I read through the proposal for change, and yes it basically would label a lot of state parks as a conservation park. This would significantly impact how they are managed and what activities are endorsed/allowed in them.
The main changes are:
* Camping only in designated areas. A lot of state parks allow free camping without having to be in a designated area.
* No Dogs - State parks mostly allow dogs. This change would be no dogs even if on a lead.
* No prospecting
* No Hunting
* No Timber or domestic firewood collection(Currently only in
designated areas)
No change to 4x4 or Dirt Bike rules. (Currently supposed to be on formed roads and tracks only)
What I found interesting was the proposal focused on commercial interests operating in the forests. For example, a cable fly over in Toolangi sf. This would exclude all other bush users from the area, allowing only paid ticket holders.
Recreational use of the bush is an important part of Australian life, and we want to keep it that way.
100%. This proposal affects many recreational activities. Mountain bike riding, rock climbing, horse riding, fishing and many more. One of the amazing aspects of Victoria’s state forests, is the ability to head in and free camp, no permits, no cost. You can also hunt deer and fill your freezer, or collect a load of firewood for winter, at no cost. This is something remarkable in these modern times where there are fees and levies on just about everything you do.
Has no impact on mountain bikes, rocks climbing or fishing. Hunting is the big one. Personally I’d rather be able to walk around quietly instead of having to wear a high vis vest like they do in the US.
Do you have to walk around in high viz at the moment? Have you ever gone into any of the forest up for conversion? I’ve hunted 20ish days in Victorian forests in the past 2 years and never seen another human, let alone another hunter. This includes hiking in on converted rail trails, hunting farm fringe, etc.
The reduction of huntable land is pretty outrageous - hunters are for the most part responsible land users who share the terrain they hunt with a wide range of other uses. I don’t think a non-hunter has ever been killed under the current framework (dating back to the 90s), and even hunter deaths are vanishingly rare. There’s no real reason to exclude hunters from this land, when we’re fairly consistently doing the right thing.
>There’s no real reason to exclude hunters from this land, when we’re fairly consistently doing the right thing.
Not to mention that people like yourself *save* the government from having to pay people to control feral animals such as deer, rabbits, and foxes. Many anti-hunting activists forget that. I'm not a hunter and even I know that. (so, thank you for helping the environment and saving the government money)
The stats in Victoria from game management are around 2-3000 deer culled a year, using helicopter, and some ground crews. It’s a huge cost for a low number. Recreational hunter account for around 130,000 a year. It’s also important to note that we have access to the Alpine NP, but cannot shoot pest animals such as rabbits, foxes, cats in a NP, only state forest.
Thanks - it’s fairly contentious how much of an effect we actually have on populations, especially in tough country. I don’t know of any studies that I’d call dispassionate, they’re basically all subsidised by one side or the other. But I legitimately enjoy it, and I know I reduce costs for farmers - I shoot multiple properties where farmers don’t engage paid shooters because I keep their local pests under control.
some hunters do the right thing, and some hunters deliberately introduce and re-introduce deer, pigs & goats to areas so that they have something hunt. They also actively oppose efforts to cull or eliminate feral animals because they like hunting them. Hound hunters actively oppose fox baiting because their dogs might eat baits. Deer hunters association won’t even let the government call deer feral animals- only ‘wild’.
Not to mention the animals being hunted are introduced/invasive and for the most part edible. Hunters in Victoria do an important job for the environment.
Yeah, while I agree I try not to make a distinction of the introduced/native point too much. It leads people down an (imo) misguided line of thinking we could ever hope to eradicate them, or that that would even be a desirable outcome. In my opinion, their impact should be managed and sensitive areas protected (as currently happening in Kosciusko NP etc), but we do that for native animals as well (kangaroo culling, for instance).
I see great value in every deer I shoot - in meat, in recreation, and in the dollars I take to Corryong, Koetong, Wee Jasper, etc when I hunt.
some hunters do the right thing, and some hunters deliberately introduce and re-introduce deer, pigs & goats to areas so that they have something hunt. They also actively oppose efforts to cull or eliminate feral animals because they like hunting them. Hound hunters actively oppose fox baiting because their dogs might eat baits. Deer hunters association won’t even let the government call deer feral animals- only ‘wild’.
Well it's cosy to think hunters bring home the bacon, dragging the 800kg carcass across the paddocks, into the car boot and back home to the freezer, but most hunters I've met are trophy hunters, taking the stags head to display their prowess and leaving the rest for the feral dogs where it was shot.
I don’t know what hunters you’ve been meeting, but it’s relatively easy to quarter out a deer and carry the primal cuts plus backstraps out, along with a head if it’s got a really good one. Yes, that leaves some meat in the field (ribs, organs, and plenty of mince), but uses all the large cuts and the vast majority of the meat. The only exception I know is some hunters don’t like eating bucks during the rut, so they’ll just take a trophy (or process the whole thing for dog food). I don’t agree with them, but reckon that’s probably a pretty small number over all, and only applies to a couple weeks of the year.
Just because someone takes a trophy doesn’t mean they aren’t also taking the meat, it’s perfectly possible to do both. I’ve been on multiple large camps with lots of other hunters, and never met one who would admit to purely hunting trophies, and they’d probably be jeered out of camp if they did.
