavering
pursuit of these ideologies, so unwavering we could quite accurately
describe their approach as utopian - from their perspective at least
this is the case.
The birth of the Greens was quite noble; deep in the Tasmanian
wilderness a few brave men and women fought hard for the environment, in
this regard they weren't too dissimilar to the hunters that fought hard
to save the Macquarie Marshes and other wetlands in NSW in the face of
the threat of drainage for agriculture. It is a great shame that these
die-hard environmentalists, while not perfect, have seen their party
overrun with modern extreme leftards whose heads are airily found in a
utopian ideal. They cannot compromise, they cannot foresee the impact of
their agendas and most of all, they are so far entrenched in a dogmatic
ideology that they represent the greatest threat to the freedoms of the
Australian people.
The problem with this dogma is that it often sees the sacrifice of pragmatism and compromise in the pursuit of solutions and the shaping of policy.
For example take the very first attempt at an emissions trading scheme in Australia, the Rudd Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2008. From the outset, because it didn't meet the utopian ideals of the Greens, they rejected it. Despite it being a big step forward in Australian energy policy and its response to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the Greens rejected it and called for even more ambitious targets.
Because of their pursuit of the ideal position, it was four years before a new scheme was introduced and in actual fact there was bugger all difference, in terms of achievements to tackle AGW. This was four years the slightly less ideal scheme could have been in force, stoking R&D in renewable and clean energy. It is highly unlikely that the Greens resistance to the CPRS gained anything for the environment and almost entirely certain that it cost.
A more recent example has been the abolition of the Game Council and the suspension of hunting in State Forests in NSW.
The Greens have made it no secret that they wanted the figurative head of the Game Council on one of the iron spikes on Macquarie Street. They have been nothing short of continuous in their hounding of the Game Council and volunteer recreational and conservation hunters since its inception in 2006. With the news of the decision to abolish the Game Council and suspend hunting in all State Forests braking, the Greens were practically orgasmic in receiving and retransmitting the news with slogans such as "We did it! Game Council abolished".
Now I'm not about to suggest that hunting should be celebrated by everyone; far from it for me to tell others how to think, how to source their meat or how to contribute to the conservation movement - I'll leave that to the Greens - but what I do expect is that while ever my own pursuits are conducted within the law and are not impacting detrimentally on others, I will not be vilified for it. However, the unrelenting and dogged pursuit of volunteer conservation and recreational hunters by the Greens and their followers, in the name of environmental ideology, has been the exact opposite.
Their campaign was so hysterical and so venomous they whipped up vicious, vilifying antics by their sheeple (people exhibiting the characteristics of sheep i.e. they follow without question). There were instances of graffiti on prominent hunters' private property, hate mail and derogatory, almost defamatory material spread across the internet.
All of this behaviour aside, where the Greens have spectacularly failed is in addressing the actual problem. And at that, it is an issue that plagues their flagship cause: conservation and the environment.
Because of their ideological pursuit of hunters and the Game Council, 400 State Forests are now with absolutely no strategy or means for the control of feral animals and the management of their increased impact on the indigenous biodiversity.
State Forests have, for almost seven years, enjoyed an annual economic benefit of $2.4m from restricted licence (r-licence) hunters. The recent Public Benefit Assessment has outlined the contribution r-licence hunters have made to the control of feral animals on State Forest land. In fact, such was the impact of our collective achievements, Forests NSW had virtually eliminated their budget for feral animal control across the lands for which they were responsible.
Now though, because of the Greens ideological pursuit of hunters, there is an enormous vacuum, potentially in the order of 21,000 feral animals annually. Their impact on our indigenous flora and fauna remains to be seen, but we can reasonably expect that it will be quite marked with the passing of time.
What is quite troubling however is the alternative should hunting in State Forests not resume at the same levels of efficiency as in the days of the Game Council.
The Greens have already made murmurs about deer being listed as pests, paving the way for the use of aerial baiting with 1080 poison; a similar path to that followed by NZ and no doubt a similar ecological blitzkrieg awaits us.
And finally a rather bizarre example is one where the Greens position actually flies in the face of the historical ideology of the left-wing, that is the position that supports social-equality in the face of unjust disadvantage.
