Bundarrah Days

Phil, I see your submission to the Senate inquiry on national parks made the final report:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ecita_ctte/nationalparks/report/report.pdf

(Page 126): The purpose of agreements between national parks and shooting organisations should be strictly limited to progress towards the safe and humane eradication of feral species. While the committee does not accept at face value Mr Maguire’s assertion that feral deer ’are welcome to wallow in the environmentally critical and delicate moss beds of the Alps and browse freely in alpine environments’65 as a result of the Memorandum of Co-operation between Australian Deer Association (Victoria) and Parks Victoria, it expresses concern at the emphasis of the wording below. Specifically, the Memorandum should reflect more explicitly that its ultimate aim is the removal of deer populations (and consequently deer hunting) from Victorian national parks....

Your pathological obsession as regards opposition to deer and deerhunters never fails to amaze. I guess this summers' fires must have been enormously satisfying, for you? LOTS of deer burned and suffocated, they won't be frequenting any (toasted) moss beds in the future. Meantime up here the Horse Riders/Outdoor Recreation Party flopped miserably, in the March state election, while the Shooters' Party put another member into the Upper House with 106,000 primary votes. Looking forward to your alienating yet more potential political allies in 2007, Andrew

Posted by: Andrew in Wahroonga | 04/15/2007

A little bitter are you not, Andrew? I have never expressed any opposition to hunting deer. I have expressed opposition to protecting a destructive feral species under the Wildlife Act and if you think that deer should be allowed to roam free in order to perpetuate your sport that is where we part company.

I fully support the right of shooters to hunt and you know that very well. If deer are eliminated as they should be you can hunt something else.

As for your final comment, political allies like Max Rheese we can well do without. Doing deals with government behind the back of your erstwhile allies then refusing to join in a joint campaign as the ADA did with Country Voice makes the ADA an ally not worth having.

Posted by: Phil Maguire | 04/15/2007

Bitter? No. Bemused? Yes.

It is extraordinary that someone who purports to represent a group with their backs to the wall (ie mountain cattlemen) should spend so much time alienating a potential ally, and in the case of NSW, a powerful ally with two members in parliament. If only you spent as much effort attacking the greenies, as you do the deerhunters! You are quite unhinged when it comes to deer Phil, 'deer allowed to roam free.' For crying out loud, who's going to stop them roaming? If only your obsession had fixed upon something deserving of your barbs, like cats or foxes. Not familiar with Max Rheese but intrigued by your constant mention of him- was it some perceived slight from that person, which triggered this vendetta? On issues other than deer you seem 100% rational so those of us who love the mountains just as much as you do can only hope that one day commonsense will reassert itself vis a vis deer. Cheers, A

Posted by: Andrew in Wahroonga | 04/15/2007

Two points, Andrew.

1/ Deer are never going to be hunted out. 2/Hunters should be allowed to hunt them.

So, where am I off target? Unlike the greens I don't believe deer should be eradicated so that hunting can be banned in national parks.

I believe deer should be eradicated because they are a pest and I don't think government's should be entering into Memorandum's Of Understanding with groups that promote the presence of feral pests.

For the last time it's not shooters I have an issue with, it's deer. And don't tell me I'm unhinged - that's projection. According to you I should accept that deer be managed sustainably as a game species because they can't be eliminated. That's bullshit. Why don't you make the same argument in reference to wild dogs?

And I apparently have a vendetta against Max Rheese. More bullshit from you. He's the clown that followed me around the internet and to the Senate Committee trying to claim I was deliberating inflating deer numbers. So I whack him back and that's a vendetta. You're joking, surely?

I hate deer. I've seen the destruction they cause on the high plains and because I love that country I want them gone. If it's good enough to boot a few cows on the grounds of alleged damage it's an absurdity to tolerate the presence of tens of thousands of deer.

Now, learn to distinguish between two issues. I support shooters and hunting. I do not support deer in the natural environment.

Finally, don't bother coming back. Your accusation that I merely "purport" to represent Mountain Cattlemen is an insult to me as the one man who had the guts to stand up and take the government on.

Posted by: Phil Maguire | 04/15/2007

Phil,
The above photos of the Barmah Forest.
The one on the left is not the norm as flood waters were allowed into the area two years ago in order to encourage some natural regeneration. This was a state government inititive and was not due to a natural flood as such. Such floods do not occur every year or even every decade. The photo on the right shows a muddied area with a small amount of water. Many parts of the Barmah Forest have a clay base which is able to hold the water for long periods of time. These may have a vegetive covering but often don't. It may be a dusty covering. When walking, riding etc through the forest it is easy to find oneself up to your knees in thick gooey mud. The locals call these sink holes or Australia's equivelent to quick sand. Your in it before you know it. The Barmah is situated in a hot dry area, which periodically floods and regenerates. It'll grow back just like it always has. By the same token it needs periods of drought as well.

Posted by: aseager | 04/16/2007

Amazing isn't it? They flood an area, watch it regenerate, complete with introduced waterlillies, take photos, and proclaim what a beautiful pristine wonderland it is, our own Kakadu. The drought comes, they watch it dry up and the land suffer, take photos, and blame the farmers for ruining that beautiful wonderland. Nothing like a good propaganda machine! Why didn't they publish the pictures taken in the previous years to the flooding? Your photos will no doubt reflect the standard situation.

The whole area up there is in a desparate situation. Any animal whether it is a cow, feral pig or roo will only enter such boggy conditions if it is totally desparate or maybe very dumb!

Once saw a documentary of a similar situation in Africa.
The local animals trampled an water area into a similar state, but come the rains the situation rectified as nature repaired itself. The greens and govt. don't give the enviroment much credit for its ability to do this. Its too fragile for anybody to tamper with, apart from themselves, and yet this years bushfires have proved their management practices are seriously flawed.

I know of a lake in near Koreleigh that has been allowed to become permanently dry. It used to be large enough to attract tourists and their pleasure boats every year not to mention the flora and fauna that depended on it. The only thing that identifies it as a lake is the old welcoming sign Why didn't they save it?

Posted by: ang seager | 04/17/2007