Pig Hunts May Get The Bullet Over Use Of Dogs

[gillybob]

Up here 1080 kills lots of things, for example Quolls.

I would much rather people hunt in the National Parks and take the deer/pigs/rabbits whatever introduced species it is. Because baiting is so destructive.

Lot of piggers up here, cant say they are all nature lovers, but they do love their dogs and the money they get for 'wild boars' from overseas buyers.

[Aidan3]

So they are guilty until proven innocent and you can make whatever outlandish comment you want about them? Sorry, I happen to think it's this sort of attitude amongst the hunting community that is pushing hunters further into the fringes in the public eye.

Hum, I think it is this (see video below) sort of thinking that is pushing anyone who disagrees wiht it into the so called fringes of society.

BTW I hope this fellow takes his own advice.

Warning lots of bad launage and should be rated not for children.

He's not going to run out of material any time soon though, is he?

[Curlybert]

Curlybert, I cant provide evidence from the NSW Greens that they support baiting any more than you can provide evidence that they dont. Fundamentally no political party would support animal cruelty yet all over Australia poisoning and biological control methods funded by our Governement are being used that make me physically sick.

Yet you asserted confidently that the Greens favour poisoning and now that you've been caught out with your pants down, you can only muster this feeble argument that I can't prove that they don't. Your exact words: "The Greens seem to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language and they seem to want to twist the facts and outright lie to persecute a group of people who give their time to help control a feral pest."

So who exactly is twisting facts?

[shortstep]

So they are guilty until proven innocent and you can make whatever outlandish comment you want about them? Sorry, I happen to think it's this sort of attitude amongst the hunting community that is pushing hunters further into the fringes in the public eye.

Hum, I think it is this (see video below) sort of thinking that is pushing anyone who disagrees wiht it into the so called fringes of society.

BTW I hope this fellow takes his own advice.

Warning lots of bad launage and should be rated not for children.

He's not going to run out of material any time soon though, is he?

Only if you think that the world would be a much better place if humans did not exist (except for the intellectuals of course) and that we should feel very guilty for existing, hate our parents and grandparents for having us and we should never reproduce (except for the intellectuals of course) and that women are horrible creatures. All polished off with the concept that anyone who does not believe in this new religion is exactly the bad examples of humans they are talking about.

With any luck it will be as self limiting as it proclaims. Hopefully they will follow their own advise and not breed. Leaving the world to those who treasure life to raise the next generation.

[Tim'sMum]

I wonder what excuse they used to eliminate the Tasmanian Tiger? That's right it was a feral pest damaging farmer's crops. And SA shot all it's Koalas 'coz they loved them so much everyone wanted a Koala fur something or other. I wont even mention Dingos or Roos. Anyone seeing a dog rip the lower jaw off a pig and still think it's not cruel is in need of serious psychological help IMHO! The words feral and pest are simply used to justify abhorrent behaviour. It's practitioners should be seen in the same light as dogfighters. Perhaps when we learn to care more for our wildlife we may begin to care more for each other.

Mate....you are talking about things that happened well into the past. People are a hell of lot more aware of the neccessity to preserve our native wildlife now.

By the way....Tasmanian Tigers did not affect 'crops' but did attack sheep & lambs.

Koalas were introduced back into South Australia and that introduction has been successful.

Pigs are not 'our' wildlife....they are an introduced species that causes a hell of a lot of damage to natural ecosystems. We created the problem and it's up to us to fix it.

Pigs, especially feral pigs are omnivorous and will eat anything...not just vegetation. They also eat invertebrates, bird eggs, baby birds, small mammals and in particular their young, reptiles, and amphibians.

They live near and around water as they need to wallow to cool themselves. The impact of pigs wallowing in wetlands and watercourses can totally destroy these ecosystems.

So while you bleat about poor pigs dying....they are busily killing off native wildlife either directly or indirectly.

Apart from that...they can be highly dangerous, especially if cornered and not something a bushwalker in a National Park may want to get into close quarters with.

So....just how can you support their continued existence as a feral animal that destroys native wildlife and ecosystems, and has no place here in Australia?

Words like 'invasive, pest, feral, non-idigenous or not native' are not just emotive terms used to brush off cruelty....but are used to describe an animal that is damaging our ecosystem.

