Attitudes to recreational use of rural properties

A Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

by Elaine Barclay

October 2004

RIRDC Publication No 04/123 RIRDC Project No UNE-84A

INCORPORATING THE FORMER RURAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 © 2004 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.

ISBN 1 74151 031 7 ISSN 1440-6845

Attitudes to recreational use of rural properties Publication No. 04/123 Project No. UNE-84A

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details Elaine Barclay The Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 Phone: (02) 67735141 Fax: (02) 67733245 Email: [email protected]

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in October 2004 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

ii Foreword

Attitudes of landholders are of fundamental importance in determining the area available to the general public for outdoor recreation. These attitudes are determined by landholders’ personal values and beliefs; legal, economic, social and ecological concerns; national, local and family traditions; government incentives; the type and volume of recreational activities; and past experiences with recreationists. In particular, illegal trespassers and shooters on farms cause considerable damage to properties and concern for landholders with the result that many will close their properties to recreationists. Through focus groups and interviews, this study examined attitudes towards recreational access to private rural lands from the perspective of farmers but also from the point of view of hunters and other recreationists who desire access to private land for recreation purposes. The aim was to identify the primary concerns of each group and seek some solutions that may lead to some cooperative ventures between all stakeholders.

This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds, which are provided by the Australian Government.

This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1000 research publications, forms part of our Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems R&D program, which aims to enhance human capital and facilitate innovation in rural industries and communities.

Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website:

ƒ downloads at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/index.htm ƒ purchases at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Simon Hearn Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii Acknowledgments

The research that forms the subject of this report has been supported by a grant from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. The views expressed are the responsibility of the author and are not necessarily those of the funding body.

My sincere appreciation goes to the Country Women’s Association, New South Wales Farmers’, the Four-Wheel-Drive Association and the Sporting Shooters’ Association in Queensland and New South Wales and in particular those farmers and recreationists who participated in the focus groups and interviews conducted.

Thank you also to those who also participated in interviews including NSW and Queensland Police, and officers from National Parks and Wildlife, Oueensland Department of Primary Industry and NSW Rural Lands Protection Boards.

I would like to thank my colleagues at the Institute for Rural Futures for their advice on drafts of this report. Special thanks to Jean Harris for her assistance in the preparation of this report.

All errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the author.

About the Author

Elaine Barclay is a Project Director at the Institute for Rural Futures at the University of New England. Elaine has conducted research in areas such as farm succession and inheritance, information technology, welfare services for farm families and crime in rural communities. Elaine has a degree in Social Science and postgraduate qualifications in Psychology and is currently undertaking a PhD into crime on farms in Australia.

iv

Contents Foreword...... iii Acknowledgments ...... iv List of Figures and Tables ...... vi Executive Summary ...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Objectives of the study ...... 2 1.3 Structure of the report...... 2 Chapter 2: Background...... 3 2.1 Introduction ...... 3 2.2 Outdoor recreation in Australia ...... 3 2.3 Hunting in Australia ...... 4 2.4 Pest management on farms ...... 5 2.5 Illegal trespassing and shooting on farms...... 8 2.6 A review of the literature...... 9 2.7 Summary ...... 15 Chapter 3: Methodology...... 17 3.1 Introduction ...... 17 3.2 The study area...... 17 3.3 Focus Groups...... 17 3.4 Other sources of information...... 20 3.5 Summary ...... 20 Chapter 4: The Farmers...... 21 4.1 Introduction ...... 21 4.2 Feral animal control in the study area...... 21 4.3 Focus groups...... 22 4.4 Interviews with police officers ...... 32 4.5 Summary ...... 34 Chapter 5: The Hunters ...... 36 5.1 Introduction ...... 36 5.2 Hunting clubs in Australia...... 36 5.3 Focus groups with hunting clubs ...... 36 5.4 Interviews ...... 47 5.5 Summary ...... 49 Chapter 6: The Recreationists ...... 51 6.1 Introduction ...... 51 6.2 Four-wheel-drive clubs in Australia ...... 51 6.3 Focus groups with four-wheel-drive club members ...... 51 6.4 Summary ...... 61 Chapter 7: Conclusions & Implications...... 63 7.1 Summary ...... 63 7.2 Limitations of the research ...... 67 7.3 Implications of the findings...... 68 7.4 Further research...... 71 7.5 Conclusion...... 72 7.6 Recommendations ...... 72 References...... 75 Appendix 1: The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia: Code of Ethics ...... 78 Appendix 2: Four-Wheel-Drive Clubs’ Association: Code of Ethics...... 79

v

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Distribution of feral pigs and goats in Australia ...... 6 Figure 2: Kangaroo populations 1991-2002 ...... 8 Figure 3: Reported incidences of illegal trespassers and shooters over the past two years (N=620)...... 10 Figure 4: Factors influencing availability of private land for recreation ...... 15 Figure 5. The study area ...... 18

Table 1. Negative and positive impacts of recreational activities ...... 14

Abbreviations

ACT Australian Capital Territory CWMU Cooperative Wildlife Management Units DPI Department of Primary Industries NRMA National Road and Motorists’ Association NSW New South Wales RLPB Rural Lands Protection Board RSPCA Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals SSAA Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia US United States of America

vi

Executive Summary

Background Previous research conducted by the author revealed that illegal trespassers and shooters cause considerable concern for farmers. The offenders appear to have little respect for farm property, frequently damaging crops, livestock and farm infrastructure. As a consequence, many landholders deny access to their properties to all but family and close friends. With many national parks and forests also restricting access to the general public, the opportunities for outdoor recreation in rural areas are limited. This study examined the nature and extent of illegal trespassers and shooters on farms and explored attitudes towards public access to private rural lands for recreational activities.

Objectives The main objectives of the study were to: • examine attitudes towards public access to private rural lands for outdoor recreation from three perspectives; the farmers, the hunters and other recreationists. • Identify the primary concerns of each group and seek some solutions. • examine the problem of illegal trespassers and shooters on farms and the influence of such offences on landholders’ attitudes towards granting recreational access to their land. Data were gathered through focus groups with three farmers’ organisations, three shooters’ clubs and three four-wheel-drive clubs in three regions: the Northwest Plains and the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales, and southern Queensland. Supplementary interviews were held with farmers, professional hunters, rural police and key informants from government agencies.

Research Outcomes Landholders’ concerns about illegal trespassing and shooting were found to vary greatly between the three study regions. Those areas most prone to illegal trespass and hunting were more likely to be grain-growing areas that have significant watercourses, which support large populations of feral pigs. The study found that the attitudes of the farmers towards providing recreational access to their land were primary influenced by the extent and nature of past experiences with recreationists. Landholders who had negative experiences had closed their properties to all but trusted family and friends while those who had positive experiences, were more open to allowing the public onto their land to hunt or camp. However, personal values and beliefs combined with local and family traditions clearly influenced landholders’ attitudes towards recreationists using their properties. Some landholders held traditional values of public stewardship that embraced the public’s right to access the natural attributes on their land. Others took a more businesslike approach to managing their operations and were less accommodating. However, most participants only granted access to their properties providing specified conditions were met.

Apart from some participation in Rural Watch groups, placing warning signs on property boundaries and locking gates and farmhouses, participants believed there was little they could do to prevent illegal trespass and shooting occurring on their lands. Few offences had been reported to police, due to the farmer’s inability to provide sufficient proof of an offence and a common belief that there was little the police could do to stop offenders.

The landholders relied on professional and recreational shooters for pest management on their land, as farming commitments leave them little time to control the problem themselves. Regular visits by trusted hunters to control pests deterred others from entering the property. Trusted hunters were also prepared to guard their hunting territory against illegal trespassers and shooters.

Hunting safaris are attracting significant numbers of people seeking hunting opportunities in outback areas but were having difficulty in securing sufficient properties to meet the need. There are significant benefits for landholders in opening up their properties to such ventures such as the financial return, the eradication of pests on farm, and a reduction in the occurrence of illegal trespassers and shooters who are deterred from entering the property because of the presence of regular hunting parties.

vii

The recreationists, who participated in the focus groups, strongly advocated the rights of landholders to control access to their land. They were as critical of the behaviour of illegal trespassers and shooters as were the landholders, and resented the damage such behaviour caused to the reputation of legitimate organisations. The participants suggested several reasons for why such offences occurred, including: ƒ The increasing restriction of access to land to recreationists ƒ The lack of ready contact with farmers by city people who desire to hunt ƒ The new regulations governing firearm ownership discourages people from obtaining a license and therefore they operate unlicensed and unregistered firearms. ƒ The negative attitudes held by the general public towards firearms and hunting practices discourage young people from joining sporting shooters’ associations and the opportunities to learn about correct hunting practices. ƒ Sporting shooting clubs are seen as unnecessary in rural communities where hunting is commonplace and therefore, many young people in rural areas have unethical hunting habits. ƒ The practices of some landholders of charging a fee for hunting on properties that do not have sufficient game frustrates hunters and can lead to some acts of reprisal. ƒ The restriction of access to properties by some landholders so that they may monopolise the rewards from feral pigs or other animals that bring a bounty, can encourage illegal hunting. ƒ The lack of adequate signposts on public roads and the lack of detail on tourist maps means that people are often unaware that they have entered private property. ƒ Some landholders block designated public access roads that traverse their properties, which can alienate tourists.

One solution to the problems of illegal trespass and hunting suggested by both the hunters and the four-wheel-drive clubs, was education. Lack of awareness about the protocol for seeking permission to enter private rural lands or to act responsibly and respect the farming operation was cited as part of the cause of the problems of illegal trespassing and shooting. The study highlighted the significant contribution hunters and four-wheel-drive groups make to the community in the way of these public education programs and in environmental conservation projects.

Four-wheel-drive clubs were primarily concerned with the increasing restriction of access to national parks and state forests for four-wheel-drive touring. There is a need for policy makers to consider the public’s need for outdoor recreational space when planning future policies and directions for national parks and forests. Improved communication between farmer organisations, National Parks and State Forests, and various recreation groups would increase understanding and lead to possible cooperative ventures to improve opportunities for outdoor recreation in rural areas.

The study found that there was a universal belief in landholders’ rights of ownership and protecting their land. Thus the rights of landholders will need to be acknowledged in any future program or policy developments in this area. More research is needed to understand property rights that are culturally, socially and legally determined to clarify the positions of all those sections of the community who have an interest in how the resources of country areas are best managed and utilised.

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

This impetus for the present study arose from previous research conducted by the author, which examined property crime victimisation on farms in New South Wales (Barclay, Donnermeyer, Doyle and Talary, 2001). The study found that the most common type of problem experienced by farmers was the presence of illegal trespassers and shooters on their properties. Illegal trespassers and shooters were seen as responsible for damage to crops, arson and other environmental damage, vandalism, failure to shut gates, disturbance to stock, the shooting of stock either by accident or by intention, and for having dogs that can attack livestock. There were also suspicions that illegal trespassers and shooters were responsible for other crimes on farms, such as the theft of fuel, tools and small equipment.

Farm families reported experiencing considerable anxiety as many illegal shooters and trespassers carried knives and firearms and owned savage dogs, and frequently ignored landowner’s requests to not enter their property without permission. Many farmers expressed a sense of helplessness about their ability to secure their properties. It appears that this problem has been a fact of life for many farmers and until recently there has been relatively little discussion on the topic.

So why do these problems occur on farms? Rural areas in western nations have long been used for recreation (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p. 160). Outdoor activities in rural settings allow city residents to escape the routine of city life for the recreational opportunities that exist in rural areas such as hunting, bushwalking, fishing, or four-wheel-driving. Public recreation areas such as national parks and state forests are in limited supply and are not always available to the general public. Visitation rates at peak periods have necessitated the introduction of entry fees, permits and other strategies for limiting public use (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p. 161). This has placed increasing pressure upon private land for the provision of recreation activities.

Hunting is one recreational activity that is dependent upon access to rural areas. Hunting is forbidden in national parks and state forests. In addition, the profits from hunting feral animals, such as wild pigs or goats, are lucrative, which encourages the numbers of people participating in such activities. On properties where large numbers of kangaroos or feral animals need to be controlled, farmers may welcome the presence of hunters, particularly if they are known to the landowner, seek permission to shoot on the property, and show respect for the infrastructure, crops and livestock. Problems arise when hunters disregard this protocol. As a consequence of negative experiences with illegal trespassers and shooters, many landowners have restricted access to their land to family and close friends only and will refuse permission to all other non-professional hunters and other recreationists.

Central to the question of accessibility to private land is the issue of property rights and the legal and institutional constraints on movement into and through recreational space. In Australia, the concept of inviolate rights of property ownership is widespread and generally accepted (Pigram 1981). Ownership of land bestows the right to exclude others and landholders exercise those rights. Consequently, recreational opportunities in country areas remain limited (Thomas and Whitby, 1976, cited in Pigram 1981).

Therefore, access to private rural lands for recreational purposes is dependent upon landholder attitudes. The aim of the present study is to closely examine these attitudes regarding access for recreation and investigate those factors that may play a part in influencing such attitudes. There is a specific need for an investigation into the exact nature and extent of the problem of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms to raise awareness of the issue and to seek to identify some solutions. The study also aims to examine the impact of these experiences upon the attitudes of landholders towards providing recreation opportunities for the general public. Accordingly, it is necessary to approach this

1

issue within the context of the society in which it occurs and also seek an understanding of the perspectives of those who desire access to rural lands for recreational pursuits, such as hunters and tourists.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The aim of the present study was to examine attitudes towards recreational access to private rural lands. The study sought to identify those factors that may influence landholders’ decisions to restrict access to their properties for recreation purposes. A particular objective was to examine the problem of illegal trespassers and shooters on farms and seek to identify some solutions. The study explored the issue of recreational access to private rural lands from three perspectives, the farmers, the hunters and other recreationists. First, concerns about safety and security on farms from the perspective of farmers were examined. Second, the study investigated the expectations and concerns of recreationists and hunters in their desire to access private farmland. The aim was to use a comprehensive ‘triangulation’ of these three data sources to provide an objective analysis of this complex issue and enable the identification of dominant themes.

The main objectives of the study were to: ƒ Review recent research and developments concerning recreational access to private rural lands both in Australia and overseas. ƒ Explore the nature and extent of the problem of illegal trespassing and hunting on farms and seek some solutions for landholders. ƒ Conduct a series of focus groups and interviews with farmers, shooters’ organisations and other recreation groups to examine the attitudes of each group towards the issue of recreational access to private rural lands. ƒ Identify the primary concerns of each group and seek some solutions towards possible cooperative ventures between the parties.

1.3 Structure of the report

In Chapter 2, the problem of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms and other factors that may influence landholders’ decisions to permit or prohibit access to their land for recreational purposes are discussed. A review of the literature both here and abroad relating to recreational use of rural lands is also presented. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology employed in conducting this study. Chapters 4 to 6 present the findings of the focus groups with farmers, hunters and recreationists respectively, as well as a summary of the information gathered within interviews conducted with farmers and individuals from various government agencies. In Chapter 7, the findings of the report are summarised and the implications of these findings are discussed.

2

Chapter 2: Background

2.1 Introduction

The question of accessibility to private rural land for recreation purposes involves a number of unique and complex issues. To provide a better understanding of this complexity, it is necessary to highlight the various aspects of society that may play a part in facilitating or inhibiting access to private property. This chapter discusses the problems Australian farmers experience with feral animals on farm and consequently their need for pest management. It also discusses the problems that arise when hunters trespass and hunt illegally on properties and the rights of landholders to control access to private lands. The need for areas for recreation for the wider community and the pressure that places on private property is also examined. This chapter also presents a review of the Australian and international literature on illegal trespassing and shooting on farms as well as studies that examined landholders’ attitudes towards permitting access to their land for recreational purposes.

2.2 Outdoor recreation in Australia

Participation in outdoor recreation in Australia has grown rapidly since World War II and particularly since the 1960s (Pigram, 1983). This is largely due to greater leisure time, higher disposable incomes, increased mobility of people through improved roads and modern vehicles, growing commercial interests, the promotion of high risk activities, emphasis on health and fitness, and greater environmental awareness (Pigram, 1983).

Rural areas have become increasingly important areas for tourism and recreational activities (Jenkins, Ravenscroft, Phillips and Bennett, 1998). A study conducted in southeast Queensland in 2001 (QORF, 2002), found that participation in outdoor recreation activities was high amongst residents and that people prefer to engage in activities in as natural a setting as possible. These varied from wild natural places that have no motorised access and few people, to rural areas where the natural landscape is partially modified, to highly modified open spaces on the outskirts of cities. The most common types of recreational pursuits were picnicking (67%), walking (60%) and water activities (39%). The primary motivation for seeking this type of recreation was to relax, unwind and enjoy the peace and quiet. There is a wide range of outdoor recreation activities that may be conducted in rural areas including:

Abseiling and rock climbing Horse trail riding Bicycle riding Hunting and shooting with firearms Bird watching or bow and arrow Hiking Off-road trail bike riding Camping Off-road four-wheel-driving Canoeing Swimming Fishing Power boating and water skiing Hang gliding Jet skiing

Unfortunately public recreation areas such as national parks and state forests are in limited supply and those that are accessible to the general public are often pushed beyond carrying capacity so that fees, permits and other limitations become necessary. Access is limited to the use of four-wheel-drive and other off-road vehicles in national parks. Remote areas of national parks and wilderness areas are off- limits to such vehicles. Dogs and firearms are not permitted in parks and there are restrictions on the species and locations where fish may be caught. Parks are concerned about disturbance to wildlife, introduction of unwanted species, soil erosion, damage to vegetation, bushfires and thoughtless or deliberate acts by visitors (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p.208). Thus many recreationists must turn to private lands to participate in their chosen recreational activity.

3

2.3 Hunting in Australia

Hunting is a popular pastime in many western societies but is an activity that is very much dependent upon access to private rural lands (Carter, 2002). In Australia, hunting can be conducted on private land, Crown land or in State Forests, subject to permission by landowners. It is generally not permitted in national parks and protected areas. In the absence of much public land available for hunting, access to land to hunt on has been a major issue for recreational hunters and one leading to a great deal of effort, competition and secrecy. Access to private land is reliant upon maintaining good relations with a landowner (Bauer and Giles, 2002).

Big game hunting has become a lucrative business in some first and third world countries providing financial return to governments, landowners and local people. This is a small but growing industry in Australia (Bauer and Giles, 2002). The number of hunters appears to be increasing with more than one million registered shooters in Australia, 85% of whom are described as hunters. These include recreational hunters and commercial hunting operations and professional and amateur culling operations (Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee, 1998).

