Removing wild Deer semi protected status.

[MalleeFarmer]

What is your stance on this as a hunter and shooter or landholder? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 1df9e5c985
As a Farmer I don't think deer should be protected at all via hunting seasons etc. but should still come under some sort of regulation via hunting permits or licences maintaining the caliber restrictions etc. But I think farmers should be able to cull introduced vermin as they see fit when they see fit on their own property.

[Supaduke]

Can't read it, can you copy and paste the article?

[on_one_wheel]

I totally agree with you. Deer or any other introduced animal should not be protected in any way.

It makes no sense at all.

But I think that hunting permits should only apply with native animals to enable control of how many animals get destroyed and to allow sustainable harvesting of animals such as ducks and roos.

[p3seven]

I think the trophy nuts want to protect the herd for their own benefit at landowners (both government and private) expense. Deer degrade the environment and should be shot out . No seasons, no sex or size discrimination. Spotlighting allowed.

[juststarting]

on public land - permit, on private land - anything goes. It's your land...

[<<Genesis93>>]

If its generally acknowledged that they degrade 'the environment' where there are significant numbers...or at best don't do it 'any good'... WHY then is the hunting so tightly regulated??? is it that the department just doesnt want the average joe benefiting (from the meat) or perhaps that old aversion to guns, and they seek to reduce the number of guns around the bush.... maybe a combination....

My thoughts;

Unless a species is of low enough numbers to WARRANT PROTECTION...;

Private land - introduced or 'native' up to the landowner to wipe them out or leave totally unmolested
'Public' land - introduced or 'native' fair game for meat or other use provided theyre removed(except vermin/pests)

I believe game species on public land (and waterways/ocean) are for 'the public' as such there should not be any permitting system for rec hunting/fishing.

[Ben78]

When you see 40 odd head herd on the oats planted to feed cattle they should not be afforded any protection. And in NSW at least they are not - the landholder is allowed to deal with them in any way they want.

I don't think any introduced species should be protected in any way. Deer, trout, goats, cats - no matter what, no protection. We aren't legally allowed to return carp or redfin to the water but it is constantly practiced with trout!!!

Permits should be required to HUNT on public land, but on private land there should be no controls imposed.

We argue that we are controlling feral animals on public land and so should be allowed to do it, but realistically (put your hand up) who here "controls" ferals, or do you take the single trophy and call it a day?

[Oldbloke]

While the government is collecting $ for the privilege of hunting them not much will change.
As far as deer go I think Victoria is close to getting it right. Spotlights OK on private land and no season. No season on public but no spotlights. Calibre restrictions in place. But need to open up a few more national parks, even if just for a few months like the eildon state park.

[Ben78]

Calibre restrictions in place.

Fortunately in NSW we have "Calibre recommendations" not "restrictions"

The fallow I shot over the weekend was just as instantly dead with a 204 to the brain as he would have been with a "safe" 270 shot to the chest, plus I got quite a lot more meat out of the deal and no picking projectile and bone pieces out of the meat as I have had to with 270 and 30 calibres.

[albat]

Wild feral animals dont respect fences so there should be an expectation for landowners and government to control ferals on their respective titles ater all there no seaons for rabbits cats pigs etc

[<<Genesis93>>]

Calibre restriction is a joke..... you can 'legally' hunt deer with a 310Cadet(if the proj meets the minimum mass), but not the 6.5x55....

[Oldbloke]

Calibre restriction is a joke..... you can 'legally' hunt deer with a 310Cadet(if the proj meets the minimum mass), but not the 6.5x55....

I agree. Was better before they changed it. It needs a rethink.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Not necessarily 'better' before, but the previous version with the 2inch minimum case length was just an antiquated concept that no longer made sense.... with, for example, the 338wsm not 'legal' for deer....... so they tried to 'fix' it after countless complaints that generally went something like; "my 6.5x55SE has taken countless (insert large antelope or other species).... so they delete the case length reference....(then stood back expecting to bath in the glory of 'fixing' the issue).

So they went and got advice....obviously not the right advice that would have resulted with an ENERGY minimum...

[sarki]

Introduced species.

Shouldn't be here.

End of story.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Introduced species.

Shouldn't be here.

End of story.

A little simplistic..... Foxes 'shouldnt' be here..... maybe rabbits but they ARE tasty....greens 'shouldnt' be here, they should be returned to a communistic utopia they so crave....

Deer should be here, but they should be fair game anytime anywhere anyone, with due consideration firearm safety issues, and property rights of course.

[juststarting]

Interesting discussion. I didn't expect these views. Basically, if all non native species are shot out, then there's no hunting. No hunting - no supply and demand, no guns. Pretty simple really, like a lot of the opinions here.

[Archie]

I still think that there's just a total mental breakdown that occurs at the legal level, because there's no overriding principle. It seems to me that the effective rule the laws seem to run on is:

- Non-native = pest, unless tasty/cute = game. Which is just stupid because excessive amounts of deer on farmland are clearly a pest.

- Native = untouchable (even if has turned into a pest) unless it is specifically a roo, and that specific piece of land has a permit for likely nowhere near enough roos. And even then you have to headshoot them - again something I've never understood.

The changes to landowner rights with respect to deer in NSW make sense in my mind, because they reflect that a "game animal" can become a pest animal, depending on where it is. It's not perfect but it seems to make more sense to me, that the person who owns the land is able to act to manage a pest on their property.

For what its worth I also think you should be able to shoot roos in state forest, subject to a tag system same as they do deer in the US and with the requirement, like deer in the states, that you must take out the meat. And brushtail possums for that matter.