Right: Coalition Against Duck Shooting's Laurie Levy (pointing at camera) with a group of fellow protesters.Arguments against duck shooting in Victoria
1. Duck numbers are in significant decline
Recent surveys have indicated a serious decline in Victorian duck numbers. In 2008, Professor Richard Kingsford, of the University of New South Wales, undertook a national aerial waterbirds survey, with three light aircraft criss-crossing the country mostly at tree-top level. The survey revealed major declines in duck numbers in Victoria. It indicated that Victoria's duck numbers had declined more than 70 per cent in the past 25 years, and by a highly significant 60 per cent between 2007 and 2008.
It has been suggested that the impact of drought and global warning has contributed to this decline in duck numbers. The campaign director of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting stated in a media release, 'Ornithologists predict it will take many years of flooding for waterbird numbers to return. With the looming disastrous impact of global warming it is imperative that we look to the future and protect our native waterbirds. Since their numbers have declined by 82% across eastern Australia over the last 25 years, it is evident they will need all the help they can get to survive into the future...
Victorian water levels were at an all-time low at the start of 2009 with most wetlands in the state still dry due to the on-going 12 year drought. The few wetlands that still hold water in Gippsland are acting as refuges for the low numbers of native waterbirds in this state and must be protected from duck shooters.'
Similar problems have been reported in South Australia. In a report broadcast on the ABC on June 4, 2008, it was stated, 'South Australia's Environment department says cancellation of the duck hunting season has done little to improve numbers of the declining species. The season usually ends at this time of year, but the past two have been cancelled because of the drought's impact on duck breeding.
Resource protection officer Tim Fraser [stated] ... significant rain would be needed for a hunting season to go ahead later in the year.'
Mr Fraser noted, 'To get ducks to breed and to get big movements of ducks into South Australia we're going to need some massive rains or indeed very, very significant flow in the River Murray which is going to then put water out onto the flood plain.'
The Victorian branch of the RSPCA has issued a media release stating, 'RSPCA Victoria is appalled by the Brumby government's decision to allow the 2009 duck shooting season to commence. For the past two years the season has been cancelled due to low waterbird numbers and drought. Victoria is still obviously in a drought, so why has this changed?'
2. Duck shooting involves significant cruelty
It has been claimed that duck hunting is a cruel sport as many birds are not killed outright and thus have to endure the pain and fear of being wounded before they are either retrieved alive by the shooter and then killed or die more slowly, without being retrieved.
The campaign director of the Victorian Coalition Against Duck Shooting, Laurie Levy, stated in a media release, 'The Victorian Government has now acknowledged wounding rates are far too high, with one in four birds wounded, Premier John Brumby has still called a duck season knowing full well that according to FGA figures, around 75,000 birds will be wounded.'
A similar point was made in an editorial published in The Age on February 12, 2009, it was stated, 'The Age opposes duck hunting because of the losses to rare species and the cruelty to the one-in-four ducks that are wounded and not retrieved.'
Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania has recently issued a similar statement claiming, 'Shooters may only use shotguns to shoot at ducks. Each shot sends a spray of pellets towards the target, the spray disperses and pellets hitting the targeted duck may kill it. Most often they only wound it. If badly injured it will fall suddenly and land heavily in the water, if the injury is lesser it may fly on for some distance. Statistics show that shooters nearly always need multiple shots to kill outright, up to ten shots, or they may wring the birds neck. For every duck killed and retrieved, another may escape wounded to die later from injuries, or starvation.'
The RSPCA's Internet site similarly states, 'Some ...ducks will be killed outright. Some will be wounded, brought down and killed on retrieval. Many others will be crippled or wounded and will die within a few hours or days. Some will suffer prolonged pain before they die.
Duck shooting is not humane. Tens of thousands of ducks receive horrific injuries every year during the hunting season. The RSPCA opposes the recreational hunting of ducks because of the high level of cruelty involved...
An estimate of wounding rates has been calculated using a computer model of which simulated the effects of a hunter shooting at a duck...
The study analysed hunters' hit rates to determine the level of wounding and calculated that a shooter who takes on average 6 shots to kill a bird (a conservative estimate compared to published studies) would wound between 60 and 120 ducks for every 100 bagged. Overall the study concluded that most competent shooters will wound at least one duck for every duck bagged.
What is the rate of crippling and wounding caused by duck shooting? Studies indicate that between 6.6 and 10 ducks are crippled or wounded for every 10 ducks that are bagged (shot and retrieved by the hunter).'
Animals Australia has also noted that other waterbirds can be harmed by ingesting the lead pellets that are left behind in lakes, rivers and wetlands. The orgaisation's Internet site states, 'Birds who ingest spent lead shot may endure prolonged suffering before death. Waterbirds, often bottom-feeding species, can develop lead poisoning after ingesting just one lead shot, usually left after duck shooting. The ingested lead shot is trapped in the gizzard then passes through the
gastro-intestinal tract. The lead from the eroded shot is absorbed and deposited in the tissues. The use of lead shot has now been banned in each State, but the ban is not well policed. Despite the bans, tonnes of lead still remain in the environment from past shooting as lead does not break down.'