The various types of recreational hunting in Australia include the hunting of game birds, kangaroos, wallabies and feral animals, game ranch hunting of exotic species, and safari hunting. The main species of feral animals hunted include rabbits, foxes, dogs, pigs, goats, cats, water buffalo, banteng, horses and camel. Game ranch hunting is a growing industry with some farming properties specialising in various deer species. Duck hunting is regulated throughout Australia, restricted to specific ‘seasons’ in each State based on climatic conditions and biological criteria relating to the various duck species (Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee, 1998).

Recreational hunting relies upon conserving wildlife habitat. Accordingly, hunters have a long history of conserving and restoring wildlife habitat through their efforts, funds and lobbying power (Carter, 2002). Recreational shooters in Australia have joined forces to purchase wetlands and wilderness areas for the managed hunting of native and introduced species. The enquiry into the utilisation of native wildlife conducted by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee (1998) concluded that hunting has the potential to assist with conservation objectives in areas that often have little other economic value (such as swamps and wetlands). It also injects wealth, through big game hunting activities, into local communities, which may have few other opportunities to derive income from their land and the wildlife inhabiting it. Yet, hunting is rarely promoted as a conservation tool. This is primarily due to the intense lobbying carried out by non-government organisations opposed to hunting for ethical reasons (Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee, 1998).

Animal Liberation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and a number of other groups are opposed to all forms of hunting for sport, whether the animals are native species or feral animals, on the basis of animal welfare and that it is immoral ‘to kill animals for killing's sake’. In September 2002, the RSPCA released a report, which identified a number of serious concerns with the non-commercial shooting of kangaroos by recreational shooters and landholders with damage mitigation permits. While training courses, increased controls and enforcement of the Code of Practice have contributed to the improvement in the hunting standards of commercial hunters, no such improvements have been introduced for non-commercial shooters. Accordingly, the RSPCA called for a complete ban on the non-commercial shooting of kangaroos (RSPCA, 2002).

Carter (2002) notes there have always been people who are concerned for the safety and welfare of animals. He argues that it is healthy for any society to scrutinise the way animals are treated because this encourages ethical, humane standards to be developed and adopted amongst those who interact with animals. However, he maintains that prohibiting hunting is unlikely to change the fact that people hunt. While legal hunting can be regulated, licensed, monitored and managed and can contribute to society, illegal hunting is secretive, unregulated and provides few benefits to society.

4

2.4 Pest management on farms

Hunting is an important means of pest management on farms in Australia. Kangaroos, although native to Australia, are also considered a pest on many properties particularly where their numbers have grown to the extent that they seriously impact upon agricultural production. These concerns have escalated over the recent drought where large kangaroo populations are competing with domestic stock for scarce feed and water and are devastating the few crops that have been grown (Grigg, 2002).

However, feral animals cause the most significant pest problems on farms. The major environmental impacts caused by feral pests are the predation and competition with native animals and the destruction of native plants and land degradation. Feral animals are also a potential threat for the spread and distribution of exotic diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease. In addition there is the social impact upon farm families and communities that must deal with the consequences of feral animal attacks on livestock (NSW Legislative Council, 2002). The Bureau of Rural Sciences (2002) estimates that feral animals in Australia cause economic losses totalling $420 million, mainly in lost agricultural production.

There are some 25 species of mammals along with some birds and fish that were introduced to Australia since European settlement, which are now considered feral pests. The primary feral animal species include foxes, dogs, rabbits, pigs, goats, cats, deer and horses. Three of these species, feral pigs, wild dogs, and rabbits are currently under a pest control order. All other animals are controlled on a voluntary basis (NSW Legislative Council, 2002). The main animals of interest to recreational hunters on farms include feral pigs, goats, dogs, cats and rabbits. Professional hunters are primarily interested in kangaroos and feral pigs and goats.

2.4.1 Feral pigs

Feral pigs are distributed across much of Queensland and New South Wales (see Figure 1). The distribution of feral pigs corresponds to their need for daily water and dense foliage for protection from weather extremes, particularly heat. In the more arid areas, the distribution of pigs is seasonal and their location is restricted to watercourses, floodplains and man-made water supplies (McGaw and Mitchell, 2002).

Feral pigs are a major problem for landholders because they kill young lambs, cause major damage to crops, fences and the environment, particularly native plants and animals. Feral pigs cost Australia’s agricultural industries $100 million a year in lost production mostly in New South Wales and Queensland. A major concern is their risk of spreading diseases such as foot-and-mouth (NSW Agriculture, 2002).

Australia supplies some 20-30% of the wild boar consumed in the world, and is now close to overtaking Poland as the world’s largest supplier of wild boar (Ramsay, 1994, cited in McGaw and Mitchell, 2002). This market provides income to many professional and amateur hunters, and the revenue gained from the export of ‘wild boar’ products increases export income and injects money into many small rural communities (Tisdell, 1982, cited in McGaw and Mitchell, 2002). Nevertheless, most control programs do not utilise the feral pig as a resource and rely upon baiting, trapping and hunting as well as aerial shooting to eradicate the pests. However, shooting, both ground and air can cause pigs to disperse and requires a great deal of skill for it to be cost effective. The use of helicopters in recent times has made shooting a more economic option, particularly in inaccessible areas (McGaw and Mitchell, 2002).

5

Figure 1: Distribution of feral pigs and goats in Australia (Source, Kerr 2001).

It has been estimated that recreational hunters kill 15-20% of the feral pig population in accessible areas annually (Tisdell, 1982, cited in McGaw and Mitchell, 2002). However, the use of recreational hunters to control pig numbers is often ineffective as they only kill a small percentage of the population, disperse pigs through regular disturbance and hunt on relatively small, easily accessible areas. Nevertheless, the value of recreational hunters to the broader community cannot be understated as recreational hunting can provide significant revenue to individuals and small communities (McGaw and Mitchell, 2002).

Concerns have been raised about the number of feral pig colonies being discovered in areas that were previously pig-free and it is believed that these outbreaks are a result of unscrupulous hunters transporting them so they breed and create new and closer hunting grounds. It is illegal to transport feral pigs for such purposes with penalties of up to $22,000 in New South Wales (NSW Agriculture, 2002). Hunters have also been known to leave small pigs or sows, or to castrate males, or to cut the ears off pigs to make them more difficult to catch with dogs, thus insuring ‘sport’ in future seasons. These actions are in direct opposition to effective pig control. Animal welfare groups have criticised the use of dogs to hunt pigs, either to flush them out of shelter or to chase and catch them. The use of dogs to catch pigs by the ears is banned in Queensland and New South Wales. Another risk associated with using dogs is that they can become lost and becoming another feral pest, preying on stock and native animals (McGaw and Mitchell, 2002).

2.4.2 Feral goats

Feral goats also compete with native species and domestic animals for food, water and shelter. Sheep can be affected by some internal and external parasites carried by feral goats. Feral goats also have the potential to carry foot and mouth disease (Environment Australia 2003d). Feral goats are found in rocky or hilly country and in semi-arid areas (See Figure 1) (Kerr, 2001). Feral goats are providing an income for landholders in outback regions, fetching between $20 and $40 a head. Thus the poaching of feral goats has become an increasingly lucrative practice for illegal hunters (Barclay et al. 2001).

6

2.4.3 Rabbits Rabbits are a major environmental and agricultural pest, competing with many native animals for food and shelter and damaging native vegetation through ringbarking, grazing and browsing. Rabbits also cause erosion as they eat seedlings and overgraze other areas by removing plant cover. Rabbit burrows also make the ground more vulnerable to erosion. Impact on agricultural production is greater in drier areas where pasture production is low and rabbits can increase to high densities and compete with stock (Environment Australia, 2003b; Kerr, 2001).

2.4.4 Feral cats

Feral cats are found in most habitats across Australia. They are very adaptable animals and there are few environmental factors that limit their distribution. Feral cats can survive in dry conditions because they are predominantly nocturnal and can utilise the moisture from their prey and do not have to rely on the availability of drinking water. Feral cats generally eat small mammals, but can also eat birds, reptiles and insects. In pastoral regions in Australia, young rabbits make up the majority of their diet. However, in areas where rabbits are scarce, feral cats will prey on native animals. They also compete with native animals for food and shelter, and carry infective diseases, which can be transmitted to native animals, domestic livestock and humans (Environment Australia, 2003a).

2.4.5 Foxes

Foxes have contributed to the decline of a number of native animals. Foxes also impact on agricultural production through predation on lambs and goat kids. Currently, the control of foxes relies mainly upon shooting and poisoning. Fox control has often involved bounty systems whereby payment of a bounty is made when proof of death is provided (Environment Australia, 2003c).

2.4.6 Kangaroos

Kangaroo populations have increased dramatically in Australia’s rangelands since the introduction of European farming methods that provided water for domestic stock such as sheep and cattle. Most kangaroos have no set breeding cycle and are able to breed all year round. Thus kangaroo populations can increase four-fold in five years if they have continuous access to plentiful supplies of food and water. The 2002 estimate of the kangaroo population was 58.6 million. There have been increasing concerns about kangaroo populations with the current drought as kangaroos destroy crops and compete with domestic stock for scarce feed and water (See Figure 2) (Kelly, 2002).

Therefore the culling or harvesting process is vital for kangaroo population management, for sustainable land care and agricultural production, and for sustaining all species of kangaroo. It also protects the natural habitats necessary for the survival of other native animals (Kelly, 2002).

All Australian States and Territories have legislation to protect kangaroos and manage the kangaroo harvesting industry. Only four of the most abundant species of kangaroo and small numbers of three common wallaby species can be harvested, and then only by licensed hunters. The harvesting of kangaroos is decided on a quota basis that is reviewed annually so that the populations of these species are maintained at sustainable levels. Each year the National Parks’ authorities in each State conduct surveys of the kangaroo population by flying over large samples of the rangelands at low levels and counting the numbers of kangaroos. They then set a sustainable quota for the number of kangaroos that can be taken in that year. This is typically only 15-20% of the total population. The government issues plastic tags, which must be purchased by harvesters and fixed to any kangaroo they take. Only kangaroos with these tags are processed at the processing plants. This is strictly monitored by government to ensure that no more kangaroos are taken than is allowed (Kelly, 2002).

7

Figure 2: Kangaroo populations 1991-2002 (Source Australian Government records in Kelly, 2002).

Commercial harvesting of kangaroos is restricted to leasehold and freehold land, which is being used for primary production. Such harvesting takes place in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. It does not occur in national parks, state forests or conservation reserves. As commercial harvesting may not always meet a landholder’s need to control damage by kangaroos, they can apply for a damage mitigation permit to harvest a certain number of kangaroos as pests. Recreational shooters are required to produce proof of permission to shoot on rural land from the landowner (Kelly, 2002).

All kangaroo harvesters must be licensed by the government and have passed a government-approved course that instructs them in the laws controlling kangaroo harvesting, meat hygiene and animal welfare. In addition, their harvesting equipment must be approved by a government inspector to ensure it is of the right standard. To ensure kangaroos are killed in a humane way, professional shooters are required to undergo a firearms competency test (Kelly, 2002).

The kangaroo industry currently generates in excess of $200 million per year in income and employs over 4,000 people. The vast bulk of these jobs are in remote rural communities (Kelly, 2002).

2.5 Illegal trespassing and shooting on farms

The above discussion has highlighted the significant problems landowners experience with feral animals on farm. Therefore, there is a very real need for hunters to contribute to the maintenance of pest management on farms. Hunting can provide lucrative returns for hunters but this can be an incentive for some recreational hunters to hunt illegally on properties and engage in unethical hunting practices to ensure game persists for future hunting seasons. These practices are illegal and can be attract significant penalties.

In New South Wales, the police operate under several Acts of Parliament to investigate and prevent these types of offences. These include the Rural Lands Protection Board Act 1989, the Crimes Act, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Companion Animals Act and the Inclosed Lands Act (NSW Police, 2000). In 2001, a ministerial rural crime working party was formed to seek solutions to the problem of crime on farms, which included the problem of trespassing on farmland. The working party found there was a need for increased penalties and enforcement for the problem of trespass, which causes serious concern for safety and security on isolated properties (Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party, 2000). The legislation became law in 2002. In Queensland, The Nature Conservation Act 1992, section 100, provides for trespass offences (AustLII, 2001). The Weapons Act 1901 and Vagrancy and Gaming Offices Act govern illegal hunting

8

practices. The Meat Industries Act requires a hunter to have written permission to hunt on a property. Recent amendments have provided legislation to prosecute those who hunt wild game on other people’s licences.

2.6 A review of the literature

Research conducted in Australia and overseas on illegal trespassing and shooting on farms as well as possible factors that may influence landholders’ decisions to permit or prohibit access to their land for recreational purposes was reviewed to gather background information for the present study. The review utilised the World Wide Web, the University of New England's Library and various electronic databases available.

2.6.1 Previous research by the author

The most recent Australian research into the problems of illegal trespass and shooting on farms comes from a study conducted by the author (Barclay et al. 2001), in which 1100 farmers were surveyed across rural New South Wales to investigate the extent and impact of property-related crime on farms. Interviews were held with farmers who had been victims of crime, as well as rural police officers. The response rate to the mail survey of farmers was 62%. Of the total sample of 620 respondents, 69% reported experiencing some type of property crime with the most common type of problem being the presence of illegal trespassers and shooters. Over 30% of respondents reported a problem with trespassers while 25% reported concerns with illegal shooters. Other crimes experienced included tool and equipment theft (33%), livestock theft (23%), fuel theft (21%), break and enter of farm buildings (14%), the dumping of rubbish (11%), and vandalism (13%). Individual losses financial were reported up to $110,000 with an average loss of $7,191.

The study found that farmers believed illegal trespassers and shooters were responsible for damage to crops and fencing, arson and other environmental damage, vandalism, failure to shut gates and disturbance to stock, indiscriminate shooting of stock and for having dogs that can attack livestock. There were also suspicions that illegal trespassers and shooters were responsible for other crimes on farms, such as the theft of fuel and diesel. However, only 25% of these incidents of trespassing and shooting were reported to the police. Most of the farmers believed that there was little the police could do to prevent such offences.

Mapping of the data revealed that illegal trespassers and shooters were a widespread problem for the respondents, including those located in outback regions (See Figure 3). These areas experience significant problems with poachers of feral goats and wild pigs. Analyses revealed that properties bordering a public road or highway were more likely to experience higher levels of illegal trespassing and shooters. Visibility of sheds and buildings to the farm residence was inversely related to the presence of these offences, as was the distance from a town. It appears that the ecology for these crimes is an ironic combination of remoteness and accessibility. The farm must be distant from an urban centre, yet be easily accessed from a highway, and as well, have areas that are not visible from the farm residence.

9

Figure 3: Reported incidences of illegal trespassers and shooters over the past two years (N=620) (Barclay et al., 2001).

One property in outback New South Wales which had been subject to a number of thefts had made the owners extremely suspicious of strangers. Often fishermen trespassed on the property to fish in the river. The family even became aware that a person was selling maps of their property at the local hotel. Pig hunters were a particular source of anxiety for many respondents, as they often had knives, firearms and savage dogs and were intimidating when confronted and ignored the farmers’ requests not to enter their property without permission. One farmer wrote:

At least once a month young men drive around the property at night between 3 and 6 a.m. with savage dogs and guns searching for and catching wild pigs. They leave gates open (and litter) which disturbs stock patterns. They damage roads and fences, and stock organisation and do not seek permission, or gain it.

Another farmer stated that she sometimes left fuel out in a paddock that she knew would be taken by hunters that the family had warned off the property. She would rather sacrifice fuel than have a tractor severely vandalised.

Goat poaching was another common problem in the west of the State. Property owners can claim feral goats found on their property and at the time of the study could bring on average about $30 per animal.

One grazier gave an example of the problems experienced by many in this region:

Feral goats have kept farmers alive out here. Goats don't cost a thing to run apart from some minor damage to fences. People – mostly those on the dole from town, come onto the property to poach feral goats. The goats feed near the highway on shire land when it is dry, and people steal them. They only get a $129 fine for trespassing if they are caught. They only need to steal four goats to cover the fine. Everyone in the district knows when you go to town; they all know your movements. The country is so big – it's impossible to control.

10

There is a main highway and two shire roads running through on the place, which makes it easier for people to access. Pig shooters shoot from the road, which was a real problem when we had people living in the house near the road. These people also cut fences and leave gates open and the sheep get out on the road. They lose dogs that kill sheep and that is hard to control. Putting up ‘No Trespassing’ signs are a waste of time, people just steal them. We have put up 1080 Poison signs to deter trespassers. But if they see you mustering with your own dogs, they know you are not serious. It’s very frustrating.

The study concluded that illegal trespassing and shooting clearly caused considerable concern for landowners and there was a need for tighter legislation regarding illegal trespassing and shooting on farms (Barclay, et al. 2001).

2.6.2 Other Australian research

Similar results were found in an earlier Australian study (Jenkins et al. 1998), which investigated farmer attitudes to the increasing use of rural areas for tourism and recreational activities. The study with 350 landholders in central west New South Wales found that the landholders were concerned about the general public using their land in relation to the possible damage to crops, disturbance to stock, failure to shut gates, environmental damage, vandalism and indiscriminate shooting. Irresponsibility with fire and control of dogs was also a concern. Respondents were particularly concerned about illegal trespassers on their properties with 61% reporting some experience with this problem. Sixty-eight per cent reported they would not allow public access to their properties for recreational purposes. Respondents who had been victims of crime were particularly reticent to allow access to their land.

The authors also reported on an earlier survey by the Graziers’ Association of New South Wales that was conducted with its members in 1975. The survey found less than 50% of the graziers would grant access to their land. Access was only provided according to specific conditions being met. Referring to past experiences, the graziers were concerned about shooting, litter, gates, arson, and disturbance to stock, violence, vandalism and theft. The association clearly indicated that any further relaxation of restrictions on access would not be welcome and private landholders civil rights should remain unaltered (Graziers’ Association of NSW 1975, cited in Jenkins et al. 1998; Pigram, 1981).

Belcher (1993) surveyed 55 landholders in the New England area of New South Wales whose properties encompassed or adjoined sports fishing streams to ascertain their perceptions towards anglers accessing their property. Most landholders (80%) granted access with conditions. These included no littering, no guns, no dogs, and no fires particularly in summer. Other conditions were the shutting of gates, notification of arrival, limited access during lambing or drought, limits to the number of people and vehicles, and no taking of small fish. The conditions imposed were based upon the landowners’ previous experiences with anglers, concern about legal liability, and their need to protect their land from vandalism, damage to fences, stock and property, littering, fires, theft, invasion of privacy, gate being left open and ecological considerations. The presence of platypus in the rivers was reason enough for some landowners to refuse permission in order to conserve its habitat.