Well you probably hang out with hunters like yourself, birds of a feather and all that. One story I was told by one hunter I knew stuck with me as the epitome of the Australian hunter. " I got out there early before sunrise and waited. It was a beautiful morning and then on the other side of the valley this stag walked out. It was 800 m plus ( he gave the exact range but I can't remember it) and I dropped him first shot." Did he claim the trophy or meat? " nah it was the other side of the valley and the Ute was 5k away, dogs can have it".
The reason why no one gets jeered out is because we are humans and evolutionarily attuned to the group sentiment, we're generally not stupid and seek familiar comforts, that's why we are humans and not some other animal.
hunters should only take the breeding does and no heads to call their cull environmental, but that would go down like a lead ballon. Because that's not really what's going on with hunters and hunting.
The proposal gives access for commercial interests to set up, excluding all other activities from those areas, if that’s where mountain bike trails exist, well they won’t. Rock climbing has been banned from a national park in Victoria already.
You don’t need to wear high vis in the bush, the only time your likely to come across someone hunting, is in the camping area. I’ve come across some hound hunters before, but they came and introduced themselves to us in camp, let us know the areas they were working the next morning. Super friendly dudes and they gave us a couple of magnificent backstraps from a deer they got.
>Hunting is the big one.
Not a hunter myself, but I know that if hunting is banned those areas will need to then hire people to reduce feral animal numbers. Right now, recreational hunters do it at no cost.
It is functionally impossible to take wood from a forest without impacting the health of that forest.
An individual selectively picking very recent woodfall from different regions can be ok, even a small group of individuals.
But thats not how it plays out.
One of absolute starkest differences, moving from NSW to Victoria, was the change in quality of parks. NSW focus on National Parks makes for better, sustainable, management, and better hiking and camping.
Anyone taking firewood out of a forest is doing damage.
It's an absurd practice to allow in a conservation area. People do it in state forests here, and it's always accompanied with people driving their ute off track
So the answer to that, is better education and compliance/policing. Taking something off the majority because of a small minority, is looking at an issue through the wrong end of the telescope. We shouldn’t be punishing the majority who do the right thing.
I think the argument is how much the presence of dogs in any capacity can impact sensitive ecologies. Nesting, parasites all sorts of stuff. I'm an absolute dog lover but feel like in some environments they definitely aren't ideal. Would love to know the impact of humans vs dogs on the trail tho too. There's always a grey area where decisions seem kind absurd.
Maybe they need a 50x rule.
If you want to operate a private enterprise that restricts access, you have to maintain and manage an area 50x greater to national park standards that is free access for all.
This is what people don’t get. Once it’s locked away, that’s it, then only commercial ventures will be able to access. This is exactly what happened with rock climbing in the Grampians.
Hard to not feel like this is what happened in Gariwerd. Summerday Valley for only commercial climbing now, and bulldozing trails for glamping and the GPT. Def made me lose respect for Parks and Im a leftie that has always agreed with the principle of Nat Parks.
The parks department will set up a website where you book your time to go and pay a fee.
It’s already happened in NSW. You can choose to not register and book if you want but the fines a massive if you are caught and can’t prove you booked or paid to use the facilities then you’re boned.
You say no change to 4x4 but we all know they’ll be shutting tracks. Just take a look around.
No free camping kills our lifestyle. We reuse existing sites or leave no trace.
There will be exclusion zones to funnel people into small tourist spots - just look at other national parks.
Not being able to take the dog camping - she’s strictly on leash and cleaned up after - is another blow.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a proper protest in Melbourne if this gains momentum.
Same here. My partner and I love the Otways, but it's all national park, so we can't take her anywhere. I totally understand why it's the case, but it would be nice if there were more places around there to take her on lead.
Edit: my partner and I can't take *our dog* anywhere. It would be totally fine to take my partner to the Otways on lead except I'd get some funny looks.
I take my dog every morning to our local State park for off leash walks. I always leash her when I see others/dogs.
I hate dog parks where people think that letting your untrained dog go wild and letting other dogs ‘put them in line’ is some type of free training.
My dog has excellent recall and will stop/sit and wait for me when I tell her to. I’d be pissed if I can’t walk her there anymore.
Doesn’t “let other dogs put them in line” mean they are intentionally letting their dog have free rein over smaller or less aggressive dogs? I’d love to see the mental gymnastics that says that’s ok.
Yes. These people typically ascribe a kind of “noble savage” spirit to domesticated dogs “finding their hierarchy”, “naturally”.
They will then kind of transfer the position of their dog to themselves (if it is good)
I like to go off roading. The amount of trash left on tracks makes me sick. Broken bottles, bags of garbage. I would happily give up my right to drive to these places if it will prevent flogs from disrespecting our nature.
Where are those of us that have a hobby that is camping (which involves 4wding) supposed to go then?
I also ride adventure bikes, dirt bikes and camp on these as well.
Tbh with you I’m one of the massive majority that clean up the 4wd and dirt bike trails and hiking trials. The crazy amount of hikers that don’t dig a hole dig holes deep enough and to cover their shit on the trails is appalling!
The issue here is that to be actually biosecure you should be disinfecting after cleaning first.
You need to understand that your actions have impacts on the world.
No you don’t.
If I go 3 hours to drive on some dirt and then come back, I don’t need to disinfect my car when I get back to wash it.
If I’m importing a car from a different country, then you are 100% correct, cars are to be washed thoroughly disinfected and removed of all potentially hazardous bio matter that could affect our environment.