So venomous and all-consuming is their hatred of hunting, farming and fishing, they are prepared to sever the public from these interests - in effect they aim to remove society's ability to feed itself should we ever suffer a food crises.
And should we ever face a food crises, who will be the first to suffer? Whose children will be the first to go hungry? It will be the disadvantaged among us that will not have any means to harvest their own food from the water or the land. They will be slaves to higher food prices and they will suffer as a direct result of those who are supposed to champion their plight.
But it gets worse - and this is where their ideology creates hypocrites of them - their pursuit for organic, free-range (note, not true free-range, but farmed free-range) and generally less intense farming, if successful, will guarantee that food prices will increase and there is absolutely no question that the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society will suffer the most.
All in the name of a utopian ideal.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
National Parks & Wildlife Services - a Model for Inefficiencies
In her recent announcement about the trialling of volunteers taking part in orchestrated culls, The Hon. Robyn Parker - Minister for Environment & Heritage - established that any volunteer hunter would be held to the same standard as NPWS staff.
The sad truth is that National Parks are grossly under-resourced and the skill of their staff, particularly those in higher management roles, leaves a lot to be desired.
In the photo below, supplied by a friend who frequents the area, we can see the impact of wild pigs on the riparian zone of a river that is listed as critical habitat for the endangered Macquarie Perch. One of the key threatening processes for the Macquarie Perch is siltation of deep water holes and spawning grounds and it doesn't take a genius to work out that if this particular river were to rise only a few centimetres, highly mobile and dispersive sediment would begin to wash into the river. The fellow who supplied this photo detailed a number of complaints to various NSW Gov. departments, including NPWS, however almost two months on nothing has been done.
It is a sad reality that this scene is repeated across many National Parks. I have seen similar damage across vast areas of the Coxs River in the Blue Mountains National Park. Interestingly the appearance of pigs in this case followed the change of land tenure from private to public.
It is not all about a lack of feral animal management though.
In the summer just gone we were witness to perhaps one of the most devastating incidences of destruction by neglect, when the Wambelong bushfire razed over 95% of the Warrumbungle National Park in northern NSW (Monster bushfire ravages Warrumbungle NP, Warrumbungle National Park sprouts regrowth after catastrophic bushfire). It is almost inconceivable that 95% of a National Park can be razed in this day and age.
Since the fire, heavy criticism has been leveled at its management in its early stages, management that fell to NPWS. Irrespective of any neglect in the years prior to the devastating fire through a failure to maintain fire trails, conduct hazard reduction operations, etc, the decisions made in the first few hours of the fire - it ultimately led to the scorching of over 54,000Ha, 53 homes razed and hundreds of livestock burnt - highlights the NPWS management's inability to manage bushfires.
On top of all this, there are now allegations of corrupt behaviour - sufficient to dismiss one ranger - where it is alleged benefits were accepted in return for allowing poachers access to the Paroo-Darling National Park in far western NSW. One has to question: is the governance in place is robust enough if this sort of behaviour can occur (National Parks and Wildlife Service deals with drugs for hunting scandal in NSW's west)?
All in all, the Minister's assertion that NPWS are the epitome of public land managers is evidence of just how out of touch she is with what is occurring on the ground. The truth is that NPWS management have failed numerous times to achieve the objectives of National Parks. The suggestion that it is these people that will oversee any planned pest control shoots is a dangerous one - they have failed so far in many of their undertakings, what's to say they'll reverse this form when peoples' lives are at stake?
"volunteer participants [will be] held to anThis is a wonderful sentiment and I applaud the ambition of her statement. However, if only the reality were true.
equivalent high standard that currently applies to NPWS staff and contractors" - Ms Parker
The sad truth is that National Parks are grossly under-resourced and the skill of their staff, particularly those in higher management roles, leaves a lot to be desired.
