WA roo shooting

[bigpete]

Ok,so I'm having a conversation on face ache with a bloke in regards to roo shooting in WA stemming from a photo of a chest shot roo he posted.
Now I'm under the understanding that one still has to abide by the national code of conduct,whether it be commercial or non commercial harvest ,the regulations as I read them state head shot only unless trying to put down a wounded animal.
All the research I'm coming up with is pointing to this,yet he maintains he's right,and I don't disbelieve he thinks he's right, I just can't find anything to back him up,nor will he show me anything. I've even looked up the biodiversity act as he suggested and I can't find anything there.
Can anyone actually help with this ? I'm genuinely curious now

[Apollo]

Will this help.... Code of Practice.

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-a ... -australia

[bigpete]

I've already looked at that.

[Archie]

I think you are correct.

Kangaroo shooting is either commercial, or its not. If it's not then basically it's landholders doing culls or shooters doing culls on the landholder's behalf.

If it's commercial then there's no question about the need to comply with the national code.

It its not, then this says you still need to follow the code: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/docum ... o_plan.pdf

I don't know what the penalties are for not following it. And I personally have never understood why head shots are so important for roos when best practice for most game animals is heart/lung. But rules is rules and I would suggest that chest shooting roos and putting in on your socials is probably unwise.

[Stix]

Im under the impression its head shooting only...
I know of a contract shooter who's employees have been known to chest shoot them if its windy...i guess its about numbers...

Ive also been told by a contract shooter, that apparently i dont understand how the "national code of conduct" laws are probably different in each state...
Yep...go figure...

Ah well...i only pull the trigger if i know im going to give it a lobotomy ...

[bigpete]

I think you are correct.

Kangaroo shooting is either commercial, or its not. If it's not then basically it's landholders doing culls or shooters doing culls on the landholder's behalf.

If it's commercial then there's no question about the need to comply with the national code.

It its not, then this says you still need to follow the code: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/docum ... o_plan.pdf

I don't know what the penalties are for not following it. And I personally have never understood why head shots are so important for roos when best practice for most game animals is heart/lung. But rules is rules and I would suggest that chest shooting roos and putting in on your socials is probably unwise.

That's exactly what I was finding too.
Everything leads back to having to abide by the national code of conduct. He even suggested I look into the biodiversity act as well,which I started to,but it's a lot of pages.

[bigpete]

Im under the impression its head shooting only...
I know of a contract shooter who's employees have been known to chest shoot them if its windy...i guess its about numbers...

Ive also been told by a contract shooter, that apparently i dont understand how the "national code of conduct" laws are probably different in each state...
Yep...go figure...

Ah well...i only pull the trigger if i know im going to give it a lobotomy ...

I know. Not sure how a national code of conduct can be changed at a state level....

[Blr243]

Because of the media , and because Roos are seen as cute and furry there’s a ton of city slickers going ape about even one of them being shot ( even though at times their mass numbers result in extreme hardship for Graziers and starvation for the roo population ) so when certain groups have spoken loudly about poor kangaroos suffering at the hands of poor marksmen ,the government may have felt pressure to do something about it . So my guess for the head shot only rules for one type of animal is that they arose from discussions relating to animal cruelty ... I think it’s a BS rule when culling but rules are rules

[Member-Deleted]

My cousin shot roos commercially for many years and head shots was required if a roo was hit below a given level below the head then the carcass was knocked back by the meat box same with pigs as it said in the regulations only an injured roo can be shot in the heart i'm not sure but I think the reason being they usually won't stand still long enough to get a decent head shot the reason for shooting roos in the head is one it is instant in near all instances two if you hit a roo in the chest there is the chance it could linger after bolting not only that there is potential for meat loss in most cases after being hit in the heart/chest area this would cut profits for the shooter when shooting so many per night I don't know the rules over there with that bloke but the commercial culling laws ie roos is Australia wide not so for deer or some other animals this man would not be doing justice for the roo shooters of his area by posting such a thing for all to see if the roo was an injured roo then it was legal but posting it well decide for yourself a little silly I think personally

[bigpete]

And....I'm afraid none of that answers the question....

