Brumby cull cock-ups

[Oldbloke]

Ballistics expert casts doubt on choice of weapon as National Parks and Wildlife Service defends 'humane' brumby aerial culling.

"On average, more than seven shots were fired into each brumby." Unbelievable!


https://au.news.yahoo.com/humane-repeat ... 58561.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-18/ ... /103240904

[Oldbloke]

And a submission/recommendation here:

0102 Andrew Mallen.pdf

(285.08 KiB) Downloaded 612 times

[bigpete]

What a load of horse s**t. 308 is plenty big enough for those walking bags of dog meat. But I don't agree with culling of anything by air tbh. Totally wasteful

[Oldbloke]

My bet is they have been using FMJ ammo.

[No1_49er]

Ballistics expert casts doubt on choice of weapon as National Parks and Wildlife Service defends 'humane' brumby aerial culling.

"On average, more than seven shots were fired into each brumby." Unbelievable!


https://au.news.yahoo.com/humane-repeat ... 58561.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-18/ ... /103240904

A WEAPON was NOT used for the aerial culling of feral brumbys.
I don't care how the legislation refers to firearms but until you, the law abiding firearms owners, push back against the poli-speak, you'll be forever pushing the proverbial uphill with a sharp stick.

[bigrich]

And a submission/recommendation here:

0102 Andrew Mallen.pdf

very well written recommendation with facts . me personally i've used the 9.3x62 in the NT. it was "acceptable" performance wise on buff with 250 barnes and placed shots . but on the wild horses i used it on , it knocked them flat with a 285gn round nose projectile .DRT . horse , sambar , donkeys are the ideal game weight for this caliber IMHO . with placed shots a 308 would do the job . but from a moving chopper , and maybe the wrong projectiles it's probably not up to the job. seven shots per brumby if this is true somethings not right .

another option to the 9.3x62 would be a browning BAR with 20 round mag in 35 whelen running commercially available rem factory ammo with 250gn cor-loks
if it's good for elk , it'd definitely work on brumby's . would probably make bigpete happy too

[on_one_wheel]

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if it took me seven shots to kill an animal, let alone that as an average on a hunting trip.
Just one poorly places shot is enough to haunt me.

PS. I totally agree that we must not refer to our firearms as weapons.

[bigrich]

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if it took me seven shots to kill an animal, let alone that as an average on a hunting trip.
Just one poorly places shot is enough to haunt me.

PS. I totally agree that we must not refer to our firearms as weapons.

totally agree

one shot kills are my goal . sometimes it's about NOT taking a iffy shot . experience is a good teacher , sometimes failures in judgement or lack of ability are a lesson we need to learn . so long as we don't repeat our mistakes or show a total lack of empathy for targeted ferals/game . learning what calibers are suitable is also a lesson to be learned at times

[Billo]

Yeah I saw Andy name get mentioned and he is a top bloke, shame he has had to point out that a bunch of numpties give all shooters a bad name.

I would have thought a 200gr 358 Win would be a perfect starting size for horse esp shooting from the air where precise shot placement isnt guaranteed.

Ive use 6.5 swede's and a 9.3x62 for culling donkeys and horse and the bigger the better but they aren't hard to kill on the ground. Hopefully they either get some better shooters and or upgrade the quality of ammo/cartridge

[straightshooter]

This highly expensive aerial culling of brumbies always had the smell of "mates making a motza" about it to me.
It requires almost no imagination to contemplate far more discreet methods of achieving a better result. Methods that have been used successfully elsewhere in the world.
Anybody who has done varied bush shooting will be aware that it takes a lot more in terms of caliber and energy to stop an animal filled with adrenalin than the same animal peacefully grazing and unaware, especially with a well aimed shot.
As for the argumentation and blah about calibers, numbers of shots, wounding of horses and orphaned foals, just be aware where in the political spectrum these criticisms are coming from. There is no need for shooters to amplify them.