Landholders were reluctant to let just anyone on their land often restricting access to family and friends or fishing clubs. However, most landholders maintained that if government support and encouragement was given to them in the form of compensation for damage to property and legal liability, and if anglers sought permission before entering the property, closed gates, cleaned up and acted responsibly, their attitude would positively change and they would be more inclined to grant access to anglers (Belcher, 1993).

11

2.6.3 Overseas research

Overseas, there were similar findings in a British study of 147 farmers in Berkshire on their attitudes to public rights of way on their properties (Bell, Dorward, Edwards and Tranter, 1998). Over 80% reported experiencing problems with the general public on their land. These included dogs, litter, trespass, and vandalism, gates left open and poaching. Farmers strongly opposed any future moves to increase public access to farmland. Even financial incentives would not change their opinion.

In the US, Jobes (1992) in a study of two rural communities in Montana and Wyoming, found problems of illegal trespass, poaching and vandalism were increasing, exacerbated by the urbanisation of rural areas and the increase in the number of young recreationists using rural areas. Properties in some parts were so large that only those with local knowledge recognised where one property began and another ended. Patrolling several thousand acres was difficult where labour was limited and workloads high. Farm buildings, sheds and equipment were frequently left unattended leaving them vulnerable to vandals. Trespass, poaching and vandalism frequently occurred simultaneously as offenders cut fences, destroyed locks or demolished ‘No Trespass’ signs. Destruction of livestock and other property using firearms occurred with hunting on properties.

Traditional ranch owners, who freely granted permission for hunting on their property, experienced fewer problems. They preferred to meet the people hunting or fishing on their land and direct them where to go and limit their numbers. Many received gifts or help with farm labour as expressions of appreciation. Illegal poachers or trespassers were an annoyance and many ranchers viewed them as unnecessary. Other ranchers, who had been victims of property violations, were concerned about protecting wildlife, and put ‘No Trespass’ signs along their property borders and gave permission very selectively. Others restricted access to family members only. Often these ranchers had previously had fences and buildings vandalised, stock shot and felt their personal property and lives had been violated. The move to lease hunting rights created anger amongst recreationists and property violations increased. Landowners felt their right to control their property was being threatened. Traditionalists resented the pressure they were placed under to remain open. Meanwhile legal confrontations argued over the right of public access to private property and the public ownership of game (Jobes, 1992).

In a more recent study, Swensson and Knight (2001) surveyed 989 Montana ranch owners to assess their strategies to manage hunters. Of the 415 respondents, 23% had no restrictions on their property, 57% required permission to hunt on their land and 32% had restrictions such as advance reservations, check in or out requirements, vehicle restrictions, and species restrictions. Twelve per cent had closed their land to hunters, another 12% had fee hunting operations or leased to tour groups, while 7% were under a scheme whereby the state paid landowners who allowed public hunting. Past damage by hunters (42%) and conflicts with hunters (23%) were the reasons given for closing properties to hunters. Some closed half of their properties to protect buildings and livestock (Swensson and Knight, 2001).

2.6.4 Landholder attitudes to recreational use of private land

Attitudes and approaches to providing recreational access to public and private lands vary around the globe. These variations relate to different historical developments in public policy and private development, land ownership rights and attitudes, government initiatives or lack thereof and past and present legislative provisions (Pigram, 1981). For example, in Britain, the preservation of an ancient system of traditional rights of way has guaranteed greater public access to rural land. Complete exclusion from private land is rare (Pigram, 1981). In West Germany, persons may enter farms or forestlands for recreational purposes provided the dominant use of those lands is not adversely affected. For example, recreationists may not interfere with crops or forestry practices. However, hunting is not allowed. Hunters may obtain permission but often must pay for the privilege. Killed

12

animals become the property of the landowners and the meat may be purchased by the hunters or sold to the public (Gilbert and Dodds, 1987, cited in Benson, 2001).

In the US, commercialisation of rural recreation is widespread. More than 60% of the land in the US is privately owned and thus landowners have defacto control over the wildlife that inhabits these lands (Messmer, Dixson, Shields, Barras and Schroeder, 1998; Benson, 2001). Most states have implemented programs that encourage landowners to improve fish and wildlife habitat and maintain hunter access. Landowners’ need for supplemental income and the public’s demand for hunting and viewing recreation has made paying fees more popular to an ever-increasing number of users and producers. Benson (1989) sampled 319 hunters in five states and reported that 75% of hunters used private land and 59% believed that landowners should be compensated for that use, and 51% were willing to pay for access.

In Utah in 1994, the Cooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMU) program was established to provide income for landowners, create satisfying hunting opportunities, increase wildlife habitat, provide adequate trespass protection for landownders who open their land for hunting, and increase access to private lands for hunting game. A CWMU consists of 4,000 contiguous hectares of private land of which 75% must be open to hunting. Hunters must obtain a permit but are allowed to hunt outside of regular seasons for big game. A survey of hunters (Messmer et al. 1998) revealed that hunters preferred to hunt CWMUs because there were fewer hunters, improved chances of harvesting an animal and better opportunities for a quality hunt (Benson, 2001). Jordan and Workman (1990) reported that most landowners in Utah initiated fee access hunting as a means of controlling trespass, property damage and vandalism. Landowners indicated that strategies such as complete land closure to the public or opening land as a gesture of goodwill were not effective. Although CWMUs provided increased income and compensation for wildlife damage, most landowners participated in the program to manage hunter access and control trespass.

In Australia, the notion of inviolate rights of property ownership is widespread and generally accepted (Pigram, 1981). Landowners regard access to private land for sport or recreation as a privilege not a birthright that may be earned by good behaviour and responsibility. As a result, ‘No Trespass’ signs at property boundaries and warning notices in the rural press frequently advise that access to the property is denied and trespassers will be prosecuted. As a consequence, recreational opportunities in country areas are limited (Pigram, 1981).

Landholders are keen to protect their properties from vandalism and the thoughtless action by illegal trespassers and shooters (Pigram, 1981). However, many individuals seem unaware that they should seek permission to enter private lands or act responsibly and avoid interference with the property’s normal operation. Rural recreational activities can be contentious, such as large numbers of people visiting sensitive sites and the potential for environmental damage from the use of four-wheel-drive vehicles or trail bikes. Landholder attitudes, perceptions and experiences may be influenced by a few individuals who fail to consider the impact of their activities upon the environment from small indiscretions such as leaving gates open to intentionally environmentally destructive and criminal acts, such as the indiscriminate shooting of stock and theft (Pigram, 1981). Pigram (1981) maintains that while many landholders will be open and receptive to requests from the public for recreational access, some landholders act with almost feudalistic zeal in maintaining exclusive use of streams and recreational space on their properties.

Drawing upon a review of the literature concerning public access to private lands conducted in the UK, the US and Canada, Jenkins et al. (1998) summarised the positive and negative impacts of recreational activities that influence landholders’ decisions to grant access to their land.

13

Table 1. Negative and positive impacts of recreational activities (Jenkins et al. 1998).

Negative impacts Positive impacts Environmental ƒ Erosion of trails, campsites, picnic sites and water ƒ Increased environmental awareness and education. areas. ƒ Greater financial support for the environment. ƒ Loss of vegetation and disturbance of livestock. ƒ Pollution of streams from farmland effluent. ƒ Dumping of rubbish. Economic ƒ Damage to property (crop damage, livestock loss, ƒ Sale of goods and services to recreationists. vandalism and theft). ƒ Leasing land to groups or government agencies. ƒ Littering, gates left open. ƒ Sale or lease of land for recreational development. ƒ Fire risk, illegal shooting. ƒ Income from recreational ventures. ƒ Cost of providing and maintaining recreational facilities eg picnic sites, roads, trails. ƒ Legal (liability) fees, fire insurance, policing and other costs from recreational provisions. ƒ Changes to farming practices or other such requirements. Legal ƒ Occupier liability. ƒ Legislation of access is cheaper than when land is ƒ Limiting access and trespass. acquisitioned – avoids problems associated with land severance. ƒ Compensation for property damage. ƒ Secures desirable public rights. ƒ Compensation to farmers for maintenance, including conservation activities. Social ƒ Differing attitudes between recreationists and ƒ Political change resulting from increased residents. representation of seasonal or temporary urban ƒ Increased stress, crowding, traffic congestion residents. ƒ Increased fear of crime. ƒ Urban–rural interaction ƒ Lack of or reduction in privacy. ƒ Escape for city dwellers. ƒ Change in lifestyle and quality of life on a seasonal ƒ Altruism. or permanent basis. ƒ Non-permitted activities (e.g. indiscriminate use of firearms, trail bikes, fire lighting). Other ƒ Change in status quo. ƒ Wider (e.g. political) recognition of importance of ƒ Gradual urbanisation of rural areas. recreation and the need for strategic recreational planning and development strategies for ƒ Increasing loss of control over rural areas by rural educational programmes. residents (this could relate to all the above concerns).

Cullington (1981, cited in Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p. 165) concluded that landholders’ attitudes are determined by their personal values and beliefs; legal, economic, social and ecological concerns; national, local and family traditions; government incentives; the type and volume of recreational activities; and past experiences with recreationists (See Figure 4).

14

National Activity Government attitudes and ƒ type traditions incentives ƒ volume

Personal beliefs and Legal Economic Social Ecological concerns experiences concerns concerns concerns

Landowner attitude (individual)

Amount of private land available for recreation

Figure 4. Factors influencing availability of private land for recreation. (Source Cullington 1981, cited in Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p.165).

The question of accessibility to private rural lands is also complicated by institutional and legal constraints on movement into and through recreational space (Pigram, 1981). This raises the issue of property rights and privileges which ownership and control over land bestow. To some, property ownership in a legal and economic sense is merely the proprietorship of a bundle of rights (Pigram, 1981). Dales (1972, cited in Pigram, 1981) questions the whole concept of private property stressing that property should not be thought of as things, but as rights where ownership is circumscribed. Accordingly, ownership consists of a set of legally defined rights to use property in certain ways and a set of negative rights or prohibitions that prevent its use in other ways. A proprietor never owns physical assets, merely the rights to use them. In the context of rural access for recreation, the fundamental issue is ownership and exercise of the right to exclude others from use. Conflicts arise because the landholder is only one individual among several groups with an interest in how the countryside can be utilised and managed (Pigram, 1981).

2.7 Summary

The above discussion has highlighted a number of key issues that require further investigation. First, illegal trespassing and shooting is a common concern to farmers in many countries. Participants in most of the studies reviewed expressed similar resentment to the presence of trespassers and shooters on their properties. In Australia, the exact nature and extent of the problem of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms is obscure. These offences are not separately recorded in official crime data. In addition, the actual extent of this problem is unknown due to the fact that many incidents are not reported to police. There is a need to gather information on this vitally important issue to seek an understanding of the extent and impact of this problem upon agricultural industries. It is also

15

necessary to identify those factors that may affect the commission of these offences which may lead to the development of crime prevention strategies on farms.

Second, feral animals are a concern for many Australian producers particularly with the current drought and there is a need for hunters to assist in pest management on farms. Hunting a very popular sport but is one that is dependent upon access to rural areas. Unfortunately, the lucrative rewards from hunting feral animals encourage illegal hunting on private lands. Furthermore, the practices of some unscrupulous hunters to ensure they sustain feral prey do nothing to eradicate the feral animal problem on farms and further alienate landowners.

Third, outdoor recreation is a legitimate land use in modern society. People need to escape from the pressures of life to relax and enjoy the outdoors. However, increasing closures of national parks have resulted in a growing demand for access to private lands for public recreation. Fourth, landowners wish to retain rights to control access to their properties and for many reasons, including the negative experiences of illegal trespassing and shooting, are closing off access to their properties to the general public. These reasons need to be examined to identify possible compromises between all stakeholders involved to improve recreation opportunities in Australia.

Fifth, previous studies of access to private rural lands in Australia have focused upon landholder perceptions only. The few studies that have been conducted reveal that landowners attitudes are determined by their personal values and beliefs, legal, economic and ecological concerns, national local and family traditions, government incentives, the type and extent of recreational activities and past experiences with recreationists. There appears to be no comparative information on the experiences and the attitudes of hunters and other recreational groups towards access to private lands and the need for recreational space. These issues and others are therefore explored within the present study and the findings are discussed in subsequent chapters.

16

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the procedure by which data were collected for this study is outlined.

3.2 The study area

The present study was conducted in three regions: the northwest plains and the northern Tablelands of New South Wales, and southern Queensland (See Figure 5). These two States were selected because they experience greater problems with feral pigs and goats than do other States (See Figure 1) and therefore would be more concerned with the provision of access for recreational pursuits and would be more likely to experience problems with illegal hunting and trespassing on farms.

The study area in southern Queensland encompassed Toowoomba in the east to Charleville in the west. This area takes in the rich farming areas of the eastern Darling Downs and the dryer grazing areas of the western region. Grazing is the dominant primary industry with beef cattle and sheep for wool production being the most common type of grazing. Cotton and dryland cropping of wheat and barley are the major cropping activities.

The study area in northern New South Wales encompassed the north coast through to the northern Tablelands, the northern slopes to the west of the Tablelands, and the flat northwest plains. However, the primary focus of the study concerned the farming regions in the northern Tablelands and the northwest plains area. In the northern Tablelands, grazing and the production of high-grade fine wool are the main sources of income although dairying, timber processing and the production of potatoes and stone fruits are also important. In the northwest plains, agricultural production includes grains, cotton, oil seeds, sheep, beef and goats.

3.3 Focus Groups

3.3.1 Choice of method The focus of the present study, which centred upon gathering an understanding of the attitudes held by various groups towards recreational access to rural lands, supported the use of focus groups as the primary means of gathering data. Focus groups are a popular means of gathering the views of the community on a wide range of issues (Stayner and Foskey, 1997). The benefit of this method is that the interaction of group members usually assists in identifying and clarifying issues and can in the process, contribute to the knowledge of participants. The limitations of the focus group method are the non-random selection of group participants and the limited numbers of those who are able to participate.

17

Figure 5. The study area.

3.3.2 Selection A total of nine focus groups were conducted to gather an understanding of the problem of illegal trespassers and shooters on farms from the perspectives of farmers, as well as others who desire access to rural lands such as recreationists and hunters. The focus groups were held with three farmers’ organisations, three shooters’ clubs and three four-wheel-drive clubs. The organisations were approached initially with a letter outlining the purposes of the study and requesting time with members for discussion. Arrangements were then made with club presidents to set a time and date for the focus groups to be conducted. The discussions were included as part of general meetings of the clubs or organisations. All participants were provided with a statement outlining the aims and objectives of the study, assurance of the confidentiality of the information they provided and their right to choose not to participate in the study. The time taken for the discussions averaged 30 minutes.

18

3.3.3 Content of the focus group discussions 3.3.3.1 Farmers The focus groups of farmers comprised 14 participants in the northwest of New South Wales, 15 in the northern Tablelands and eight in the group held in southern Queensland. Farmers were asked to rate the seriousness of the problem of vertebrate pest management on their land and whether they dealt with the problem themselves or preferred to utilise hunters. Other questions included whether or not they allowed recreational hunters regularly onto their property, if they only used professional shooters and if they had any particular restrictions/requirements for people entering or shooting on their land. The farmers were asked about who or what they blamed for trespassing and illegal shooting offences in their district. They were also asked about the specific problems they experienced in relation to illegal shooters and trespassers and what measures they took to prevent the problem, whether they reported any infringements to police and the outcomes of that action. Farmers were asked how they would like to see shooters or recreationists conduct themselves on farms to facilitate better cooperation with property owners.

3.3.3.2 Hunters Of the focus groups with hunters, there was a group of 30 participants in northwest New South Wales, 32 in the northern Tablelands and eight in southern Queensland. The hunters were asked how often they went shooting, what types of equipment they mostly used, if they had regular properties that they visit and if they had an arrangement with various property owners for hunting. The practices of hunting were also reviewed. Hunters were also asked who or what they blamed for trespassing and illegal shooting offences in their district, whether they thought property owners worry unnecessarily about hunters on their land, and what they would like to see property owners do to cooperate with those who wish to go hunting.

3.3.3.3 Recreationists Focus groups were also held with members of Four-wheel-drive Clubs. These included a group of 34 people in southern Queensland, and in New South Wales, there were 15 in a group held the northern Tablelands and 16 in a group on the north coast. Participants were asked about their clubs’ activities, whether they had arrangements with private property owners for visitation rights, and what they would like to see property owners do to cooperate with those who wish to tour in rural areas. Participants were asked whether they thought property owners worry unnecessarily about recreationists on their land, who they blamed for trespassing on rural lands, and whether they had any suggestions for property owners in controlling trespassers on their land.

In addition, all groups included discussion on whether participants thought freehold ownership of rural lands implied absolute property rights and control or whether it was merely a set of legally defined rights to use property in certain ways within government laws and regulations. The RSPCAs suggestion of the proposed restriction of shooting of kangaroos to professional shooters only and the growing trend of landholders charging fees for access to private land was also discussed.

19

3.4 Other sources of information

Some additional telephone interviews were conducted with landholders in southern Queensland as due to time and cost limitations, only one focus group was conducted in this State. There was a need to speak to farmers in several locations to gather a better understanding of the problems of illegal trespassing and shooting across the region.

Key informants in the selected areas were also interviewed either face-to-face or by telephone in order to gather additional information to clarify and support some of the findings of the focus groups. Those interviewed included, police officers in each region, professional shooters, hunting safari operators, and representatives of the Rural Lands Protection Boards (RLPB) in New South Wales, National Parks and Wildlife and the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) in Queensland.

3.5 Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the methods by which the focus groups and interviews were conducted. The following chapters present a summary of the findings and a discussion of the data collected by these methods.

20

Chapter 4: The Farmers

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the problems that landholders experience with illegal trespassing and shooting on farms are summarised and their attitudes towards granting access to their properties for recreational activities are examined. Information was gathered through focus groups conducted within the three study regions and through supplementary interviews with individual farmers. The perceptions of police officers on the incidences of illegal trespassing and shooting within each region are also presented in this chapter. Background information was gathered from officers from various government departments in both States who were responsible for feral animal control.

4.2 Feral animal control in the study area

Interviews were conducted with officers from the DPI in Queensland and their counterparts in New South Wales and the RLPB to gather background information on the problems of vertebrate pest management on farms in the study areas. Officers’ opinions on the problems of illegal trespassing and shooting were also sought.

4.2.1 Southern Queensland In southern Queensland, the main vertebrate pests on farms were kangaroos, wild dogs, feral pigs and deer. The DPI officer interviewed said that deer were often released into the wild from deer farms that had ceased to operate. As these animals were used to human contact, they were often found in house yards. While some residents enjoyed having the deer in the vicinity, others were calling upon the State Government to legislate to cull the animals.

