The Greens: Champions of the Wasteful & Disrespectful Destruction of Animals

So in my blog The Greens and the Pursuit of Ideology I went through some of the issues that challenge the Greens due to their dogmatic pursuit of their chosen ideology.

Well yesterday, late in the evening, another one to add to the list came to light.

Greens federal election candidate Scott Campbell-Smith  has admitted that he hunts deer... sorry, that should be he shoots deer on his property.

According to the article on the Weekly Times website (Greens deer hunt admission), Mr Campbell-Smith has deemed the deer to be a pest on his property. The article doesn't outline the damage the deer cause, and being only a few acres, one could reasonably assume that his losses, whatever they are, aren't exactly financially draining; it is far more likely to be the odd backyard vege or rose bush getting a flogging.

Now the Greens have, as one of their aims, "A ban on recreational shooting of all animals, including Australian native water birds". There are no misgivings about their intent with this one: they want to see the end of hunting in Australia, not just on public land, National Parks, State Forests etc, but across all land tenures.

So it has to be asked, does Mr Campbell-Smith's actions fly in the face of one of his party's core aims?

Well not according to him it doesn't.

As I alluded to above, the Greens aren't so naive as to not support the control of pest animals and in this regard they believe that shooting pest animals - by professionals I might add - is acceptable. Mr Campbell-Smith has deemed the deer on his property to be a pest so his actions fall within the party policy, sans professional.

But what is the difference between recreational hunting and pest animal control when undertaken by the landholder or an agent of the landholder (i.e. not a 'professional')?

From what I can gather, the main point of difference is actually pretty simple: when undertaking pest animal control, the animals killed are left to rot in the paddock, or to become a food source for other pest animals - foxes, wild dogs and pigs. When recreational hunting though, it is incumbent upon the hunter to use as much of that animals as possible - the meat and the pelt of course being the two most common resources.

Not only is there the moral obligation to use whatever one can from an animal harvested from the wild, it is also a sign of respect of the quarry that their life - regardless of whether it is deemed to be a pest or not - be of value in the end. To simply shoot an animal and leave it to rot when its meat could be harvested is grossly disrespectful.

We can go even further though and glean from the recent events that the Greens aren't just about the abolition of recreational hunting, but are indeed about the abolition of the right of an individual to feed themselves and their family from the land, even when their quarry is an introduced species!!!

So, is this really what the Greens stand for, the wasteful, disrespectful destruction of animals? And more shockingly the revocation of the right of an individual to feed themselves and their family with meat harvested from the landscape?