[Oldbloke]

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if it took me seven shots to kill an animal, let alone that as an average on a hunting trip.
Just one poorly places shot is enough to haunt me.

PS. I totally agree that we must not refer to our firearms as weapons.

[Oldbloke]

And a submission/recommendation here:

0102 Andrew Mallen.pdf

very well written recommendation with facts . me personally i've used the 9.3x62 in the NT. it was "acceptable" performance wise on buff with 250 barnes and placed shots . but on the wild horses i used it on , it knocked them flat with a 285gn round nose projectile .DRT . horse , sambar , donkeys are the ideal game weight for this caliber IMHO . with placed shots a 308 would do the job . but from a moving chopper , and maybe the wrong projectiles it's probably not up to the job. seven shots per brumby if this is true somethings not right .

another option to the 9.3x62 would be a browning BAR with 20 round mag in 35 whelen running commercially available rem factory ammo with 250gn cor-loks
if it's good for elk , it'd definitely work on brumby's . would probably make bigpete happy too

Inclined to agree. I liked the inclusion of checks and balances such as cameras, ammo receipts and counts.

A few were 12 or more shots.
They would be running (adrenalin
) and helicopter not the most stable platform.

In general bigger animals require bigger bullets/more energy. It's pretty simple. However, I would have thought 2-3 well placed shots from a SP 308 would easily do the job.

I think there is more to it than the use of 308. Marksmanship, FMJ ammo?

And why are they left to rot? A waste of good per food.

[bigrich]

I think there is more to it than the use of 308. Marksmanship, FMJ ammo?

i'm inclined to think this may be the case . poor marksmanship and poor projectile choice . a fella i know related a story of 223 ar15 use on pigs from back in the day with FMJ ammo and a similar result to the brumby cull was the outcome i saw a fella chest shoot a large roo years ago with a 308 and "match" 168gn target ammo . yeah , i know, not acceptable practice . the round pin holed through the roo, and with a freely spurting stream of blood , he hopped off like he hadn't been hit until the poor bugger bled out . the RIGHT projectile for the job has been a major focus for me in recent years . nathan fosters "terminal ballistic research knowledgebase" has been a very good guide in this regard . my own experiences in the field have validated a lot of his observations and recommendations . he likes to handload pretty "hot" however . on that basis i reduce acceptable distances with my own reloads

[alexjones]

It says the shots ranged from 3 to 15 with an average of 7 and "some horses" were shot up to 15 times. Tree cover, making a poor shot, wind, a determined to live horse, being in a moving chopper, making sure the horse is proper dead, maybe his battery for his red dot went flat and he used the iron sites, etc etc, There are so many variables.

2000 / 270 = 7.4. They have just got the average of horses killed by shots fired and made the claim that the firearm is ineffective. For all we know old mate was flying around doing some target practice and was using up old ammo for tax purposes. 308 in a self loading rifle with a suppressor and good ammo is perfect for a horse.

[Lazarus]

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if it took me seven shots to kill an animal, let alone that as an average on a hunting trip.
Just one poorly places shot is enough to haunt me.

PS. I totally agree that we must not refer to our firearms as weapons.

Exactly

If somone needs more than one shot, golf is probably a better pass time for them.

[Oldbloke]

"Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MLC Mark Banasiak said the deaths of the animals appeared to be a breach of the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and he wants police to investigate."


https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/15- ... isconduct/

[Oldbloke]

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if it took me seven shots to kill an animal, let alone that as an average on a hunting trip.
Just one poorly places shot is enough to haunt me.

PS. I totally agree that we must not refer to our firearms as weapons.

Exactly

If somone needs more than one shot, golf is probably a better pass time for them.

I don't agree. Nothing is perfect in this world.
I doubt there would be many hunters out there that have never lost an animal. I don't believe the requirement of a second shot is rare/uncommon. But 1 shot must always be the aspiration.

And shooting running animals from a helicopter would require a very high skill level. Average of 7.4 is outrageous IMO.