He noted the increasing numbers of landowners that were opening up their properties to fee paying hunting tours while others were breeding up game animals such as antelope, to provide for hunting enthusiasts. However, he did not believe hunting in Australia would become as commercialised as in the US as there were too many areas where people can hunt without paying any fee.

He was responsible for overseeing the management of wild pigs in the area. Baiting and trapping had emerged as the most effective way of controlling the problem. A recent eradication project involving shooting from helicopters had found that the exercise scattered pigs. In fact, by monitoring radio transmitters attached to some of the animals, it was found that the pigs travelled up to 200 km across the region during the exercise. He reported that local landowners were working together as part of catchment management groups to manage the wild pig problem within the waterways in the region. Although producers had not complained directly to him about illegal hunters on their properties, he had received reports that pigs had been released into nearby bushland possibly by pig hunters. Another DPI officer advised that while professional kangaroo shooters must name at least five properties that they have permission to shoot on, pig shooters need only to keep a record of the properties they had accessed. The information is needed as a trace-back system for disease control. The officer acknowledged that the reporting system was based upon honesty and it was possible that some pigs may have been taken illegally from properties.

The other feral animal problem in the region was wild dogs, and these were controlled through baiting and trapping programs. In one district, bounties were offered of up to $100 for a wild dog scalp. However, the officer had not received any reports of problems with illegal hunters taking advantage of the bounty in place.

21

4.2.2 Northern Tablelands, NSW In the northern Tablelands, rabbits, foxes and kangaroos, wild dogs and feral pigs were the most common types of pest management problems in the district while further west, feral goats and pigs were the main concerns. Wild dogs were not as great a problem as in southern Queensland. No bounties were applied except on the rare occasion that one particular animal proved to be a problem in an area. Landholders may then, as a group, offer $50 for a dog’s scalp.

However, the RLPB officer interviewed reported there were no real problems with illegal hunters on local properties in the northern Tablelands area. He believed most hunters would seek permission from a landholder to hunt. However, there was a problem with illegal pig hunters in some State forests in the region. He referred to the move to ban pig dogging in New South Wales and noted that pig hunters had formed an association and had adopted a code of ethics to legitimise their practices. There had been a problem where pig hunters from the city or coastal regions would take dogs from a pound for hunting. If the dogs became lost, it was of no real concern to the hunters. However, these dogs become a major problem for graziers. Another officer noted that recent legislation, which determined that all dogs taken from a pound must be micro-chipped, meant that now, there are not as many dogs taken for hunting. The RLPB had put a motion to their last State conference to legislate to ensure that all hunting dogs that are found by pounds be put down if they are not micro chipped or claimed by their owners in a reasonable period of time. The officer interviewed believed it was unfortunate that such a proposal was defeated.

When asked about feral pig eradication programs, the officer noted three very successful aerial shooting campaigns conducted in the northwest area over the previous three months. In these regions, these practices were successful and were preferred to baiting although some baiting of pigs was conducted in the wheat growing areas of the northwest. Aerial baiting was conducted at a cost to producers who contributed to the $780 per hour fee for the helicopter. When asked, the officer agreed that producers experiencing financial difficulty would be disadvantaged but stated that most landowners are aware that pig infestations occur in one to two paddocks on their property. River areas are usually targeted as with the drought, pigs congregate along the waterways. Thus the helicopter may only be required for 30 to 45 minutes in that area and therefore the costs were less.

When asked about landowners cooperating as a landcare group to manage feral pests in their district, the officers noted that such programs are already in place with fox and wild dog control. The RLPB has employed a coordinator who works in liaison with local landcare groups to conduct coordinated baiting programs for fox control. There are nine wild dog associations, which work with landowners to coordinate aerial bating for dogs in inaccessible areas over a two to three week period. In the officers’ opinion, these cooperative exercises worked well. One other initiative was the “Dog a Hog” day in the Tottenham district where a competition is held to capture the largest pig. The competition is conducted over the long weekend in June and has proved to be very popular. It was introduced to deal with the large numbers of pigs that have been illegally introduced to the state forest in the area.

4.3 Focus groups

Three focus groups were held with farmers attending meetings of the Country Women’s Association and the New South Wales Farmers’ organisation. The findings of each of the focus groups are presented separately to highlight the differences in experiences within each of the three study areas.

4.3.1 Southern Queensland A focus group was held in a small community in southern Queensland with farmers who came from properties scattered around the region. The farmers reported that kangaroos were a particular problem throughout the drought competing with stock for scarce feed and water and damaging the few wheat crops that had been grown.

22

One of the participants commented:

We had some shooters shoot 200 kangaroos in one weekend and that was just a fraction of what jumped the fence. There are more kangaroos now than have been in years.

Another reported that feral cats were also prevalent in the area and commented on the large size of these animals. She added: ‘We have one shooter who only shoots feral cats and foxes – never kangaroos’. The participants agreed that most hunters are primarily interested in feral pigs. However, pigs were not an overwhelming concern as in other areas. One participant explained:

Pigs are bad, but they come and go. It depends on your crops and how much sorghum you have.

Dingoes were noted as a particular concern and there had been reports at the time of a dingo killing calves in a nearby district. One participant added:

The barrier fence doesn’t seem to be maintained. One of the properties here has the dog fence go through the middle of it and it’s owned by a big company, and the people on it leave the gates open to let machinery go backwards and forwards. The dingo problem is very serious for a lot of landowners. There is a trapper in two of the local shires but the dingoes seem to be getting worse.

Another wryly added: ‘Nobody seems to have told the dingoes on which side of the fence they are supposed to be’.

However, pest management on properties within this region seemed to be well under control with all of those present reporting that they had excellent relationships with professional or recreational shooters who hunted on their properties. One woman reported that she and her husband had managed to ‘weed out’ the troublemakers. They had arrangements with several groups of reliable recreational hunters who regularly came to the property. She described the hunters as a ‘decent mob’ that had never given any cause for concern. She continued:

On our place we have a river frontage and people come up and want to go hunting or fishing for a weekend. We have a policy that nobody ever comes without ringing us first to let us know they are coming. We only let one group of hunters on the property at any one time although we let several groups in to fish. Those that come to fish have various spots on the river where they can camp and we know where they are. If a group of hunters are there at the same time, we make sure they know where each other are. Its important because we would be responsible if anything went wrong.

Over the years we have weeded out those who did not follow these guidelines or misbehaved or left a mess, and it seems to work well. We have an old cottage on the place and I’d hate to live in it myself but these people who come and shoot are allowed to use it and they love it. People in stressful jobs in the city need to get away and relax and enjoy themselves. They come in their old camping clothes and you wouldn’t know if they were schoolteachers or bank managers. One is an ambulance driver and he comes out to unwind if he has a bad week. Some of them bring their wives and kids. They don’t ask for many comforts. They bring their own food and sleeping bags and there is hot water so they can have a shower at night. They are mostly interested in shooting pigs and kangaroos. If they make a mistake, they will come and tell you and they will also let us know if there is a sick cow up in the back paddock. Really they have been a great support over the years.

23

Another participant reported a similar arrangement:

We have people that come and they ring to ask permission. They camp and bring their bikes and have a great time - but you only let one lot of people on at a time.

As well as regular recreational shooters, most of those present reported they also used professional shooters for pest management. When asked if they could manage the problem themselves or if they needed hunters for the task, all responded that they relied on hunters to assist them. One explained:

The men always have a rifle with them and sometimes we get friends come up to help out. But most farmers are too busy. The hunters are doing a job that we don’t have time to do.

When asked if they had any specific rules or requirements for those coming onto their property to hunt, one participant replied: ‘Yes, no rubbish’. When asked if she had experienced problems with people leaving rubbish she replied: ‘No, because if anyone did leave rubbish, they wouldn’t get to come back again’. However another participant did experience problems with people leaving rubbish along the river that traverses their property. She continued:

Sometimes you go down there and people have left all their bottles and cans and the garbage on the bank. There are gates there but they seem to think its OK to come onto the place. Once upon a time if you had a property, you were entitled to own the river but that’s no longer the case. It’s partly fenced on either side of the river now. But people see the gates and in they go.

When questioned, this participant reported that they never used locks and chains on the gates, as offenders merely cut them off. Others agreed stating that it was too expensive to replace locks and chains or the fences that people will cut to get through. Another reported that their neighbour had spent a lot of money establishing a floodgate over a river but trespassers cut the rubber strips on the gate and let all the cattle out onto the road.

Another rule that those present strongly advocated was the requirement of no dogs on their properties. One added: ‘People lose their dogs and that’s a problem’. Another gave an example of the damage dogs can cause:

Our neighbour came onto our place to shoot pigs and his dog attacked one of our sheep. When we found the sheep, we had to put it down. That was a neighbour and he didn’t tell us, so we never let them back again.

Another added that while they refused to have dogs come onto their property, they relied upon their own dogs for security. She added: ‘If anyone was wandering around the yards and the sheds and the fuel, the dogs would let us know’.

One person required all those entering the property for recreational purposes (including all hunters) to sign an indemnity form to safeguard against liability in the event of an accident.

They have to sign an indemnity form so that if there are any accidents, it will be their own responsibility. The people are happy to sign it and we have been doing this for some years. It was a recommendation of our solicitor. I don’t know if anything happened if it would stand up in court.

24

Another gave an example of the type of problems that can occur:

We used to have an older men come out for weekends and one time he brought two of his sons and their kids with him. We had put up some electric fences and some had barbed wire. So my husband told them they didn’t have the ordinary run of the place this time and showed them where they could go and where the fence was. They found some pigs and chased them and the older man was showing the kids what to do, forgot about the fence, and was badly cut. He ended up with a broken collarbone but he could have cut his throat. He had a rifle down the front of the bike in a stand and that was the only thing that saved him. That’s the sort of thing that can happen.

None of the participants had ever had their professional or recreational hunters report to them that they had encountered illegal shooters on the property while they were hunting. Some of the participants maintained that due to the large size of the properties and the rough terrain in some areas, many landholders may remain unaware of the presence of illegal trespassers or hunters unless there was evidence of wheel tracks or gates left open.

However, one participant did report problems with people illegally shooting from the public access road that bisected the family property:

Some long weekends you get young ones coming out to camp for a weekend and hunt. We have an access road and they aren’t supposed to shoot on it but you see the winding tracks and you know darn well they have been going through with a spotlight. We’ve pulled up a few. Its usually young ones and they are cheeky. We record their number plate and if anything goes wrong we would report that to the police.

Apart from this experience, none of the participants had any major concerns about illegal trespassers and shooters on farm. One added:

Where we are we don’t have much of a problem with theft or trespassing. Further down the river its worse. People will go in on properties and a take pigs from pig traps. Where we are, there has been the odd problem over the years – like we have had a pig taken once but we have never had anything stolen.

Nevertheless, all could relate to incidents that had occurred in their district where their neighbours or friends had been the victims of illegal trespassers or hunters and farm crime in general. One participant pointed out:

As you drive long the highway, you will often see a plastic bag or a bottle hanging up in a tree. It’s usually near a gate and it’s a sign for hunters of a good place to hunt.

Several participants noted that fuel theft was as a problem in their district. One participant added:

One lot of thieves emptied a tank of fuel, the owners filled it again, and the thieves came back and took the second lot.

Another added: ‘If you leave a tractor in the paddock you run an awful risk’. When asked if she had experienced this problem on her property, she stated that she had, but had not reported it to police.

Others in the group claimed that reporting crimes to police required proof. One revealed that she had been a victim of cattle theft and believed reporting to the police had been a waste of time because there was a need to provide details on all the stock brands, identification numbers, colours and markings on the cattle. Even though the identity of the offenders was known, nothing could be done without proof of ownership.

25

Other reports of problems in the district included a truck full of grain stolen. However, the group agreed that this was from a farm located on the highway, which was more vulnerable to crime. Most of the participants’ properties were less accessible. Although one person believed that a property being out of the way would mean offenders may be less likely to be discovered. Another victim of crime in the district was a family who had people living in a cottage on their property growing a marijuana crop. The participants noted that once these people had left the district, there had been no more trouble.

Comparisons were made with another community about 100 km away that was described as having ‘really big problems’. Thefts of stock, motorbikes, and fuel were cited as well as once incident where a house was stripped of all its contents. In summary, the participants agreed that their district was relatively safe and secure.

Concerns were expressed about the RSPCA’s move to restrict the shooting of kangaroos to professional shooters. On the question of landholders’ rights, the participants were most concerned about the tightening of regulations on what farmers can and cannot do on their farms. In particular, most were concerned about the restrictions on the clearing of farmland and the erosion of landowners’ rights generally.

4.3.1.1 Supplementary interviews Supplementary interviews were held with two farmers in Queensland, one located in the southwest and the other in the area north of the focus group district that was reported to have ‘big problems’ with crime on farms. The purpose of these interviews was to gather a wider understanding of the problems of illegal trespassing and shooting within the southwest Queensland region. While the previous study of crime on farms in New South Wales (Barclay et al. 2001) provided an overview of the extent and nature of crime in that State, including a profile of the problem of illegal hunting and trespassing, there has been no comparable research conducted in Queensland. The focus group methodology in the present study provides only a snapshot of one small district in Queensland and the additional interviews were conducted to widen the scope of data gathered.

In the southwest area, illegal trespassing and shooting was not really an issue according to the farmer interviewed. Kangaroos and feral pigs were the major pests in this area and this farmer mostly used professional shooters to control the problems. There were no hunting tours visiting the region, as due to the lack of rivers and creeks in the area, there were not enough wild pigs to attract hunters. He maintained that the changes in the licensing of professional shooters ‘got rid of a lot of the cowboys’ and now illegal shooting and thefts of fuel were a thing of the past. He believed the vast distances in the region also contributed to a lack of illegal hunters. His property was not near a highway and although it was close to a public road, it was a dead end road. He maintained that many people avoid taking strange roads in a strange area. He also believed there were fewer problems because of the small population and the fact that everyone knew everyone else. Although there was no formal Rural Watch operating, it operated informally.

The farmer interviewed in the area purported to having ‘really big problems’, reported that there were significant problems with illegal pig hunters on properties in the district. He also believed kangaroo hunters were not a cause of concern as the new licensing restrictions had ensured that only the responsible hunters now operated. The farmer maintained that pig hunters were attracted to the area because it was a large grain growing area with several waterways, and therefore prone to high feral pig populations. The hunters also have access to public camping areas along the rivers and creeks in the area, as well as on the stock routes that traverse the region. He added:

They are mostly no-hopers – they lay around during the day and go out at night to hunt illegally. They will go to the Department of Natural Resources to get maps with all the stock routes and camping areas on them. It gives them very detailed information on where to go.

26

He believed an additional attraction was the fact that there were no police stationed at several of the small communities in the district and that the offenders could travel between these communities with little concern. He maintained that most of the offenders came from centres outside of the district, namely Dalby, Toowoomba, Brisbane and Ipswich. Long weekends and public holidays were the main times that problems occurred. None of the farmers in the district will leave their properties unattended at these times. He concluded:

It would be all right if they learnt to shut the gates. It’s a big property – 15,000 acres. Probably if they shut the gates you wouldn’t even know they were there. But you go out and find the gates open and you have to spend the next three days sorting the cattle out.

The farmer believed there was a clear link between illegal hunting and other types of crime on farms. There were suspicions that the offences were linked to the need for money for drugs. Opportunities for easy cash were becoming harder in the cities and therefore farms had become easy targets. He reported it was rare for people to lock up their properties in this district. Thefts of vehicles, motorbikes, boats and fuel were common. Headers were stolen from paddocks to pull out bogged vehicles. He explained:

They will come in and if there is someone at the house, they ask if they can go pig chasing and if we say no, they come back that night and take something. They case the place while they are here.

He described the issue as serious adding:

These people are always armed and some farmers have had their lives threatened. One had to be hospitalised after an altercation with some of these people.

As a consequence, this farmer restricts access to his property to regular professional shooters to control the feral animals and to some good friends who come out to camp and ‘let off a bit of steam’. Other precautions taken included always locking up the farmhouse and having Rural Watch signs on the boundary fences. He reported that a Rural Watch group did operate in the district and added:

Rural Watch works to a degree. People will often tell you there was someone in your back paddock. But many farmers here are afraid of reprisals and believe they are better off saying and doing nothing. Some are afraid to be seen to be writing down registration numbers of suspected offenders.

When asked if the police had been able to assist in the matter, he responded:

It’s very hard for the police. Unless people are caught in the act, it’s so hard to make arrests. They are doing a pretty good job but they have limited resources. The local officer here has to cover such a huge area.

The farmer reported there were not as many concerns with tourists trespassing on private property. He explained:

If they are genuine campers, they ask permission and will ask where they can camp. These are the ones you really enjoy having on the place. We encourage people to come out and camp for weekends. It’s important for city people to be more aware of what’s happening in the bush. They also spend money in the town and its good for local businesses.

27

4.3.2 Northwest Plains, NSW All of the farmers in the focus group in northwest New South Wales reported that they relied upon professional shooters for pest management on their properties. They stressed that they did not have time to manage the problem themselves, as they were too busy running their operations, particularly with feeding stock in the drought. It was common practice amongst the participants to provide specific instructions for the shooters hunting on their land. One stated: ‘We give our shooters a map of where they can go with a topographic sheet with areas shaded and all the buildings marked on it’. In contrast to the southern Queensland group, all of these participants expressed serious concerns about the problems of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms in their area. Consequently, all were restrictive in who they allowed onto their properties. One stated:

We only have one professional shooter and my husband won’t allow anybody else on the place. If you do it for one, you have to do it for everyone. He had a touch of the friendlies one Christmas and did let these guys on – told them where they could and could not go… but they set fire to a 1000 acres of wheat stubble. So that’s it now – never again.

One participant added that giving people permission to come onto the property on one occasion seems to mean to them that permission was granted for the next ten years:

Even if you have people working on your place 5 to 10 years ago, they think they have a right to go onto your place. They don’t bother to ring up and ask permission because they know their way around. And they will tell others ‘Oh there are good pigs on so and so’s place.

Another issue raised by another participant concerned the lack of acknowledgement of property boundaries:

If you have neighbours who let other people on their place, they don’t stop at the boundary. We found some blokes in two vehicles on our place the other day and they had come through from the neighbours. They realised that they weren’t on the neighbours place any more but they thought it was OK.

An added problem was that people often bring others with them. One participant related the difficulty when they allowed hunters from Sydney to visit their property:

They bought their whole family with them and I don’t think they had ever been over the blue mountains. It took them ten hours to come from Sydney, they got lost three times. They were told specifically do not to go in these particular areas on the farm or drive in our sorghum paddock or on the public roads. Yet they were doing donuts in the cultivation with guns hanging out the window. They were driving along the public road shooting from the road and they had been told that this was a major no no. Three o’clock in the morning, they were out on the front road aiming their weapons towards the neighbour’s house which is only a kilometre off the road, shooting at a fox that had run onto the property. They couldn’t understand why we were all upset.

