CHAPTER 19 - HUNTING
Introduction
19.1 Hunting is a major recreational pastime in some western countries and big game hunting has
become a lucrative business in some first and third world countries providing financial return to
governments, landowners and local people. The number of hunters appears to be increasing: in England,
during a period of strong anti-hunting and animal liberation activity, the number of hunters increased from
591,000 (in 1982) to 829,000 (in 1992). In America, it has been estimated that there are over 14
million hunters and in Australia there are over one million registered shooters, 85 per cent of whom are
described as hunters. [1]
19.2 According to the Safari Club International, utilisation is a major ethical consideration among
modern recreational hunters and products from hunting are used for food, clothing, items for sale, and
trophies. [2] The Safari Club also believes that it is important to make the distinction between
recreational hunters and commercial hunting operations, on the one hand, and professional and amateur
culling operations on the other. Recreational hunters generally travel on foot and hunt at dusk or dawn,
or during the day, whereas culling operations are generally carried out at night with the aid of vehicles
and spotlights. The following section deals only with recreational hunting. Big game or safari hunting,
organised by specialist tour operators, is also discussed below.
Recreational Hunting in Australia
19.3 There are a number of different types of recreational hunting in Australia: game bird hunting
(waterfowl and quail); kangaroo and wallaby hunting; feral animal hunting; game ranch hunting of exotic
species; and safari hunting. There is already a significant industry based on game hunting of feral species
including goats, pigs and buffalo.
19.4 In most instances, the ability to hunt particular species of animals depends on the jurisdiction and
the time of year. With the exceptions of NSW, Western Australia and the ACT, all states have gazetted
game bird hunting seasons. The Northern Territory does not have a quail hunting season. The hunting of
kangaroos for personal use is permitted in Queensland (for Macropus rufus and M. giganteus), but in
New South Wales and Victoria recreational hunting of kangaroos is illegal. Pest eradication licences can
be obtained in those states to cull kangaroos, but only by licensed professional shooters. In New South
Wales, kangaroo carcases can be used commercially, but in Victoria they cannot and some 30,000
kangaroo carcases are buried annually. In Tasmania, two species of macropod can be harvested,
Bennett's wallaby and the Tasmanian pademelon, by both recreational and commercial shooters. [3]
19.5 Hunting of feral animals has occurred both on an ad hoc basis and in an organised manner for
many years. Species taken include rabbits, foxes, boar, goats, water buffalo, banteng, horses and camel.
Over the last decade game ranch hunting has become established with some farming properties
specialising in various deer species (chittal, red, fallow and rusa deer) and others providing pheasant and
partridge.
19.6 More recently, a guided safari industry has been established in the Northern Territory involving
water buffalo, banteng, wild boar, waterfowl and fishing, and some Aboriginal groups are keen to
expand into native animals. Evidence of this was taken by the Committee from the people who live on
Murwangi Station via Ramingining, Northern Territory. The Murwangi Aboriginal people have for the
past two years taken safari hunters to shoot buffalo and taken people on wetlands tours. [4] Mr Wilson,
the Manager of the Community Corporation, explained that the trophy fee for hunting buffalo was $1000
and about 5-6 hunts per year were conducted. The number of hunts, and the number of buffalo taken
was determined primarily by time, rather than any factor relating to the number of buffalos. The income
from the safari was divided among the community. When asked about the importance of safari hunting to
the Community, Mr Wilson stated:
Singly it cannot be considered as crucial, because we are only talking about three or four animals … But
to the general progress of the station it is practically essential: it is something that Aboriginal people can
be very personally involved in, because many people there have limited work skills and training, and it
provides a direct income from the land for them. As a whole, as a part of the general operation, it is
practically essential. All these things, like crocodile egg harvest, become essential to the whole operation.
