Trips down memory lane

[walkinTas]

It actually wouldn't take much to exterminate, or severely limit deer populations in Tasmanian. Just declare open season and the hunters will do the rest. They only survive because they are protected by strict laws and a short hunting season. And yes, they are a pest.

[Moondog55]

Just wondering why Deer not considered pest?

By anyone sensible, they are. Trouble is, the deer hunters have a very loud lobby and, thus, more political power, so extermination is not permitted. They'd have nothing to hunt, then. It's a bit like trout, although at least the authorities don't have a breeding and releasing program for deer.

Sorry but that is a dream I wish was a reality, no politician listens to hunters, too late to extreminate ( exterminate ) we lost that battle 100 years ago the aim now is control and with the RSPCA idiots saying calisivirus is a cruel alternative and baiting kills far too many native animals i wish I knew of an answer

But I hunt deer on occasion so any answer I give is going to be biased in favour of my recreation, I admit to being old cranky and biased on a lot of things, I hate the Alpine Resorts Commission for example and most politicians on principle ( although using the words politician and principle in the one sentence can lead to confusion )

[Son of a Beach]

Just wondering why Deer not considered pest?

By anyone sensible, they are. Trouble is, the deer hunters have a very loud lobby and, thus, more political power, so extermination is not permitted. They'd have nothing to hunt, then. It's a bit like trout, although at least the authorities don't have a breeding and releasing program for deer.

The trout/deer thing is weird. It seems to be based on outdated English practices based around the elite.

Here, they could hunt Kangaroos, if there were no deer. I'm sure this would not be as much fun for them (easier to hunt), but at least they can't say they'd have nothing to hunt.

[sailfish]

Just wondering why Deer not considered pest?

By anyone sensible, they are. Trouble is, the deer hunters have a very loud lobby and, thus, more political power, so extermination is not permitted. They'd have nothing to hunt, then. It's a bit like trout, although at least the authorities don't have a breeding and releasing program for deer.

The trout/deer thing is weird. It seems to be based on outdated English practices based around the elite.

Here, they could hunt Kangaroos, if there were no deer. I'm sure this would not be as much fun for them (easier to hunt), but at least they can't say they'd have nothing to hunt.

There is nothing elitist about trout fishing, even I do that.

Ken

[Son of a Beach]

There is nothing elitist about trout fishing, even I do that.

Ken

No, there is nothing elitist about it. Sorry, I worded that badly, and didn't mean to imply that. Anybody can fish, or hunt. I do both (and certainly don't consider myself elite in either domain).

But I reckon that some of the regulations that exist around trout and deer must be based on antiquated systems to protect the privileges of the elite land owners in old English society. It flies in the face of good environmental practice (ie, protecting species that would otherwise be considered vermin).

Eg, why restrictions about what kinds of bait, tackle and rods can be used? How is that sensible? Surely if somebody wants to go catch a fish, they should be allowed to use any reasonable rod, hook, worm or grasshopper to do so, and just set a bag limit.

Personally, I would like to be able to go fishing with a hook and a grasshopper, and just catch a fish (trout or otherwise), and whack it in the frypan for my dinner when I'm out in the bush. But no, for trout that is illegal. Why? Because the law says you have to use an artificial lure for this species of fish... oh, but not for that species... you can catch flathead with whatever bait you like. Or is it to do with freshwater/inland waters and saltwater/marine? I don't know.

I like fishing, but I'm more interested in catching a fish to eat, than in the art and science of how to present a fly to the fish. Same with hunting. As much as I enjoy the hunt, I'd rather just bag an animal and get it home for the freezer, than spend all night looking for it and hunting it down.

Unless the species is endangered, anybody should be allowed to catch an animal using any reasonable means (ie, if it's reasonable for one species it should be reasonable for others) in enough quantities for a single meal for themselves and their own family for one night. That is the most natural thing in the world to me. If the species is threatened, then commercial activity for taking those animals should be controlled first, or even ceased altogether if necessary. The last thing to be restricted should be a man providing for himself or his family.

o-oh... I'm ranting again. Sorry.