In the photo below, supplied by a friend who frequents the area, we can see the impact of wild pigs on the riparian zone of a river that is listed as critical habitat for the endangered Macquarie Perch. One of the key threatening processes for the Macquarie Perch is siltation of deep water holes and spawning grounds and it doesn't take a genius to work out that if this particular river were to rise only a few centimetres, highly mobile and dispersive sediment would begin to wash into the river. The fellow who supplied this photo detailed a number of complaints to various NSW Gov. departments, including NPWS, however almost two months on nothing has been done.
 | |
| Erosion from foraging feral pigs. The river in the background is identified critical habitat for the endangered Macquarie Perch. |
It is not all about a lack of feral animal management though.
In the summer just gone we were witness to perhaps one of the most devastating incidences of destruction by neglect, when the Wambelong bushfire razed over 95% of the Warrumbungle National Park in northern NSW (Monster bushfire ravages Warrumbungle NP, Warrumbungle National Park sprouts regrowth after catastrophic bushfire). It is almost inconceivable that 95% of a National Park can be razed in this day and age.
Since the fire, heavy criticism has been leveled at its management in its early stages, management that fell to NPWS. Irrespective of any neglect in the years prior to the devastating fire through a failure to maintain fire trails, conduct hazard reduction operations, etc, the decisions made in the first few hours of the fire - it ultimately led to the scorching of over 54,000Ha, 53 homes razed and hundreds of livestock burnt - highlights the NPWS management's inability to manage bushfires.
On top of all this, there are now allegations of corrupt behaviour - sufficient to dismiss one ranger - where it is alleged benefits were accepted in return for allowing poachers access to the Paroo-Darling National Park in far western NSW. One has to question: is the governance in place is robust enough if this sort of behaviour can occur (National Parks and Wildlife Service deals with drugs for hunting scandal in NSW's west)?
All in all, the Minister's assertion that NPWS are the epitome of public land managers is evidence of just how out of touch she is with what is occurring on the ground. The truth is that NPWS management have failed numerous times to achieve the objectives of National Parks. The suggestion that it is these people that will oversee any planned pest control shoots is a dangerous one - they have failed so far in many of their undertakings, what's to say they'll reverse this form when peoples' lives are at stake?
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The Conscientious Choice
One of my fundamental beliefs is that each of us has, or should have, the freedom to make a conscientious decision about where we source our food.
This is readily accepted, when it comes to vegetables and fruit; indeed it is actively promoted by an industry, supported by a raft of celebrities and there are various grass roots movements around the world campaigning for public land - footpaths, reserves, etc - to be converted to, or be made available for market gardens, vegetable plots or herb gardens.
And so it should be the case; it would be a brave but completely misguided and barbaric government to deny people the opportunity or ability to produce or forage for their own food. In countries such as the UK, this idea is further expanded with communities raising livestock on public commons along with healthy crops of vegetables and fruits.
But why should it be any different for the harvesting of meat?
There is little doubt that meat is, for the general populous, an incredibly important part of our diet. There are some who claim a vegetarian diet could be adopted by the global community; to suggest this however, ignores the problems that modern agriculture poses, the enormous threat to the natural biodiversity and the huge toll on sentient beings. In short, it is simply not practical without decimating an already fractured, wounded and vulnerable mother nature.
From an animal welfare perspective, harvesting our meat from the landscape presents perhaps the most humane way of sourcing protein.
Think for a moment about the life of a sheep, cow or pig bred for its meat: from early in its life it is subject to a range of animal husbandry practices that, while necessary, do cause some distress to the animal. From marking lambs, to dehorning cows, to trucking them to an abbatoir, there are few sources of meat that do not cause distress to the animal somewhere in the process.
Now this is not intended to sink the boot into farmers. Far from it, the reality is that without these practices many people would go hungry, malnutrition would be far more prevalent and conflict and social upheaval would plague our communities.
The life of a wild beast on the other hand is most likely one that has never seen or suffered in any way at the hand of man. It is true that there may be the odd animal that has had a close encounter with another hunter, but these are certainly the exceptions to the rule. In hunting we are fulfilling the ultimate in free-range sourced meat.
There is also an enormous benefit to be realised in sourcing meat from introduced game and feral species. There is no denying the impact of cloven hoofed beasts on our fragile, ancient soils has done untold damage to the natural biodiversity of this great land. It is not isolated to terrestrial biodiversity either, with many native fish species suffering habitat destruction through siltation of water holes and sediment smothering spawning grounds (siltation is listed as a key threatening process of the endangered Macquarie Perch - Macquarie Perch - NSW DPI).