3. The decision to reintroduce duck shooting in Victoria is politically motivated
It has been suggested that the Brumby Government's decision to reintroduce duck shooting has been taken for political motives.
In an article published in The Age on February 5, 2009, stated, 'A source within the Department of Sustainability and Environment said the Government had used illogical reasons to justify allowing the season to go ahead. These included recent heavy rains in Queensland and NSW boosting the likelihood of waterbird breeding - but ducklings born in northern states would be too young to fly to Victoria for the season, which will run from March 21 to May 8.' The same source was then quoted as saying, 'We've got a season purely for political reasons contrary to any conservation reasons.'
The Age in an editorial published on February 12, 2009, claimed that the decision to allow a duck hunting season in Victoria in 2009 was made on the recommendation of a committee dominated by hunting interests. The editorial further claimed that that the Victorian government was seeking to curry favour with country electorates where Labor was not popular. The editorial stated, 'Environment Minister Gavin Jennings cited the view of the Hunting Advisory Committee and duck surveys of the eastern states in declaring a 49-day season from 21 March. Hunting groups dominate the committee, which, as Mr Jennings notes in the Victorian Hunting Guide, "continues to represent the hunting community". It is chaired by Bill McGrath, a veteran of the National Party, which has made an issue of duck hunting in seats where Labor is vulnerable.'
Anti-duck shooting campaigner Laurie Levy has also said he believed the decision had been forced on Mr Jennings by Premier John Brumby, who is seeking to win back support in country Victoria, undermined by unpopular decisions such as the north-south pipeline.
4. Duck shooting has a major impact on duck numbers and regulations cannot offer sufficient protection
It has been suggested that the number of ducks typically shot by hunters during duck season puts unsustainable pressure on duck populations.
The campaign director of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting stated in a media release, 'Field and Game Australia (FGA) make the claim they have minimal impact on waterbird numbers, yet their own hunt survey data shows that in fact they had maximum impact with over 300,000 birds shot in 2006. This far exceeded the 183,000 waterbirds counted by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) on Victorian wetlands in the lead up to the start of the 2006 season.The Brumby government fails to acknowledge the serious threat recreational duck shooting poses to native waterbird populations in Victoria.'
It has further been claimed that none of the measures put in place to protect threatened species is adequate. Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania has recently issued a statement noting, 'Current target species are black ducks, chestnut teal, grey teal, mountain ducks and wood ducks, and bag limits are specified. BUT other species, some protected, share these habitats and are at risk of accidental or deliberate shooting. Amongst these: blue winged shoveler, white-eyed duck, musk duck, freckled duck, pink eared duck, blue billed duck and plumed tree duck. We are assured that shooters are required to sit a wildlife identification test to ensure there is NO mistake in identifying target ducks, but whilst the pass rate is not required to be 100% and whilst every season turns up taking of non-target species, exceeding of bag limits and unlicensed shooting we can see that not all gun handlers do or can follow the rules.'
After monitoring the 1994 Victorian duck season, RSPCA inspectors observed, 'It is not possible for relevant government departments or the police to enforce existing legislation relating to duck shooting. There were vast areas of the state where shooting goes on without inspection. Shooting commenced before conditions allowed accurate identification of species. In unmonitored areas shooting commenced up to 40 minutes before the allotted time. Many shots were fired at extreme range where accurate species identification and the chance of a clean kill were highly unlikely. Observations were made of ducks being wounded but not brought down. A number of shooters were observed to continue shooting rather than following-up and recovering downed birds. An estimated 95% of shots fired did not meet their target and would have been deposited in the water and on dry land. In states where lead shot is still used this represents a serious pollution risk. Other species of birds were seen to be frightened or distressed by the shooting. Birds can become exhausted after flying around for hours and have difficulty maintaining height.'
Animals Australia has also noted, 'Many non-game birds have been retrieved from the wetlands during duck season, including legally protected species such as the rare and endangered Freckled Duck. Although Waterfowl Identification Test (WIT) has been introduced in Victoria, ... Tasmania and South Australia, it is a once-only test, and some shooters fire before they have identified the species they are aiming at. Although not easily mistaken for game birds, "protected" species such as swan, ibis, spoonbill, cormorant and long-billed corella, are sometimes shot.'
5. A majority of Victorians are opposed to duck shooting and most Australian states have banned it
The campaign director of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting stated in a media release, 'Victorians want this brutal and unnecessary activity stopped. While duck shooters have a friend in the Brumby government, the rest of the Victorian public will condemn this decision. An October 2007 Morgan research poll showed that 75% of Victorians want recreational duck shooting banned. However, once informed that waterbird numbers across eastern Australia since 1983 have declined by 82%, that one in four birds are wounded and that three states have already banned the activity, the percentage jumped to an overwhelming 87%.'
Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania has recently issued a statement noting, 'This may not be your kind of sport - it's not the way most Australians think of sport. The ACT has never considered this sport, it has never been legal there. It's not the way WA thinks of sport - it was banned there in 1990. Nor is it the way NSW thinks of sport, it was banned there in 1995. Queensland declared it a non-sport when they announced their permanent ban on November 1st 2006. SA and Victoria cancelled both the 2007 and 2008 seasons.'