[Blr243]

Bigpete , is the bloke you are in discussions with saying it’s ok to cull Roos with chest shots ?I can’t see in your initial post the point he is trying to maintain

[Blr243]

I found a code of practice related to commercial shooting and another code of practice relating to non commercial shooting Both say head shots and a heart shot is permissible when an animal is wounded

[bigpete]

Yes he's telling me he has some special legislation that allows for chest shot roos,whereas all my research to this point says that he still has to abide by the national code of conduct,which states head shots unless in the case of a wounded animal,where heart shots are allowed

[Member-Deleted]

According to QLD guidelines heart shots ''is'' legal when culling roos but head shots preferred commercial is head shots are required basically because of bacteria entering the wound and meat spoilage then media attention, why would the gov put a drawing of where to shoot roos humanely ie head / heart if it was illegal to shoot them in the heart doesn't make sense?

[Member-Deleted]

Another point bigpete I doubt he has any such legislation be cause its all from one place and on the point if you are a roo shooter and you keep sending in roos shot down to chest level then the box will report you and it is possible to loose your licence due to you not being able to produce to the guidelines still doesn't answer your question but I think there isn't a answer because the regulations are a strict guideline and they say you can shoot a roo if needed in the chest

[TassieTiger]

An exploded Local wallaby population on an east coast island of Tas just had thousands up in arms - the DPIPWE closed tourism for 2 weeks to bring in pro shooters and they quantified in the media that regulations dictated headshots only...needless to say, some scuba divers apparently filmed a couple shots that went astray...and all hell broke loose. But yeah - headshots for professionals down in Tas.

[bigpete]

Another point bigpete I doubt he has any such legislation be cause its all from one place and on the point if you are a roo shooter and you keep sending in roos shot down to chest level then the box will report you and it is possible to loose your licence due to you not being able to produce to the guidelines still doesn't answer your question but I think there isn't a answer because the regulations are a strict guideline and they say you can shoot a roo if needed in the chest

If you actually read the legislature,it states right at the start,head shots only,however a heart shot may be attempted if trying to down a wounded roo. It explicitly states this. The diagram is only there to show points of aim for the 2 shots. The only time this seems to change,is when using a shotgun,or when putting down an injured animal. That's in both the commercial and non commercial codes of practice,covering both professional shooters and any one who is doing any form of culling. In fact,it even goes so far to state that a heart shot from the back most definitely should not be attempted due to the high probability of the bullet not entering the chest cavity after hitting the spine. Clearly they have never seen anything bigger than a 22 in action lol.

[bigpete]

So essentially,you may only chest shoot once you've blown the nose off a roo and it's hopping around wildly....definitely not as a first shot,and definitely not the way this guy had.....according to everything I've been able to research over the last couple of years anyway....

[Stix]

Yes he's telling me he has some special legislation that allows for chest shot roos,whereas all my research to this point says that he still has to abide by the national code of conduct,which states head shots unless in the case of a wounded animal,where heart shots are allowed

I wouldnt waste my time on him...

You sure its not protector of all from lasers .Ramshakl ..?

If he's "got" this legislation, he can put a link up to it...all regs & legislation is open on the net---well some Standards you have to pay for, but Govt regs are easily linkable...

C
He's probably full of it...Call him out until such time he comes up with the goods & move on...

As for chest shooting them, i dont necessarily agree with...just based on the fact there are all too many cowboys out there likely to be blowing shoulders off them with highly frangible small calibre bullets...

[bigpete]

Personally I don't see that much of a problem with chest shooting them...with an adequate calibre

[Blr243]

In the interests of presenting the right image , and remembering that I might post a photo on the net , if there is an excess of blood dripping anywhere from a freshly shot pig I will most of the time kick dirt over the blood to conceal it or reposition the carcass ....i think it’s more respectful to the game you have just hunted and shot to present it in a tidy manner ... there’s just no need for excess blood in a photo ..... let’s just call it responsible photography. I don’t think a chest shot roo is responsible photography .... Once while bowhunting pigs and not in possession of rifles at Dirranbandi I found a big roo with a badly broken leg that was dangling and I knew it was in for a slow death if I did nothing about it .. I finished it cleanly with an arrow and then moved on ....at that moment sympathy and compassion for a suffering animal was more important than where I shot it or with what equipment.....but there’s no way I was ever going to take a pic of it.