[5]
19.7 Having had success with commercialising the hunting of buffalo, the Murwangi Community would
like to be able to offer safari hunting for large crocodiles and believe that this would be sustainable and
economic. To do this, however, would require changes to the Northern Territory regulations relating to
the taking of crocodiles. At the moment Aboriginal people can take a certain number of crocodiles for
subsistence use, but they cannot be hunted for profit. [6]
19.8 The Northern Territory Government in fact sought information from Environment Australia on
trophy hunting of native species but received the reply that it 'would not be acceptable'. However, the
State Government still believes that it would be 'probably the best way in which Aboriginal people who
own billabongs and swamps, or pastoralists even, can gain an economic return from having large
populations of large crocodiles in amongst their cattle or on their lands, causing threats to humans'. [7]
19.9 In this matter, Mr David Millar commented that care would need to be taken to ensure that
selective pressure was not applied by continually shooting the largest animals. In Papua New Guinea,
this problem had been solved by prohibiting the taking of both subadult crocodiles and very large
animals, and allowing the shooting of only medium sized animals. [8] The BRS noted that because game
hunting is usually gender specific (males) and is based on taking only large animals, the search for which
may take several days, hunting was unlikely to have a significant impact on wildlife populations, provided
operators were regulated through licences for specific regions and numbers of animals taken. [9]
Recreational Duck Hunting
19.10 Duck hunting is regulated throughout Australia through the various state wildlife Acts. Hunting
'seasons' in each state are set on the basis of climatic conditions and biological criteria relating to the
various duck species. In South Australia, for example, in November each year seasonal conditions and
weather predictions are examined, together with demographic information on duck populations across
Australia to determine whether it is appropriate to allow a hunting season and to set dates if conditions
are considered favourable. Eight species of duck are allowed to be hunted and the season usually lasts
from mid-February to mid-June. There is a daily bag limit of 12 ducks per person. To gain a licence,
hunters must pass a Waterbird Identification Test and it is mandatory to use non-toxic shot, such as steel
or bismuth. In 1997, there were about 2,300 duck shooters licensed in South Australia. The South
Australian Government acknowledges that animal liberation groups oppose duck hunting but the
Government is 'adamant' that at the present level of activity, duck hunting is ecologically sustainable. The
government submission notes that duck hunting groups have put efforts into wetlands conservation to
help preserve their sport. [10]
19.11 Duck hunting is not prohibited in Queensland but is set within a season which is determined
through consultation and expert advice. Species open to hunting under the Nature Conservation (Duck
and Quail) Conservation Plan 1995 are: the plumed whistling duck, wandering whistling duck, maned
wood duck, grey teal, Pacific black duck, hardhead, brown quail and stubble quail. In 1992, concern
about the conservation status of the freckled duck in the far south west of the State led to the banning of
all duck hunting in the region because of the possibility of mistaken identity. [11] Duck hunting is now
banned in Western Australia and New South Wales, although destruction permits are issued where
damage to crops and pastures by ducks occurs.
Safari Hunting
19.12 According to Safari Club International, trophy hunting brings together rich people and large wild
animals; an activity that both affluent European and American hunters and owners of African wildlife
have increasingly embraced in recent years. In fact, trophy hunting has become so popular in some parts
of Africa that beef graziers are changing over to game ranches: fences are removed, natural vegetation
allowed to grow back and wildlife fostered. On a hunting safari, the guest hunter pays a daily
accommodation and service fee and a trophy fee for each animal taken (these vary between species and
range from US$200 for a warthog, US$800 for a waterbuck, US$2,500 for a leopard to US$10,000
for an elephant). The game reserve owner also gets income from the animal carcase when it is sold as
butchered meat or biltong. [12]
19.13 In America, hunters pay upwards of US$15,000 for a five-day hunt to pursue north American
wild sheep (Ovis canadensis) and in Russia they pay up to US$50,000 to hunt Russian wild sheep
(Ovis ammon/vignei species complex). More than 6,250 hunters visit South Africa each year and in
Tanzania, safari hunting brought US$4.5 million into the economy through licence fees alone, while total
revenue from tourists visiting national parks was less than half this amount (US$1.9 million). [13]
Contribution to the Income of Indigenous Peoples
19.14 Hunting and trophy fees are frequently paid by hunters to indigenous peoples for the right to hunt
and take game from their land. Safari Club International provided the following examples: [14]
- In Zimbabwe the CAMPFIRE scheme (Communal Areas Management Program For Indigenous
Resources) allows villagers ownership of wildlife resources and to gain income from them, from
activities such as game hunting. Access to hunter trophy fees, among other things, has doubled the
income of rural Zimbabweans (See also Page 51).
