Gun safety is vital – but demonising hunters won’t save the

[MG5150]

I recently saw someone post a link to a Sydney Herald editorial piece by an anti-gun lobbyist in relation to the new public land access for pest control bill.

As expected, it was a load of propaganda by people who don't like guns and base most of their ideas on what they see in movies rather than the reality.

Here is the original article I am respondong to: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sho ... 5m8ro.html

Below is an a reply I've submitted to the SMH editor in hopes of getting a rebuttel published.

Opinion
Gun safety is vital – but demonising hunters won’t save the environment
by MG5150
June 22, 2025

Let’s be clear: no one is calling for the right to walk around with unregulated firearms. But framing the NSW Conservation Hunting Bill as a threat to public safety while ignoring its potential environmental benefit is disingenuous at best, and politically motivated at worst.

Stephen Bendle’s recent opinion piece portrays hunters as a reckless, fringe minority hell-bent on undermining firearm laws. That’s a convenient narrative for inner-city voters, but it doesn’t reflect the reality in rural and regional Australia, where invasive species are devastating the environment, and licensed hunters are often the only ones doing anything about it.

Conservation isn’t a Trojan horse – it’s a necessity
Bendle dismisses conservation as a smokescreen. But anyone familiar with feral animal management knows that pigs, deer, foxes, goats, and rabbits are causing billions in environmental damage and threatening endangered native species. Government agencies are under-resourced. Aerial culls are expensive and often inhumane. And while some people fantasise about sterilisation programs or robot dogs saving the bush, real conservation requires boots on the ground – and yes, sometimes rifles too.

Australia has over 24 million feral pigs and an estimated 2 million wild deer, both rapidly expanding their range. You don’t contain that with press releases and moral outrage. You need trained, licensed individuals actively removing animals from the landscape – people who are incentivised, equipped, and supported to do the job right.

Hunters Pay for the Privilege
In Victoria alone, over 58,000 licensed hunters pay for the privilege of harvesting game, contributing millions to the state economy through licence fees, tags, gear, fuel, and travel. Meanwhile, the government spends millions of taxpayer dollars on aerial culling programs that cost over $2000 per deer killed, often leaving carcasses to rot in the bush. This is not only wasteful, but ecologically irresponsible — abandoned carcasses attract scavengers, spread disease, and do nothing to foster public respect for wildlife management.

Victoria has 45 national parks, yet only 6 of them permit seasonal hunting, despite the fact that aerial culling often occurs in these same parks. If licensed hunters were granted access to more of these areas, more deer could be removed humanely, safely, and at zero cost to the taxpayer. Harvested animals could be used for food or pet meat rather than being left to decay.

It’s not that we lack people willing to do the work — we lack the political will to trust those who already demonstrate compliance, safety, and conservation-minded values. Rather than demonising hunters, the government should be empowering them as part of an intelligent, efficient, and ethical environmental strategy.

Public safety isn’t threatened by licensed firearm users
The idea that this bill somehow endangers the general public is not supported by evidence. In fact, licensed firearm owners are among the most heavily vetted and regulated citizens in the country. They undergo background checks, safety training, storage inspections, and regular licence renewals.

Let’s not pretend that legal shooters are the problem. If you’re concerned about public safety, look at the proliferation of illegally imported firearms, or the lack of police enforcement in known gang hotspots. That’s where risk lies – not with hunters pursuing feral animals in remote forests under tightly controlled conditions.

Gun ownership is up — and gun crime isn’t
Despite the fearmongering, gun ownership in Australia has grown significantly since 1996, both in total numbers and as a per-capita trend. There are now over 3.5 million registered firearms and more than 900,000 licensed gun owners nationwide — a huge increase since the introduction of strict post-Port Arthur regulations. And yet, firearm-related crime among licensed owners remains statistically negligible. Legal gun owners are not committing the shootings that make headlines. The system is working — people are being vetted, trained, monitored, and held accountable.

So when Bendle warns of a "flood of firearms" while also claiming only 3% of people own guns, it reveals the contradiction in his argument. Either gun ownership is widespread and well-regulated, or it's niche and irrelevant — but it can’t be both. And if it’s well-regulated, then why are we afraid of letting hunters use appropriate tools like suppressors and night vision, which actually improve safety, reduce noise, and allow for ethical, accurate shooting?

Tools like suppressors and night vision improve safety and ethics
Bendle’s objections to suppressors (which reduce hearing damage) and night vision (which helps with clean, ethical kills) show a lack of understanding of hunting. These tools aren’t about going “tactical” – they’re about minimising suffering, reducing noise disturbance, and improving target identification, especially during pest control operations at dawn, dusk, or night when many feral species are active.

These technologies are already standard in pest control around the world. Pretending that their inclusion is some sinister plot reveals more about the author’s politics than any actual threat to public safety.

