STEP was actively involved in campaigning against two previous misguided attempts by the Shooters and Fishers Party and Labor Party to introduce so-called conservation hunting in national parks in 2009 and 2012. The proposals relied on the Game Council that was ultimately disbanded in 2013 because of seriously poor governance.
Ultimately, the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 was amended to enable a carefully controlled ‘supplementary pest program’ in national parks, regulated by the Department of Primary Industries. The locations, timing and target species are defined and advertised. Hunters are licensed specifically for this purpose.
These controls are not going to apply under this amendment.
The Shooters and Fishers Party is sponsoring this bill. The Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025 would apply to more areas of public land including travelling stock routes and local council land. A bounty system is proposed to incentivise hunting.
There were so many objections that the Standing Committee for State Development is holding an inquiry. Submissions closed earlier this month. The committee conducted a hearing on 8 August that aired the views of all sides. Some of the detail of the bill has been altered but not the main provisions.
There are several aspects that are very concerning. For example:
- Opening over 50,000 ha of public land to recreational hunting, such as Crown land and conservation reserves. Members of the public will be put at risk or will be locked out of Crown land. There is no guarantee that hunters will have adequate experience to identify feral animals or that they will only shoot feral animals.
- Easier access to guns – the bill would legalise silencers (to protect the hearing of hunters!), expand access to night-vision goggles and more, undermining Australia's strong post-Port Arthur gun safety framework. Silencers would significantly increase safety risks for bushwalkers, families and pets. Former prime minister, John Howard, is just one of the people who have spoken out forcefully against the bill.
- There is funding earmarked for a bounty system. These are widely discredited as an ineffective and inhumane control method. They encourage amateur ‘cowboys’ to go on hunting expeditions. They are more interested in the bounty income than reducing the feral animal population. A national review of hunting under past Australian bounty schemes, conducted by the former Australian Bureau of Resource Sciences, concluded that: 'No bounty scheme in Australia has had a noticeable short or long-term impact on vertebrate pest populations that have a high reproductive rate.' (ABRS 1998 review of bounties)
- The bill would establish a new body called the Conservation Hunting Authority with a majority of members appointed by the hunting organisations. It would represent the interests of hunters, make recommendations to the agriculture minister, promote research into ‘game, feral and pest animal management issues’ and into the benefits of hunting. It would also: ‘promote, develop and deliver educational courses regarding game animals’. $7.9 million is allocated for this authority’s work over two years. That is not a committee that has expertise in terms of effective management of feral animal control programs beyond recreational hunting.
- The bill’s framing of hunting as ‘conservation’ is misleading, as genuine conservation relies on science-based, humane management techniques, which this bill does not promote. Uncoordinated hunting can cause animals to flee into new areas, expanding their range. Research published by scientists from the Department of Primary Industries Vertebrate Pest Unit (Bengsen and Sparkes, 2016) found: 'There is insufficient evidence to support or disprove arguments that contemporary recreational hunting programs are effective at controlling introduced mammal populations on public lands'.
- Establishing a Minister for Hunting and Fishing institutionalises support for hunting over other evidence-based wildlife management approaches. If the intent of the bill was genuine, the Conservation Hunting Authority would be governed by the Department of Environment and would be required to prepare a conservation strategy that covers all methods of feral animal control.
- No consultation with traditional owners. Despite the cultural and ecological significance of many of the affected areas, there are no provisions for consultation with First Nations communities in the bill.
A paper published by the Invasive Species Council during the 2012 campaign provides more details: Recreational hunting: claims vs facts.
Scientific evidence is clear
The government argued that this proposal will be good for local communities and effective in reducing the problem of feral animals. The salient arguments against this bill put forward by the Invasive Species Council and the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions before the inquiry are:
That most invasive species management action needs to be taken at a landscape scale to have measurable, sustained impact.
Best practice requires that the focus of any management intervention be on minimising the impact of the invasive species, rather than simplistically on reducing the numbers present.
At the hearing, some comparative data was provided on numbers of feral animals removed. In NSW state forests, with about 250 or so open, 1.8 million hectares of NSW land—where aerial shooting and baiting is effectively banned because of the impact on recreational hunting and doesn't take place. In 2023−24, the hunters that were out there—this was from 68,000 hunting days—removed 3,000 deer and 4,982 pigs. These are tiny numbers compared to those populations. They are nowhere near the population growth rate. By comparison, in NSW national parks and local land services—not on state forest land - from aerial shooting, they removed 131,000 pigs and deer in 2022−23.
The better way to go
The Biodiversity Council concludes that:
Sustained, professional programs combining methods such as aerial- and ground-based culling, targeted poison baiting, and trapping, have been scientifically shown to be the best way to achieve population reductions, with the longer-term goal of eradication, and to mitigate the devastating impacts of invasive animals on farming and agriculture, biodiversity, and cultural heritage.