[sthughes]

Lol, nice rant Nik. You standing for the senate? If so you've just got my vote! Shame common sense has been banned in politics

[sailfish]

You can use bait for trout in many places, it depends on the classification of the waterway which depends on the fisheries ability to sustain itself naturally with current fishing pressure. I know of no places in NSW where there are species based restrictions (other than bag and size limits), only waterway classification and seasonal restrictions. Seasonal restrictions protect breeding runs so help protect sustainability. Trout are not Feral (escaped exotic species), they are a deliberately introduced sport fish. They are not well suited to Australia which severely restricts their number and range. These appear to be the reason they are protected by fisheries legislation. Possibly some of the more annoying restrictions wouldn’t be needed if more people observed bag limits and went home. Possible trout would not be needed as a sport fish if our waterways were not so damaged by siltation, thermal, biological and chemical pollution and restricted flows that preclude a healthy fishery based on sustainable native populations. This would be preferable but would happen any time soon. Don’t get me started on the control of the much worse carp and redfin situation that they provide when managed well. Clearly the 1st step is to deal with water quality and flow, It makes no sense to talk about eradicating introduced species until we can provide water in which natives could thrive as that will just result in completely dead waterways.

Regards,
Ken

[Son of a Beach]

There are some (otherwise) completely healthy waterways here in Tasmania which are totally dominated by trout, at the expense of native species. I'm not entirely against trout being here, but in that sense, they are very much a ferral species in some Tasmanian waterways. This even applies to waterways which have not been deliberately stocked, and in which they are not supposed to even exist at all - that fits your definition of feral (BTW, the dictionary definition is simply 'escaped/wild' which certainly fits the situation here).

Whether it is species based, or water body based, a man ought to be able to use a hook and line to catch a feral animal in an otherwise healthy waterway to feed himself and his family, in my opinion. This is not legal in most (otherwise) healthy inland waterways in Tasmania.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Exactly right Nik! Inland fisheries are going to alot of trouble to keep them out of some lakes in fact!!

Opps, better edit the name of the location out....

[Moondog55]

At least they are now also breeding and releasing Murray Cod and Redfin. I wish they would do the same for Devils and quolls on the mainland,
Don't just blame the aristocracy for importing plague animals, cats were brought into the North by Malay and Javanese fishermen and wild dogs came in with the original immigrant inhabitants and promptly killed off the mainland populations of Devils.
I fully support the reintroduction of Devlls and quolls to the mainland, trouble is we have to kill off all the introduced scavengers and hunters first

[Son of a Beach]

yeah, it's crazy that some people deliberately stock trout into other waterways, in order to speed up their spread. They are quite capable of spreading themselves!

[Son of a Beach]

Don't just blame the aristocracy for importing plague animals

I'm not blaming them for importing them, but I can't help but wonder if they aren't somewhat responsible for the way in which some introduced feral species are protected in similar ways to what is done in the mother country.

[Moondog55]

Yeah, 100 years ago i think that was the case

[Nuts]

Huh, maybe nothings changed... perhaps just not as obvious, what does the PAWS wildlife branch do besides protect deer on large holdings (from 'commonfolk')

[Moondog55]

pardon my ignorance PAWS??

never understood the attraction of trout cotton wool with bones IMO
Almost as tasteless as carp which is another damn pest but at least carp makes good fertiliser

Is it not legal to use a handline to fish in Tassies rivers?? Not a fisherman myself so sorry if that is a dumn question

[frenchy_84]

Trout are not Feral (escaped exotic species), they are a deliberately introduced sport fish.

So like foxes? Or rabbits?

[flyfisher]

The reason that we have trout and deer is because some folk like to catch/hunt them in a way that they enjoy.
We also have roads, airports, football and other sporting venues to cater for various interests .