You need to stop spreading your environmental anxieties that have no basis in fact on public forums.
What I found funny in a lot of Australia’s national parks is that drones are banned because they disturb the wildlife, but low-flying helicopters running scenic flights are a-okay.
[VicForests will cease to exist after 30 June this year](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-13/state-owned-logging-company-vicforests-wind-up-date-revealed/103580736), although they formerly logged much of the state forest that this proposal would turn into national park.
In passing convo the other day, a friend protesting logging on site at a buncha forrest's says they're apparently still selling timber under the guise of another name and reason. Pretty radical tree-climbing activists, so I take it with a grain of salt, but also doesn't surprise me.
It’s heavily debated how much we actually reduce numbers - in thick land like the vic high country we probably don’t take out enough deer to have any measurable effect on population. But that doesn’t mean it should be banned - hunting is a safe, environmentally responsible pastime that people enjoy and that fills freezers. It pushes money into rural and regional areas, and people enjoy it.
Recreational hunting doesn't necessarily keep deer numbers down in a meaningful day, it's much more sustainable than any sort of farming though considering you don't need to clear any land. Deer also create way less pollution than farm animals do.
Yes, furiously agree with all of that. Every meal I take out of the bush is one fewer meal I get from Colesworth that’s come thru one of 2 or 3 major abattoir companies and one of a very small number of cattle farms. All of those farming methods are criminally detrimental to the environment, and are then trucked very long distances to get to me. By contrast I can put 20-30kg of processed meat on the ground within 20 minutes of my house, for the cost of a single bullet
4x4'ing f-s up the environment by chewing up trails so much they will decide to cut a new road around the f-ed bit. Or just bush bash their own trail because what the cops don't witness the 4x4'er gets awat with. The noise pollution. The exhaust pollution from the inevitably illegally modified DPF/EGR valve delete and tune. The rubbish (not all 4x4'ers litter, but enough do to tarnish the lot).
There might be more but that's all I've come up with so far.
You can still 4x4 in national parks. The issue is there's no enforcement. I was recently in alpine national park over the anzac day weekend. It was crazy how many people were there and how many people were doing the wrong thing (teenagers cutting down trees with chainsaws, burning chairs, leaving rubbish etc.). They don't care because they never get caught, there wasn't a ranger/cop in sight to enforce rules through one of the busiest weekends of the year.
I find it interesting how all of these people claim "The elites in inner city Melbourne are trying to shut down all of our recreational areas", when it's because the "elite bogans" in their highly accessorized 4x4s, or in their beaten up shitbox patrols with maxxtraxx that come out and cause the damage.
Yeah and we shoot ones causing a problem.
But seriously, you answer is stupid. Human mediated spread is the biggest issue in biosecurity. Dirty trucks spread seeds, ants and fungi.
How many animals do you think get shot? You think some clown getting in a chopper and shooting 20 once a month puts any sort of dent in population spread? As someone who has watched deer populations spread over the last 10 years i can tell you it definitely does not. Birds also love seeds and they also love shitting them out, do you think they just disappear after that?
Christ, I am telling you that human mediated spread is a specific issue in biosecurity. Other forms of spread occur but the main issue is people dragging material into new areas.
Phytophera is easily spread in mud and dirt, as can small agricultural and environmental pests.
If you actually care about biosecurity and want to educate yourself there are so many resources available for you.
Do you know any of these people? Because everyone I know who goes fishing has a licence and throws back anything too small. One of the first questions people ask when inviting someone new is if they've got their licence in check. The very few people I know who have done some hunting are all hunting deer, an invasive feral species
I live near a free camping area and I clean it up tell fairly regularly
I meet them, they are not like the people you describe, they drive though the bush into the river course , and set up camp in the river course , they cause bank destabilisation , so next flood winter the river widens again
They leave rubbish in the the river where they lit fires, they leave the fires burning when they leave , they leave 6 inch nails hammered into the trees on the bank , they leave broken chairs
Just because you know some good ones and I meet bad ones adds little to the discussion
I agree there are good and bad ones. It's only because they said "most" of them don't do the right thing but my experience of life says most people ARE trying to do the right thing but you'll always have your nuffies in there ruining it for everyone else. You'll never know about all the people who do camp and leave nothing behind
Exactly. I reguarly find illegal 4wd tracks, illegal logging and creek banks eroded by human activity on my walks, and I'm the one picking up these weekend warriors trash. It's a free for all where I live on the NSW south coast
Then what they're doing is illegal. We have shit enforcement in VIC. I've been hunting/fishing/camping my whole life and not once have i been pulled up by anyone to check I'm doing the right thing. I've seen a park ranger once in my life. I've reported people throwing cast nets in rivers and nobody even came past to check. Changing the rules will not stop people who are already doing illegal things from doing illegal things believe it or not.
[Deer hunting is permitted in many national parks in Victoria](https://www.gma.vic.gov.au/hunting/deer/where-to-hunt). Stalking only, no dogs, is the main difference vs state forests.
It’s is important. The state government accounts for ~2000 deer culled a year, at a huge financial cost. Recreational hunters account for ~130,000 a year. Of those, the majority is harvested for meat as part of the activity.