- In Canada, polar bears are co-managed by agreements between the Government of the North
West territories and village groups. Annual quotas are set by the government (about 500 bears,
which is 2.5% of the total bear population in Canada) and each village decides how many bears
are allocated to sporting hunters (usually about 10% of the village quota). Each hunt has an
average income of US$18,500 and 80% of the income remains in the village. (See also Box:
Commercialisation of Endangered Rhinoceros.)
- Safari operators pay trophy fees to Aboriginal people in the Coburg peninsula area of Northern
Territory for banteng and buffalo taken from their land. Davidson Arnhem Land Safaris Pty Ltd,
for example, conducts safari hunts for feral animals such as banteng cattle, wild boar, sambar deer
and buffalo. Prices range between US $9750 for 10 days, with additional trophy fees of $1500
per samba deer and more for banteng cattle. [15]
- Royalties paid to the Northern Land Council for safari hunting of water buffalo, pigs and goats
were $39,495 in 1994-95, $36,885 in 1995-96 and $36,430 in 1996-97. Sport fishing brought
in $27,690 in 1994-95, $40,670 in 1995-96 and $59,540 in 1996-97. [16]
19.15 The Northern Land Council noted that trophy shooting of native wildlife was illegal in Australia
but argued that this needed 'urgent review' because hunting activities may have a lower environmental
impact than other types of commercial utilisation. 'For example (leaving aside possible totemic limitations
of killing very large males), one large-sized male saltwater crocodile (but not the largest), perhaps
superfluous to the reproductive potential of the population, may fetch a similar or higher price as a high
volume harvest of medium sized crocodiles'. [17]
19.16 The Far North Queensland Network also suggested that safari hunting be promoted in northern
Australia, both for feral species and appropriate native animals. The Network noted that while it was
easy to get problem crocodiles removed from populous areas, it was almost impossible to persuade the
government to remove crocodiles which were a threat to local communities in remote areas. Allowing
safari hunters to hunt feral species would assist with conservation objectives and allowing them to shoot
'pest' crocodiles from remote areas would solve a problem that the government was unwilling to tackle.
The FNQ Network concluded: 'By combining crocodiles, birds, kangaroos, buffaloes, wild boars,
dingoes and cats, we are in a position to provide our own unique hunting experience in Australia'. [18]
19.17 Dr Grahame Webb of Wildlife Management International noted that, having seen the benefits that
could be derived from crocodile ranching programs, traditional landowners were now viewing crocodile
habitat as an asset. However, their incentive to preserve wetlands was linked to their ability to earn from
the crocodiles. As to the benefits that could be derived from game hunting of large crocodiles, Dr Webb
commented:
It thus seems remarkable that the Federal Government has insisted that none of the landowners let their
crocodiles be shot by hunters, regardless of the fact that those hunters are prepared to pay appreciably
more than the skin and meat value, because of their interest in hunting (not to mention the economic
advantages that visiting hunters bring to the community). There is clearly no conservation advantage in
this decision. It makes no economic sense, and is contrary to international directions from organisations
such as CITES which have repeatedly recognised the conservation advantage of hunting (high income
for low numbers of animals taken). It is a cosmetic decision putting political expediency before
conservation. [19]
Contribution to Conservation
19.18 Historically, the preservation of large tracts of land came about in either of two basic ways. In
America, the first national park (Yellowstone) was set aside simply for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people. In England and some parts of Europe, and subsequently through the British colonial tradition in
Africa, large areas of land were set aside by the Crown as game reserves where wildlife was preserved
so that royalty could continue to hunt. Since these first few 'game parks' were established, hunters have
contributed significantly to conservation of wildlife, both through cash contributions to conservation
projects, and through the preservation of hunting grounds (habitat).