Also, with pig hunting...dogs are used to keep an animal cornered so it can be shot. No pigger is going to risk losing a good pig dog by allowing it to get 'up close and personal' in a fight with a wild pig.

Dogs are used to scent, track and bail up a pig so it can then be humanely despatched with a rifle.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Tim'sMum

[gwenneth1]

What really infuriates me about the whole pigging debate with DPI and National Parks etc is the hypocrisy. They can decry the practice of pigging as cruel,yet happily acknowledge and support commerical, intsensive farmed piggeries, which in my mind the quality of "life"for those animals is absolutely zilch.

By the way, where were the Greens outrage at the massacre and utter ineptness of the culling of brumbies, in which horses were left to die or to be cleaned up four hours later, mares aborting foals as they lay dying, carried out I believe by National Parks? I won't even start about the fuel loads building in some state forests, but I will touch on the penguins being burnt to death by a usual ill managed and conceived burn off by the erstwhile "Environment Department" (which they quaintly referred to as a success until their dirty secret came to light) and who can forget the "brilliant idea" of branding seals by Australian Government's Antarctic division ?

The list of mismangement and cruel practices by various government departments supposedly looking after tax payer funded reserves and parks is atrocious, yet here we have a token few up in arms about the using dogs to manage feral pigs? As my previous post indicated, I do not condone those token few morons indulging a passion for bloodsport with dogs and pigs, but perhaps those who past judgement about issues that happen on the land who have been happily living in their city dwellings could walk a mile in their countrymen's collective shoes for a while or maybe go or attend to a mauled lamb or weakened sheep half eaten by pigs. Probably the worse was a heifer stuck in a bore drain that had her backside eaten out by a mob of pigs but didn't have the luck to die outright until she was shot to put her out of her agony.

What does the DPI or Environment departments think of those who employ the use of livestock guardian breeds to protect their chose stock (poultry; sheep, horses; free range pigs etc) against feral pigs; dogs;foxes? Those large breeds are a deterrent, but also killed feral and noxious animals who have preyed upon their stock. Is that to be "managed" as well? Of course landownershave a LEGAL OBLIGATION under legislative acts to control feral animals but as long as it isn't deemed inappropriate by Government control agencies (of course poison isn't!!!???).

I am so fed up with a ignorant Greenie or Government pen pusher sitting in their ivory towers passing regulations and judgements on to people trying to make it work on the land all the while eating their Australian farmed meal and"tut tutting" about how farmer's conduct themselves and then approving cruel and hairbrained schemes as mentioned above! As far as caring for wildlife, well those poor pluvers, ducks and other bird species who have flightless young on the ground cop it but good from feral animals.

[Aidan3]

He's not going to run out of material any time soon though, is he?

Only if you think that the world would be a much better place if humans did not exist (except for the intellectuals of course) and that we should feel very guilty for existing, hate our parents and grandparents for having us and we should never reproduce (except for the intellectuals of course) and that women are horrible creatures. All polished off with the concept that anyone who does not believe in this new religion is exactly the bad examples of humans they are talking about.

Errmm, I think you're going somewhere else with that argument, shortstep. Satire isn't supposed to be taken seriously and is always as much a send-up of one side of the argument as the other. His jokes are deliberate reductions to the absurd and appear to any reasonable person to be just as ridiculous as their opposites. He will have plenty of material as long as hunters keep making silly claims about deer taking over the world, wolves destroying ecosystems, doing things like shooting protesters in the face after torturing ducks, and making spurious claims about this political party or that. In the meantime, the sensible majority pay the price by being lumped in with the vocal minority of yahoos.

[Alyosha]

gwenneth1 - totally agree, well put.

And just have to add guys, last time I looked, sheep - including lambs etc, are a crop. A crop is not always made up of plants.

[persephone]

Dogs are used to scent, track and bail up a pig so it can then be humanely despatched with a rifle.

Around here- dogs are primarily of use in national parks etc - where firearms are NOT allowed. the dogs hold a pig until the hunter can swiftly slash the neck arteries and kill the pig that way.