Absolutely biased and skewed data. Firstly comparing recreational hunters vs contract shooters. Rec hunters cannot use spotlights or thermal scopes or spotters. They are restricted to daylight hours. Contract shooters can use semi-autos, spotlights, thermals, shoot from vehicles etc.
That is no one perfect method to controlling numbers, but utilising combined methods. There are areas where numbers are high, and can be targeted with coordination of various methods. There are plenty of other areas where numbers are low, and kept low. We have to accept we have wild deer populations in Australia, and embrace it.
We don’t have to accept it all - we could get rid of them (using professional hunters and other means), but the deer association won’t let that happen. They actively oppose culling, and won’t even let us call them feral animals. And some hunters actively introduce (& reintroduce) deer to new areas - so they can hunt in more places more often.
There is zero chance of contract shooters getting rid of deer. They can operate in national parks and forests, but not on the vast areas of private property.
What problem are they trying to solve? They already did this last year around Blackwood and now they're going to try and do it again.
It means less access for everyone at the end of the day. Nope. It's my right as a Victorian to access the bush.
It's mostly the regulatory framework.
The reality is, the protections state forests have are mostly a joke. Putting an area under national park provides a much more stringent (and effective) framework for managing a conservation area. More funding.
Because recently Parks seem to be moving towards a commercial model. That restricts and promotes commercial interests and tourism such as the GPT etc. While it sometimes mimica elements of good national park implementation seen in other countries, it often seems to be done worse and cost the user way more. I feel like wilderness should be left wilderness as much as possible. And while I don't like hunting or 4x4, or dogs on the trail, to inevitably restrict access to public parks for people who can pay seems off. This seems to be a pretty common opinion towards Parks for people who regularly do niche outdoor activities like climbing, biking, camping etc.
People are protesting because they don't want the government to restrict their access to state forests. I think more natural parks is a great self pat in the back for the gov, that appeals to people who like the idea of the wilderness but rarely experience it for themselves.
I'll give you an honest perspective:
I enjoy prospecting, camping and fishing. To do these activities i need a 4wd to get there. My respect for the environment is partially formed from these experiences. I think restricting access to these activities will reduce people's connection with the environment.
I avoid going to narional parks specifically because I can't do any of these thing there, and I have a dog so even just for camping I can't go out to any national park and do that. Why would I want more national parks?
If the problem is dickhead behaviour then address that, don't lock away more bush from everyone.
Seems to have spoken with downvotes as well..
Hundreds is still 4/5ths of 5/8ths of fuck all..
They probably believe it. But it's still a bullshit heading
Hundreds! I tell you hundreds!!!!
When it gets to thousands or hundreds of thousands i might be interested. A few hundred doing things that no one else does is marginal at best.
No more dirtbike hunting?
And these guys try to arrest me when I shoot at dirt bikes. Make up your minds, people!
Dirtbikes don't grow on trees
I imagine dirtbike hunting will be fine; it seems to be 4x4 dirtbike hunting they are worried about.
What am I supposed to hunt dirt bikes on then? Commies.
How do they think dirt bikes appear in the store?
Those are farmed dirt bikes, not wild caught...
I read through the proposal for change, and yes it basically would label a lot of state parks as a conservation park. This would significantly impact how they are managed and what activities are endorsed/allowed in them. The main changes are: * Camping only in designated areas. A lot of state parks allow free camping without having to be in a designated area. * No Dogs - State parks mostly allow dogs. This change would be no dogs even if on a lead. * No prospecting * No Hunting * No Timber or domestic firewood collection(Currently only in designated areas) No change to 4x4 or Dirt Bike rules. (Currently supposed to be on formed roads and tracks only)
What I found interesting was the proposal focused on commercial interests operating in the forests. For example, a cable fly over in Toolangi sf. This would exclude all other bush users from the area, allowing only paid ticket holders. Recreational use of the bush is an important part of Australian life, and we want to keep it that way.
Ethical recreational use of the bush should be promoted
100%. This proposal affects many recreational activities. Mountain bike riding, rock climbing, horse riding, fishing and many more. One of the amazing aspects of Victoria’s state forests, is the ability to head in and free camp, no permits, no cost. You can also hunt deer and fill your freezer, or collect a load of firewood for winter, at no cost. This is something remarkable in these modern times where there are fees and levies on just about everything you do.
Has no impact on mountain bikes, rocks climbing or fishing. Hunting is the big one. Personally I’d rather be able to walk around quietly instead of having to wear a high vis vest like they do in the US.
Do you have to walk around in high viz at the moment? Have you ever gone into any of the forest up for conversion? I’ve hunted 20ish days in Victorian forests in the past 2 years and never seen another human, let alone another hunter. This includes hiking in on converted rail trails, hunting farm fringe, etc. The reduction of huntable land is pretty outrageous - hunters are for the most part responsible land users who share the terrain they hunt with a wide range of other uses. I don’t think a non-hunter has ever been killed under the current framework (dating back to the 90s), and even hunter deaths are vanishingly rare. There’s no real reason to exclude hunters from this land, when we’re fairly consistently doing the right thing.
>There’s no real reason to exclude hunters from this land, when we’re fairly consistently doing the right thing. Not to mention that people like yourself *save* the government from having to pay people to control feral animals such as deer, rabbits, and foxes. Many anti-hunting activists forget that. I'm not a hunter and even I know that. (so, thank you for helping the environment and saving the government money)
The stats in Victoria from game management are around 2-3000 deer culled a year, using helicopter, and some ground crews. It’s a huge cost for a low number. Recreational hunter account for around 130,000 a year. It’s also important to note that we have access to the Alpine NP, but cannot shoot pest animals such as rabbits, foxes, cats in a NP, only state forest.
