At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

[Die Judicii]

Had a young fellah out this afternoon (professional) to familiarize himself, and started taking roos.
Wasn't a good night for it (windy) but at least it's a start.
Hopefully the following visits will be better weather combined with better tallies.

[tom604]

thought that you could/would do that yourself? or is he taking them for the chiller?

[Die Judicii]

thought that you could/would do that yourself? or is he taking them for the chiller?

Hiya Kermie,

They all are going to the chiller mate.
And no,,,,,,,,,, I'm not doing it myself.
The 1st pro shooter that connected me with this guy told me that if you don't have a commercial license and all the necessary boxes ticked,,, and
you get caught shooting roos, the fine can be as high as $30,000 per roo and the authorities can apply to get your property seized/confiscated.

So the answer is definitely NO.
Besides it's better the pro do it, and I can concentrate on other jobs that need doing.

[adam]

The 1st pro shooter that connected me with this guy told me that if you don't have a commercial license and all the necessary boxes ticked,,, and you get caught shooting roos, the fine can be as high as $30,000 per roo and the authorities can apply to get your property seized/confiscated.

1) You can't get a permit to shoot roo's on your own property in QLD?

2) Not that I condone illegal killing of roos, but that's a pathetic ridiculously excessive high penalty - no doubt brought in by one of the 2 major political parties with influence from the greens - not that any of those will be getting my votes this election!

[Baronvonrort]

A commercial harvesting license for Kangaroos is about $900 a year in NSW, it's outrageous

[Die Judicii]

The 1st pro shooter that connected me with this guy told me that if you don't have a commercial license and all the necessary boxes ticked,,, and you get caught shooting roos, the fine can be as high as $30,000 per roo and the authorities can apply to get your property seized/confiscated.

1) You can't get a permit to shoot roo's on your own property in QLD?

2) Not that I condone illegal killing of roos, but that's a pathetic ridiculously excessive high penalty - no doubt brought in by one of the 2 major political parties with influence from the greens - not that any of those will be getting my votes this election!

Yeah Mate,, but also, the key word I reckon is "CAN" be as high as,,,,,,,,,
Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be that high.

I haven't even thought about applying for a cull permit in Qld.
I presume they are available, but from previous personal experience interstate,, not even worth it cos they usually only cater for small numbers, and
I would have the problem of rotting carcasses that I'm not allowed to do anything with.

With a pro shooter, they take as many as they can get within the scope of the license, which is a sh*tload more than cull permits.
Added to the bonus that all that gets left on the property is gut and fore and aft legs, while I sit in the lounge chair as it were.

The main aim at the end of each day is to reduce the overall population of roos which equates to more cattle per acre run for me.
Cattle bring in dollars and meat,,,,,, Roos just cost dollars in damages and loss of feed.

[p3seven]

It is So frustrating. On friends farm central NSW. Watching as every evening 45 roos plus joeys arrive to eat the 5 acres of oats saved for the weaners. Our 243's sit in the safe for want of a permit as the phone at the DPI office goes unanswered.

[adam]

Aah - makes sense - permits are only for tiny numbers and with the plague proportions... I understand.

It would have be good to see some media coverage on this. You know - A story about Aussie farmers - battling drought, and now bureaucracy with Kangaroo plagues. Given that elections are so close - would have made a great 60 minutes segment.... if the media weren't so far left & bias.

What a wasted opportunity. Instead of paying someone to come on your land, if the government were obliging - they could have greatly assisted just by simply giving a permit to you to allow anyone come on your land and hunt the roos. You could have then marketed it to hunters - they come, they pay you for the privilege - they have fun, take meat. You get some extra income to help with the hard times, the roo numbers are cut down... win all round...

[Die Judicii]

Aah - makes sense - permits are only for tiny numbers and with the plague proportions... I understand.

It would have be good to see some media coverage on this. You know - A story about Aussie farmers - battling drought, and now bureaucracy with Kangaroo plagues. Given that elections are so close - would have made a great 60 minutes segment.... if the media weren't so far left & bias.

What a wasted opportunity. Instead of paying someone to come on your land, if the government were obliging - they could have greatly assisted just by simply giving a permit to you to allow anyone come on your land and hunt the roos. You could have then marketed it to hunters - they come, they pay you for the privilege - they have fun, take meat. You get some extra income to help with the hard times, the roo numbers are cut down... win all round...

In a perfect world mate,, in a perfect world.

[WayneO]

Does the pro have to apply for a special permit to shoot on your farm, or is that covered by his pro licence?
Also, does he then charge you for his services and he then get the carcass's?

[Die Judicii]

Does the pro have to apply for a special permit to shoot on your farm, or is that covered by his pro licence?
Also, does he then charge you for his services and he then get the carcass's?