[KatrinaM]

Curlybert, believe what you want and I will believe what I want. No I am not talking about foxes but Dingoes. I didnt see a comment on widescale baiting of pigs conducted by National Parks or other Govt entities either. Baiting doesnot rate a media mention as being unsuitable on the mainland, just using dogs.

David incorrectly states in his media release that shooting is the most economically feasible and effective method of control, when infact the method that he is describing is poisoning. The method he states is most humane, shooting, is considered by the NSW DPI to only be effective when conducted in conjunction with other methods such as poisoning. As there has been no media statement released by the NSW Greens publicly condemming baiting so I still stand by my statement - The Greens, or more correctly the Greens MP David Shoebridge seems to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language.

David also states that "This proposal is directly contrary to well established NSW government codes of practice for hunting feral pigs that prohibit the use of dogs to bail or hold pigs". The proposal is not contrary to the Code of Practice at all, it is partly contray to the SOP.

The COP that David referanced states "The most commonly used feral pig control technique is lethal baiting" and "Lethal baiting is considered the most viable and cost effective method of feral pig control in extensive rangeland areas; however poisons do not usually cause a humane death." It also talks about shooting and how wounded animals may take a while to die due to heart and lung shots, aerial shooting and incorrect projectile placement.

The SOP associated with it states that "Shooting must be conducted in a manner that causes immediate insensibility and painless death" as archers aim for the heart/lungs and the code states this does not result in rendering an animal immediatly insensible and are likely to result in a higher incendence of wounding then bow hunting is outside the same SOP that condones hunting with holding dogs.

The SOP/COP are the same well reasearched documents drafted with the imput of a cross section of interest groups that refer to how one might find a Cassowary in a pig trap in NSW. Maybe the people they asked had never been in the bush before or maybe they know little about the natural flora and fauna found in NSW.

[Aidan3]

The Greens, or more correctly the Greens MP David Shoebridge seems to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language.

Wow. How many facts did you have to twist to arrive at that conclusion? I lost count.

[WoofnHoof]

Love the way people refer to the word 'wildlife' as if it only pertains to native species, introduced species are allowed to be called everything under the sun as long as it's not wildlife.

It's all well and good for people to want to control introduced species but don't make out like it's some kind of community service getting rid of 'evil pests' when in reality the only difference between these animals and native ones is they had the misfortune of being put here by people (or their predecessors did anyway). They are not evil, they are not 'destroying' our environment they are just animals doing what animals do, if we wish to minimise their impact for our own reasons we need to be honest about that and not clothe it in emotional words to make out like these animals have done something to bring about their own demise or 'deserve it' somehow. Yes they kill and eat native animals, so do many native animals. Wild animals often do tend to prey on each other they don't generally worry about things like species diversity and niche preservation.

The environment is not a static thing that can be preserved for eternity, it's an evolving, changing state that can be impacted and altered by any number of natural and unnatural events, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, evolution, species migration, climate change, land clearing, introduced species, building and development the list goes on.

By all means control populations of certain species if you want to but don't pretend it's anything more noble than humans attempting to control their own environment. If we want to control certain species' populations we should be continually striving to find ways to do so that are as humane as possible, just as we should for all methods of animal management, and not justify below par methods by dismissing the species an evil pest. If hunting with dogs is the best and most humane method we've currently got then that's the best we've got, but we should always be looking to refine it and replace it with better ways.

[amy_h]

Setting dogs on pigs is to be legal but setting dogs on dogs is illegal because of cruelty? Despites all the barbarity of pig hunting pigs are still around. Learn to live with them. If you believe them psychologists tell us those involved in such barbarity are tomorrows serial killers and spousal abusers.

Please come visit our property and 'learn to live with the'.

btw - my partned has never abused me.

and i'm pretty sure i'm not a serial killer, and i dont think oh is either.

There are always going to be haters and disbelievers, but i refuse to see my dogs health and happiness decline becasue they can no longer do what they have been bred FOR GENERATIONS regardless of not being 'pure' by breed standards, and what they have been trained to do - take pig hunting away and 6 months later the dog bodies will pile up becasue they'll turn sour because 'the law' says they can no longer fulfill their natural purpose, and take their frustration out on someones stock.