I understand that hunting is not for everyone. It is not my intention to 'convert' those who don't currently hunt to this lifestyle. Rather it is to introduce the idea of the conscientious hunter, the idea of harvesting wild meat and the potential benefits of this lifestyle to the individual, to the animal and to the landscape.
But most of all, it is to defend the individual's right to make the conscientious choice about the source of their food.
This is readily accepted, when it comes to vegetables and fruit; indeed it is actively promoted by an industry, supported by a raft of celebrities and there are various grass roots movements around the world campaigning for public land - footpaths, reserves, etc - to be converted to, or be made available for market gardens, vegetable plots or herb gardens.
And so it should be the case; it would be a brave but completely misguided and barbaric government to deny people the opportunity or ability to produce or forage for their own food. In countries such as the UK, this idea is further expanded with communities raising livestock on public commons along with healthy crops of vegetables and fruits.
But why should it be any different for the harvesting of meat?
There is little doubt that meat is, for the general populous, an incredibly important part of our diet. There are some who claim a vegetarian diet could be adopted by the global community; to suggest this however, ignores the problems that modern agriculture poses, the enormous threat to the natural biodiversity and the huge toll on sentient beings. In short, it is simply not practical without decimating an already fractured, wounded and vulnerable mother nature.
From an animal welfare perspective, harvesting our meat from the landscape presents perhaps the most humane way of sourcing protein.
Think for a moment about the life of a sheep, cow or pig bred for its meat: from early in its life it is subject to a range of animal husbandry practices that, while necessary, do cause some distress to the animal. From marking lambs, to dehorning cows, to trucking them to an abbatoir, there are few sources of meat that do not cause distress to the animal somewhere in the process.
Now this is not intended to sink the boot into farmers. Far from it, the reality is that without these practices many people would go hungry, malnutrition would be far more prevalent and conflict and social upheaval would plague our communities.
The life of a wild beast on the other hand is most likely one that has never seen or suffered in any way at the hand of man. It is true that there may be the odd animal that has had a close encounter with another hunter, but these are certainly the exceptions to the rule. In hunting we are fulfilling the ultimate in free-range sourced meat.
There is also an enormous benefit to be realised in sourcing meat from introduced game and feral species. There is no denying the impact of cloven hoofed beasts on our fragile, ancient soils has done untold damage to the natural biodiversity of this great land. It is not isolated to terrestrial biodiversity either, with many native fish species suffering habitat destruction through siltation of water holes and sediment smothering spawning grounds (siltation is listed as a key threatening process of the endangered Macquarie Perch - Macquarie Perch - NSW DPI).
I understand that hunting is not for everyone. It is not my intention to 'convert' those who don't currently hunt to this lifestyle. Rather it is to introduce the idea of the conscientious hunter, the idea of harvesting wild meat and the potential benefits of this lifestyle to the individual, to the animal and to the landscape.
But most of all, it is to defend the individual's right to make the conscientious choice about the source of their food.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The Conscientious Hunter
For too long now, hunters have been the subject of bigoted, vilifying vitriol from those who would see our cultural pursuit banished to the history books. This has been obediently pedaled by those in the media, the result being a lot of unfair, misguided and malicious hatred towards hunters.
There is no better evidence of this than the rise of the hunter hate site (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hunting-Accidents/116857018328303) with delightful comments such as:
I'd love to hear your feedback, please leave a comment or contact me directly and, as always, please share this amongst your friends and anyone you think may be interested.
There is no better evidence of this than the rise of the hunter hate site (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hunting-Accidents/116857018328303) with delightful comments such as:
"this page is just fantastic kieran i truely go all fuzzy inside when i see the stories of hunters dying no matter [their] age"In The Conscientious Hunter I hope to both counter the irresponsible mistruths by sharing thoughts, ideas and philosophies of hunting, the conservation value and the cultural side of it, and also highlight the hypocrisy, the vilification and the impact of those who strive to see an end to it.
I'd love to hear your feedback, please leave a comment or contact me directly and, as always, please share this amongst your friends and anyone you think may be interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)