I am concerned about this issue, as are the rest of us, in particular that this appears not to arise through a well thought out policy, but a cynical trade-off about an entirely unrelated issue. To placate and obtain a desired outcome on something else, from a (sadly, democratically elected) lobby group in parliament.
I am also concerned that some of our correspondents are concentrating on the issue of professional or recreational hunters / shooters. It is clear that NSW NPWS don’t have sufficient funds to do all the conservation activities that should be done. So I am curious at the suggestion that such “control” as being suggested should only be done by expending limited funds employing people who are paid, rather than having free help from people who are not paid. Sure some people are better for the role than others but I don’t know that paid people are necessarily as a group any better than volunteers, just as professional ornithologists are not necessarily any better ornithologists than volunteers (i.e. amateurs, noting that most contributors to this line are variously experienced and skilled amateur ornithologists.) So why does it need to be done professionally (that is: paid for by the taxpayer)?
The main advantage of professionals that I can see is that they are likely to only shoot what is asked and paid for and thus controlled. Volunteers being a whole range of people of varying skills and desires are likely to be less predictable and lead to the whole range of issues that have been mentioned. Yet in some circumstances and with proper serious controls, volunteers could be more effective at reducing feral animals than doing nothing.
Philip