I invite ANYONE who wishes to criticise WITHOUT HAVING EVER EXPERIENCED THE TRUE DAMAGE THESE PESTS CAUSE and to compare the effectiveness OF A WORKING TEAM to bowhunting or a gun.

Point 1. PIGS ARE EXCEPTIONAL SURVIVORS - of course they are still going to bloody be around, so are frigging cane toads but you dont see people not trying to get rid of them. So are foxes, and wild dog dingo crosses - have you ever seen a baited dog die? well, baiting is also an effective culling method of feral pigs, but it's also hazardous to native species such as goannas and birds of prey. Pigs eyes rarely shine in a spotlight, unless you hit them straight on because their eyes are set on the front of their heads. You cant shoot them effectively in the front or the sides, a kill shot must be behind the front leg (good luck with that unless you are dead eye dick) or the back of the skull. Pigs, particularly boars, develop thick gristle pads that deflect or effectively slow a bullet so it only causes injury, rather than killing it. PIGS CAN EXIST ANYWHERE they are omnivorous, they 'root' or dig up the earth for soft sprouts or eat carrion. in the dry, when green feed is scarce, they will eat lambs from ewes as the are born if they are hungry enough, resluting in the death of both animals. They invade town refuse dumps, destroy fences, eat native waterbird nests, destroy wetlands. They are well equipped to protect themsleves against any predaotr (the most effective is a crocodile but we dont really want them running around everywhere).

Quite often we have caught them in seemingly bare paddocks with no trees for miles - except the odd prickle bush where you'll find them resting underneath. They are difficult to see and elusive - for every pig you see i can guarantee after such a great season for them, there would be a hundred if not more.

Point 2. BEARING IN MIND THEIR NATURAL CUNNING - if you can't see it, how can you shoot it with bow or arrow?

Point 3. HELICOPTER CULLS COST IN EXCESS OF OVER $400 EASY PER OPERATING HOUR

Point 4. REASONS FOR A DOGS EFFECTIVENESS

Dogs can smell what we cant see, have natural drive to hunt and hold (ours have NEVER KILLED anything, are totally stock and native animal proof. every single one we've owned), and to please their master. YES HOLDING DOES INVOLVE BITING, YES THE DOGS GET HURT AND SOMETIMES KILLED but no hunter would let his dog suffer because they are a means to their hobby, their lifestyle and sometimes their paycheck. almost every hunter runs their dog with some form of protection and identification, and the more sophisticated use location technology as well.

These dogs are BRED to do what they do, they are warriors and proud workers, and nothing fulfills them more than catchign a boar. an average dog can scent a boar within 500 metres, a good one within 2 km from a moving vehicle. In scrubby swampy country, you tell me how you would see that pig through a scope let alone with the naked eye.

Some may judge the sport as cruel. I reckon it's cruel to clothe a dog like a person. Horses for courses. But dont judge unless you KNOW what the real problem is, and what the solutions are. I dont want my dogs to become problem dogs and have to be destroyed because some politican or fairy f*n hippy with no concept for reality reckons my past time is an ineffective method of control.

MAY I ALSO STATE - I DONT BELIEVE DOGGING SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN NATIONAL PARKS normal people cant take their pets there so why hunting dogs? But in a pastoral situation, yes, dogs are the most effective method of control.

[amy_h]

Love the way people refer to the word 'wildlife' as if it only pertains to native species, introduced species are allowed to be called everything under the sun as long as it's not wildlife.

It's all well and good for people to want to control introduced species but don't make out like it's some kind of community service getting rid of 'evil pests' when in reality the only difference between these animals and native ones is they had the misfortune of being put here by people (or their predecessors did anyway). They are not evil, they are not 'destroying' our environment they are just animals doing what animals do, if we wish to minimise their impact for our own reasons we need to be honest about that and not clothe it in emotional words to make out like these animals have done something to bring about their own demise or 'deserve it' somehow. Yes they kill and eat native animals, so do many native animals. Wild animals often do tend to prey on each other they don't generally worry about things like species diversity and niche preservation.

The environment is not a static thing that can be preserved for eternity, it's an evolving, changing state that can be impacted and altered by any number of natural and unnatural events, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, evolution, species migration, climate change, land clearing, introduced species, building and development the list goes on.

