Garry Mallard OAM

Greens’ persecution of hunting masks the scent of hidden agenda

deermanagedthehuntersway

Garry Mallard examines the Greens hunting policies and uncovers some interesting double-standards.

 

The Greens, like all politicians, are consummate manipulators and propagandists. They understand that the best lies are those that are never actually spoken, but rather nourished in such a way as to allow the public’s naivety to weave the lie for them. Thus, the Greens ride on a wave of flawed assumption. Take the vexed topic of hunting.

The Greens are not as opposed as one might be forgiven for concluding, given their aggressive and often quite offensive persecution of non-Aboriginal hunters. It is not the killing of “innocent animals” to which the Greens object, but rather ownership of the instruments used to rob them of “innocence”.

The Greens are wholly and quite fanatically in favour of the total annihilation of all introduced (feral) species, from rabbits to wild dogs, cats to deer and everything in between, as their more surreptitious public statements clearly demonstrate.

In his February 2013 response to an opinion piece, Greens MP David Shoebridge confided to the readership of a small rural newspaper, The Bega District News:

“For a decade now a government funded authority called the Game Council has supposedly regulated the access of amateur hunters to state forests to shoot, pierce, stab and gore feral animals.  However, these ten years of amateur hunting have not controlled a single feral pest species in a single forest.

“Despite these failures the NSW government continues to pump millions of dollars every year into the Game Council. Every cent would be far better spent on targeted feral animal control programs with professional shooters, teamed up where necessary with trapping and baiting, to effectively control feral animals in a given area.  Unlike amateur hunting these kinds of program are more than weekend blood-sports, they actually work.

It is abundantly clear to me that Mr. Shoebridge objects not to the killing of animals, but to the fact far more should have been killed for the money invested.

As though that were not evidence enough, we have the following from the Greens’ NSW agriculture spokesperson, Jeremy Buckingham, on the topic of feral deer control:

“The Greens NSW agriculture spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham today announced the Greens policy on feral deer, saying that “the next Parliament should stop protecting deer as a hunting resource and instead declare feral deer a pest species and develop a state-wide control and eradication strategy.”

I do not hang my hat on these two examples of the Greens’ Davrosian extermination agenda alone. Their own website lists the following objectives under “What the Greens want”:

  • Develop a state-wide control and eradication strategy,
  • Develop well-planned control and eradication programs to protect the environment and agriculture with clear goals and professional execution.

So it is revealed not only that they do not oppose the killing of “innocent animals” such as deer, dogs, cats, rabbits, foxes, pigs, goats, camels, horses and so on, but that their primary concern is in fact that too few are being killed to give the taxpayer bang for his buck.

The Greens harbour an abiding contempt for those members of non-Aboriginal Australia whom they maintain hunt solely for the “joy of killing”.

Again, this is a Greens’ construct aimed at nurturing hatred for those members of society of which they do not approve and history is replete with examples of political regimes whose efforts to first demonise cultural minorities have led to far greater evils. I am yet to meet the hunter who claims he/she “kills for fun”. I have certainly met many who claim they derive satisfaction from being in the wild, preserving age-old skills and cultural activities, while putting fresh free-range, organic meat on the table.

Many have described the sense of satisfaction they derive from shooting foxes and cats while after their true quarry, thus helping to reduce the impact of feral predation of native species, but for the joy of killing?  No!

It is only hunting’s opponents who make such claims and since when did conclusions born of emotive disdain, fear and ignorance become fact, much less tolerable?

If leading members of the Islamic community were to say, “It is wrong to label all Muslims violent warmongers looking for martyrdom,” would we tolerate people calling them liars?

While support for the Greens may equate to support for an anti-European hunting position, it certainly does not equate to the protection of “innocent animals”.  It equates to the antithesis of that objective – their total eradication – which the Greens themselves complain is not the hunters’ objective.

Hunters and the Greens have more in common than many may think:

  • Hunters value organic harvest and the free-range ethos,
  • It is illegal to hunt native animals in all but a few highly regulated circumstances and hunters oppose the illegal targeting of Australia’s native fauna, known as poaching,
  • Hunters maintain their activities have legitimate cultural significance.  The Greens habitually refer to hunting in cultural terms, though striving to apply derogatory epithets whenever possible e.g. the “killing culture, the American style guns and killing culture etc. Ergo the question of hunting’s cultural authenticity is not disputed by the Greens, only the desirability of the culture and their tolerance of it.

Of course the aforementioned epithets are applied only to European hunting cultures, despite the fact that processed and packaged foods are widely available, even in outback Australia, where Aboriginal people still, quite legitimately, choose to participate in hunting activities with the open admiration of the Greens.

Over the years I have met and spoken at length with thousands of the people the Greens stereotype as the very vermin of society; doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, academics, SES and VRA volunteers, Rural Fire Service personnel, teachers, wardspersons, barristers, plumbers, builders, magistrates, butchers, bakers and even one very talented candlestick maker.