Some people like football, rugby, soccer, tennis, boxing, golf, cycling, go-kart racing, motor racing, opera, classical music, rock music,
surfing, camping,4w driving, trail bike riding, peak baging, caving, bushwalking, rockclimbing, fashion parades etc etc, and others cannot stand some of these activities and cannot understand why others would enjoy, and have trouble to tolerate the different life style/point of view that others have.

It would be a boring world if we all liked the same sports and/or hobbies, as well as being very crowded here and there.

So please tolerate some activities that others like, lest they all come bush with you.

[walkinTas]

...a man ought to be able to use a hook and line to catch a feral animal in an otherwise healthy waterway to feed himself and his family, in my opinion. This is not legal in most (otherwise) healthy inland waterways in Tasmania.

A man or even a woman if she chooses, should be able to catch and eat any feral animal of his choosing.

You think trout is crazy. Deer make no sense at all. In Tasmania there is a bag limit of two deers - on male in March and one antlerless deer in April or two antlerless deer in April. I used to hunt deer, because they are feral. If deer were open season there would be a lot fewer feral deer. Why are they protected? Who benefits? Simple answer, the deer hunting fraternity. The state government protects feral deer so they can be hunted. The same state government spends 10 of thousands of dollars working with landowners to correct and minimise the damage down by this feral animal. At the same time they prohibit the farming of deer without a licence, and have penalties designed to stop farm deer escaping to the wild - "[farmers] are required to notify the Secretary via the Game Management Services Unit of that escape or release and take all reasonable steps to recover the farm deer, or if it is necessary to prevent an immediate risk to the public or environment, destroy the farm deer". Absurd! Are they say that if farm deer escape they pose a "risk to the public or environment". What, feral deer are an environmental risk? OMG! So why protect feral deer? Where's the logic?

Want a bit of reading - try this study.

[climberman]

Tell that to the locals, the Bardie people, who burned the country every year when harvesting Bogong moth, .

There is recent research which notes through palynological and charcoal analysis that the NSW Main Range, and indeed much of the continent, was not burnt annually as you have suggested, and is widely thought. This is likely the case for other alpine areas of the mainland (at least) as well. There is very little reason to burn it (no need for green pick as no large mammals). Search for Mooney et al. 2010 (or maybe 2011). Much of the idea of previous widespread mosaic burning is the result of transferring desert peoples' and tropical peoples' contact-era activities across the remainder of the Australian landscape. Here is a popular press article based on the research: click me

[Moondog55]

OK anecdotal evidence is not evidence?



That actually is counter to the things I have seen with my own eyes in other parts of the world that have the Melanesian culture where everytime you light a fire for cooking you burn i was under the impression that annual burning ( even in a mosaic ) was the main reason that snowgums were not more widespread as the are absent from may areas where the net annual temperature is above 10C

I have seen much evidence of fire when digging on the high plains

[flyfisher]

never understood the attraction of trout cotton wool with bones IMO

Moondog, have you ever eaten a fresh Tassie trout caught from somewhere like Great lake where they can feed on shrimps etc.

Not quite like your description, you should try it sometime.

[Moondog55]

Yes, brown trout are Ok if you smoke them but very hard to light

[Moondog55]

I will admit that wild caught trout taste a lot better than farmed and i have cooked more farmed trout than I care to admit but it all tastes like cotton wool compared to real fish like Atlantic salmon tuna or swordfish and honestly i never will understand the fuss.

The real fascination with trout is the mystique of the act of fishing and the tying of artificial flys if I HAVE to fish for trout for eating I'll do as the fellas in the Alice Springs area do and use pitchuri or explosives i ate a wild caught trout once in the head waters of the Kiewa after catching it with my bare hands, still tasted like cotton wool Sorry

[flyfisher]

Yes, brown trout are Ok if you smoke them but very hard to light

[sailfish]

Trout are not Feral (escaped exotic species), they are a deliberately introduced sport fish.

