At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Game hunting and large prey. Deer stalking, hunting with hounds. Boar, pigs etc., large prey, culling, hunting large feral animals.

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by adam » 09 Jun 2016, 12:26 pm

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.
adam
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 319
Victoria

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by tom604 » 09 Jun 2016, 5:44 pm

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.... :allegedly: :mrgreen:
User avatar
tom604
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1053
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Die Judicii » 09 Jun 2016, 5:52 pm

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.


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.

:thumbsup:
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Die Judicii » 09 Jun 2016, 5:56 pm

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.... :allegedly: :mrgreen:[/quote]

Sailing close to the wind eh Tom ???

:lol:
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by tom604 » 10 Jun 2016, 6:06 am

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.... :allegedly: :mrgreen:


Sailing close to the wind eh Tom ???

:lol:[/quote]

:silent: :thumbsup:
User avatar
tom604
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1053
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by happyhunter » 10 Jun 2016, 8:17 am

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.... :allegedly: :mrgreen:


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
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by happyhunter » 10 Jun 2016, 8:30 am

...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.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Die Judicii » 10 Jun 2016, 2:06 pm

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.
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Die Judicii » 10 Jun 2016, 2:16 pm

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. :thumbsup:
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by happyhunter » 10 Jun 2016, 4:34 pm

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.


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.
happyhunter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1303
Other

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by gazza » 10 Jun 2016, 5:08 pm

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. :thumbsup:



Macro meats only want bucks.
User avatar
gazza
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 156
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by WayneO » 10 Jun 2016, 5:15 pm

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. :thumbsup:


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.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis" Dante's Inferno
User avatar
WayneO
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 183
Victoria

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by tom604 » 10 Jun 2016, 6:49 pm

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.[/quote]

so if you are culling, you still have to shoot them in the head? i know if they are for the chillers you head shoot them (no meat damage) but culling is just about putting them down, is there a reg in place for that for culls? :thumbsup:
User avatar
tom604
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1053
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Die Judicii » 13 Jun 2016, 8:40 pm

tom604 wrote:
so if you are culling, you still have to shoot them in the head? i know if they are for the chillers you head shoot them (no meat damage) but culling is just about putting them down, is there a reg in place for that for culls? :thumbsup:


Yes,,,,, "Head Shots"

On the cull permit I had in Sth Aus, it stated that they must be head shot.
I would envisage that all other states would be the same, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of the other states requirements.

Seems to be at odds with the aim (pardon the play on words) though.
I tend to think of culling in differing ways (my views only) because if culling sick or injured, your only taking one or two, with
head shots achievable.
If culling absolute numbers, your taking maybe 30 or 40 for example, and normally you wouldn't have a mob sitting still to allow that to happen.
In that situation, I don't imagine head shots would be achievable.
I have no idea what the law really would be.
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Arth » 14 Jun 2016, 10:47 am

Seems pretty arbitrary?

Depends on what cartridge you're culling with but I'm sure plenty of guys are using their trusty .308 as their do it all.

Like a .30 cal through the chest doesn't put a roo down quick-smart?
User avatar
Arth
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 174
Victoria

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Gwion » 14 Jun 2016, 11:03 am

It's not about putting the animal down; it's about killing it in the shortest possible time, ie: instantly. The only way to instantly kill anything it to cause catastrophic damage to the central nervous system. The only reliable way to do that is to take out the brain with an accurate head shot.

With a 'vitals' shot, even though they may drop and not move and will bleed out very quickly; it is still not strictly an 'instant' kill.

This is the reasoning behind the government guidelines/rules requiring head shots. For meat harvest, it also is about minimising spoilage of product (damage meat) and chance of contamination for human consumption.
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Elek » 14 Jun 2016, 11:53 am

I suspect Arths comment about headshots being an arbitrary requirement is why is it fine (even recommended) to do chest shots when controlling vermin or "hunting" game, but not for "culling".

I don't have any experience in this but I'm sure we've all seen the aerial culling of pigs. No regular headshots happening there.

The government still make the guidelines/rules for hunting deer but there is no such requirement.
Remington 700 SPS Tactical in .308 Win
Remington 700 XCR Tactical Long Range in .223 Rem
Bushnell Elite Tactical ERS 4.5-30x 50mm
User avatar
Elek
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 141
Western Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by adam » 14 Jun 2016, 12:09 pm

So why the discrimination then from the government?

Why are Kangaroo's any different to Pigs, Foxes, Rabbits, rats, mice, etc that it must be headshots but the others can be baited, dying a slower death by poison, by traps, or by torso shots, etc?