One woman told how her husband was moving cattle and had bullets land at the feet of his horse. Another participant related a similar experience:

The previous police sergeant that was here told us if we ever had illegal shooters to ring. So we rang on one night when we had shooters shooting straight towards the house. We have a levy bank around the house. You could see the next day where their bullets had hit the levy bank. And they told the police that they couldn’t see the house there because they couldn’t see any lights.

28

Trespassers were also a concern. One participant maintained: ‘A lot of people think that farmers have a lot of land and that it won’t hurt to drive around on a little bit. They have no respect’. Another added: ‘They mow down trees, start fires and leave so many bottles and rubbish you wouldn’t believe it’. Trespassers wishing to fish were also a problem when they accessed the river at one point and then boated up the river to access areas on various other properties. Another participant introduced a further concern with trespassers:

Some things you don’t always see immediately. We had a crop of organic wheat – and if you have people driving around at certain times of the year with dirty vehicles that have been in other crops with turnip for example – its surprising how much seed can be spread from a vehicle. Then you have a lot of seed come up and you can’t spray organic wheat. So you have to go around and pull up the weeds. And it’s not due to the bad management of the farmer but rather these people who are illegally on your property.

Concerns were expressed about the possibility of introducing bounties on foxes or feral pigs. Participants believed that if hunters have increased opportunity to make money, it will encourage a lot more people to enter their properties. One believed that the changes in the gun laws would mean the problem would not be as severe as when the fox bounty was previously in place. She described the problems then as ‘horrendous’.

The large size of the properties and the isolation of the area were seen as contributing to the high incidence of trespassing and illegal shooting:

Because of the large distances, they know that there is no one around to stop them, and they know they can get away with it. There’s not one of us here who can see all of their property from their house.

Concerns were also raised about the great personal risk farmers face when confronting offenders:

Illegal shooters, who come onto your place that you don’t know about, are not exactly upstanding citizens. They are not the sort of people you want hanging about the place. We had trouble with one person pigging on the place for two years who was actually wanted for murder. We are concerned about what to do about such situations.

Another added:

Some of the hair brained things my husband has done. You think back and he could have been killed – late at night chasing a bloke with the lights off.

Often these experiences with illegal trespassers and shooters were associated with thefts of fuel and tools and other equipment. One participant reported:

We had fuel taken from a fuel trailer. You couldn’t see the fuel trailer from the road but they found it and emptied it and it was quite a large amount of fuel. On another occasion we had fuel taken from a motor attached to a bore. They got the fuel for the vehicle and then just left the hose on the ground and let the fuel run out.

Another added: ‘And tools, often you don’t know they have gone until you need them’. Lights are also taken from headers to be used as spotlights. Others noted that they no longer lock headers as they have found thieves break the glass. One added: ‘Even machinery that is stored behind trees thieves will go in and find it and just take what ever they want’.

29

Another related an incident where their neighbours had been robbed:

The thieves came in four to five miles off the road. They went through five gates. They left their vehicle at the gate, walked into the house yard, pushed the quad runner out of the shed and back to the vehicle, and loaded it up. And our neighbours were at home at the time.

There were associated concerns with insurance covering thefts of this nature. Several participants acknowledged that it was negative experiences such as these that resulted in landowners closing their properties to hunters and recreationists.

Participants were asked whether they had reported any of these incidences to police and what were the outcomes. One replied:

The problem is that with small centres like ours, the police aren’t there most of the time. The nearest police officer spends a greater part of the time in other centres at least 100 km away. If you have a situation and you call the police, it’s not going to be happening by the time they get there.

When asked what they themselves could do to stop these offences from occurring on their property, one person responded: ‘What can we do’. Another suggested:

The best thing we can do is allow people we trust on the place. Hopefully they will clean the place up a bit and by having someone on the place it will deter others from coming on.

Others noted the value in having a sustained working relationship with a well-known and trusted professional shooter:

The professional shooters that you do allow on your property are prepared to protect the territory that they are given to shoot on. We have a bloke who shoots for us who lives here in town but he has family in (a town about two hours drive away). He rang us up to warn us that he was there at the pub and heard some blokes talking about our place. He even tracked them to their vehicle to get their registration number. So it works both ways.

Another added that their professional shooter also reported back if they saw anyone else on their property or in the vicinity of the place. Another added that their shooter always rang to say that he was coming and then rang back the next day to tell them where mobs of pigs were. One other agreed that such information was of value to landowners as pigs can travel up to 30 km in a night.

Other concerns were raised about public liability. Participants questioned if their public liability insurance would cover individuals who were on their property illegally. There were further concerns that a landowner may be liable for an extreme claim. (This issue was explored with an insurance provider who advised that any individual incurring an accident on private property would be covered by the landowner’s public liability policy. A principal of ‘due care’ applies and regardless of whether the individual is there for illegal purposes or not, the insurance cover would apply.) One participant suggested that as with show societies now, anyone riding a horse has to sign a waiver to state that if there is an accident the show society is not liable. She added, ‘Perhaps anyone coming onto a property to shoot could sign a waiver to protect the landowners in the event of an accident’.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the prevailing theme of the discussion was summarised by one of the participants:

We want to know who is on the place. We want the right to say who can be on there and who cant.

30

4.3.3 Northern Tablelands, NSW The participants in the northern Tablelands focus group regularly used professional shooters to control kangaroo populations on their land. Only shooters who were well known to them and sought permission were allowed to shoot for recreational purposes. The requirements made of shooters included closing gates, shooting with care and ensuring stock were not disturbed.

In general, the problem of illegal trespassers and shooters was not as great as in the western areas of the State. However, those incidents that had occurred had rarely been reported to police – the reason being that the farmers believed the police could do little about the problem. The main difficulty for farmers caused by offenders, was the failure to shut gates, which allowed stock to wander. One farmer who allowed certain fishermen to access a stream on his property, had found that these regular visitors watched over the property and kept troublemakers out.

Concerns were expressed about insurance payouts for accidents incurred by illegal trespassers in that while a property owner’s public liability cover would account for such events, premiums would escalate. One woman gave an example:

We had an incident when someone left their car in our paddock and one of our bulls saw his reflection in the windows and thinking it was a rival bull, attacked the car and smashed all the windows. I was up at the house and I wasn’t going to stop him – he was really worked up. He had done so much damage to the vehicle by then. But we had to have the animal destroyed before the insurance company would pay out.

On another occasion some people had a picnic all laid out with a beautiful spread of salad and cream cake and we were drought feeding at the time so the bull thought it was for him and ate it. The people came to us and complained. But we haven’t had any trouble since.

When asked about any measures they take to prevent illegal trespassers or shooters on their property, most of the farmers maintained that ‘No Trespass’ signs were a waste of time. One added: ‘Signs are just something else to shoot at’. However, another added:

We did have a Neighbourhood Watch group operating for a while, we put signs up on our boundaries, and there was less trouble. However, as the signs have aged, there have been a few more incidences. Some of the troublemakers joined the Neighbourhood Watch to get knowledge about local properties.

Others reported that they had a good Neighbourhood Watch program in their area, which was working well.

When asked what practices they would like hunters and visitors to their properties maintain, several respondents responded, ‘Closing Gates!’ However one noted that illegal trespassers would not bother to shut gates. Other ideals included reporting to the main house on arrival and advising on the location of mobs of kangaroos on departure. One person did note that hunters on his property made a practice of informing him about the number of kangaroos that were on the property.

As for the question of freehold land and rights of access, farmers across the northwest region were planning a meeting to voice their concerns about the erosion of rights generally on their properties.

In an additional interview with another farmer, when asked what freehold ownership of land meant to him, he replied that it meant use of the land within the constraints of the laws and regulations laid down by the government. However he doubted if many farmers would agree with him. When asked who owned the wildlife on his land, he replied that no one owned protected animals but he believed there were some grey areas regarding feral animals. Farmers are responsible for managing feral animals and noxious weeds on their land and therefore this may imply some form of ownership.

31

Certainly farmers have shooting rights on their land and many commercial hunters pay for those rights. However in reality, usually the professional hunter pays nothing and is seen as providing a service to the landholder in eradicating pests.

He believed most farmers only like to have people they know on their land and will only tolerate access through their property where there is no other public access road available. He believed that many offenders who leave gates open do so out of a lack of understanding of the impact of such negligence. He noted that his public liability policy was now valued at 20 million as there were concerns that someone could sue six or seven years after an accident on his property. He argued that there was a need for government legislation to state that any person entering an uncontrolled environment does so at their own risk and will be legally prevented from suing farmers in the event of an accident.

4.4 Interviews with police officers

4.4.1 Southern Queensland The police officer in the southern Queensland region reported that when he first arrived in the district he was told there was an epidemic of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms. However, his subsequent investigations revealed that there were really only five or six offenders who repeatedly visited the area. Some arrests had been made and the numbers of reported incidences had declined. He acknowledged local farmers were most concerned about the problem. None would leave their properties over long weekends or the Easter period, as those were the times that people come out from the cities and towns to hunt illegally. When asked if he believed property owners overly worried about the issue, he maintained that property owners have genuine complaints as offenders do run over crops and leave gates open allowing stock to stray. A public meeting held to discuss the issue attracted eighty people, which he described as a ‘good turn out’ for a small community. He implemented a plan for people to email him with details on vehicle registrations and other information on possible offenders as well as the days of the week incidences occur, to build up a database of this information. However, he reported that to date, he had received little response. While a few people provided information, many did not. He believed many farmers think there was little that could be done about the problems. He has also placed articles in local papers to raise awareness and discourage hunters from coming out to the area.

He acknowledged that there was little farmers could do about security on farms and added that many were loathed to do anything:

Some have found if they put locks on fuel, that rather than spend a lot of time getting into the fuel, thieves will cut hoses and leave the fuel to run out. If they leave fuel unlocked, thieves will just take what they want and go. Farmers do run a bit scared.

He maintained that the problems were greater in his region because of the large numbers of wild pigs in the area. He claimed the pig hunters were the main offenders.

He added;

Trouble doesn’t seem to come a lot from kangaroo shooters, not in this area anyway. They seem to be more above board. The new regulations for wild game harvesters were supposed to knock a lot of these rough blokes out including those amongst the pig hunters. The trouble is that the accredited pig hunters will sell the pigs from those who aren’t accredited and give them the money. You have to catch the blokes they are giving the pigs to but there are so many places they can go. Even if we catch them, the fine is only about $150 and one pig can bring that amount. Pigs are worth good money and this is why you have so many people out here doing it.

32

Another officer in southern Queensland also identified shooters and wild pig hunters as the primary offenders of trespass on farmland. He also noted the problem of people harvesting game on other peoples’ licences. However, he maintained that unless offenders are caught in the act, there was little that could be done to prevent these occurrences. He receives few complaints from farmers. The most recent report provided a name and registration details and as a result, the police conducted an operation in the area and some arrests were made. He added:

We haven’t had any calls since but that is not to say it is not happening. We can only act on the information we are given. If people don’t ring in about these sorts of things, it is difficult to tell how widespread the problems are.

He acknowledged that the problem was difficult to address. Successful police operations necessitated the officers picking the right night and the right property and waiting. He maintained farmers had genuine concerns about the problems they were experiencing. He added:

Fuel theft is a problem with the price of fuel now. A lot don’t report it. But when you are out and about, people tell you they often lose fuel or things out of their sheds but they don’t report it because they feel it’s a waste of time.

When asked his opinion of the growing trend of fee payment for hunting on private land, he believed that it was positive move as difficulty in securing access to private lands was part of the cause of illegal trespassing. He maintained most offenders came from city areas or large regional centres. People who live in the country either had their own properties to hunt on or knew others in the district where they could easily gain permission to hunt, while city dwellers did not. He believed another contributing factor was the trend of larger properties being sold and reduced to smaller properties creating more intensive farming and consequently, less access to areas for people for recreation.

4.4.2 Northern NSW Police officers in the northern Tablelands reported that few complaints were received from farmers regarding illegal trespassing and shooting on farms. However, there were pockets on the outskirts of the region that experienced occasional problems, particularly with pig shooters. These areas had more of a hilly terrain and dense vegetation that supported wild pig populations. This confirms the finding of the focus group conducted with farmers in the Tablelands who also reported that there were only occasional problems with trespassers and illegal shooters.

There were more offences reported by the officer interviewed in the northwest area. When asked if he believed illegal trespassing and shooting was a major problem in the area, he maintained that farmers do not know themselves how often it goes on. They may discover some tracks but they are unable to tell how long they have been there. The properties are large and farmers are busy with their operations particularly with feeding stock over the drought. Consequently, many farmers have been unable to find the time to check over their properties.

The officer reported that farmers sometimes do call and make complaints but there is a lack of resources to adequately police the problem. He added:

The difficulty is that we don’t know the true extent of the problem because farmers don’t report a lot of it. If they don’t report it, we don’t know what’s happening and we can’t address the problem. The hard part is you need to patrol at night-time and you need two officers for safety considerations. You can’t be out there on your own at night-time with these types of people. You have to get out there and cover the area and that’s the difficulty. You often don’t know where you are going whereas these fellows know, they have been doing it for years.

The officer was planning an operation over the Easter period to target these types of offences. He maintained that offenders are not exclusively pig hunters. He believed that offenders when confronted will often use pig chasing as an excuse for being on a property. He added that offenders were purely

33

common thieves, responsible for thefts of fuel, small motors and equipment and radios out of tractors, in fact anything that was not bolted down on farms. He argued that some kangaroo shooters were offenders or they may have associates that were offenders. Licensed hunters may not be involved in actual stealing because they would lose their firearm licence if they were caught, but they did not mind being involved with offenders. He maintained that the offenders were a mix of local people with some from larger regional centres. Offenders operated out of their local area, because it was less likely that they would be recognised or picked up by police. He added: ‘Why do it in your own backyard when you can do it in other places and nobody will know about it’.

He reported that the new legislation regarding trespass and hunting had made it easier for police to detain offenders. However, he believed police needed to look at using other types of legislation to control the problem. He explained:

You may not be able to get them for trespassing or stealing but you can get them using the traffic act. They might be driving around in unregistered and uninsured vehicles or they may be drinking and driving. If you issue $1000 in tickets for being unregistered and uninsured and they cant pay the fines, they lose their licence and that will stop them. Further charges can be laid if they do drive around on a disqualified licence. They also have a good chance of going to jail from drink driving charges whereas if they are charged with stealing something from a property, they may only get a slap on the wrist and a small fine.

4.5 Summary

This chapter presented findings of the investigation into the problems farmers experienced with illegal trespassing and shooting on their farms and their attitudes generally to people accessing their properties for recreational purposes. The focus groups and interviews with farmers in three diverse study areas revealed that concerns about illegal trespassing and shooting varied greatly between regions. In some areas, namely northwest New South Wales and one Queensland district, landholders’ experiences with illegal trespassers and shooters and associated crimes on farms had resulted in considerable anxiety for farm families. Some of their accounts highlighted the extreme danger of some of the practices of illegal hunters on their properties and the personal risks some farmers face when confronting offenders.

It appears that those areas most prone to illegal trespass and hunting are more likely to be grain- growing areas that have significant watercourses which support large populations of feral pigs. The lack of police resources in remote areas was cited as a factor contributing to the high incidence of these offences. There was a common perception that pig hunters were more likely to be responsible for illegal trespassing and shooting on farms. These groups were also linked with other crimes, such as the theft of fuel, vehicles and tools from farms. However, one police officer interviewed maintained that many offenders were purely thieves and used pig hunting as an excuse if caught for illegally being on a property. Clearly pig hunters, like any other cohort of society, comprise a wide range of law-abiding behaviours.

As a result of negative experiences, the participants in the northwest group had closed their properties to all except for their trusted professional shooters and close family and friends. In other regions, participants acknowledged experiences on their properties or in their neighbourhood with illegal trespassers and hunters as well as thefts but were less concerned about these events. They appeared to have more of a sense of control over who entered their property than did the group in northwest New South Wales. Many of these farmers were relatively open to allowing access to recreationists to visit their property. There was an acknowledgement that people did need to escape the pressures of city life and therefore, providing them with opportunities for recreation in the bush was a positive thing for landowners to do.

34

Kangaroos and feral animals on farms were a problem for producers in all three regions. All participants reported that they relied on professional and recreational shooters for pest management on their land, as they were too busy running their operations to control the problem themselves. Many of the participants reported that regular visits by trusted hunters to control pests on farms deterred illegal hunters from entering the property. Trusted hunters were also prepared to guard their hunting territory against illegal hunters and trespassers.

Most participants had conditions of access for those they allowed to enter their property. These included only allowing one hunting party on a property at a time, shutting gates, no rubbish, no dogs, shooting with care and ensuring stock were not disturbed. Some provided a map with instructions on what areas of the property were to be avoided. The failure to close gates was cited within all three groups as the most annoying problem experienced at the hand of illegal trespassers. The time and cost of sorting out stock that had strayed through open gates caused considerable frustration for participants. The leaving of rubbish at campsites by trespassers appeared to be particularly offensive to participants. Positive actions by hunters that facilitated approvals for return visits included reporting to the landholder on the location and size of feral populations on the property and also information on anything out of order, such as injured stock or damaged fences.

Apart from some participation in Rural Watch groups, placing warning signs on property boundaries and locking gates and farmhouses, participants believed there was little they could do to prevent illegal trespass and shooting occurring. Farms are impossible to secure effectively. Few offences had been reported to police, due to the farmers’ inability to provide sufficient proof of an offence and a belief that there was little the police could do to stop offenders.

There were common concerns amongst the three groups about public liability in the event of an accident with illegal trespassers and shooters. One participant had visitors to the property sign a waiver for legal liability in the event of any mishap. All defended their rights to control access to private land. Most were passionately opposed to the perceived erosion of rights of landowners through increasing government control and regulation over their activities on their land.

The variability in the findings between the study areas highlighted the limitations of the study. The enquiry was confined to three focus groups of farmers in diverse regions but over a small area relative to the size of rural Australia. Thus the findings cannot be generalised to other parts of rural Australia. However, the findings did provide some insight into the attitudes and experiences of landholders on this matter. While previous studies had examined the issue of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms in New South Wales, no such study had been completed in Queensland. The findings support the need for further investigation into illegal trespassing and shooting on farms in Queensland, as well as in other States in Australia.