[bigrich]

The RSPCA signed off on this

I’m suprised this isn’t front page news with the general media. Absolutely scandalous. I wonder what political influence has been exerted on the media to keep this quiet. Recreational hunters would be on charges over this. Ironically it’s the RSPCA that pushes prosecution over this sort of stuff

[Lazarus]

Well OB, sometimes people take shots they shouldn't take.

I have, and I regret it..
To the point where I let more go now than I shoot.

I got cocky a couple of years ago, took a shot at a rabbit at 465m.
Instead of hitting him in the lungs, it just clipped his spine. Poor little bastard dragged himself around in circles for over a minute before he paused long enough for a coup de gras.
Nothing over 300 with the .223 now and nothing over 100 with the .22

I'm sure we all have our own philosophies

[Oldbloke]

Well OB, sometimes people take shots they shouldn't take.

I have, and I regret it..
To the point where I let more go now than I shoot.

I got cocky a couple of years ago, took a shot at a rabbit at 465m.
Instead of hitting him in the lungs, it just clipped his spine. Poor little bastard dragged himself around in circles for over a minute before he paused long enough for a coup de gras.
Nothing over 300 with the .223 now and nothing over 100 with the .22

I'm sure we all have our own philosophies

Um, I think we are agreeing.

[Jorlcrin]

A lot of the time I'm shooting, I'm making a value assessment as to whether I can afford to NOT try the shot, even when it's not ideal.
If I see a mob of pigs eating lambs alive(happens every so often), I will be saving more animals from a very cruel death if I shoot as many of those pigs as I can, even if I dont have the option of head/heart-shooting every one.
I always attempt to track down any runners, but there is likely the odd one that gets away wounded.
[Though very few who make it very far, from my experience]
Same thing with wild dogs, foxes, cats, etc etc etc.
I prefer to use projectiles/calibres that give me good knockdown/shock, and I prefer to do as much as I can to maximize my likely success.
And that includes reviewing the success of each encounter, and assessing whether we think the projectiles are giving us the best result.
But I dont land the perfect shot every time, and if a couple of them stagger away with a severe guts-ache, then I'm not feeling bad for them.

There are plenty of times where I have taken shots that I'm not proud of, but after seeing the cruelty that dogs, pigs, foxes and even cats will do, I dont lose any sleep over it.
The more I can put on the ground, the better it is for the livestock, AND the local wildlife.

Regarding the shooting of the brumbies, they are quite a destructive animal.
We had a mob of 80+ brumbies here in the early 2000's, and we ended up having to get rid of them because they nearly perished thousands of livestock.
The stallions would play with the floats in the troughs by pawing them, and actually unscrewed 3 floats in the space of a month, so the water supply stopped refilling all the other tanks/troughs while the horses enjoyed a growing lake.
In addition to nearly wrecking one concrete trough, and destroying a number of fences, they also bred like rabbits(and they dont mind inbreeding).
We sold the majority to a horse buyer, and culled the rest.
And from what I know of the brumbies in this cull article, the options to use anything OTHER than aerial shooting has already been tried and failed(for various reason, including sabotage).
I'm not suggesting their kill ratio is anything other than terrible, but I can see why they are trying this method of control.

I'm at a loss to see why .308 isnt a good calibre for shooting horses, given it was used a lot in the TB (cattle) culling programs the Qld DPI ran in the 1970's and 1980's.
When I left DPI in 2000, there was still 2 or 3 of the M14's left in various DPI safes, though I'm pretty sure all the SLR's had been sold at that point.
Given how well a .308 goes through the head of a (feral) horned bull at ~150 metres, I'm thinking a horses' skull is lacking the heavy bone of a bull..

