The Hunting Economy
Hunters spend millions of dollars on their recreation. Results of a Department of Sustainability & Environment economic survey conducted during 1995 showed that Victorian hunters spend $29.35 million on their hunting trips per year. The total amount they spend on their recreation in Victoria alone could well be in excess of $100 million per annum as the survey did not include capital expenditure on purchases of vehicles, boats, outboard motors and other high cost equipment items.

Game and Pest Animal Hunting
The Association's members spend many thousands of hours and dollars on recreational hunting. Most hunting is undertaken for food and pest animal control. The shooting itself is but one small and very minor element of a complex recreational pursuit involving travel, bushwalking, fellowship, camping, camaraderie, community development and provision of “bush” foods. Competitive firearm sports have clearly evolved from these recreational pursuits, and now lie at the base of a well-established Olympic sport - in which Australians excel.

It is perhaps not surprising that the average person has difficulty with the concept that “killing” is not diametrically opposed to conservation. The average Australian has become increasingly urbanised, and now hunts and gathers in supermarkets, well-distanced from the killing involved in the production of what they buy and eat. There is nothing new about this. Throughout history urban dwellers have learnt to eat without being involved in the production.

There is no correlation between “killing” and “disrespect” for wildlife. Indigenous people kill wildlife every day, yet love wildlife and ingrain it into every aspect of their culture, tradition, religion and persona. Recreational waterfowl hunters revere the species they hunt. They surround themselves with trophies and memorabilia, and are keen observers with a passionate interest in behaviour, biology and wildlife art. The famous conservationist Sir Peter Scott came from the ranks of waterfowl hunters.

Most hunting of wild pigs, foxes, cats, rabbits and in some states of Australia, game birds now occurs under the broad banner of pest mitigation. Most of it is done recreationally. Hunters love and enjoy the holistic environment in which hunting takes place. It is legal, and they have every right to do so.

Types of (Bird) Game Shooting
There are four main types of bird shooting in Britain: Rough shooting, driven shooting, pigeon shooting and wildfowling. Stalking, the culling of deer using rifles is another form of shooting.

Rough shooting - those participating either walk in a line across fields or through woods or other cover, shooting game as it gets up. The quarry might include gamebirds, when they are in season, rabbits and pigeons. (Australian hunters use this technique when hunting quail, usually with gundogs).

Pigeon shooting - pigeon are shot in large numbers for the defence of farmers crops. They are often lured to the shooter through the use of decoys.

Driven game shooting - the most organised form of shooting has beaters drive the game towards a line of shooters who remain in the same position during each “drive”.

Wildfowling - wildfowl may be shot as they fly, at dawn and dusk, between their feeding and roosting areas. They are also lured closer by wildfowlers using artificial decoys and calls. (This is the main method of hunting used by Duck Hunters in Australia)

Issues and Information
The sustainable use of wildlife and the hunting ethic is generally misunderstood by the wider community. Hunting and the sometimes emotive issues associated with the killing of animals generate wide ranging opinion and debate within the community.

The following scientific articles are useful resource documents for students and others interested in learning about “sustainable utilisation” and the positive role of hunting in conservation.

• The Ethics of Killing and Culling - Dr Henrik Moller (PDF)
• Dr David Bellamy's Case for Shooting (PDF)
• Flamin' Parks, the neighbours from hell - Bush Users Group (PDF)

Please see below to download these files.

Sustainable use of Wildlife
Webb, G. J. W. (1997), Australian Biologist, 1(1), 3-11

Abstract
Future generations of Australians will judge the effectiveness of our conservation efforts on the extent to which we have been able to retain native habitats and species, not on the philosophies we have used to do it. They will also judge us on the extent to which we have established a secure socio-economic environment, so that everything saved can be appreciated, rather than eaten in order to survive. A sound economic base for Australia is fundamental to our ability to pursue conservation today, and this is unlikely to change in the future.

As a consequence, we must accept that there are finite economic levels on the extent to which Australian lands that can be included in the national conservation estate. Enhancing conservation on private lands is perhaps the most important conservation obligation we are faced with today.

The concept of conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife is about creating economic incentives for landowners to keep, maintain and nurture native habitats and species. The concept is simple, logical and pragmatic in its principles. But it ruffles the feathers of animal rights proponents, and creates dilemmas for some animal welfare proponents. It confuses some of our urban dwellers, and frightens our Federal politicians. But so do many other things.

The value of the concept can and should be judged objectively on the extent to which it works, and this can only be determined by objective, scientific testing. But there is more to gain from Australians becoming expert in sustainable use technology. There are millions of people around the world for whom the use of wildlife is a matter of survival. For others it offers genuine alternatives to development practices that are clearly unsustainable. Australians are well placed to develop and deliver the expertise to those who need it most. To the people with real needs that have little interest in the pseudo scientific, mumbo-jumbo that often pervades Australian conservation debates.