By all means control populations of certain species if you want to but don't pretend it's anything more noble than humans attempting to control their own environment. If we want to control certain species' populations we should be continually striving to find ways to do so that are as humane as possible, just as we should for all methods of animal management, and not justify below par methods by dismissing the species an evil pest. If hunting with dogs is the best and most humane method we've currently got then that's the best we've got, but we should always be looking to refine it and replace it with better ways.

So you wouldn't fix a mistake? how do you feel about cane toads? Wildlife is WILD animals, not a domesticated animal turned feral through mismanagement. It's not noble, but it's a pratical solution to a problem we caused. Take a trip to the territory to see what they do the wetlands and native bird species. Come and see stock in the dry season competing with pigs for food, or even the weaker ones being killed by them. it happens.

Quote "Yes they kill and eat native animals, so do many native animals. Wild animals often do tend to prey on each other they don't generally worry about things like species diversity and niche preservation." - native animals should eat native animals. its the way things are meant to be. It's the way things would have been had no feral species been introduced. but they have and effective means of controlling the situation need to be employed to resolve the situation to a sustainable situation rather than one that has ballooned out of control due to the amazing amount of rain this year.

can i also add that in the wet, baits are rendered ineffective, helicopter operators wont fly, shooters and doggers cant get access and trapping is inhumane because of that reason also (cos the pigs starve or impale themselves)

[amy_h]

Anyone seeing a dog rip the lower jaw off a pig and still think it's not cruel is in need of serious psychological help IMHO!

That is cruel, yes- and the dog's owner should be stopped using dogs in that fashion

many irresponsible people do not have a thought for the animal they hunt- agreed .

We have only ever had dogs hold a pig by grabbing an ear.... or keeping pig/s backed into a corner,so to speak.

Umm, that's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. when we remove trophy tusks we have to use a very heavy machete so i fail to see how a dog can tear the lower jaw off a pig. i actually find it laughable that someone could even think that possible.

Our dogs 'lug' which is a term given to the hold - it is usually by the ear, but can be by the cheek, nose, top of the skull, anywhere around the head. Young learning dogs will bite the legs but the pigs teach them pretty quick that's not a safe place to be. Personally, bailing may be effective for some but i find it too dangerous becasue the pig is not contained and the buggers have very nasty teeth (have scars to prove it). The pig is killed swiftly by being tipped over to it's side for the hunters safety, and a sharp blade plunged into its chest. they bleed out in about half minute to two minutes. Generally, if you are well equipped with a vehicle (or quad bike) the whole process is over for both dog and swine in about 5 - ten minutes.

Pighunting is not anything other than utilising an animals natural instinct, refining it for your purpose (as you would for a yard dog, a retreiver, a guard dog, a fighting dog, whatever purpose you choose). I never said it wasn't barbaric, or even pleasant to watch. and i certainly don't enjoy when the dogs are hurt because contrary to popular belief, ours are family members (they just dont live inside!).

But i do challenge you to find a method as effective for the culling of wild pigs. Or, should you feel it necessary to be outlawed, homes that will rehabilitate thta thousands of dogs whose death warrant you will have signed.

Like i said. I think clothing a dog is cruel. Go figure.

[amy_h]

If you believe them psychologists tell us those involved in such barbarity are tomorrows serial killers and spousal abusers.

I have had a game council licence for numerous years holding categories for dog, bow and firearms. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I am not a spousal abuser...

[amy_h]

Yes, I thought it sounded an unlikely strategy, more like wallaby hunting. But still, the Greens do not favour poisoning and in fact have suggested hunting with a dog as the preferred option.

The Tasmanian Greens are certainly do not favour poisoning and are seeking to ban 1080 being used in their state. The NSW branch do not seem to feel the same and have no policy that I can find in this matter. If they are against hunting then there is no other real option to try and control feral pigs but baiting. You cant have it both ways. If they honestly did think that dogging was prefered they would have found out the facts about the Game Council hunts in state forests and this wouldnt have made the news and we wouldnt be discussing it here.

The meat is just a byproduct of hunting. The primary focus is the control of numbers, erradication is probably an impossibility. The spread of disease and weed species, the potential as a vector for exotic disease, damage to land, native plant species, pasture, crops and infrastructure and the killing of native species and livestock are the primary reasons for the need to control numbers.