I understand the quick and humane death thing (I prefer quick kills myself when hunting)... but it seems a little impractical for farmers, not to mention illogical and more emotional based.
adam
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 319
Victoria

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by tom604 » 14 Jun 2016, 1:15 pm

Elek wrote:I suspect Arths comment about headshots being an arbitrary requirement is why is it fine (even recommended) to do chest shots when controlling vermin or "hunting" game, but not for "culling".

I don't have any experience in this but I'm sure we've all seen the aerial culling of pigs. No regular headshots happening there.

The government still make the guidelines/rules for hunting deer but there is no such requirement.



this is why i asked ^^ and if im on a goat cull its not a head shot only cull ,,maybe its because its a roo :unknown: you would think that center of mass would be better than a head shot in a cull situation ,,get more on the ground faster/easier . i know they do chopper culls for deer in the south east and i would bet my last dollar that head shots are not the norm. talking culls not chiller :thumbsup:
User avatar
tom604
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1053
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Gwion » 14 Jun 2016, 1:36 pm

Dunno... may come down to the fact that 'roos are on the national coat of arms... In Tas they recommend either head or chest shots when culling wallaby but they are much smaller and less robust than eastern greys or reds.
User avatar
Gwion
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3978
-

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by on_one_wheel » 07 Jul 2016, 9:15 pm

I've recently been given a permit to destroy roos in SA.
A estimation of roo numbers was given to DEWNR by the agronomist. He estimated 500 - 600 Western Grey Kangaroos (a very conservative estimation)
The permit was granted for 75 roos from the 150 applied for.
The permit was emailed along with a 20 page code of conduct fir shooting kangaroos and wallabies for non comercial purposes.
.
Point of aim
(i) A shooter using a rifle must aim so as to hit the target kangaroo or wallaby in the brain (see Schedule 2).
(ii) A shooter using a shotgun must aim so that, whether the target kangaroo or wallaby is stationary or mobile, it will be hit in the head or chest by the centre of the shot pattern.
(iii) A shooter must not aim so as to hit the target kangaroo or wallaby in any other part of the body than those specified in (i) and (ii) above.
Follow-up
(i) The shooter must be certain that each kangaroo or wallaby is dead before another is targeted.
(ii) If a kangaroo or wallaby is still alive after being shot, every reasonable effort must be made immediately to locate and kill it before any attempt is made to shoot another animal. The injured kangaroo or wallaby must be euthanased in accordance with the methods outlined in Section 4.

Copy of the code below
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&sour ... xuWXR4bHdA

The point they make elsewhere in the code of conduct is " to cause instantaneous death"
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3562
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by scaredyet » 08 Jul 2016, 7:51 am

Do you pay for a permit
scaredyet
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 136
New South Wales

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by on_one_wheel » 08 Jul 2016, 10:52 am

I'll ask the wife when I see her next, she organized it. Im pretty sure there was no payment made to DEWNR.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3562
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by tom604 » 08 Jul 2016, 12:17 pm

thanks for the follow up :thumbsup: may have to do my roo accreditation, just in case :thumbsup:
User avatar
tom604
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1053
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by Baronvonrort » 08 Jul 2016, 12:44 pm

scaredyet wrote:Do you pay for a permit


Does the government give anything away for free, have porcine animals become aerodynamic?
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 896
New South Wales

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by on_one_wheel » 08 Jul 2016, 4:26 pm

tom604 wrote:thanks for the follow up :thumbsup: may have to do my roo accreditation, just in case :thumbsup:


The oy accreditation you need in SA is your current FA license.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3562
South Australia

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by GCCA » 24 Jul 2016, 12:04 pm

The reason some (not all some) chillers only want bucks is because they sell the hides and the pouch on the does messes with the available leather. 99% of commercially manufactured goods using roo leather is from a buck.

In Vic if you are shooting roos for the chillers they have to be head shot, if you injure a roo and it is not killed i.e jaw shot then you are allowed to follow up with a chest shot, but if you continually turn up to the chillers with chest shot roos you will lose your accreditation.
GCCA
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 12
Victoria

Re: At last, an answer to Roo numbers.

Post by on_one_wheel » 24 Jul 2016, 1:05 pm

scaredyet wrote:Do you pay for a permit


No fee for the permit for destruction in sa, they must generate revenue from the professionals, the processing license isn't cheep.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3562
South Australia

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Hunting - Game hunting and large prey