19.19 Because most long-term recreational hunters have a vested interest in being able to continue
hunting, they have an interest in preserving the habitat in which the target species live. While most hunters
view game parks as simply a means to an end, the outcome is sustainable use of wildlife and indirectly
conservation of habitat. As described by Dr Max King, Scientific Adviser of the Safari Club (Australia
South Pacific):
As a hunter, I find it surprising that we are discussing the value of sustainable utilisation to conservation
as it were some new theory trotted out for conservationists to gape at. In reality, there is nothing new
about sustainably using wildlife: it simply means sensible population management and this has been going
on for the last thousand years in Europe. [20]
19.20 Hunting was long the preserve of the aristocracy in Europe and generations of royalty and landed
gentry established and maintained hunting estates for their own pleasure. In these areas, wildlife was
managed, mainly to allow hunting to continue but through the preservation of habitat whole ecosystems
were maintained. Despite hundreds of years of hunting, not one European game species has become
extinct. [21]
19.21 In more recent years, influential people who have also been dedicated hunters have been
responsible for the setting aside of important wildlife refuges. American president Theodore Roosevelt
established a series of national parks throughout the United States, and Victorian premier Sir Henry
Bolte, a keen waterfowl hunter, established a network of 35 wildlife and hunting reserves. [22] In
Britain, well known conservationist, Dr David Bellamy, has 'accepted presidency of the Gamekeepers
Society of Great Britain, because he recognises that hunting is preserving habitat'. [23]
19.22 Individuals and groups of hunters still continue to made contributions to conservation. As an
example, Safari Club International noted that:
North American waterfowl hunters have over the last 60 years raised US$4.6 billion for the
conservation of ducks and their wetland habitats … [and] Ducks Unlimited, a North American hunter
based organisation, has guaranteed the survival of waterfowl on that continent by the judicious purchase
of both breeding wetlands and migratory refuge areas. [24]
19.23 Recreational shooters in Australia are now forming financial partnerships to purchase wetlands
and wilderness areas for the managed hunting of native and introduced species. Of major significance is
the Watervalley Wetlands project, on 26,000 hectares of privately owned swampland in the
Marcollat/Bakers Range drainage system of South Australia, where 13 major wetlands have been
rehabilitated with the financial contributions of recreational hunters. [25] In addition, the Australian Field
and Game Federation has been responsible for a number of conservation initiatives including the
placement of nesting boxes in breeding areas, waterbird banding and counts, vermin control, wetland
rehabilitation and the establishment of new game reserves.
19.24 Another example of this concept was described in evidence to the Committee by Mr Robert
Brown, a member of the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia:
There is a wealthy duck hunter in the South-East who has set up a trust, which is tax deductible, and put
12,400 hectares of riparian vegetation into trust. I cannot quote the 1996-97 figures, but the previous
year he collected $48,000 from mostly hunters as a donation to be allowed to shoot. He has about five
or six shoots a year on some of the wetlands and he collected $35,000 on this. This of course went into
the trust, and I am guessing that the hunters could also get a receipt and deduct it from their tax, but the
important thing is that it was preserving the habitat. That same trust - I think it is the Wetlands and
Wildlife Trust … - last year bought a sheep station in the Flinders Ranges … it was 137 square miles I
think, and it supports yellow-footed rock wallabies. [26]
Opposition to Hunting
19.25 Although there is undoubtably considerable local and international interest in big game hunting in
Australia, this activity presents major public perception and animal welfare problems. [27] Indeed,
Animal Liberation, the RSPCA and a number of others expressed total opposition to all forms of hunting
for sport, whether the animals were native species or feral animals, on the basis of animal welfare and
that it was immoral 'to kill animals for killing's sake'. [28] The Director of RSPCA, Dr Hugh Wirth,
described how hunting for sport had increased all over the world in recent years and that it was 'hardly
humane'. [29] The RSPCA conceded that indigenous people may hunt for survival purposes, but
believes that hunting for recreational purposes is 'an absolute disgrace'. [30]
Summary and Conclusions
19.26 Hunting is a major recreational pastime in some western countries and big game hunting has
become a lucrative business in some first and third world countries providing financial return to
governments, landowners and local people. The number of hunters appears to be increasing. There are a
number of different types of recreational hunting in Australia: game bird hunting (waterfowl and quail);
kangaroo and wallaby hunting; feral animal hunting; game ranch hunting of exotic species; and safari
hunting. There is already a significant industry based on game hunting of feral species including goats,
pigs and buffalo.
19.27 Hunting has considerable potential to assist with conservation objectives. Ironically, this is often so
for areas of land which are perceived to have little other economic value (such as swamps and
wetlands). It also has the potential to contribute wealth, through big game hunting activities, to local
communities which may have little other opportunity to derive income from their land and the wildlife
inhabiting it.