My thought as to the abysmal kill ratio is as follows:-
1). Brumbies are inclined to keep running away from danger, wheras feral cattle tend to often stop and face off the pursuing chopper/bike/ute/horse.
2). The shooters have been strongly encouraged to take head-shots, but the flighty horses are causing a LOT of missed shots.
3). If the ammo purchase is anything like the ones done here for feral pigs in the mid-2000's(Desert Channels QLD), the bean-counter buying the ammo knows NOTHING about how suitable the ammo is for purpose. I saw the local shooters were using Highland 150SP ammo, and when I tried it out, I found the ammo to be wildly erratic. I even pulled a few bullets, and found what looked to be different powder in 2 from the same batch, and a wide variation in powder weight. I suggested to one of the DCQ shooters that they might consider the Federal 130Gn HP, and he tiredly smiled, and said the ammo is always the cheapest DCQ could buy in bulk.
4). The shooters need better training to make more consistent kill shots, under the usual conditions they are trying to shoot these horses.
5). I'd be wondering whether the rifle(s) are the 'best-fit for the job.
6). I'm wondering if the chopper pilots are either poorly experienced with this sort of work, or have been given some sort of OH&S restriction that prevents them getting close enough for consistent kills.

My thoughts.

[Lazarus]

A lot of the time I'm shooting, I'm making a value assessment as to whether I can afford to NOT try the shot, even when it's not ideal.
If I see a mob of pigs eating lambs alive(happens every so often), I will be saving more animals from a very cruel death if I shoot as many of those pigs as I can, even if I dont have the option of head/heart-shooting every one.
I always attempt to track down any runners, but there is likely the odd one that gets away wounded.
[Though very few who make it very far, from my experience]
Same thing with wild dogs, foxes, cats, etc etc etc.
I prefer to use projectiles/calibres that give me good knockdown/shock, and I prefer to do as much as I can to maximize my likely success.
And that includes reviewing the success of each encounter, and assessing whether we think the projectiles are giving us the best result.
But I dont land the perfect shot every time, and if a couple of them stagger away with a severe guts-ache, then I'm not feeling bad for them.

There are plenty of times where I have taken shots that I'm not proud of, but after seeing the cruelty that dogs, pigs, foxes and even cats will do, I dont lose any sleep over it.
The more I can put on the ground, the better it is for the livestock, AND the local wildlife.

Regarding the shooting of the brumbies, they are quite a destructive animal.
We had a mob of 80+ brumbies here in the early 2000's, and we ended up having to get rid of them because they nearly perished thousands of livestock.
The stallions would play with the floats in the troughs by pawing them, and actually unscrewed 3 floats in the space of a month, so the water supply stopped refilling all the other tanks/troughs while the horses enjoyed a growing lake.
In addition to nearly wrecking one concrete trough, and destroying a number of fences, they also bred like rabbits(and they dont mind inbreeding).
We sold the majority to a horse buyer, and culled the rest.
And from what I know of the brumbies in this cull article, the options to use anything OTHER than aerial shooting has already been tried and failed(for various reason, including sabotage).
I'm not suggesting their kill ratio is anything other than terrible, but I can see why they are trying this method of control.

I'm at a loss to see why .308 isnt a good calibre for shooting horses, given it was used a lot in the TB (cattle) culling programs the Qld DPI ran in the 1970's and 1980's.
When I left DPI in 2000, there was still 2 or 3 of the M14's left in various DPI safes, though I'm pretty sure all the SLR's had been sold at that point.
Given how well a .308 goes through the head of a (feral) horned bull at ~150 metres, I'm thinking a horses' skull is lacking the heavy bone of a bull..

My thought as to the abysmal kill ratio is as follows:-
1). Brumbies are inclined to keep running away from danger, wheras feral cattle tend to often stop and face off the pursuing chopper/bike/ute/horse.
2). The shooters have been strongly encouraged to take head-shots, but the flighty horses are causing a LOT of missed shots.
3). If the ammo purchase is anything like the ones done here for feral pigs in the mid-2000's(Desert Channels QLD), the bean-counter buying the ammo knows NOTHING about how suitable the ammo is for purpose. I saw the local shooters were using Highland 150SP ammo, and when I tried it out, I found the ammo to be wildly erratic. I even pulled a few bullets, and found what looked to be different powder in 2 from the same batch, and a wide variation in powder weight. I suggested to one of the DCQ shooters that they might consider the Federal 130Gn HP, and he tiredly smiled, and said the ammo is always the cheapest DCQ could buy in bulk.
4). The shooters need better training to make more consistent kill shots, under the usual conditions they are trying to shoot these horses.
5). I'd be wondering whether the rifle(s) are the 'best-fit for the job.
6). I'm wondering if the chopper pilots are either poorly experienced with this sort of work, or have been given some sort of OH&S restriction that prevents them getting close enough for consistent kills.