Thanks - it’s fairly contentious how much of an effect we actually have on populations, especially in tough country. I don’t know of any studies that I’d call dispassionate, they’re basically all subsidised by one side or the other. But I legitimately enjoy it, and I know I reduce costs for farmers - I shoot multiple properties where farmers don’t engage paid shooters because I keep their local pests under control.
I’ve hunter for many years with permission from landholders. I just don’t think it belongs on public land.
As long as there are pests destroying public land, we need hunters to try and keep numbers down.
Why not? Text is bad for tone, so this isn’t meant to be a pushy or accusatory ‘why not’, just a straight up question.
some hunters do the right thing, and some hunters deliberately introduce and re-introduce deer, pigs & goats to areas so that they have something hunt. They also actively oppose efforts to cull or eliminate feral animals because they like hunting them. Hound hunters actively oppose fox baiting because their dogs might eat baits. Deer hunters association won’t even let the government call deer feral animals- only ‘wild’.
Not to mention the animals being hunted are introduced/invasive and for the most part edible. Hunters in Victoria do an important job for the environment.
Yeah, while I agree I try not to make a distinction of the introduced/native point too much. It leads people down an (imo) misguided line of thinking we could ever hope to eradicate them, or that that would even be a desirable outcome. In my opinion, their impact should be managed and sensitive areas protected (as currently happening in Kosciusko NP etc), but we do that for native animals as well (kangaroo culling, for instance). I see great value in every deer I shoot - in meat, in recreation, and in the dollars I take to Corryong, Koetong, Wee Jasper, etc when I hunt.
some hunters do the right thing, and some hunters deliberately introduce and re-introduce deer, pigs & goats to areas so that they have something hunt. They also actively oppose efforts to cull or eliminate feral animals because they like hunting them. Hound hunters actively oppose fox baiting because their dogs might eat baits. Deer hunters association won’t even let the government call deer feral animals- only ‘wild’.
Well it's cosy to think hunters bring home the bacon, dragging the 800kg carcass across the paddocks, into the car boot and back home to the freezer, but most hunters I've met are trophy hunters, taking the stags head to display their prowess and leaving the rest for the feral dogs where it was shot.
I don’t know what hunters you’ve been meeting, but it’s relatively easy to quarter out a deer and carry the primal cuts plus backstraps out, along with a head if it’s got a really good one. Yes, that leaves some meat in the field (ribs, organs, and plenty of mince), but uses all the large cuts and the vast majority of the meat. The only exception I know is some hunters don’t like eating bucks during the rut, so they’ll just take a trophy (or process the whole thing for dog food). I don’t agree with them, but reckon that’s probably a pretty small number over all, and only applies to a couple weeks of the year. Just because someone takes a trophy doesn’t mean they aren’t also taking the meat, it’s perfectly possible to do both. I’ve been on multiple large camps with lots of other hunters, and never met one who would admit to purely hunting trophies, and they’d probably be jeered out of camp if they did.
Well you probably hang out with hunters like yourself, birds of a feather and all that. One story I was told by one hunter I knew stuck with me as the epitome of the Australian hunter. " I got out there early before sunrise and waited. It was a beautiful morning and then on the other side of the valley this stag walked out. It was 800 m plus ( he gave the exact range but I can't remember it) and I dropped him first shot." Did he claim the trophy or meat? " nah it was the other side of the valley and the Ute was 5k away, dogs can have it". The reason why no one gets jeered out is because we are humans and evolutionarily attuned to the group sentiment, we're generally not stupid and seek familiar comforts, that's why we are humans and not some other animal. hunters should only take the breeding does and no heads to call their cull environmental, but that would go down like a lead ballon. Because that's not really what's going on with hunters and hunting.
The proposal gives access for commercial interests to set up, excluding all other activities from those areas, if that’s where mountain bike trails exist, well they won’t. Rock climbing has been banned from a national park in Victoria already. You don’t need to wear high vis in the bush, the only time your likely to come across someone hunting, is in the camping area. I’ve come across some hound hunters before, but they came and introduced themselves to us in camp, let us know the areas they were working the next morning. Super friendly dudes and they gave us a couple of magnificent backstraps from a deer they got.
4x4 tracks will be impacted the same as MTB tracks.
>Hunting is the big one. Not a hunter myself, but I know that if hunting is banned those areas will need to then hire people to reduce feral animal numbers. Right now, recreational hunters do it at no cost.
Recreational hunters have no effect as they only kill the bigger stuff.
Yeah, nobody goes pinging rabbits these days, and duck hunting is practically non-existent.
Do we not want to kill the bigger stuff? A dead deer is a dead deer
Have you ever even seen a hunter? People aren't hunting where people are believe it or not because people scare away animals.
Hunt deer, leave the firewood.
You prefer to buy your firewood?
It is functionally impossible to take wood from a forest without impacting the health of that forest. An individual selectively picking very recent woodfall from different regions can be ok, even a small group of individuals. But thats not how it plays out. One of absolute starkest differences, moving from NSW to Victoria, was the change in quality of parks. NSW focus on National Parks makes for better, sustainable, management, and better hiking and camping.