35

Chapter 5: The Hunters

5.1 Introduction

So what are the views of hunters on these issues? Do they consider illegal shooting to be a problem? What problems do they see within the agricultural industry that facilitates the problem of illegal shooting on farms? These were some of the questions put to members of hunting clubs to seek a balanced and more comprehensive understanding of the nature of illegal hunting on rural properties. Although the members of such organisations are bound to a strict code of ethics regarding hunting and therefore would be unlikely to commit offences of illegal trespass and shooting, their knowledge and understanding of the sport enabled them to provide valuable insights into the reasons why such offences occur.

Two focus groups were conducted with hunters in New South Wales and one group was conducted in Queensland. Additional interviews were held with a professional hunter and two tour operators who organise hunting safaris in outback Australia. This chapter provides an overview of the opinions of these groups voiced in the focus groups and interviews.

5.2 Hunting clubs in Australia

There are a number of organisations representing licensed firearm owners in Australia. However, the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA) is the premier body and has more than 120,000 members. The aims of shooters’ associations are to educate young people in the skills of hunting and the proper care and safe handling of firearms, and encourage hunters to abide by ethical hunting practices (See Appendix 2) (SSAA, 2002a). Hunters must respect the environment and the game being hunted. Permission to hunt must be obtained from landowners, property must be respected and always left as it is found, guns must be handled safely, and the hunter must respect another hunter’s position in the field and obey the hunting laws and the Code of Practice. Shooting organisations discipline members who disregard hunting ethics. They also provide practise in hunting skills and advice on appropriate equipment as well as training to ensure that hunters are able to identify game and non-game species (Field and Game Australia, 2002).

The SSAA also works towards a better understanding between landholders and association members, promotes game conservation and assists in game management programs. The SSAA has won national recognition for its participation in the control of feral pests in both national parks and on pastoral lands throughout Australia. The association has purchased two large tracts of land with a view to preserving a number of endangered species. The Hunting and Conservation Division is actively involved in habitat maintenance, revegetation projects, pest/feral animal control, native animal surveys and other conservation projects (SSAA, 2003b).

5.3 Focus groups with hunting clubs

5.3.1 Southern Queensland The Queensland focus group was conducted with eight representatives of various shooting associations located throughout the southern part of the State. The group varied in age and experience in hunting but all were very knowledgeable and passionate about their sport. Some of those present had their own properties that they used for hunting but the participants explained that most of the members within their organisation had private arrangements with landowners for their hunting activities. Weekend hunting trips with groups of members were common events. The participants noted that this was an expensive sport. Firearms could cost anything up to $4,000 and weekend trips could cost around $800 with ammunition, camping, fuel and vehicle costs. One added: ‘And often we go away and don’t shoot a thing. Fishing and hunting are absolutely parallel in that regard’.

36

On some occasions, National Parks and Wildlife in Queensland request the association to assist with feral animal control within park areas. One participant provided an example:

We may as a group, go out to count the number of pygmy possums in a national park, but we may notice in the process that there are large numbers of feral cats in the area causing damage and we can report back on the situation and provide evidence of that. Then National Parks may come back to us and say, ‘we cannot afford to do anything about it – you offer a free service so we will allocate supervisors for you to go in to help with the operation to remove the pest problem’.

In order to participate in conservation and pest management as part of the organisation, members must achieve a certain level of skill in shot accuracy, map reading, navigation, firearm safety, wildlife appreciation and ‘living in the field’ courses. To the members of these associations, their role as conservationists was equally as important as their role as hunters. One explained:

We are all volunteers and it has taken us a long time to get this organisation established in Queensland. We could just go to the range and shoot targets but we love the environment just like anyone else and we spend a lot of time and money in volunteer work to maintain the environment. We believe in a structural balance between shooting and conservation.

In regard to the problem of illegal trespassing and hunting on rural lands, all of those present acknowledged that this was a concern in rural areas. To members of shooting associations, this concern extended to concerns about the behaviour of those that hunted illegally reflecting poorly on their organisation. To that end, the members saw themselves as having a significant role to play in educating people about the ethics of hunting. One explained:

The reason we began our association was to promote responsible shooting amongst members and also to promote it in the public eye as well. We are hoping to get young blokes out there who don’t know any better. We want to encourage them to join us so that we can educate them. Then when they do go onto farmer’s properties or if they do some volunteer work with National Parks, it is best practice all the way.

The association is a registered training organisation, which provides weapons and safety courses for those wishing to gain a shooter’s licence. While shooters involved in diseased stock or vermin control must have permits from the landowner of each property that they hunt upon to gain a shooting licence, there are provisions within the Weapons Act 1990 to allow shooting organisations to act as a genuine reason for holding a licence. There is also provision within the Act for the association to teach ethical hunting standards as part of their charter of social responsibility.

One participant explained: We are getting young people into the course. Sometimes they are minors because mum or dad is part of the shooting fraternity and they encourage their children to come along. They can participate from the age of 11 onwards. Now if dad doesn’t have any hunting ethics, or his ethics are what his father taught him, then the child is going to mirror them. But they have to come to us for training and then we have an opportunity to educate them. Our instructors are switched on – we ask, ‘who has handled a firearm before’, and from their responses, you can identify which child needs some guidance. At the same time, we often only have seven hours to get across to them the ethics of hunting – what is the right thing to do on properties – how to respect game and people and how alcohol and drugs firearms don’t mix. We often use role-plays and scenarios to reinforce the ideals.

We also refer them to other organisations for further skills, such as bush craft, first aid and GPS courses. The aim is for them to become responsible hunters and they in turn will pass it on.

37

The meeting expressed concerns about the negative attitudes held by the general public towards the sport of hunting and the use of firearms. Such attitudes do not encourage individuals to seek out membership of shooting clubs or learn about weapons safety or ethical hunting practices. One explained:

The public perception of hunting is very negative since the Port Arthur incident. The public does need to be educated that firearms are a dangerous item in the wrong hands but not to be afraid of firearms and legitimate shooting activities. The media promotes ideas that shooting is bad – guns are bad. In the past, school children were trained as cadets and it was common practice for them to have their rifle in their backpack going to and from school. It was part of life. But now when kids become of age and decide to try hunting, they have no education or ethics regarding hunting, or the correct use of firearms or where to go to shoot and that’s where the trouble begins.

One participant maintained that amongst those who hunt illegally on rural properties, there might be one or two licensed shooters who are likely to be accompanied by 15, 16 or 18 years olds who are usually unlicensed shooters. The strict requirements for obtaining a shooter’s licence was also cited as contributing to the problem.

In 1997, the Australian Government introduced a new and stricter range of gun controls following the death of 35 people and serious injuries to 20 others at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996. The new requirements include gun registration and a standardised gun licensing scheme and restrictions on semi- automatic firearms (Gun Control Australia, 2000).

One older participant added:

I’ve always had a licence but after the laws were changed, I had to go down and reapply for a licence, and it was difficult process. It’s so complex now and that has created a problem. You get people who love their sport but all these regulations intimidate them. They are quite good citizens really but they still have their weapons and they didn’t declare them and they don’t have a licence.

Another added:

You find it with motor vehicles, alcohol and cigarettes. As soon as you place heavy restrictions on access to those things its not actually encouraging people to do the right thing. You have to pay $65 for a shooter’s licence, which has to be renewed and apply for a permit, which has a cooling off period. So it’s easier for some to say ‘stuff it, Ill just go shooting’.

Another participant provided further evidence of this claim:

In Queensland prior to 1996 there were 320,000 licensed shooters and the police estimated there were twice as many firearm owners as was recorded. Since 1997, and the new requirements for registration, there are 170,000 licensed shooters, which is a huge drop. There are all these firearms out there and no one knows where they are. Legislation does not fix the problem and it can make it worse.

Another added: ‘Once people have broken the law in a small respect it is not such a big a leap to commit further offences’.

38

The lack of education and the problems it causes for landowners as well as legitimate hunters was then discussed. One participant gave an example:

On one property we used to hunt on, there was an access road bisecting the property, which came off a main road, and the farmer often had trouble with illegal shooters going down the road and shooting into his paddocks. On one occasion, one of these groups didn’t realise we were hunting on the property at the time. We had just gone to bed and three or four shots came through our campsite. We assisted them to leave the property and didn’t see them again. They probably thought they were on a public road and that they could do what they liked. But the laws are specific. Gazetted roads are public areas and you can’t carry or discharge a firearm in a public area unless there is a reasonable excuse.

Another believed that illegal shooting might be a result of a lack of access to land to hunt:

Often the problems arise when young blokes go out west shooting and they go to one property and ask permission to hunt and are told no, they go to the next and ask and they are told no and so on, and they say ‘well we haven’t come all this way for nothing’. So an intelligent management system by property owners may lessen the problem – but that is their prerogative and it is their private land.

Another proposed that some farmers might be reluctant to allow non-professionals on their land because it might jeopardise the stock of feral game, which the professionals are controlling on a regular basis. He explained further:

When there is a lack of recreational hunters to come and control feral animals, the last thing farmers need is for professionals to complain that the landowners have let recreational shooters on and there is no game and so they will go somewhere else.

The participants also maintained that a significant number of the offenders came from local rural communities rather than city areas. They believed that country people often find it easier to blame outsiders than point the finger at local people they know well. Participants maintained there was a need for funding to provide education programs on ethical hunting for young people in rural areas. Hunting could be promoted as being fun even if it is conducted legally. As one participant explained, the association is unable to reach youth in these regions because of a lack of interest in membership:

Our association has 60 branches throughout Queensland and 25 affiliate branches but these branches are located in larger regional towns. In outback places, the locals do not see the need for branches because they can go shooting any time they like.

Another participant observed that illegal trespassing and shooting is a problem that is more recognised now. He maintained the problem existed in the past but it was more accepted as a part of rural life – albeit reluctantly. He cited the 1960s Australian movie Smiley Gets a Gun, a story of a young boy’s desire for his own firearm set within a culture in which owning a gun was an accepted norm. He noted the extent to which these mores have changed over time. He believed that some farmers are over reacting to the problem of illegal shooters and trespassers in rural areas and doubted that the problem had actually increased in recent times. He continued:

Landowners used to be more of the land. The traditional people are being squeezed off the land and landowners today are better educated and are more business like and have a different set of values.

39

When asked about what freehold ownership implied, all agreed that freehold ownership of rural lands meant that the land belonged to the individual owner to do with as he or she chooses – within reason. As one added: ‘It is the same as our shooting practices, landowners have to be responsible’. The participants noted that acknowledgement of a freehold landowner’s right to control access to his land was the doctrine of their shooting association.

Some discussion followed regarding responsibility for and implied rights of ownership of feral animals on farmlands. One added:

If the landowner feeds them he probably thinks he owns them but no, they are declared vermin and therefore no one owns them. However, it doesn’t give anyone the right to take a feral animal without the permission of the landowner.

Another continued:

Landowners have a right to access what is on their land and it’s understandable that if the game is worth something, they may want to control ownership. But they can’t have it both ways. Landowners have the responsibility of eradication of feral animal problems and therefore should work with hunters towards a positive solution rather than always trying to make money out of it.

The discussion then turned to the practice of some landowners of charging shooters, campers or fishermen to go onto their properties. While participants believed most people do not object to paying fees to hunt, they maintained problems could arise if hunters find there is no game on a property as expected. Four of those present related incidents where they had paid for hunting rights only to find they had wasted their time and money. One explained:

We may go as a group for a four to six day hunting trip camping on the creek or at the farmhouse. We pay our fees – we do it in cash and we don’t mind. We understand that farmers are doing this to survive. But we have found that with some farmers, they want you on their properties, they want to take your money and they offer a service like camping facilities but a lot of them don’t have any game on their land. You’ve paid your money and you get on the place and its supposed to have foxes, its supposed to have rabbits, or pigs, or fish in the dam and you criss- cross through a 4000 acre property and in the end you have paid all this money just to go in there to camp. Then you have people who are disgruntled and unhappy. I think some of the problems on farms have been the result of some people retaliating. Farmers who commit themselves to these programs need to be responsible. If they advertise shooting game on the property, they should make sure there is game, or tell people there is no game at the moment but that they are welcome to camp.

Other participants believed this was an evolving problem in rural areas. One added: ‘I have been on some very good user-pay properties but I have been on more bad ones’.

The group then discussed the increasing numbers of businesses operating hunting safaris to rural areas. One participant argued that the negative side to this practice is that people are no longer hunting to assist the property owner with a feral animal problem. Rather they are increasing the problem by only shooting the larger animals. He also referred to the additional problem of some operators catching and breeding game to ensure their clients have something to shoot.

40

One person drew a clear distinction between fee-paying hunting within the US and Australia:

In the US, hunting is a recognised and legitimate sport. Its not vermin control or maintenance of protected species that are out control like kangaroos, as is the case in Australia.

In the US, they breed hunting animals, such as deer and elk and protect their breeding stock. The US conservation programs are renowned worldwide. White tailed deer were almost eradicated because they were left to their own devices to compete with urban and agricultural development. Then the hunters got involved and there are millions of deer now available because there was an interest in conserving the species.

All present were against the use of dogs with hunting. However, most agreed that in some areas, there was no other way to eliminate feral pigs other than with the use of dogs. Concerns were expressed that the dogs were not always controllable and could become lost thus becoming another feral animal problem. Another added that moves to outlaw the practice of pig dogging would not remove the problem of illegal pig hunters.

When questioned about their opinion on the move by animal welfare groups to prohibit the shooting of kangaroos by non-professional shooters, one participant pointed out that the proposal assumed that those who shoot for profit are of a higher standard than those who shoot for sport. Another noted that their organisation accredited professional shooters. He explained that professional shooters must meet government standards of shooting a target of a three-centimetre diameter circle from a distance of 100 meters. He believed that in many cases they struggled to meet that standard while shooting association members met those standards easily.

Another added that there was a place for recreational shooting as well as professional hunting as there was enough of a feral animal problem to accommodate both types of hunting. He continued:

There are downsides to professional shooting. To us, there is no selectivity in hunting. If we are there to get rid of ferals from a property, we need to do it properly.

He stressed the club’s ethics of strictly abiding by the landowners conditions for hunting feral animals on farm:

The number of times we could have taken out foxes or feral cats but the landowner had stated no – leave everything else. Once you are on that property it’s the landowners business and we have no right to eliminate any other feral animals on that place. To me if it’s feral, its in peril but we have to abide by the landowner’s wishes.

Participants were asked about the policy of bounties and the impact upon the problem of illegal hunting. One man suggested: ‘Bounties can encourage those you want to discourage’. Another offered an alternative to bounties:

Rural communities could encourage shooting groups like ours or other responsible groups to come into an area to solve the feral animal problem. Then the local people could make a small donation to the group or organisation towards its ongoing program rather than the individuals participating – because we have difficulty fundraising. This would eliminate the bounty problem and stop the ferals going after ferals because the money incentive would not be there.

41

Another added that rural communities would benefit greatly by working more closely with shooting organisations:

There are a lot of economic problems in rural areas with loss of industry and unemployment and there is no money coming into the region. Yet people are discouraged from coming out to rural areas to go camping or bush walking as access is becoming more and more difficult.

Hunting is an expensive sport and we spend thousands of dollars each year in equipment and consumables and it flows onto camping equipment and vehicles. If you drive to Cunnamulla and fill up your four-wheel-drive with diesel and you buy food, it’s a lot of money.

The participants also outlined the benefits for farmers who utilise the shooters’ organisations for feral animal control:

If farmers can identify a group, like ourselves, who are responsible and they know will do the right thing, they will ask them back time and time again. To those working on the land, shooting is a mundane chore.

When farmers approach us to assist them, we send groups regularly to the property until the feral animal problem is under control. It may take a while. When we can no longer find anything on the property, then its manageable for the property owner. We write up reports for the landowner. If the problem re-emerges at a later stage, we will return. Our base line charter is to do a professional and proper job. And we have done a service and it hasn’t cost the farmer a penny.

An additional benefit for farmers using the association was the organisation’s own insurance brokerage, which ensured people were legitimately covered against any mishap. Shooting association members, with the appropriate training and accreditation, were able to have insurance to cover their activities. Farmers were also offered specific insurance to cover their properties for shooting. A participant explained:

This negates the need for those indemnity forms that some property owners try to have shooters sign. Not that they are legal – you can’t sign away your obligations under common law.

Another outlined a possible strategy for the future:

Our organisation is only one group who represent shooters and there are several. We don’t have communication between any formal shooting groups and those people who would most benefit from what our organisation provides. The attitude of National Parks management is no guns in the parks. Yet the parks have poachers coming in and shooting and promoting feral animal problems and that’s what they are basing their decisions on. Therefore better communication and coordination between key groups such as farmers associations, National Parks and Wildlife and shooters’ groups, would contribute towards some workable solutions.

5.3.2 Northern Slopes, NSW The group held in the northern slopes of New South Wales were drawn from a wide cross-section of the local community included farmers, gun shop owners, and professional people. They hunted widely in the region as well as in the far west of the State. Prior to the meeting, some of the group members had conducted their own research in their district to provide support for their perspectives on the issue of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms.

For example, one participant had contacted all of the police stations in the area to seek information on the numbers of reports of illegal shooting on farms. He found that reports were very rare and those

42

stations that had received complaints from farmers, reported that these only occurred once or twice a year. However, illegal pig hunting with dogs was an issue. The police had reported that when these offences did occur, it was more often the case that the offenders were unlicensed and unregistered shooters. One participant who was the local gun shop owner, added that in 20 years, not one gun had been confiscated through illegal shooting on farms.

The participants agreed that illegal shooting was certainly not a problem in their district and maintained that farmers’ complaints were more likely to be about pig hunters. They maintained it was pig hunters who tended to leave gates open, cut fences, disturb stock, and leave dogs behind who kill stock. They drew a clear distinction between pig hunters and shooters. They believed that often farmers lumped these groups together. One added:

We get really upset when shooters generally are blamed for problems on the land. All of us here who are members of the club have had to pass stringent requirements to gain their shooters’ licence. As far as we are concerned, we have too much to lose by doing the wrong thing. You forfeit your firearms, you lose your licence and get a fine.

Another added:

Most of us have lived in the country all our lives. Living in a country town we know all the farmers. We know the rules and we do the right thing and we ask permission to hunt on a property. Shooters have a right to be grateful to many farmers and are always invited back if they have good relationship with the landowner. If we don’t do the right thing, we can no longer be a club member – and being a member of club is a requirement of holding a licence.

One participant argued that most illegal shooting on farms is committed by farmers themselves when they shoot without permits or licences, kangaroos, emus or other animals they don’t care to have on their land. He continued:

Farmers are keen to find blame for many problems on their property. If they find a sheep or a cow dead, the first impulse is to say it has been shot. It would not be caused by mismanagement by the farmer, but at the hand of a shooter. While sometimes it is true, more often it is not true.