His pro license gives him the right to take whatever roos (eastern greys, Reds, etc) he buys tags for, in whatever locality his license covers.
I dont think they are allowed to take Wallaroos (those thick set black ones)
Whatever he takes must be bucks, and over 15 kgs
He then gets paid by the kilo by the pro shooters manager of the harvesting group / chiller.

There is an official form that I fill out that gives him permission to harvest them on my property.
Thus far,,,,,,, thats all there is to it that I'm aware of, that I have to do.

He did tell me that a small part of getting a commercial license involves being able to distinguish the difference btween "bucks" and "does" at 100 meters.

It's not absolutely perfect from my perspective, because the most successful way of lowering the population would be to take "does" because they usually only number approx 10% of the general population.
And the harvesting licenses only allow the taking of "bucks"

However, at least the population is being lowered somewhat,,which is better than nothing.

[Strikey]

Would another option be to apply for a Damage Mitigation Permit ( not sure of the process ) then register with SSAA Farmer Assist, there are some good people on this forum who are involved, and you as the property owner can sort through the " job " applicants that have the necessary skills and experience.

[WayneO]

Thank you very much for the feedback.
Its very interesting that they only allow the harvesting of the larger buck. The removal of all top breeding males will end up weakening the gene pool as the smaller males will be all that's left to cover the females.

[tom604]

i thought that they took bucks because they were bigger = more kilos = more money per animal

[Die Judicii]

i thought that they took bucks because they were bigger = more kilos = more money per animal

Yer probably on the money there Tom,

[happyhunter]

Aah - makes sense - permits are only for tiny numbers and with the plague proportions... I understand.

It would have be good to see some media coverage on this. You know - A story about Aussie farmers - battling drought, and now bureaucracy with Kangaroo plagues. Given that elections are so close - would have made a great 60 minutes segment.... if the media weren't so far left & bias.

What a wasted opportunity. Instead of paying someone to come on your land, if the government were obliging - they could have greatly assisted just by simply giving a permit to you to allow anyone come on your land and hunt the roos. You could have then marketed it to hunters - they come, they pay you for the privilege - they have fun, take meat. You get some extra income to help with the hard times, the roo numbers are cut down... win all round...

The media coverage we don't need. Here is why you shouldn't let just anybody do it.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/kanga ... pek88.html

If the shooter cannot take a head shot at 200 meters they have no business culling. This is why we have a commerical and non-commercial code.

[Die Judicii]

Whilst on the subject of harvesting, and rules and regulations,,,,

A ludicrous situation exists (at least it did 5 years ago) when I had a cull permit in Sth Aust.

On the cull form, it stated that if any Does were shot, the pouch must be checked for joeys, and if one was present, it MUST be killed immediately by either crushing its skull or other quick and humane means.

This defies logic in my mind because (I think Australia wide) if a motorist hits and kills a roo, and it is a Doe, the pouch must be checked for joeys, and if one is present, it MUST by law be taken immediately to a wildlife rescue place or Vet so that it can be looked after and released back into the wild.

Double standards ????

[happyhunter]

Whilst on the subject of harvesting, and rules and regulations,,,,

A ludicrous situation exists (at least it did 5 years ago) when I had a cull permit in Sth Aust.

On the cull form, it stated that if any Does were shot, the pouch must be checked for joeys, and if one was present, it MUST be killed immediately by either crushing its skull or other quick and humane means.

This defies logic in my mind because (I think Australia wide) if a motorist hits and kills a roo, and it is a Doe, the pouch must be checked for joeys, and if one is present, it MUST by law be taken immediately to a wildlife rescue place or Vet so that it can be looked after and released back into the wild.

Double standards ????

No double standard. Different contexts. Culling is killing to reduce numbers. It would be counter productive to save the joey in that context. Another reason is the majority of people involved in a road accidents would be traumatised by bashing in or cutting off the animals head. Easier for them to ring a the hotline and have somebody else do it.

[adam]

Where does it state that in a vehicle accident with a roo it must be checked? (Not saying you're wrong - but this is the first I have heard of it). Most people I know wouldn't call animal rescue, but rather call the police for an animal dispatch.

[tom604]

If the shooter cannot take a head shot at 200 meters they have no business culling. This is why we have a commerical and non-commercial code.[/quote]


i think its 100 meters,200 meters at a hand sized target out of a window of a ute while doable would end with a lot of roos with no noses ect. you dont need long shots, roos just stand there, its like shooting a tree....

[Die Judicii]

Where does it state that in a vehicle accident with a roo it must be checked? (Not saying you're wrong - but this is the first I have heard of it). Most people I know wouldn't call animal rescue, but rather call the police for an animal dispatch.

I'm pretty certain it is across the states, (not necessarily word for word) but if you ask at rego offices, police etc they will affirm that if your vehicle has struck a roo you must by law stop to check if it is injured or not.
If it is injured you are supposed to either call the police and, or, wildlife rescue people.
If it is a Doe, and its dead, you must by law check for a joey etc etc.