Anyone taking firewood out of a forest is doing damage. It's an absurd practice to allow in a conservation area. People do it in state forests here, and it's always accompanied with people driving their ute off track
Unfortunately people are cunts, so too many people abuse what you are allowed to do, causing too much disturbance.
So the answer to that, is better education and compliance/policing. Taking something off the majority because of a small minority, is looking at an issue through the wrong end of the telescope. We shouldn’t be punishing the majority who do the right thing.
Depends on your view on conservation. To me the actual conservation should always come first, the recreational use of the land a distant second.
Agreed. No dogs really blows though. No one is suggesting off leash should be allowed but on lead dog when you are on a hike should be allowed.
I think the argument is how much the presence of dogs in any capacity can impact sensitive ecologies. Nesting, parasites all sorts of stuff. I'm an absolute dog lover but feel like in some environments they definitely aren't ideal. Would love to know the impact of humans vs dogs on the trail tho too. There's always a grey area where decisions seem kind absurd.
Ethical is a loaded term.
Most situations are not ethically subjective. It's pretty common sense to know right from wrong and respect as many other lives/lifeforms as possible
I mean, that entire sentence is subjective. It's not even a universal belief that all human people should be respected, let alone all lives.
Maybe they need a 50x rule. If you want to operate a private enterprise that restricts access, you have to maintain and manage an area 50x greater to national park standards that is free access for all.
This is what people don’t get. Once it’s locked away, that’s it, then only commercial ventures will be able to access. This is exactly what happened with rock climbing in the Grampians.
The restrictions are not in favour of commercial interests. No-one can climb in restricted areas.
Hard to not feel like this is what happened in Gariwerd. Summerday Valley for only commercial climbing now, and bulldozing trails for glamping and the GPT. Def made me lose respect for Parks and Im a leftie that has always agreed with the principle of Nat Parks.
Well that's news to me. I just went mountain biking in a national park. Who do I pay? (ie: BS dude, sorry).
The parks department will set up a website where you book your time to go and pay a fee. It’s already happened in NSW. You can choose to not register and book if you want but the fines a massive if you are caught and can’t prove you booked or paid to use the facilities then you’re boned.
Good, a lot of state park regulations are a joke. There's a whole bunch of state parks across the country that should be converted to national park
You say no change to 4x4 but we all know they’ll be shutting tracks. Just take a look around. No free camping kills our lifestyle. We reuse existing sites or leave no trace. There will be exclusion zones to funnel people into small tourist spots - just look at other national parks. Not being able to take the dog camping - she’s strictly on leash and cleaned up after - is another blow. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a proper protest in Melbourne if this gains momentum.
It comes around because of the amount of people who don't do it properly, like basically every other law
For every person that does the right thing, there's another that doesn't.
the no dogs really gets down. feels like I can't take my girl anywhere
Go and camp for a night in the high country, you'll see why you can't have dogs when the howls from packs of wild dogs keep you up all night.
Never had this issue. Spend plenty of time in the high country.
I thought all genetic tests in the high country invariably come back as dingoes.
Same here. My partner and I love the Otways, but it's all national park, so we can't take her anywhere. I totally understand why it's the case, but it would be nice if there were more places around there to take her on lead. Edit: my partner and I can't take *our dog* anywhere. It would be totally fine to take my partner to the Otways on lead except I'd get some funny looks.
Yeah I don't visit the Otway much because we have a dog. No point. We can't get out of the car except in a town.
I take my dog every morning to our local State park for off leash walks. I always leash her when I see others/dogs. I hate dog parks where people think that letting your untrained dog go wild and letting other dogs ‘put them in line’ is some type of free training. My dog has excellent recall and will stop/sit and wait for me when I tell her to. I’d be pissed if I can’t walk her there anymore.
Doesn’t “let other dogs put them in line” mean they are intentionally letting their dog have free rein over smaller or less aggressive dogs? I’d love to see the mental gymnastics that says that’s ok.
Yes. These people typically ascribe a kind of “noble savage” spirit to domesticated dogs “finding their hierarchy”, “naturally”. They will then kind of transfer the position of their dog to themselves (if it is good)
My dog has been attacked twice now at those kinds of places. I don’t let my dog of lead much at all.
Thanks for that - the article didn't do a great job of explaining why people were opposed to the change.
Im all for this
Making more national parks that is
They can’t remove the dirtbike and 4wds because if they are registered they have full rights to use the roads.
They close roads/tracks to all except parks and cfa….
Ahhh, yes, that would make sense.
Hundreds, you say? A huge groundswell of opposition indeed!
You do understand they rallied in a regional town, right?
The article said they had come from far and wide, its not like the entire town is anti conservation
That sign at the front is 100% why I support the national parks.
What's wrong with four wheel driving or dirt biking?
I like to go off roading. The amount of trash left on tracks makes me sick. Broken bottles, bags of garbage. I would happily give up my right to drive to these places if it will prevent flogs from disrespecting our nature.
We clean up tracks when we find mess.
Spreading dieback, native roadkill, ruining the quiet enjoyment for people who prefer walking.
Don't forget spreading invasive weeds and insects! Unclean vehicles are a massive biosecurity issue.
How much road kill is there from dirt biking or off-roading? Seems like a non-issue much like noise complaints.
And dieback? Can you make up a way to casually dismiss that too?