One participant believed problems with illegal trespassing and shooting may occur more frequently closer to city areas. City people may be more likely to be illegal firearm owners who will just go out to hunt on a property on the city outskirts. Another added:

A lot of city-based shooters do not have ready contact with farmers. When I was a kid almost everybody had relatives in the bush. Today, people don’t have access to farmers and to places to hunt. This can be an incentive for some people to hunt illegally.

While acknowledging that illegal hunting did occur, participants noted that irresponsibility amongst young people is shared by all groups of people. One added: ‘Hunting is not a singular thing. Some people also drive too fast and drink’.

One participant claimed that few farmers take into account the benefits recreational hunting provides for landowners versus the costs of the damage to properties caused by feral animals irrespective of whether it is legal or illegal hunting activities. To provide an example, he estimated that each feral pig would conservatively cost a minimum of $100 to a property in its lifetime to crops and to land, based on the cost of one lamb at $100 each.

43

He continued:

There were 400,000 wild pigs processed in NSW in 2002. At an average weight of 40 kg times $100, that equals a $40million saving of damage on farmers’ properties by having shooters on their place.

A local processor told me that more than 70% of the pigs that are processed are taken by weekend and part-time hunters and shooters. The cash value of these pigs is a minimum 1.6 million to the community. The export earnings of the pigs in NSW are a minimum of $10 million. Thus the value attached to pigs is $50 to $60 million in savings and earnings by weekend and part-time hunters.

Twenty years ago nobody complained about the problem of foxes on their property because they were shot by the millions by shooters. Shooters made a living; farmers saved costs and exporters made a lot of income. Furthermore, millions of rabbits have been eradicated from farms over the years and no one could estimate the value of this for farmers. Therefore farmers are getting an untold and often unspoken benefit from the practices of recreational shooters. Farmers complain about the odd sheep or beast that is shot by recreational hunters – and it does happen. Bu they don’t way up the equation and consider the savings from recreational hunting.

However, one farmer in the group stated that while he had agreed with most of the sentiments expressed by other participants, he believed there was more to life than the dollar value and asked participants to consider the social value, in particular the mental anguish of farmers that experienced illegal trespassers or hunters on their properties. He explained:

We as club members and we as law-abiding citizens resent being lumped in with the broad-spectrum renegade. But on the other hand, for years I have had a blanket statement of ‘No Shooting’ on my property because of past experiences. It’s too difficult to say to somebody you can come in because the next person may know that and it becomes a problem. I make no secret of the fact that if I catch someone I will lay charges against him or her and the dollar value of that would be minimal.

When asked about the landowners’ rights of freehold ownership and corresponding rights to deny access to his/her property, one participant responded:

I believe anyone who enters a private property without the courtesy of asking permission is no friend of mine. He does me a lot of harm because the next time I go to that property, I may be denied entry because of his actions. Twenty odd years ago I used to do a lot of shooting out at Brewarrina. I would knock on the door on the farmhouse and they would draw a map and say don’t go in that paddock because we have ewes lambing and so on. Then the next time I went there, they would say, ‘Sorry mate, you can’t come on because someone has done the wrong thing’.

He noted another experience where he was driving around a property with the landowner when they discovered that three people had entered the back of property on a private road and set up camp. He continued:

The farmer didn’t know they were there and I had been shooting in the area. I disagree with this type of thing because the next time I go to the place, I might be told not to come again.

When the topic of bounties on feral animals was introduced, one participant maintained that people who are concerned with feral animal eradication through bounties were not real hunters.

44

He explained:

Hunters are not in the sport to make money. Even pig hunters do it just to hunt. Offering bounties suggests hunters are only interested in the money. There is no recognition of the hunting ethic.

Another participant maintained that a bounty system is often abused. A recent bounty trial conducted in Victoria to control the fox problem in that State, paid shooters $10 per fox tail. However, some hunters were taking fox tails from New South Wales to claim the bounty in Victoria. The fox bounty has angered the fox fur industry as the international demand for Australian fox fur is returning and furriers prefer the whole fox skin including the tail. The participant claimed that few people would bother to shoot for $10. In particular, professional shooters have to make a living and if the costs outweigh the reward, they will not bother with bounty hunting. Another claimed that some farmers close access to their properties to bounty hunters because they want to retain the bounty for themselves. He explained:

Some farmers can be restrictive about access to their properties because they want the bounty from the foxes or the money for the feral pigs themselves and then when things are tough, they want shooters back to hunt and get rid of the feral animal problem for nothing.

Members reported they could not understand why Animal Liberationists would prefer to let animal’s starve in the paddock and prefer the baiting of feral animals (which they defined as ‘cruel’), rather than allow recreationists to hunt. They argued that a single shot to an animal’s head was a far more humane way of killing. Another criticised the current regulations regarding recreational hunting of kangaroos:

It seems irrational not to allow recreational hunters to take kangaroos on a limited licence basis and utilise them instead of the current system of pest destruction and leaving the carcasses to rot in the paddock. It does not make sense on an intellectual, financial or moral basis. A rational approach would allow licensed hunting for skins, meat and the recreational aspect.

In conclusion, participants agreed that the solution to the problem of illegal trespassers and shooters would lie in the future commercialisation of hunting on rural lands and better recognition of hunting as a legitimate recreational pursuit. The New South Wales Game and Feral Animal Control Bill 2002 was viewed as a postive step in this regard. This bill aims to manage and regulate the hunting of game, provide for the effective management of introduced species of game animals and establish a Game Council (NSW Parliament, 2002). One explained:

In the future, with the new NSW Game Bill, hunting will become more legitimised, as it is overseas, and will be more subject to regulation and laws. This will provide a framework that will guarantee anyone who hunts or shoots will be totally responsible or they will no longer have the opportunity to do it. People will be more likely to do the right thing. Hunting is a recreational resource and a resource for farmers for vermin control. Up to now there has been no framework to allow regulation and make the best use of hunting.

There is a growing commercialisation of recreational hunting in this country following countries overseas where there are well-organised game management schemes. If farmers commercialise the opportunities on their properties and provide game to hunt, they will make a good living and the problems that farmers experience will diminish. None of us are happy about paying for hunting but there are benefits. I have hunted overseas a lot. In Africa you pay for the right to hunt and that is great economic benefit for local communities. The money from hunting also benefits game conservation and that includes not only the animals you hunt, but also all critters in the wetlands. That is what has been lacking in this country.

45

5.3.3 Northern Tablelands, NSW The hunters club in a small town in the northern Tablelands had a membership of 100 hunters. Membership had increased since the new laws regarding the registration of firearms required non- professional hunters to be a member of a shooting association and attend at least two meetings per year. Members mostly hunted on an individual basis and sometimes participated in interclub competitions. Occasionally, they went on hunting trips as a small group, even hunting in overseas countries. The group comprised a wide cross-section of the community including some farmers.

None of those participating in the discussion believed there was a problem with illegal trespassing and shooting in the area. This finding confirms the findings of the focus groups of farmers in this district, which also revealed this problem was not an issue. One participant acknowledged there had been a problem in the past with illegal shooters when the fox bounty was in place but not since that time.

Most participants had private arrangements with landowners or used their own properties for hunting. None of the participants reported ever having been denied access to a property because of problems with illegal trespassers and shooters. One man stated:

This is a small community, everyone knows everyone else and I am sure most would ask permission to enter a property. If there were a problem, people would know about it.

Another believed that most farmers in the district would agree to let people access their land when permission was sought. He went on:

My wife and I went for a drive east of here and we came to an old fossicking area, which I used to visit years ago. It is now private land and there were ‘No Trespass’ signs all over the fence. However, the farmer was working nearby and I asked him if we could go in to the area and he said ‘Sure, no problem’. So I think that if you ask, most farmers will let you on their property.

One participant believed that people who did hunt illegally on private properties should have their vehicles and firearms confiscated and their shooting licence cancelled. The meeting agreed that landowners did have a right of ownership to deny access to the general public. One farmer believed that a forthcoming court case where a farmer is defending his right to clear bushland on his property would clarify how much control freehold ownership will provide. Participants were more concerned with the increasing policy of National Parks of padlocking the gates to parks and not allowing anyone to access the parks. This group was interested to hear about the relationship with National Parks that the group in Queensland enjoyed and wondered about the possibility of similar options in New South Wales.

When asked about the increasing trend of charging for access to land for hunting, the meeting agreed that it was unlikely that this practice would become the norm in Australia while a feral animal problem persists. Comparisons were made with the US and their programs of breeding game for hunting. However, participants did not believe this would be the future of hunting in Australia.

The participants agreed that there was a place for using dogs with pig hunting and maintained that dogs were a necessity in some types of terrain. One added: ‘Often there will be no sign of a pig but my dog will find them’. As with other shooting groups, all strongly disapproved of the RSPCA’s call for banning non–professional shooting of kangaroos and again argued that the shooting accuracy of club members was probably greater than those who hunt professionally.

The place for recreational hunters for controlling feral animals in farmland was also emphasised. One farmer noted that professional shooters were not always available to deal with a feral problem on farm. He added that as a consequence of the drought, it was no longer profitable to shoot in the area.

46

Farmers do not have the time to control the feral problem and therefore need to have recreational shooters to meet the need.

5.4 Interviews

5.4.1 The perceptions of a pig hunter A face-to-face interview was conducted with a pig hunter aged 23 years. A builder by profession in the Brisbane area, hunting was a recreational activity that he had enjoyed for much of his life and took at every opportunity available. He was currently going through the accreditation procedure to enable him to professionally hunt and sell kangaroos and wild boar for the human consumption market. He introduced his two hunting dogs, which he had trained for hunting since they were pups and explained the difference between a ‘lugging dog’ which brought wild pigs down by grabbing their ears, and ‘bailing dogs’ which merely cornered the pigs until the hunter could take over. In Queensland, there are moves to outlaw the practice of ‘lugging dogs’, and this practice is banned in New South Wales. However, he claimed that without dogs, his effectiveness in eradicating feral animals would be reduced by a third. He demonstrated the protective harnesses he had purchased for his dogs to guard them from injury from the tusks of wild boar. Other equipment included three rifles, a four-wheel- drive utility and the crate that sat on the tray of the vehicle, which he had recently built in line with the regulations governing requirements for professional hunting. The crate provided room for the dogs and areas to hang the carcasses for preparation for the abattoir and transportation to the chiller boxes, which are receptacles for kangaroo and pig carcasses from professional shooters that are located in several regions across outback areas.

Although the equipment was expensive, he estimated that on a good weekend, he could earn approximately $1200. He has ongoing arrangements with several landowners in southwest Queensland and northwest New South Wales for feral animal control. These contacts were established mostly through personal friendships with the landowners and through word-of-mouth. He acknowledged that others he knew who also enjoyed recreational hunting had complained of the difficulty of finding landowners who would allow them to hunt on their properties. However, he believed his success in gaining access was based upon his reputation for doing the right thing by property owners and he outlined the procedures that he undertook to ensure his reputation and his relationship with the landowners remained intact.

Often landowners request that he visit to deal with a particular feral animal problem on farm. Alternatively, he will call a landowner two weeks in advance of his visit to an area and seek permission to enter the property at that time. Visits to a property are always confirmed two days before arrival. He asks the landowner where he or his employees will be working at that time and what two-way radio channel they will be operating on and advises on his estimated time of arrival. He also asks if there are equipment or supplies they would like him to pick up from town. Often he will take out a carton of beer as a gift.

Instructions are received from the landowner about where stock are located and which areas of the property he should avoid. Just before arriving at the property, he will call up the landowner on the two-way radio to confirm where they are on the property and seek any final instructions before he begins to hunt. He has a rule to never operate a firearm within two kilometres of a home or where stock are located or where workers are operating on the property. He also checks the property while hunting and will advise the landowner if he encounters any stock in difficulty or anything out of order on the property.

On the first visit to a new property he has been given permission to hunt on, he always plans to arrive in the daytime and arranges with the landowner to be shown over the property, to learn about the terrain, what names are given to various areas of the property, where stock were usually located and what were the landowner’s requirements for hunters. Sometimes he will be instructed to only concentrate on a feral pig problem and to leave other feral animals. These types of instructions he will

47

abide by even if he encounters a large mob of kangaroos. He believed his purpose was feral animal control which meant that he was never selective in the animals he hunted. That meant pigs of all sizes were taken.

He maintained that it was important for hunters to arrive the day they say, as it can be dangerous if there were more than two groups of hunters shooting in any one area. He reported that there had been occasions where he had come across illegal hunters on a property. Like the members of the shooters’ associations, this hunter was proud of the standards that he maintained and resented the practices of those who hunted illegally. In his experience, he had found that there was a lack of knowledge and expertise amongst many recreational hunters, which resulted in problems on the land. Often the size of the firearms recreational hunters used was beyond the requirements of hunting for feral animals. Bullets travelled further than the hunters realised and stock could be injured. He concluded:

These are my standards and its just basic common sense really. Its about doing the right thing by property owners, following their instructions, maintaining communication with them and helping them out a bit. That’s probably why I get asked back.

5.4.2 The perceptions of owners of hunting safaris A hunting safari operator based in southwest Queensland described how properties were recruited for participation in his hunting operation through word-of-mouth in much the same manner as farmers obtained professional shooters to eradicate feral animals on their property. A professional shooter guided all of the organised tours. He also noted that landowners could earn significant amounts of money through payment for hunting rights.

He believed that illegal shooting was a problem in Queensland because of the lack of penalties for offences. He related an incident where he was shooting on a property and came across some hunters operating illegally. He notified the police who charged the offenders but they only received a fine of $200 despite the fact it was their third offence. He maintained offenders should have their vehicles and guns confiscated and their gun licence cancelled. He believed that at least half of the offenders were city based and the remaining half were professional shooters who poached outside their legitimate areas.

One NSW operator organised trips to Victoria, outback New South Wales and Queensland for hunting pigs, goats, foxes, cats, rabbits, dingoes, and also fishing trips. Only one group at a time was organised for any property and a licensed professional shooter accompanied each group. A code of ethics for hunting on rural lands was strictly observed as was the landholder’s requirements for hunting on their land. The company had a policy of advising the landholder if they observed any other people hunting or trespassing on the property. Insurance was covered by the landholder’s public liability policy.

Enquiries from prospective hunters were received on an ongoing basis. However, the manager reported that it was difficult to find enough properties to participate to meet the demand. She maintained that property owners could earn considerable income from the scheme if their land supported significant numbers of game. However, with the drought, several of the properties that had been a part of the organisation had been closed because of the landholders’ concerns about the presence of hunters on their land possibly disturbing already stressed livestock.

She noted a major benefit for property owners in participating in organised hunting. A landholder in western New South Wales had experienced an ongoing problem with illegal trespassers and shooters but since participating in the scheme, the problem had ceased. She maintained that through word-of- mouth, people in a district became aware that a particular property had regular hunting expeditions and this became a deterrent for local people seeking to hunt on that land. She added that she believed that the stricter gun laws had made a difference to the numbers of illegal shooters operating in rural areas.

48

5.5 Summary

Hunting is clearly an expensive pastime and all of those participating in the focus groups demonstrated their high level of commitment to the sport. Hunters in all three focus groups strongly defended their ethical hunting practices and resented the behaviour of illegal hunters that reflected badly on all hunters. To hold a firearm licence, a person must be a licensed hunter or be a member of a sporting shooters’ association. As a member, hunters must respect the environment and the game being hunted, secure permission to hunt from landowners, leave property as it is found, practice safe firearm handling and obey the hunting laws and the Code of Practice. Failure to do this resulted in discipline by the club or exclusion, and the subsequent loss of a firearm license.

The Shooters’ Association in Queensland had a positive arrangement with National Parks in that State, participating in conservation projects and supervised feral animal eradication as required. Fulfilling these tasks in a professional way was of paramount importance to association members. The participants within the group reflected the association’s commitment to environmental conservation. They were proud of the time they devoted to conservation projects. Conversely, the hunters in New South Wales did not have such opportunities with National Parks. A call to the head office of the SSAA in New South Wales confirmed that no such arrangements existed with National Parks in that State.

In all regions, hunters were able to hunt on their own properties or had private arrangements with landholders for access to their land. Some reported experiences of being denied permission to hunt on a property because of the poor behaviour of some illegal hunters. Several reasons for this behaviour were offered. Participants maintained that the increased restriction of access to land for hunting, frustrated hunters and encouraged illegal hunting. Similarly, the lack of ready contact with farmers by city people who desired to hunt also created problems. The new regulations governing firearm ownership discouraged people from obtaining a license and therefore they operated unlicensed and unregistered firearms. There was a lack of education for young people on ethical hunting practices. This arose from negative attitudes held by the general public towards firearms and hunting practices, which resulted from the tragedy at Port Arthur as well as the activities of the animal welfare lobby in Australia. As a result, young people were discouraged from joining sporting shooters’ associations and from the opportunity to learn about correct hunting practices. As a consequence young people were commencing hunting lacking the adequate knowledge or skills to hunt correctly. There was also a concern that many young people in rural communities may be practicing unethical hunting habits because sporting shooting clubs are seen as unnecessary in communities where hunting is commonplace. The call for an educational program to target rural youth was a good suggestion. The Queensland participants saw themselves as having a significant role to play in educating the public about firearm safety and ethical hunting practices.

Participants also suggested that illegal hunting occurred as the result of some hunters’ negative reactions to the practices of some landholders of charging a fee for hunting on properties that do not have sufficient game. Other practices by landholders that encouraged illegal hunting included the restriction of access to their properties so that they may monopolise the rewards from feral pigs or other animals that bring a bounty.

An alternative point of view was the concept that modern farmers were more businesslike in their approach to farming and were therefore less accepting of illegal behaviours than were their more traditional predecessors. Participants in the northern slopes of New South Wales believed many farmers were negative towards recreational hunters because they failed to acknowledge the economic value that hunters provided in eradicating the feral animal problem on farms. They claimed that benefits accrued to landholders, to the environment, to individual hunters and to the communities, but farmers rarely considered this when they complained about illegal hunting. Irrespective of these complaints regarding landholders, all participants in all three regions strongly advocated for the rights of landholders to control who entered their property and their ability to dictate conditions for access to their land.

49

There were differing views on the future of fee payment for hunting in Australia with some participants claiming that unlike the US, the size of the feral animal problem in Australia would preclude fee paying from becoming commonplace. Others believed that an organised hunting industry was the future of hunting in Australia providing income for landholders, opportunities for hunters, and a reduction in the incidence of illegal hunting and trespassing on farms. Safari tour operators maintained that landholders could earn significant returns by hosting safaris. Also the regular presence of hunting groups on their properties could deter illegal trespassers and shooters.