My thoughts.

All good points.
My pontificating from the armchair should have included the fact that with the chopper moving, physics moving the shooter in the opposite direction, with the target moving in their own way, I'm truly amazed they hit anything at all, particularly using factory ammo, no doubt from the lowest bidder.
My comment was in the context of day to day hunting, not mass culling from a machine that announces its presence from kilometres away.

I should have stated that

[Oldbloke]

s**t ammo (FMJ?) And that would be false economy.
Moving target.
Moving platform.

And, yes perhaps,
Inexperienced pilot and/or shooter.

OHS, is an interesting possibility. Would not be the first time I've seen crazy OHS requirements.

308? I'm still inclined to think a bit bigger would be better. But agree, right ammo, good marksmanship should do it.

More than likely several contributing causes.

[bladeracer]

My comment was in the context of day to day hunting, not mass culling from a machine that announces its presence from kilometres away.

My neighbour has an R44 so we've become very used to the noise. With the wind coming towards us I don't believe we would hear him coming more than 1200m away. We can watch him take off and land 1030m across the valley from our house. We generally don't hear him start up unless there's a very strong wind coming from his direction, and it's really not noticeable, but occasionally we do hear him increasing RPM to take off. Then he climbs out over the pine plantation, which we don't hear, before circling back to fly overhead. I had the kids out with me one day when I heard him fire it up so we went and stood at the fenceline watching from 200m away, that was very loud indeed. It's difficult to judge vertical distances I find, but he has come over maybe 10m above the fence along the ridge behind the house, but rarely more than about 50m above us. When he's coming towards us I doubt we hear until he's well under 1000m from us, perhaps the tilted rotor disc blows the noise backwards? If there are trees and ground cover between us rather than open valley I would think that would reduce the noise signature as well. Our cows don't react to him so I can't say whether they would notice him before we do. But certainly within shooting ranges it'd be a hell of a racket. I'd be surprised if many were standing shots under 300m, and not what I would consider conducive to taking humane shots on fleeing animals. Thirty years ago I watched some donkey culls at Louisa Downs Aboriginal community, though we were too far away to hear much, not even the shooting. A drone armed with a rifle would be a better prospect I think. Heli-culling seems like a very inhumane and expensive way to deal with pest animals, particularly when we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of competent hunters that would be happy to pay for the privilege of shooting some pests. Properly managed, a landowner could probably bring in a few thousand dollars every week from hunters for very little effort, and get a better result in pest control.

[Oldbloke]

Sporting shooters report.


https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/com ... -brumbies/

[Wapiti]

My comment was in the context of day to day hunting, not mass culling from a machine that announces its presence from kilometres away.

Heli-culling seems like a very inhumane and expensive way to deal with pest animals, particularly when we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of competent hunters that would be happy to pay for the privilege of shooting some pests. Properly managed, a landowner could probably bring in a few thousand dollars every week from hunters for very little effort, and get a better result in pest control.

I am hugely supportive for hunters being involved in State Forest and NP pest control, not just hunting, and I've made a number of submissions to two departments in the Qld Govt on invitation, but it never got me anywhere. I tried to whip up others to join me but apart from winging on social media, nobody would help put any weight on what I was doing. It's really disappointing. But that's another story.