19.28 However, despite these benefits, hunting is rarely promoted as a conservation tool, especially by
government. This is primarily due to the intense lobbying carried out by non-government organisations
opposed to hunting for ethical reasons. Yet in most other areas of commercial use of animals, only after
the economic benefit of the use is considered, is animal welfare taken into account. While this general
principle is anathema to animal rights groups, it is a strongly held commercial principle. To be consistent,
the issue of hunting for conservation benefit should first be considered on its own merit. Once a decision
is made about that, then matters relating to animal welfare can be taken into account.
19.29 In some instances, such as an excess number of koalas on Kangaroo Island, the conservation
benefit of having them removed by hunting may be heavily outweighed by social considerations (the
'cuddly' syndrome and international tourism image). In other instances, such as the removal of problem
crocodiles from remote communities, the social benefit of having them removed and the wealth to be
derived from it may support a decision to allow them to be hunted (they would probably be shot in either
case).
Box: Commercialisation of Endangered Rhinoceros
While complete legal protection did not prevent the southern white rhinoceros from being poached to
almost extinction (only 10 animals were left in the Umfolozi Game reserve in South Africa), placing an
exorbitant price on the head of each animal did. As soon as the population expanded to a level where
game hunting was considered appropriate, a quota was set and trophy fees of between US$15,000 and
US$25,000 (for a mature bull) were charged. Under this system, the monetary return from the animals,
and the policing system on the game reserves ensured the survival of the species. At the same time as
white rhinoceros numbers were increasing, the black rhinoceros, which was under the protection of
national parks and a CITES Appendix I listing, declined in numbers from 65,000 in 1970 to 2,500 in
1994, primarily as a result of poaching. Very recently, the Zimbabwe government has given 30 black
rhinoceroses to a consortium of 16 game ranches in the hope that commercialisation will save the black
rhinoceros as well. [31]
Footnotes
[1] Submission No. 118, Attachment: Hunting, Sustainable Utilisation and Conservation, Paper
presented at a conference on 'Sustainable Utilisation of Wildlife: Utopian Dream or Unrealistic
Nightmare? Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, Sydney 1995, pp. 1-2.
[2] Submission No. 118, Attachment, op cit, p. 1.
[3] King, Max 1995 Chapter 44, pp 282-287 Sustainable Use - a hunter's concept In 'Conservation
Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife' edited by G C Grigg, P T Hale & D Lunney, Centre for
Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, p.285.
[4] Evidence, p. RRA&T 394-399.
[5] Evidence, p. RRA&T 396.
[6] Evidence, p. RRA&T 395-6.
[7] Evidence, p. RRA&T 332.
[8] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 16.
[9] Submission No. 71, 3.
[10] Submission No. 318, p .12.
[11] Evidence, p. RRA&T 67.
[12] Submission No. 118, Attachment: Hunting, Sustainable Utilisation and Conservation, op cit, p.
9.
[13] Makombe 1993 as cited in Max King (1995) Chapter 44, pp 282-287 Sustainable Use - a
hunter's concept In 'Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife', edited by G C Grigg, P T Hale
& D Lunney, Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, p.283.
[14] Submission No. 118, Attachment: Hunting, Sustainable Utilisation and Conservation, op cit, p.
2.
[15] Submission No. 300, p. 12.
[16] Submission No. 300, Appendix 1, p. 1.
[17] Submission No. 300, P. 13.
[18] Evidence, p. RRA&T 201.
[19] Submission No. 157, p. 18.
[20] Submission No. 118, Attachment, op cit, p. 5.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Submission No. 118, Attachment, op cit, p. 3.
[23] Evidence, p. RRA&T 562.
[24] Submission No. 118, Attachment, op cit, p. 2. See also Evidence, p. RRA&T 1065-6 for a
description of the Wild Goose Club in America which has similar conservation outcomes.
[25] Submission No. 118, Attachment, op cit, p. 4.; and Supplementary Submission No. 118, p. 5.
[26] Evidence, p. RRA&T 558.
[27] Submission No. 71, p. 2.
[28] Evidence, p. RRA&T 946; see also Evidence, p. RRA&T 492.
[29] Evidence, p. RRA&T 946.
[30] Submission No. 169, p. 5; Evidence, p. RRA&T 943.
[31] Submission No. 118, Attachment, op cit, p. 7.