So like foxes? Or rabbits?

Just explaining the definition because people tend to use it to mean any animal they personally think should not be here. IMO "feral" is inflammatory and counter productive, better to at least recognise other peoples interests by using the correct terminology. You know most recreational fishing people are very environmentally aware and concerned, why put them off side?

Regards,
Ken

[Moondog55]

Trout are not Feral (escaped exotic species), they are a deliberately introduced sport fish.

So like foxes? Or rabbits?

Just explaining the definition because people tend to use it to mean any animal they personally think should not be here. IMO "feral" is inflammatory and counter productive, better to at least recognise other peoples interests by using the correct terminology. You know most recreational fishing people are very environmentally aware and concerned, why put them off side?

Regards,
Ken

Place "Hunter" there in stead of fisherman and you have it nailed, I probably donate more to the WWF and the Wilderness Society than I do to the salvos but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do and Feral is a good word, it gets the pest part of the equation right.

I ( Personal comment only ) have never understood peoples objection to duck hunting even though I don't like wild duck or the RSPCAs statement that hunting feral pigs with dogs and bayonets causes the animals too much stress, or that snaring is cruel as are old fashioned rabbit traps

Rabbit traps are another thing that you often saw on peoples packs in the 60s when headed out for more than a few days.

Pests and ferals are outlaws and the normal rules don't apply

[sailfish]

I agree with using the word "Hunter". I don't and never have hunted other than fishing which is a form of hunting especially fly fishing. That is my only reason for specifying fishing. I guess non hunting people just never get how immersed you can get in the life around you. They think it's about killing but instead it's about life. Funny how things are often the opposite of how they appear.


Ken

[Son of a Beach]

The reason that we have trout and deer is because some folk like to catch/hunt them in a way that they enjoy.
We also have roads, airports, football and other sporting venues to cater for various interests .

Some people like football, rugby, soccer, tennis, boxing, golf, cycling, go-kart racing, motor racing, opera, classical music, rock music,
surfing, camping,4w driving, trail bike riding, peak baging, caving, bushwalking, rockclimbing, fashion parades etc etc, and others cannot stand some of these activities and cannot understand why others would enjoy, and have trouble to tolerate the different life style/point of view that others have.

It would be a boring world if we all liked the same sports and/or hobbies, as well as being very crowded here and there.

So please tolerate some activities that others like, lest they all come bush with you.

I don't have any problem with people fishing for trout, or hunting for deer in their own ways. I'm often with my mates while they go fly fishing (and I get to eat some trout if they don't put them back in the water). What I do have a problem with is that it is illegal for me to fish for trout in my preferred way, in most of Tasmania. That is intolerance on the part of some law makers.

[Son of a Beach]

I agree with using the word "Hunter". I don't and never have hunted other than fishing which is a form of hunting especially fly fishing. That is my only reason for specifying fishing. I guess non hunting people just never get how immersed you can get in the life around you. They think it's about killing but instead it's about life. Funny how things are often the opposite of how they appear.


Ken

I do a fair bit of hunting. To me it's about food... better food (quality and taste) than I can buy in the supermarket. It's also a much more enjoyable method of stocking the larder than pushing a shopping cart through the isles; and it's about getting back to our roots and butchering/preparing everything myself and knowing exactly what is what in my freezer and on my plate. So I agree that it's about life in that sense. There is of course also the enjoyment of being out in different places... just observing... similar to bushwalking in that respect.

[Moondog55]

Are there any other things we could ad to the things the were ( Perhaps) better 20 30 or even 50 years ago as far as bushwalking was concerned

Howzabout being able to walk in a mature blue-gum forest?/ we won't be able to do that for about another 150 years.
Or the fact that we were the FIRST to walk along that ridge or that valley floor, we need the unexplored.

Gear is better by far but we rely to much on some modern aids to be our safety line ( GPS and epirbs come to mind ) and perhaps lees on brains and our bodies natural endurance and strength