The big problem for landowners in bringing in money to allow hunters (I'm assuming this means private hunters, as opposed to "professionals", meaning those with registered, insured pest control businesses) is just that, insurances and liabilities.
When there is money changing hands on a private property of a registered business, or even an "exchange of services" like a hunter claiming he's doing the landowner a service by removing pests in exchange for access, an exchange of favours such as an electrician who is a hunter getting access in exchange for doing some free electrical work (or any other trade, skill or favour exchange, you know what I mean), then it's
the landowners responsibility to take out additional personal liability insurance to cover this.
The SSAA insurance provided by their membership doesn't cover this, neither does any other club membership. This is according to specific companies cover that we've inquired about, including SSAA Insurance brokers, Elders, etc. This costs us an additional couple of thousand bucks a year so if we're sued we don't have someone we've given access to taking us to the cleaners because of their accidents. We can't afford that, despite city folk often thinking that we can, or should. We get screwed by suppliers, our market, our government cost increases in power and fuel and everyone else already.
Of course, property owners will still continue to do their best and continue to do what they can for themselves, however they personally do it themselves or using hunters access. But money changing hands, it is a legal risk.
I thought I saw a video by Clarke McGee on this, and he makes great points and is dead right.

Way better IMHO that everyone lobbies their state government, they have the funds, some great working successful models like the state forests hunting systems in NSW and Victoria. This could just be expanded to cover this mess now that seems to have everyone in a tizz about on every forum out there.
It needs to be done without BS and fanfare, because like it or not, so much of the public see wild horses control as forbidden and complaining about that will never change it.

[bladeracer]

My comment was in the context of day to day hunting, not mass culling from a machine that announces its presence from kilometres away.

Heli-culling seems like a very inhumane and expensive way to deal with pest animals, particularly when we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of competent hunters that would be happy to pay for the privilege of shooting some pests. Properly managed, a landowner could probably bring in a few thousand dollars every week from hunters for very little effort, and get a better result in pest control.

I am hugely supportive for hunters being involved in State Forest and NP pest control, not just hunting, and I've made a number of submissions to two departments in the Qld Govt on invitation, but it never got me anywhere. I tried to whip up others to join me but apart from winging on social media, nobody would help put any weight on what I was doing. It's really disappointing. But that's another story.

The big problem for landowners in bringing in money to allow hunters (I'm assuming this means private hunters, as opposed to "professionals", meaning those with registered, insured pest control businesses) is just that, insurances and liabilities.
When there is money changing hands on a private property of a registered business, or even an "exchange of services" like a hunter claiming he's doing the landowner a service by removing pests in exchange for access, an exchange of favours such as an electrician who is a hunter getting access in exchange for doing some free electrical work (or any other trade, skill or favour exchange, you know what I mean), then it's
the landowners responsibility to take out additional personal liability insurance to cover this.
The SSAA insurance provided by their membership doesn't cover this, neither does any other club membership. This is according to specific companies cover that we've inquired about, including SSAA Insurance brokers, Elders, etc. This costs us an additional couple of thousand bucks a year so if we're sued we don't have someone we've given access to taking us to the cleaners because of their accidents. We can't afford that, despite city folk often thinking that we can, or should. We get screwed by suppliers, our market, our government cost increases in power and fuel and everyone else already.
Of course, property owners will still continue to do their best and continue to do what they can for themselves, however they personally do it themselves or using hunters access. But money changing hands, it is a legal risk.
I thought I saw a video by Clarke McGee on this, and he makes great points and is dead right.

Way better IMHO that everyone lobbies their state government, they have the funds, some great working successful models like the state forests hunting systems in NSW and Victoria. This could just be expanded to cover this mess now that seems to have everyone in a tizz about on every forum out there.
It needs to be done without BS and fanfare, because like it or not, so much of the public see wild horses control as forbidden and complaining about that will never change it.

How much do the insurances actually cost though? If you're earning say $50k every year from hunters and shooters camping on the property surely the insurances don't make it unviable? There are heaps of paid-hunting properties out there already.