A ‘right to hunt’ doesn’t mean a free-for-all
The proposed “right to hunt” is about recognising the cultural, practical, and environmental contributions of ethical hunting – not abolishing regulation. It’s about balancing the conversation, which for too long has been dominated by urban activists who don’t understand rural realities.

Hunters pay for licences, tags, fuel, gear, and sometimes thousands of dollars per year to legally hunt on public and private land. They contribute to the economy, support conservation through habitat work and feral control, and maintain skills most people lost two generations ago.

We already have a “right to bushwalk”, a “right to camp”, a “right to fish”. Recognising hunting as a valid use of public land doesn’t mean removing safety standards – it means including it in the public conversation as a legitimate, regulated activity.

Most Australians support conservation – even if they don’t own a gun
It’s true that most Australians don’t own firearms. But most also don’t oppose ethical hunting. Polling consistently shows strong public support for culling feral animals and managing overpopulation. What the public is sick of is political spin – whether it’s from pro-gun radicals or anti-gun ideologues.

This bill is not perfect. But rejecting it outright based on fearmongering is short-sighted. What we need is a balanced, evidence-based conversation about what role hunters can and should play in conservation, and how best to regulate that role for the public good.

Hunting isn’t the enemy of conservation. Done properly, it’s one of its most powerful allies.


---

That's my 2c, I'd love your feedback.

[Oldbloke]

1. Seems we have found Ted Dranes replacement.
2. Very well written.
3. Let's hope it's printed.
4. BOTH white man and coloured have been hunting since we climbed down from the trees.
5. Suggest send a copy to couple of shooting organisations too.
6. F&G are very active in conservation of swamps etc.

[Oldbloke]

"The Australian Gun Safety Alliance comprises members from the health, medical, education, emergency services, faith, and domestic and family violence sectors"

And some are firearm owners too.

[MG5150]

5. Suggest send a copy to couple of shooting organisations too.

Thank you

Do you have a list of some, SSAA and ADA come to mind but I'll happily send it to every organisation and news outlet that will give it a chance

[Oldbloke]

5. Suggest send a copy to couple of shooting organisations too.

Thank you

Do you have a list of some, SSAA and ADA come to mind but I'll happily send it to every organisation and news outlet that will give it a chance

They were the 2 that came to mind. Perhaps,
Sporting Shooters magazine
Field and Game
SFF party
Shooting Industry Foundation AU
Shooters union

Problem with above is your preaching to the converted.

What about local politicians??

[bigrich]

I recently saw someone post a link to a Sydney Herald editorial piece by an anti-gun lobbyist in relation to the new public land access for pest control bill.

As expected, it was a load of propaganda by people who don't like guns and base most of their ideas on what they see in movies rather than the reality.

Here is the original article I am respondong to: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sho ... 5m8ro.html

Below is an a reply I've submitted to the SMH editor in hopes of getting a rebuttel published.

Opinion
Gun safety is vital – but demonising hunters won’t save the environment
By Michael Gumley
June 22, 2025

Let’s be clear: no one is calling for the right to walk around with unregulated firearms. But framing the NSW Conservation Hunting Bill as a threat to public safety while ignoring its potential environmental benefit is disingenuous at best, and politically motivated at worst.

Stephen Bendle’s recent opinion piece portrays hunters as a reckless, fringe minority hell-bent on undermining firearm laws. That’s a convenient narrative for inner-city voters, but it doesn’t reflect the reality in rural and regional Australia, where invasive species are devastating the environment, and licensed hunters are often the only ones doing anything about it.

Conservation isn’t a Trojan horse – it’s a necessity
Bendle dismisses conservation as a smokescreen. But anyone familiar with feral animal management knows that pigs, deer, foxes, goats, and rabbits are causing billions in environmental damage and threatening endangered native species. Government agencies are under-resourced. Aerial culls are expensive and often inhumane. And while some people fantasise about sterilisation programs or robot dogs saving the bush, real conservation requires boots on the ground – and yes, sometimes rifles too.

Australia has over 24 million feral pigs and an estimated 2 million wild deer, both rapidly expanding their range. You don’t contain that with press releases and moral outrage. You need trained, licensed individuals actively removing animals from the landscape – people who are incentivised, equipped, and supported to do the job right.

Hunters Pay for the Privilege
In Victoria alone, over 58,000 licensed hunters pay for the privilege of harvesting game, contributing millions to the state economy through licence fees, tags, gear, fuel, and travel. Meanwhile, the government spends millions of taxpayer dollars on aerial culling programs that cost over $2000 per deer killed, often leaving carcasses to rot in the bush. This is not only wasteful, but ecologically irresponsible — abandoned carcasses attract scavengers, spread disease, and do nothing to foster public respect for wildlife management.