These are the people – men and women – who hunt; the same people the Greens casually and habitually refer to as thugs, cold-hearted killers, weekend cowboys, rednecks etc., and generally promote as people deserving of the community’s mistrust, antipathy and scorn.

On their behalf I would like to finish with the three questions my conversations that they’d like the Greens to answer, honestly and directly:

  1. When did the Greens adopt the One Nation-esque position that they are the final arbiters of cultural legitimacy in Australia?
  2. How did the Greens reach the policy conclusion that the traditional harvest of plentiful, non-indigenous, public larder resources is at odds with the philosophy of low-impact sustainable living?
  3. How do the Greens justify promoting responsible hunters to the Australian community as heartless murderers of “innocent animals”, when the Greens’ own feral animal policies clearly support total eradication, including the use of baits laced with 1080, which is condemned by all animal welfare agencies?

In my view, these are questions the Greens’ own supporters should feel compelled to ask, though I am oddly confident the Greens will not feel ethically compelled to respond.

Garry Mallard OAM

Garry Mallard is a Traditional Bowhunter and practical environmentalist. He is also a passionate advocate for social and affordable housing and in 2009 he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his contributions in those spheres of endeavour. Garry has attained a number of largely redundant academic qualifications, among them the coveted BBM.OPS (Blackboard Monitor, Oatley Public School) of which he is undoubtedly most proud.

Related posts

  • Andrea

    I would like to thank Mr Mallard for what he has written. The Greens’ position on this issue is astounding. For a party that supposedly advocates sustainable living, the enmity towards hunters, while simultaneously wanting to eradicate deer (and let the meat go to a shameful waste) is a disgraceful double standard. At a closer look, one realises that it is ideologically driven. The idea of firearms in the hands of responsible, law abiding people is not palatable to the Greens. It has long been suspected by many, that when you scratch the green surface of the party, a bright red emerges. David Shoebridge is a case in point. He goes on ad nauseam about the government (by way of professional shooters and poison) being solely in charge of pest eradication. The fact that every deer, pig, rabbit or hare taken by a hunter is used to be eaten does not interest him one bit.
    As Mr Mallard points out, hunters enjoy the sourcing of their meat from where it is freely and organically available. Surely this would be preferable to buying meat from the supermarket, where meat is all to often from unethical sources. Isn’t it the Greens who are so vocal about issues such as Live Export? But when a group of people like to practice a way of life that is alternative to the global market machine, by growing, raising or hunting their food, the likes of Mr Shoebridge set out to destroy that way of life. What a bigoted way to behave!

  • jason

    Sorry Lisa it’s true. David Shoebridge and the greens advocate and support the killing of animals. In fact his biggest criticism of recreational hunters is that they simply don’t kill enough animals and the greens can kill far more animals using targeted programs with the intent of wiping out whole species. Fawns, kittens, piglets, baby foxes, bunny rabbits and even kids. You would be better off voting for the Animal justice party.

  • Roger

    Clearly Lisa you are very mistaken or in denial, please don’t be that way.

    It is official Greens policy to control and eradicate deer. You can simply go to the greens website particularly Jeremy Buckingham who is their Agriculture spokesperson and David Shoebridge.

    You will see alot of information on control and eradication and other official policies. In essence their main issue with hunting as rightfully pointed out in the article is that not enough animals are killed.

    It is up to you to continue to wallow in this denial but hey it is your prerogative. You are the perfect Greens constituent.

  • Roger

    Clearly Lisa you must either be afflicted by either ignorance or denial, please don’t be that way.
    It is official Greens policy to control and eradicate deer. If you can read simply go to the greens website particularly Jeremy Buckingham who is their Agriculture spokesperson and David Shoebridge. You will see alot of information on control and eradication and other official policies regarding killing deer and other animals.

    It is up to you to continue to wallow in this denial but hey it is your prerogative. You are the perfect Greens constituent.

  • Dolly Dickerson

    Great article.
    To what extent it will sink in with readers of Thebigsmoke is another matter.
    One has to start somewhere I suppose.
    I read somewhere there was a government camel eradication program in the Northern Territory that came out at $10,000 per beast.
    Amateur hunters will go and do it for free and put money into the local economy. In most cases they have the desire and ability to be humane and the inhumane idiots will ignore any bans the Greens might want to pass. Animal cruelty is already illegal.
    Oh, and 1080 is very inhumane and gets into the food chain from scavenging. However, governrnent shooting and trapping programs are so inefficient that if amateur hunting were banned, the government would have no choice but to use a lot of 1080

  • Lisa

    What rubbish!! The Greens are for the animals not killing them and they would never allow deers to be poisoned, this is just rediculous. You should check your facts before printing this sort of things against the people who care for creatures not like hunters who just want to kill them.

Top