I struggle to grasp the thinking in other states about preventing access to public land for lawful activities. It usually seems to be claimed as a "public safety" issue, but Victoria allows unrestricted hunter access to millions of acres of public land, alongside all the other public users, like bushwalkers and environmental groups that are out there all the time and it's rarely any safety issue. The majority of other bush users aren't even aware that hunters are allowed to shoot in the very same bush they're out enjoying with their kids every weekend. Somebody needs to make the government present a case to support their view that public safety is an issue, and if it proves to be unfounded then open the land up to the public as it should be.

I am a member of brumby-protection groups (among others, like dingo, duck, fox, deer, goat, cat, etc - whatever people hunt there is a group against it) as I like to stay in touch with what the opposing views are. Anti-hunting groups seem to have this panacea view that rather than killing animals that are causing serious environmental problems, somebody (but never themselves, of course) should simply go in and round up the animals and transport them elsewhere. It's a ludicrous proposition (few of these people seem to grasp how economics works) to expect "somebody" to stump up millions of dollars for zero financial return on their investment - and this includes the government spending _our_ money on such fantasies. They must all work in government jobs where they get paid big money to simply show up to work, without having to earn their employer anything at all through their efforts.

[Wapiti]

Last quote we had was around the $4k mark, and that was just to allow non-farm worker "visitors" to have access to camp and use firearms i.e. hunt. Think private person asking farmer to come on and camp/hunt, for free, because it benefits the farmer to knock off a few pigs or deer or whatever. That's called exchange of favours as a lawyer is very well versed on the knowledge that "farmer lets you on, you respond by helping him save money by removing feral animals, or help him do some mustering, fix his leaky tap, whatever, is of financial benefit.
When you start charging fees for access, this becomes legal taxable income, so becomes even more complicated, and the insurance fees cost more.
Then. legally, workplace laws apply such as, JSA's, SWMS, I hope nobody thinks I'm joking here.
Lawyers are very good at getting a private business (A farm is just that) to be liable for injuries sustained to visitors no matter what steps are taken to try and keep people safe. Then as I've said, if there is that charging of a fee for services, like hunting, the responsibility and liability rockets.

Farmers are starting to get extremely concerned about this, and many are stopping access to private hunters in favour of (if they can afford it, which most cannot) the use of private contractors that have their own business liability insurance, and their own JSA's/SWMS on the use of all equipment, vehicles and safety procedures, all which are there to minimise incidents which cause injury and damage.

Yes, there are properties that earn extra income from allowing hunting, and either breed quality hunting animals (at considerable cost to do so, compare at Royal or 14 point stag that's 6 years old and been treated like a pedigree Droughtmaster bull insofar as nutrition, protection from predators, poachers, expensive high fencing etc)
or even a 50,000 acres place that is a feral pig breeding ground and they might charge hunters $75-100/day/per person.
Yes that'll cover the costs of the insurance, the risk is still there, and there is extra work enforcing property safety rules and the paper trail that this is being done.
Think this is BS? That it's not fair? Regardless, it's becoming a huge farmer liability issue and there is nothing we can do about it.

And what about the hunters themselves, do they want a future where this is the norm, and everything costs them more?
I reckon Australia treats and manages hunting very poorly, this is such a shame to me.
Notwithstanding the issues farmers have with feral animals, then there is the environmental damage to those places such as wilderness areas and NP's that are supposedly locked up to save them, yet nobody manages these areas for fire fuels and feral animals making all the native animals extinct.
These areas border farmland, which has to suffer the cost of the feral animal factories that are NP's.

Why can't private hunters be used to control these animals, with the management and liability costs be borne by the state governments?
For example, funded by the money saved from not needing helicopters, expensive private business costs, and bigtime animal welfare issues?
The systems there to manage this are already in use. In the state forest hunting systems. The model works.
That's how I see it anyway.
All this land and resources being wasted.