As well, there is probably something printed in relation to all this in the literature given out to all people getting a drivers license.

[Die Judicii]

If the shooter cannot take a head shot at 200 meters they have no business culling. This is why we have a commerical and non-commercial code.

, roos just stand there, its like shooting a tree.... [/quote]

Sailing close to the wind eh Tom ???

[tom604]

If the shooter cannot take a head shot at 200 meters they have no business culling. This is why we have a commerical and non-commercial code.

, roos just stand there, its like shooting a tree....

Sailing close to the wind eh Tom ???

[/quote]

[happyhunter]

If the shooter cannot take a head shot at 200 meters they have no business culling. This is why we have a commerical and non-commercial code.

i think its 100 meters,200 meters at a hand sized target out of a window of a ute while doable would end with a lot of roos with no noses ect. you dont need long shots, roos just stand there, its like shooting a tree....

200 meters is the max distance as per the code of practise. All the info regarding cartridge type/max distance and shot placement is in the code.

[happyhunter]

...and here we go.. so predictable
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/kanga ... pftwy.html

Officers from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning visited a Pastoria East property on Wednesday night to inspect the bodies of 23 kangaroos that wildlife rescuers claimed had been incorrectly shot and left to die from their injuries.

This one is going to bite. Anybody else who wants a permit to cull is going to have more hoops to jump through. What the article doesn't say is one of the wildlife rescuers is Marcus Ward, a member of the Greens and a known agitator and no doubt he will be doing all he can to prevent any future culls.

[Die Judicii]

...

This one is going to bite. Anybody else who wants a permit to cull is going to have more hoops to jump through. What the article doesn't say is one of the wildlife rescuers is Marcus Ward, a member of the Greens and a known agitator and no doubt he will be doing all he can to prevent any future culls.

Bloody tree huggers.
I consider myself to be a "greenie/conservationist",,,,,, but I know reality when I see it and act accordingly.

I guess this Marcus fella would prefer to see the over populated roo numbers starve to death slowly ????

That being said, the roos should be shot "properly" though.

[Die Judicii]

I said in this thread earlier that the pro shooter isn't allowed to take the Does (female)

Well,,,,,, I now have a second bloke that will harvest here as well, and he informs me that it depends on the meat company running the chillers.
The company that this second bloke works for certainly will take Does.

Apparently the other company has bowed to greenie pressure and made the decision that all their shooters are told not to take Does.

I hope this clears up any doubts that some readers may have had.

[happyhunter]

...

This one is going to bite. Anybody else who wants a permit to cull is going to have more hoops to jump through. What the article doesn't say is one of the wildlife rescuers is Marcus Ward, a member of the Greens and a known agitator and no doubt he will be doing all he can to prevent any future culls.

Bloody tree huggers.
I consider myself to be a "greenie/conservationist",,,,,, but I know reality when I see it and act accordingly.

I guess this Marcus fella would prefer to see the over populated roo numbers starve to death slowly ????

That being said, the roos should be shot "properly" though.

I've personally had a run in with that Marcus bloke way back in the past. He is the other owner of the wildlife refuge mentioned in the article and his argument is about them patching the rescued skippies up and releasing them only to be shot. I can tell you that no skippies are starving in that part of the state. The greenies agenda is primarily anti-guns.

I'm no greenie and no conservationist and have no problem with bucks/does/joeys or whatever being targeted and dispatched, but p1ss poor markmanship is another matter. The fact that not one was head shot shows the shooter didn't have the confidence to do the job properly, hence the body shots.

[gazza]

I said in this thread earlier that the pro shooter isn't allowed to take the Does (female)

Well,,,,,, I now have a second bloke that will harvest here as well, and he informs me that it depends on the meat company running the chillers.
The company that this second bloke works for certainly will take Does.

Apparently the other company has bowed to greenie pressure and made the decision that all their shooters are told not to take Does.

I hope this clears up any doubts that some readers may have had.

Macro meats only want bucks.

[WayneO]

I said in this thread earlier that the pro shooter isn't allowed to take the Does (female)
Well,,,,,, I now have a second bloke that will harvest here as well, and he informs me that it depends on the meat company running the chillers.
The company that this second bloke works for certainly will take Does.
Apparently the other company has bowed to greenie pressure and made the decision that all their shooters are told not to take Does.
I hope this clears up any doubts that some readers may have had.

Thank you for the post Judicii
I have been going over rules and regulations trying to find out where this unsound idea came from and have not been able to find anything. I doubted that any wildlife department would ever pass such a rule, but then hey, stranger things have happened.
Just really glad that this is not in fact a rule. However a rule should be passed that bans meat companies from insisting on bucks only. It's counter productive to wildlife management.