Many hunters use the meat they catch - either to sell for human consumption or pet food, to eat themselves or to feed their pets. Kirty is right, it is much more humane to hunt animals like this than it is to have them commercially processed, its just that it it is far less confronting to see cows in a paddock miss out on all the middle bits and then see your rump steak in a cryvac pack at Woolworths.

Spot on. No one has argues this issue better than this quote right here

[WoofnHoof]

So you wouldn't fix a mistake? how do you feel about cane toads? Wildlife is WILD animals, not a domesticated animal turned feral through mismanagement. It's not noble, but it's a pratical solution to a problem we caused. Take a trip to the territory to see what they do the wetlands and native bird species. Come and see stock in the dry season competing with pigs for food, or even the weaker ones being killed by them. it happens.

Quote "Yes they kill and eat native animals, so do many native animals. Wild animals often do tend to prey on each other they don't generally worry about things like species diversity and niche preservation." - native animals should eat native animals. its the way things are meant to be. It's the way things would have been had no feral species been introduced. but they have and effective means of controlling the situation need to be employed to resolve the situation to a sustainable situation rather than one that has ballooned out of control due to the amazing amount of rain this year.

can i also add that in the wet, baits are rendered ineffective, helicopter operators wont fly, shooters and doggers cant get access and trapping is inhumane because of that reason also (cos the pigs starve or impale themselves)

Depends on whether the mistake can feasibly be 'fixed', depends on the welfare issues it creates, depends on a lot of things too many things to list in fact.

I don't have to like cane toads no one does but they are now a part of our environment, currently there is no way of eradicating them completely, our native animals are finding ways to adapt to them, crows prey on them turn them over and attack their bellies. Nature adapts, some species die out some emerge, the relative 'wrongness' of our involvement in these changes is perception only.

'The way things are meant to be' is a relative term, are humans meant to be laying waste to vast tracts of land for the sake of mining? Were humans meant to clear forests to make way for grazing and farming? Are we replanting thousands of hectares of forest to try and 'fix' that mistake? No because it's not convenient for us to do that, hence why it's ridiculous to assume the mantle of environmental caretaker when we pick and choose which part of our environment we'd like to 'fix'. There is no such thing as 'meant to be' there is the way things are that's it.

[KatrinaM]

The Greens, or more correctly the Greens MP David Shoebridge seems to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language.

Wow. How many facts did you have to twist to arrive at that conclusion? I lost count.

No twisted facts. Read David's blog. Read the Code of Practice. Read the Standard Operating Procedures.

[amy_h]

So by your reasoning my dogs have no purpose, and thereby should be just 'left to be'? I don't know how well you know dogs or any thing that has been trained or bred for a purpose (including people) but when you remove that purpose you only create a whole other issue.

And we'll allow roos to out compete each other and starve each other out because its just the way things are

and cotton farmers descimate the land and strip it of future worth because its the way things are, and i like to wear jeans

Oh, my horse is colicking, but i not going to intervene cos i left that sand in his yard near where he's fed cos it's the way things are

it's just the way it is and i dont give a shit because im ignorant to it and i dont want to improve the ecosystem and try to compensate for the loss i've and generations before me have caused....Crows only eat dead toads to my knowledge i've seen with my own eyes and everything else has learned to just not eat them. I find a good job with an electric prodder does the trick. Bloody cruel but swift adn keeps them out of my patch and a few less to reproduce later on....

BTW, you are so wrong! i'm sorry but every person helps in their own way - dear family friends of mine halved their property as a conservation agreement, most cockies i know have wildlife corridors, landcare and landowners generally do their bit (for a selfish reason if you want to look at it that way) that if the land isn't cared for, it's not going to produce and is no longer sustainable...

FFS you're typing on a computer because of mining - for the coal to burn for the electricity, the minerals to produce the hardware....

i'm confused as to what you're saying....I think that attitude is really really blase and feel quite sad for you that you dont seem to have any passion other than to argue that.

Is the list too long to write, or could you just not be bothered to support that arguement? Why shouldn't we just try to find a solution - nothing will ever completely FIX the problem, but why shouldn't we bother to make it a more manageable situation?

Do you recycle?