Victoria has 45 national parks, yet only 6 of them permit seasonal hunting, despite the fact that aerial culling often occurs in these same parks. If licensed hunters were granted access to more of these areas, more deer could be removed humanely, safely, and at zero cost to the taxpayer. Harvested animals could be used for food or pet meat rather than being left to decay.

It’s not that we lack people willing to do the work — we lack the political will to trust those who already demonstrate compliance, safety, and conservation-minded values. Rather than demonising hunters, the government should be empowering them as part of an intelligent, efficient, and ethical environmental strategy.

Public safety isn’t threatened by licensed firearm users
The idea that this bill somehow endangers the general public is not supported by evidence. In fact, licensed firearm owners are among the most heavily vetted and regulated citizens in the country. They undergo background checks, safety training, storage inspections, and regular licence renewals.

Let’s not pretend that legal shooters are the problem. If you’re concerned about public safety, look at the proliferation of illegally imported firearms, or the lack of police enforcement in known gang hotspots. That’s where risk lies – not with hunters pursuing feral animals in remote forests under tightly controlled conditions.

Gun ownership is up — and gun crime isn’t
Despite the fearmongering, gun ownership in Australia has grown significantly since 1996, both in total numbers and as a per-capita trend. There are now over 3.5 million registered firearms and more than 900,000 licensed gun owners nationwide — a huge increase since the introduction of strict post-Port Arthur regulations. And yet, firearm-related crime among licensed owners remains statistically negligible. Legal gun owners are not committing the shootings that make headlines. The system is working — people are being vetted, trained, monitored, and held accountable.

So when Bendle warns of a "flood of firearms" while also claiming only 3% of people own guns, it reveals the contradiction in his argument. Either gun ownership is widespread and well-regulated, or it's niche and irrelevant — but it can’t be both. And if it’s well-regulated, then why are we afraid of letting hunters use appropriate tools like suppressors and night vision, which actually improve safety, reduce noise, and allow for ethical, accurate shooting?

Tools like suppressors and night vision improve safety and ethics
Bendle’s objections to suppressors (which reduce hearing damage) and night vision (which helps with clean, ethical kills) show a lack of understanding of hunting. These tools aren’t about going “tactical” – they’re about minimising suffering, reducing noise disturbance, and improving target identification, especially during pest control operations at dawn, dusk, or night when many feral species are active.

These technologies are already standard in pest control around the world. Pretending that their inclusion is some sinister plot reveals more about the author’s politics than any actual threat to public safety.

A ‘right to hunt’ doesn’t mean a free-for-all
The proposed “right to hunt” is about recognising the cultural, practical, and environmental contributions of ethical hunting – not abolishing regulation. It’s about balancing the conversation, which for too long has been dominated by urban activists who don’t understand rural realities.

Hunters pay for licences, tags, fuel, gear, and sometimes thousands of dollars per year to legally hunt on public and private land. They contribute to the economy, support conservation through habitat work and feral control, and maintain skills most people lost two generations ago.

We already have a “right to bushwalk”, a “right to camp”, a “right to fish”. Recognising hunting as a valid use of public land doesn’t mean removing safety standards – it means including it in the public conversation as a legitimate, regulated activity.

Most Australians support conservation – even if they don’t own a gun
It’s true that most Australians don’t own firearms. But most also don’t oppose ethical hunting. Polling consistently shows strong public support for culling feral animals and managing overpopulation. What the public is sick of is political spin – whether it’s from pro-gun radicals or anti-gun ideologues.

This bill is not perfect. But rejecting it outright based on fearmongering is short-sighted. What we need is a balanced, evidence-based conversation about what role hunters can and should play in conservation, and how best to regulate that role for the public good.

Hunting isn’t the enemy of conservation. Done properly, it’s one of its most powerful allies.


---

That's my 2c, I'd love your feedback.

that's a really excellent, intelligent piece of writing mate . send it to the newspaper to counter that anti wankers piece , as well as the other organisations others have suggested . well done , keep it coming

[bigpete]

I think that's really well written and should definitely be published

[Die Judicii]

Yeah Mate, as others above already said,,, good work and well written.
Hate to mention it but, re "Conservation isn't a Trojan horse" ,,, you missed two of the worst invasive pests.

1) Cats and the associated statistics.
2) Dogs and their associated statistics. > ie: the pig dogs that are left behind because they did't come back, and the domestics dumped in the bush.

And one of the largest in size,, the Camels

[womble]

MG150
I love what you’ve done. Most impressive. I can’t find the hug emoji. Big kisses.
Thankyou for taking the time and making the effort.

As for feedback the only thing I can think of is the relative numbers and the sheer scale of the problem at hand.
And the dire necessity to address it by all possible means. And to support the efforts of all involved.