tom604 wrote:thought that you could/would do that yourself? or is he taking them for the chiller?
Die Judicii wrote: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.
adam wrote:Die Judicii wrote: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!
adam wrote: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...
WayneO wrote: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?
tom604 wrote:i thought that they took bucks because they were bigger = more kilos = more money per animal
adam wrote: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 wrote: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 ????
adam wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:tom604 wrote: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....
tom604 wrote: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....
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.
happyhunter wrote:...
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 wrote:happyhunter wrote:...
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 wrote: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.
Die Judicii wrote: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.