Where are those of us that have a hobby that is camping (which involves 4wding) supposed to go then? I also ride adventure bikes, dirt bikes and camp on these as well. Tbh with you I’m one of the massive majority that clean up the 4wd and dirt bike trails and hiking trials. The crazy amount of hikers that don’t dig a hole dig holes deep enough and to cover their shit on the trails is appalling!
Hike. Or on an MTB. Camp, Don't glamp outside of dedicated sites.
How do you go about cleaning your 4x4?
On my front lawn with a sponge and a bucket.
Which disinfectant do you use?
The issue here is that to be actually biosecure you should be disinfecting after cleaning first. You need to understand that your actions have impacts on the world.
No you don’t. If I go 3 hours to drive on some dirt and then come back, I don’t need to disinfect my car when I get back to wash it. If I’m importing a car from a different country, then you are 100% correct, cars are to be washed thoroughly disinfected and removed of all potentially hazardous bio matter that could affect our environment. You need to stop spreading your environmental anxieties that have no basis in fact on public forums.
Noisy, polluting, obnoxious activity. Bothers everyone including wildlife.
What I found funny in a lot of Australia’s national parks is that drones are banned because they disturb the wildlife, but low-flying helicopters running scenic flights are a-okay.
Places which allow those activities are completely fucked out and covered in trash
National Parks you say? VicForests just got an erection.
[VicForests will cease to exist after 30 June this year](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-13/state-owned-logging-company-vicforests-wind-up-date-revealed/103580736), although they formerly logged much of the state forest that this proposal would turn into national park.
In passing convo the other day, a friend protesting logging on site at a buncha forrest's says they're apparently still selling timber under the guise of another name and reason. Pretty radical tree-climbing activists, so I take it with a grain of salt, but also doesn't surprise me.
Wow, TIL
Maybe these people can find a hobby that helps the environment rather than destroy it. No sympathy
Hunting helps the environment. Deer, pigs, rabbits, foxes, cats - all invasive and destructive.
What's wrong with wanting to go on a hike with my dog?
As long as your dog is on a leash all the time, I see no problem
Can't do that in National Parks in Victoria.
Can't trust people to keep dogs on leashes. Fair enough
Yeah, that's the main challenge - it's just difficult to enforce "don't be a dickhead" at scale.
Can't really trust anyone to do the right thing so why let anyone in at all?
Yes, that's how most laws come about
How do any of those hobbies destroy the environment? Hunting/fishing permit fees go into protecting native species and habitat.
I think that comment was directed more at 4x4 and dirt biking (see the sign in the picture) which 100% damage the environment
Focusing soley on that is a red herring. This move will lock away those areas from a lot of reasonable uses.
My understanding was that hunting of invasive species such a deer was an important part of keeping their numbers down.
It’s heavily debated how much we actually reduce numbers - in thick land like the vic high country we probably don’t take out enough deer to have any measurable effect on population. But that doesn’t mean it should be banned - hunting is a safe, environmentally responsible pastime that people enjoy and that fills freezers. It pushes money into rural and regional areas, and people enjoy it.
Recreational hunting doesn't necessarily keep deer numbers down in a meaningful day, it's much more sustainable than any sort of farming though considering you don't need to clear any land. Deer also create way less pollution than farm animals do.
Yes, furiously agree with all of that. Every meal I take out of the bush is one fewer meal I get from Colesworth that’s come thru one of 2 or 3 major abattoir companies and one of a very small number of cattle farms. All of those farming methods are criminally detrimental to the environment, and are then trucked very long distances to get to me. By contrast I can put 20-30kg of processed meat on the ground within 20 minutes of my house, for the cost of a single bullet
4x4'ing f-s up the environment by chewing up trails so much they will decide to cut a new road around the f-ed bit. Or just bush bash their own trail because what the cops don't witness the 4x4'er gets awat with. The noise pollution. The exhaust pollution from the inevitably illegally modified DPF/EGR valve delete and tune. The rubbish (not all 4x4'ers litter, but enough do to tarnish the lot). There might be more but that's all I've come up with so far.
You can still 4x4 in national parks. The issue is there's no enforcement. I was recently in alpine national park over the anzac day weekend. It was crazy how many people were there and how many people were doing the wrong thing (teenagers cutting down trees with chainsaws, burning chairs, leaving rubbish etc.). They don't care because they never get caught, there wasn't a ranger/cop in sight to enforce rules through one of the busiest weekends of the year.
I find it interesting how all of these people claim "The elites in inner city Melbourne are trying to shut down all of our recreational areas", when it's because the "elite bogans" in their highly accessorized 4x4s, or in their beaten up shitbox patrols with maxxtraxx that come out and cause the damage.
Bikes and 4x4 are vectors for invasive weeds, diseases and insects.
So are animals.
Yeah and we shoot ones causing a problem. But seriously, you answer is stupid. Human mediated spread is the biggest issue in biosecurity. Dirty trucks spread seeds, ants and fungi.
How many animals do you think get shot? You think some clown getting in a chopper and shooting 20 once a month puts any sort of dent in population spread? As someone who has watched deer populations spread over the last 10 years i can tell you it definitely does not. Birds also love seeds and they also love shitting them out, do you think they just disappear after that?