[Member-Deleted]

Yes bigpete it's just as easy to blow the nose off a roo and it's just as easy to do a bad chest shot and I like you don't see anything wrong with heart shots as long as both are good shots

[flutch]

either way OP the guy in question is a complete pleb if he cant hit a kangaroo in the head... seriously...

sure s**t happens sometimes, sometimes there is one in the shadows behind that cant be seen when taking shot and gets injured.

sometimes the scope has had a knock and not noticed and you have a bad shot.

sometimes ammo doesn't perform properly.

however all of these are very sometimes... and given that kangaroos are silly, they sit still, they don't often take off, they present shots for a long time... so the guy is a tool regardless.

[bigpete]

The guy can't seem to offer written evidence of what he believes is correct....and that is what's got me stumped...am I missing something somewhere ?

[marksman]

l work for a pro hunter at times where when we are culling roo's we have to abide by the code, strictly head shoot at no more than 200 with no spray
(spray is not in the code but its part of what we have to be able to do because of culling around buildings ect...)
when l cull roo's on tags for farmers l do abide by the code but am not made do it, there are no tests or checks ect...
l'm not sure if the code for non-commercial is a recommendation or is actual law like it is supposed to be for commercial

l knew a roo shooter here in vic who shot roo's for a knackery that cant shoot for sh!t and never did head shots,
he is a commercial roo shooter and in the past has told me there is no need, his shots are always chest shots and he gets paid by the kilo of usable meat

the reason behind a brain shot is instant death
not everyone is up to it, its more than shooting a dot out to 200
head shooting out to 200 is not difficult if you are set up right and have learnt to shoot and read the animal
the biggest problem you can have is the animal moving/turning at the time you squeeze off the round

its what l know anyhoo

[duncan61]

I learned about the national code for commercial culling from this site after doing it for years.This is how it works in reality.If you have a regulation 6 licence you can cull statewide as a business and all game must be harvested by the code.The factory will not take body shot animals which you can see when it is skinned.You can obtain a damage 5 licence to harvest for a specific property and you are given a quota for that land which is 10% of the roos on it.I have damage 5 licence for multiple properties and one regulation 6.As all shooting is done on private property in WA there is no way of controlling how a farmer/shooter culls his problem chase them down with a combine harvester if it works.How many roos are hit on the road Thousands/millions??? bottom line the code was drafted to show the world kangaroos were being managed humanely.I did the game meat hygiene course and an accuracy test to get my reg 6 anyone can get a damage 5 for their own property.I know the local lads in the little town where I lived set snares at the tip fence line then bashed them dead with golf clubs and baseball bats.I never saw it but it happened

[Stix]

The guy can't seem to offer written evidence of what he believes is correct....and that is what's got me stumped...am I missing something somewhere ?

Whats to miss...?
Its pretty simple to me...show the law...

Plenty of shooters here that know what theyre doing & all either believe head shots are law, &/or dont know if chest shooting is legal...

Where is the law...surely one of us would know it...& if he does, he can come up with the regs...

[bigpete]

Well apparently it's fine to just do whatever Stix....^^^^^^

[bigpete]

So...what it basically boils down is that there is NO written legislation at all that actually contradicts the national code of conduct. Which is actually a code you can be prosecuted by if you're not doing the right thing by it and get caught. My understanding of it anyway.

[flutch]

well couple that with the simple fact that we ALL know there are a lot of people, possibly even people on this forum, that can't hit the broad side of a barn despite all their enthusiasm.

There are also a lot of people who want to just kill everything that moves for no good reason too, and I guarantee we ALL know of someone like that.

Fact is there are top grade target shooters that cant hit a damn thing when put behind the rifle spotlighting and on foot...

All in all there are a lot of people who just shouldn't be hunting, should stick to poking holes in paper or shooting clay discs and metal silhouettes. And unfortunately sometimes those morons are thick enough to post evidence of this on social media.