The concept of ‘responsible’ or ethical duck shooting is very rubbery and probably is probably more of a United States concept [where people believe they have a god-given right to shoot things].
One aspect is what the animals are being killed for. It would have to be for food, conservation purposes [removal of harmful invasives – e.g. cats and foxes in areas where you are trying to protect endangered wildlife] or for a scientific purpose that furthers ecological management for it to be ethically justified.
I don’t believe that many duck hunters need to kill ducks for food and that any ducks are being killed for conservation or scientific purposes.
So, at the next level of consideration is what they are doing to be less unethical. Obviously, not killing the wrong species is one thing. Two other things that are big in the United States are the use of lead-free ammunition and the promotion of habitat that facilitates the breeding success of the species they are killing. I suspect that hunting groups in the United States spend a lot of wetlands. I doubt that is the case in Australia.
Lead ammunition is a major source of lead contamination in the United States and a significant cause of wildlife morbidity and mortality. For some reason, few people are cognisant of the fact that once they fire their ammo, the slugs/pellets/casings become waste/pollution. Many wetlands in the United States have serious lead contamination and this affects animals that ingest the lead [e.g. bottom-feeding waterfowl] and predators/carrion eaters who eat the contaminated carcasses. Again, many Americans think it is their god-given right to use lead ammunition, so it will be a lingering issue in that part of the world.
Regards, Laurie.
On 12 May 2017, at 4:54 pm, Chris Lloyd < pezoporus@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Maybe I am a little out of touch but I struggle with linking words like
> ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ in the same sentence as sporting (oxymoron?)
> shooters. I am no shrinking violet and in the course of work here and
> overseas I have killed countless animals in any manner from crushing roo
> skulls with rocks to neat little injections. All were in the course of
> euthanasia, predator control or something similar and none of it is or was
> enjoyable. I have necropsied, butchery with a sharper knife, and eaten the
> meat where appropriate. Going out to kill ducks for fun and some gamey,
> metal filled fillets seems about as ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ as leaving the
> engine going in the black urban assault vehicle when in Coles car park on a
> summer’s day.
>
>
>
> This conception that part of the cohort that happily blows ducks to powder
> down, leaves roos to bleed out, feral mammals dead with live young are
> ‘responsible’ is about as credible as the NSW argument that letting these
> peri-urban nativists loose in National Parks will assist conservation. This
> forum has ventilated the ‘why’, politicians captive to vociferous minorities
> and sectional interest ad nausea, perhaps it is now time to toss around how
> to stop this and the broader regression to a world where our remaining
> natural environment is a play pen for survivalist fantasies, pointless gas
> guzzling ‘adventure’, or simply dump and wood pile in the same convenient
> location.
>
>
>
> Bird organisations won’t make much of a human chain around waterfowl habitat
> but amongst their grey-haired ranks there are no shortage of educated
> ‘influencers’ that could make the average ALP member’s margin wince a
> little. Even those city Liberals fighting off the Tree Tories might feel a
> little heat if just a few of us squeezed with the right words in the right
> places. I think they called it ‘Fightback’.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Birding-Aus mailing list
>
Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org
>
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
>
birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
>
Birding-Aus mailing list
Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