[Jorlcrin]

Last quote we had was around the $4k mark, and that was just to allow non-farm worker "visitors" to have access to camp and use firearms i.e. hunt. Think private person asking farmer to come on and camp/hunt, for free, because it benefits the farmer to knock off a few pigs or deer or whatever. That's called exchange of favours as a lawyer is very well versed on the knowledge that "farmer lets you on, you respond by helping him save money by removing feral animals, or help him do some mustering, fix his leaky tap, whatever, is of financial benefit.
When you start charging fees for access, this becomes legal taxable income, so becomes even more complicated, and the insurance fees cost more.
Then. legally, workplace laws apply such as, JSA's, SWMS, I hope nobody thinks I'm joking here.
Lawyers are very good at getting a private business (A farm is just that) to be liable for injuries sustained to visitors no matter what steps are taken to try and keep people safe. Then as I've said, if there is that charging of a fee for services, like hunting, the responsibility and liability rockets.

Farmers are starting to get extremely concerned about this, and many are stopping access to private hunters in favour of (if they can afford it, which most cannot) the use of private contractors that have their own business liability insurance, and their own JSA's/SWMS on the use of all equipment, vehicles and safety procedures, all which are there to minimise incidents which cause injury and damage.

Yes, there are properties that earn extra income from allowing hunting, and either breed quality hunting animals (at considerable cost to do so, compare at Royal or 14 point stag that's 6 years old and been treated like a pedigree Droughtmaster bull insofar as nutrition, protection from predators, poachers, expensive high fencing etc)
or even a 50,000 acres place that is a feral pig breeding ground and they might charge hunters $75-100/day/per person.
Yes that'll cover the costs of the insurance, the risk is still there, and there is extra work enforcing property safety rules and the paper trail that this is being done.
Think this is BS? That it's not fair? Regardless, it's becoming a huge farmer liability issue and there is nothing we can do about it.

And what about the hunters themselves, do they want a future where this is the norm, and everything costs them more?
I reckon Australia treats and manages hunting very poorly, this is such a shame to me.
Notwithstanding the issues farmers have with feral animals, then there is the environmental damage to those places such as wilderness areas and NP's that are supposedly locked up to save them, yet nobody manages these areas for fire fuels and feral animals making all the native animals extinct.
These areas border farmland, which has to suffer the cost of the feral animal factories that are NP's.

Why can't private hunters be used to control these animals, with the management and liability costs be borne by the state governments?
For example, funded by the money saved from not needing helicopters, expensive private business costs, and bigtime animal welfare issues?
The systems there to manage this are already in use. In the state forest hunting systems. The model works.
That's how I see it anyway.
All this land and resources being wasted.

Agree totally with the above.

I've watched both home-stay/camping and hunting ventures on properties throughout the district(CW QLD), and NONE of them have survived more than a few years.
Our accountant suggested we cash in on home-stay accommodation about 15 years back, while I'm watching 2 other home-stay businesses in the district struggle with the paperwork/insurance/obligations/etc etc etc, so I declined.
I dont mind having shooting mates here, where they stay up in our shearers quarters, and spend a week shooting.
But there's NO way I can open it to the general public, and no way I can charge for it; paperwork and insurance risk is a nightmare, and getting worse each year.
The insurance company this year, tells me I MUST tell them if we start operating a freaking drone on the 75,000acre property some 70kms fr5om the enarest airport, for gods sake!

We have had opportunities in the past 20 years to have home-stay and/or hunters on the place, and have done so on occasion.
But to make it a viable model where we arent exposed to massive risk via Public Liability and/or workers Comp insurance(depending on how you handle the visitors), we would have to charge eye-watering daily fees.
To handle culling as per the original thread is discussing, we'd find it 'safer' to hire a professional cull contractor, and pay them eye-watering amounts of money by the hour...
Rather sad; ZERO encouragement for farmers to allow legit hunters onto their place, unless the hunter is well known to them.

[mchughcb]

What's the point of a multi-million dollar public insurance liability that the SSAA or ADA offer with their membership?