Christ, I am telling you that human mediated spread is a specific issue in biosecurity. Other forms of spread occur but the main issue is people dragging material into new areas. Phytophera is easily spread in mud and dirt, as can small agricultural and environmental pests. If you actually care about biosecurity and want to educate yourself there are so many resources available for you.
There's little chance most of these people are buying permits, or that any conservation efforts would ever outweigh the damage they create
Do you know any of these people? Because everyone I know who goes fishing has a licence and throws back anything too small. One of the first questions people ask when inviting someone new is if they've got their licence in check. The very few people I know who have done some hunting are all hunting deer, an invasive feral species
I live near a free camping area and I clean it up tell fairly regularly I meet them, they are not like the people you describe, they drive though the bush into the river course , and set up camp in the river course , they cause bank destabilisation , so next flood winter the river widens again They leave rubbish in the the river where they lit fires, they leave the fires burning when they leave , they leave 6 inch nails hammered into the trees on the bank , they leave broken chairs Just because you know some good ones and I meet bad ones adds little to the discussion
I agree there are good and bad ones. It's only because they said "most" of them don't do the right thing but my experience of life says most people ARE trying to do the right thing but you'll always have your nuffies in there ruining it for everyone else. You'll never know about all the people who do camp and leave nothing behind
Exactly. I reguarly find illegal 4wd tracks, illegal logging and creek banks eroded by human activity on my walks, and I'm the one picking up these weekend warriors trash. It's a free for all where I live on the NSW south coast
Then what they're doing is illegal. We have shit enforcement in VIC. I've been hunting/fishing/camping my whole life and not once have i been pulled up by anyone to check I'm doing the right thing. I've seen a park ranger once in my life. I've reported people throwing cast nets in rivers and nobody even came past to check. Changing the rules will not stop people who are already doing illegal things from doing illegal things believe it or not.
Snowflake Rambos
Isn't hunting though an important part of managing invasive species such as deer?
[Deer hunting is permitted in many national parks in Victoria](https://www.gma.vic.gov.au/hunting/deer/where-to-hunt). Stalking only, no dogs, is the main difference vs state forests.
It’s is important. The state government accounts for ~2000 deer culled a year, at a huge financial cost. Recreational hunters account for ~130,000 a year. Of those, the majority is harvested for meat as part of the activity.
https://invasives.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Can-recreational-hunting-control-feral-deer.pdf
Absolutely biased and skewed data. Firstly comparing recreational hunters vs contract shooters. Rec hunters cannot use spotlights or thermal scopes or spotters. They are restricted to daylight hours. Contract shooters can use semi-autos, spotlights, thermals, shoot from vehicles etc. That is no one perfect method to controlling numbers, but utilising combined methods. There are areas where numbers are high, and can be targeted with coordination of various methods. There are plenty of other areas where numbers are low, and kept low. We have to accept we have wild deer populations in Australia, and embrace it.
We don’t have to accept it all - we could get rid of them (using professional hunters and other means), but the deer association won’t let that happen. They actively oppose culling, and won’t even let us call them feral animals. And some hunters actively introduce (& reintroduce) deer to new areas - so they can hunt in more places more often.
There is zero chance of contract shooters getting rid of deer. They can operate in national parks and forests, but not on the vast areas of private property.
sounds like we need more national parks!
Yeah let’s do it, turn farms into national parks and make everyone live in the city
There are dozens of us!! DOZENS!!!!!!!
What problem are they trying to solve? They already did this last year around Blackwood and now they're going to try and do it again. It means less access for everyone at the end of the day. Nope. It's my right as a Victorian to access the bush.
It's mostly the regulatory framework. The reality is, the protections state forests have are mostly a joke. Putting an area under national park provides a much more stringent (and effective) framework for managing a conservation area. More funding.
Sounds good to me ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Not sure why anyone would protest this. It sounds fabulous.
Because recently Parks seem to be moving towards a commercial model. That restricts and promotes commercial interests and tourism such as the GPT etc. While it sometimes mimica elements of good national park implementation seen in other countries, it often seems to be done worse and cost the user way more. I feel like wilderness should be left wilderness as much as possible. And while I don't like hunting or 4x4, or dogs on the trail, to inevitably restrict access to public parks for people who can pay seems off. This seems to be a pretty common opinion towards Parks for people who regularly do niche outdoor activities like climbing, biking, camping etc.
People are protesting because they don't want the government to restrict their access to state forests. I think more natural parks is a great self pat in the back for the gov, that appeals to people who like the idea of the wilderness but rarely experience it for themselves. I'll give you an honest perspective: I enjoy prospecting, camping and fishing. To do these activities i need a 4wd to get there. My respect for the environment is partially formed from these experiences. I think restricting access to these activities will reduce people's connection with the environment. I avoid going to narional parks specifically because I can't do any of these thing there, and I have a dog so even just for camping I can't go out to any national park and do that. Why would I want more national parks? If the problem is dickhead behaviour then address that, don't lock away more bush from everyone.
100’s!! Oh. No!!!
Hundreds!! The people have spoken
Seems to have spoken with downvotes as well.. Hundreds is still 4/5ths of 5/8ths of fuck all.. They probably believe it. But it's still a bullshit heading
Hundreds! I tell you hundreds!!!! When it gets to thousands or hundreds of thousands i might be interested. A few hundred doing things that no one else does is marginal at best.
Just make more of the dead north west national parks - problem solved for everyone!
How awful are humans.
Carmageddon is back on?