In all groups, there were strong objections to the call by the RSPCA to restrict the killing of kangaroos to professional shooters only. Participants argued that members of shooting clubs would have better shooting accuracy than many professional hunters. They based this claim on the fact that associations provide the accreditation for professional hunters. Participants in all clubs believed there was a place for both professional and recreational hunters as the size of the feral animal problem was sufficient to warrant both groups. Professional shooters were not always available to deal with a feral animal outbreak and recreational shooters could assist farmers at these times.

The professional hunter interviewed strongly advocated the need for hunters to conform to ethical hunting practices and provide support for landholders as well as a service in order to retain hunting privileges on properties. The current tightening of regulations regarding wild game harvesters has had the positive effect of excluding some of the troublemakers from participating in hunting. There was a reluctant acceptance of the use of dogs with hunting amongst the focus groups. While the practice was opposed in principle, the participants did acknowledge that dogs might be the only means to catch wild pigs in rugged terrain.

Hunters in the northern slopes group rejected the current polices of pest eradication of leaving kangaroo carcasses to rot or costly baiting programs to eradicate pests rather than allowing recreationists to hunt. Such practices were determined by animal welfare groups and did not account for the economic benefits from allowing hunters to provide skins and meat and income for the community while enjoying their sport.

There was common disapproval of the bounty system for feral animal control. Most participants believed bounties encouraged poor behaviour on the part of hunters and landowners. Bounty hunters were not regarded as ‘real hunters’ as they were primarily interested in the money reward, not the hunting reward. The suggestion by the Queensland group of the alternative of rural communities providing a donation to hunting clubs for members to deal with the feral animal problem was worthwhile.

The hunters were keen to promote their sport and their hunting associations as having the ability to provide a valuable contribution to society in advocating safe and ethical hunting practices, promoting environmental conservation, and providing a service to eradicate the feral animal problem. They were struggling to defend the legitimacy of their sport against the wider public’s negative perceptions of hunting practices. Clearly better communication between hunting organisations and government agencies such as National Parks and State Forests, farmer organisations and local communities would lead to possible cooperative ventures to benefit the objectives of all stakeholders.

50

Chapter 6: The Recreationists

6.1 Introduction

The opinions of other groups who may sometimes seek access to farming properties were also sought through focus groups with members of four-wheel-drive clubs. Additional interviews were conducted with officers of National Parks and Wildlife to clarify some of the information gathered in the focus groups. As with the hunting groups, members of Four-Wheel-Drive Associations are unlikely to be responsible for trespass on private properties, but the participants in the focus groups were able to provide their perspective on the question of recreational access to private property and their opinion on why illegal trespass occurs. As noted in Chapter 2, outdoor recreation is becoming increasingly popular in Australia. Unfortunately, access for four-wheel-drive vehicles to national parks and state forests are limited while wilderness areas are completely off limits. Parks are concerned about disturbance to wildlife, introduction of unwanted species, soil erosion, and damage to vegetation by these vehicles (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p.208). Therefore, four-wheel-drive clubs must turn to private lands to participate in their chosen recreational activity.

6.2 Four-wheel-drive clubs in Australia

In 2002, there were 50 four-wheel-drive clubs in Queensland and more than 70 clubs in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Four-wheel-drive clubs in Australia aim to promote responsible four-wheel-drive family touring, environmental awareness and driver education, in accordance with the National Recreation Vehicle Policy and the Association’s Code of Ethics (See Appendix 2) (NSW & ACT 4WD Clubs, 2003a). The clubs are also concerned with recreational access to land, assisting with sustainable land management plans, and involvement in community consultation on land management proposals. The Association monitors the activities of public land management authorities and prepares submissions to Government, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Lands and Water Conservation and other organisations, working with them to ensure the natural asset of bushland is well managed (NSW & ACT 4WD Clubs, 2003b).

In addition to conducting regular club activities for four-wheel-drive enthusiasts, clubs in most States are actively involved in community ventures, such as bush cleanups involving rubbish removal and the recovery and removal of abandoned car bodies. As part of the Clean-up Australia campaign in March each year, several clubs provide assistance to their local communities. A number of clubs participate in ‘Adopt-a-track’ programs involving the monitoring of state tracks, carrying out routine maintenance and clean-ups of tracks. Other activities include revegetation of bushland areas, and maintenance of public camping grounds, recreation areas, and historical sites (NSW & ACT 4WD Clubs, 2003b).

6.3 Focus groups with four-wheel-drive club members

6.3.1 Southern Queensland In southern Queensland, the local four-wheel-drive club conducts mostly day and weekend trips for members within a radius of 500 km of their town. Several club activities were devoted to skills training to ensure members were well equipped to manage difficult terrain in their vehicles. Members occasionally utilised the several ‘Land-Cruiser Parks’ in the region. These types of recreational parks are becoming increasingly common in Australia. They offer specially designed trails of varying difficulty to test off-road driving skills. The parks also offer motorbike tracks, bushwalking, fishing and swimming and camping facilities. Entry fees to these parks average around $25 per day, which includes camping.

As with the shooters’ groups, the participants within the four-wheel-drive club focus group resented being associated with those people who do the wrong thing on private property. As a club, members

51

are obliged to abide by rules that respect the wishes of landowners. Gates are always left as they are found, anything taken onto a property is taken away again and any other rubbish found is removed. The club also has a condition that if an arrangement is made with a landowner to use his/her property for a club event, in order to retain that good relationship, members are asked not to try to access that property again on an individual basis. Some members reported that they had private arrangements with property owners for access to their land and this has been obtained through word-of-mouth or because they were well known to the landowner. Having established a relationship with one landowner, they could be referred to other properties. Within these arrangements, the onus was on the driver to do the right thing and respect the landowner’s conditions of access. Participants reported that it was in their best interest to do so because failure to abide by conditions would mean that ongoing access would be denied.

Most of the participants believed that the main offenders of illegal trespass and shooting on farms in the region were local people ‘who just don’t care’. One participant cited an incident where club members had been accused of causing damage to a local property where there was clear evidence that a four-wheel-drive vehicle had been on the property. He continued:

All of our club members had been out of the district participating in a club event and therefore could not have been implicated. Further investigation revealed that the culprits were actually some farmer’s sons.

When asked for suggestions for addressing the problem of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms, participants cited the ‘Tread Lightly’ program, which is an international movement to educate young drivers on the need to preserve the environment. They believed promotion of this type of endeavour would help to raise awareness of the need to respect the rights of landowners.

Tread Lightly is an international program to encourage recreationists to be responsible and apply low impact principles to all outdoor recreational activities. The organisation recognises that most of those involved in outdoor recreation are not affiliated with any organisation, and therefore learn about the recreation through trial and error. This lack of knowledge leads to the continuing repetition of damaging actions and problems for landowners. In Australia, Tread Lightly is providing a coordinated, national, proactive awareness campaign to educate participants in outdoor recreation including a curriculum for schools on land use stewardship and ethics for outdoor recreation, educational materials to promote responsible use of public and private land, and provision of trail and track information. Tread Lightly is also involved the restoration of tracks, trails and camping sites across the country (Tread Lightly! 2003). For more information see http://www.treadlightlyaustralia.com.au

There was clear division amongst the participants when discussing the rights of freehold ownership of land. Three people strongly advocated the rights of landowners for absolute control in ownership of their freehold property. Two of these individuals were landowners themselves. Both had experienced problems with illegal shooters and trespassers on their land and reserved the right to close off their property to outsiders. As one woman stated:

We have found that if you let one or two people onto your property, they invite more and it snowballs, and the next thing you have too many. You need to know who and where people are on your place.

52

Another offered another point of view:

It’s sad – you can visit a town and there on the wall of the pub will be a sign placed there by a local farmer warning that no one is allowed on his property and offenders will be prosecuted. Someone does the wrong thing and the farmer will put a blanket ban on all activities on his property.

Others in the group believed farmers should not be allowed to cut off public access to rivers, streams, or places of national heritage. One man added that governments should prevent farmers from destroying native vegetation as they pleased. Some discussion followed regarding the rights of landowners to protect their property. Parallels were made between the incidents where an owner of a home or business had tried to defend the property against an intruder and had subsequently been sued by the offender. When asked about the relationship between the responsibility for wildlife on a property and ownership, all in attendance agreed that wildlife and native vegetation were not owned by anyone but the responsibility of controlling weeds or feral animals was the landowners.

The impact of public liability insurance on accessibility to recreational pursuits was then discussed. The club had insurance cover for any mishap that may occur on public or private land. One participant maintained that there was a need for the government to recognise and legislate regarding the individual’s responsibility for his or her actions in the event of an accident. He did not believe insurance should pay out for injuries incurred as a result of an individual’s own actions.

Participants also noted that sometimes National Parks and Wildlife puts a blanket ban on access to a park. An incident in a park in New South Wales was cited where a person was killed as a result of an accident, with the result that the park was closed to the public. One participant believed some organisations use the public liability problem as an excuse to increase fees. He did not mind paying entrance fees to parks as long as amenities were provided. Another believed the general public had a right to access places of national heritage. He believed national parks belonged to everyone and that the general public should have the right to enjoy them. Others noted the increasing area being taken up for national parks, which meant there was less area for recreationists to access.

One participant believed that national parks should be preserved by maintaining trails as trails and not be paved or graded with loss of surrounding vegetation to provide access to all vehicles. One issue raised was the problem of tracks in national parks being closed by rangers with an apparent lack of accountability for that action. There appeared to be no rules and regulations regarding how long a track should remain closed.

The policy of National Parks and Wildlife on closing tracks was therefore raised with one of their officers to clarify this claim. The officer interviewed advised that the service may need to close trails to recreational vehicles in emergency situations, such as extreme fire danger, drought, flood or bushfires, or when special conservation programs were being conducted. For example, following heavy rain, traffic can damage roads when wet and they are costly to repair. All road closures are advertised in local newpapers and when repairs have been completed, National Parks also advertise that the roads are opened again. Trails are closed on the long term under the National Park’s planning and management process in consultation with the general public, which includes members of Four-Wheel-Drive Clubs. Track closures usually arise when State forests are turned over to National Parks and former logging trails are no longer of use. The need for maintaining such trails, the need for rehabilitation of the area and the costs of maintenance are discussed and a draft proposal is drawn up which is then made available for public discussion before a final decision on the fate of the trail is made.

53

6.3.2 Northern Tablelands, NSW The Northern Tablelands Four-wheel-Drive Club was very active with weekend and day trips and members were also a planning a trip to central Australia. Many of the club’s activities were conducted within national parks or state forests that were open to the general public. Some of the members reported that they maintained a good relationship with local property owners who allowed them access to their properties. None of the participants had been denied access as the result of a landowner’s negative experiences with other individuals trespassing on their land. However, one participant did report that a property he used to access for hunting and shooting had been closed to him following an incident where shooters had shot some ducks within a bird sanctuary on the property. The landowner, angered by the incident, chose to close his property to all hunters.

When asked if they believed landowners sometimes overreact to these events by closing their properties, all of the participants strongly supported a landowner’s right to make these decisions. As one participant stated:

It’s all about economics. If farmers have to pay the costs of damage caused by some people, I think they have a right to complain. Friends are good to have as long as they don’t cost you money.

Participants were then asked what they thought about the increasing trend of landowners charging a fee to access their land. One responded that such practices were established in many areas and noted the fees hunters are charged to hunt on some properties. One woman noted that sometimes on a four- wheel-drive tour, there is a need to access private property in order to reach a desired destination:

We went on a trip a while ago and we had to pay $10 a vehicle to go from one end of a farmer’s property to the other. The $10 was for the maintenance of the road. But we didn’t mind that especially when the road allowed you to access nice facilities and a camping area. We had to pay fees for those amenities as well but there were pit toilets and they were very well maintained– a lot of places you have to dig your own.

Another believed that problems with illegal trespassing occur as a result of public roads that are inadequately signposted and people inadvertently enter private land. He explained:

One of the problems has been where a public road goes through a farmer’s property and the maps don’t indicate that. One that comes to mind is a trail in the Barrington Tops that goes through a guy’s property. People just drive in there and shoot and whatever and the farmer gets fed up and locks the gate – and he is within his rights. After a while he will open the place again. Someone gets the key and then you are allowed to go in there again.

Another stated that the main problem lies with farmers who charge fees to access public roads that go through their property:

There is this track in southwest New South Wales that goes through a farmer’s gate. He knows when people come down the track, and he collects $10 from people to go through. What he does with it I don’t know.

54

Another participant believed that there should be laws to prevent such occurrences:

Where an access road goes through a property, there should be laws to prevent a landowner from closing off that access. And you should be able to get through there without paying a toll. It’s not right – I think they should acknowledge it is a right of way. For example, if you want to get down to a river, you have to drive down a access road to put your boat in the water. Landholders should not close that off. However, I think the government should provide fencing and gates to let the people go through and maintain the access road. There should be no costs to the landowner.

All in attendance agreed with this view. The discussion then addressed the concept of rights of freehold ownership of rural lands. Participants unanimously agreed that landowners have an absolute right to control who comes onto their land. One woman stated:

I think it’s the same as having a quarter acre block in town – you wouldn’t want people driving on your front lawn. Just because you have a big property, if you own it, people shouldn’t be going on there without your permission.

All participants agreed with these sentiments. Another added:

Where a person uses the land for a livelihood- they pay for it and it's theirs to control – within reason of course. I think if a landowner wants to raise crops on his property he should be allowed to bulldoze trees and do anything he wants to without the government dictating to him what he can and cant do. And that also means controlling who comes onto the land. There are a lot of responsible groups and there are a lot of irresponsible people.

Participants were asked who they believed were the main offenders of trespass on private land, local people, or city folk who are unaware of the requirements of accessing rural land. All participants agreed that local people were the main culprits. People ‘who believe rules are meant to be broken’ or who are ‘lazy’ were blamed. One doubted that city people would travel more than a couple of hours out of the city. Another added that four-wheel-drive clubs in the city abide by the same set of ethics and therefore would be aware of the requirements of touring in rural areas. He continued:

As with our four-wheel-drive club, everything we take on to a property we take out. We take rubbish out. We leave gates as we find them (and hope the last person that went through did the same!). If a gate is locked, we respect that it’s locked for a reason. We don’t break locks or cut chains – we look for another way or go elsewhere. Whether its parks or private property, we wouldn’t do something like that.

When asked for their suggestions about some solutions to the problem of illegal trespass on farmland, participants believed educating the general public was the answer:

You have to educate people about the requirements of touring in rural areas. Information could be placed in newspapers, or the NRMA could provide such information when they issue maps. Things should be included like: if you come to a gate, you leave it as you find it.

Another participant believed working with the local community would build up better relations with local landowners. He noted a scheme that the club had participated in three years ago where they worked with the fire department and landowners checking fire breaks in the district. He believed this type of arrangement could be an ongoing thing. Members could go for a tour on the fire tracks across the district and report back on their condition.

55

Members noted the recent agreement between the National Parks and the Four-Wheel-Drive Association to facilitate a similar working relationship between the two groups. The aim was to develop better communication between parties regarding track closures and utilise clubs to monitor and maintain tracks and trails within national parks. Some clubs have a program with State Forests where they are allocated a track in a forest and it becomes that club’s responsibility to maintain it.

The memorandum of understanding recently developed between the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Recreational Four-Wheel-Drive Clubs Association of NSW and ACT, identified several possible cooperative ventures. The National Parks and Wildlife Service in New South Wales manages approximately 6% of the State including areas such as national parks, nature reserves, Aboriginal sites, historic sites, State recreation areas and regional parks. Cooperative ventures proposed included track and trail inspections and maintenance, removal of rubbish and debris from protected areas, weed removal, participation in events such as Clean Up a Australia Day and National Parks Week, the conduct of education and community tourism, assistance with disadvantaged groups access to protected areas, cooperative training programs and sharing and distributing information. Other possibilities discussed included assistance with research such as flora and fauna surveys, bird counts, research to develop the criteria for road or trail closures, and visitor use patterns and needs (NSW & ACT 4WD Clubs, 2000).

It was clear within the discussion that all participants agreed that access to private property should always be at the discretion of the landholder. The only issue they had with private landholders was the problem of public access roads being closed off and in the worse case scenario, having to pay a toll to use the road. Club members were more interested in maintaining access to national parks and state forests for their recreational pursuits. However, members complained that increasingly they are finding that more areas of national parks are being closed to the public. One man stated:

The problem with national parks is that people have been using the areas for years and years. There may be a spot that you traditionally visit and it becomes a national park and suddenly you can’t go there anymore. No one knows why – it was never a problem when you went there before. If you go to Barrington Tops now, there are so many places you cant go.

Why are they closing it off? –It belongs to the people. People with Four-Wheel- Drives like to go into the bush and explore and test the capabilities of their vehicle, and find somewhere peaceful and quiet.

Another added:

We have the same problem with state forests. If they have a logging road they are not using anymore and they can’t maintain it, they close it off. If people use that road and have an accident, they can sue the forestry because they should have maintained the road. State forests are very open to letting people go in there but they won’t pay to maintain a road they are not using. It’s easier to put a sign up.

6.3.3 North Coast, NSW A focus group was also held with a four-wheel-drive club located on the north coast of New South Wales. This group conducted regular trips inland through the hinterland and up through the northern Tablelands area.

Some members had private arrangements with landholders for access to properties for four-wheel- drive touring and they reported that such arrangements worked well. One added: ‘We all have a good time, even the people who own the property join in with us’. None of those present reported ever- experiencing problems with landowners denying access due to problems with illegal trespassers on their land.

56

As found with the other focus groups, the participants were particularly concerned about the increasing areas of land in New South Wales that are being turned over to national parks which has eroded the areas accessible to four-wheel-drive clubs. Consequently pressure has increased in those areas that remain accessible.

Another problem the club faces is the grazing leases that are in place in some state forests. One participant explained that graziers fence off areas and will prevent access by recreationists in order to protect their stock and the lease area. These leases are 99-year leases, which have many of the same rights as freehold ownership. He continued:

Unbeknown to a lot of people who drive through state forests, these 99-year leases are equivalent to private property. The landowners have realised this and are exercising their rights. The ordinary person looks at a map and sees a state forest and they can’t understand why they are being thrown out of there. But if they look closely they can see a red line within the state forests defining these leasehold areas.

Probably all of us have gone through thousands of acres of these lands over the years and it’s never been a problem. But it’s a problem now. It might be out in the middle of a state forest and it may not be fenced but it is somebody’s leasehold. While many leaseholders are very amiable and will let you go through, some of them refuse just because they have the legal right to do so. So you have to negotiate with these people for access.

Another maintained that farmers experience problems with trespassers because people see a road and wander in on private property because its not adequately sign-posted. He argued that where farms border a state forest, there is a need for signs to be placed on the boundary to ensure people are aware that they are approaching private land. He believed that if there were gates, most responsible people would ask permission to enter. It is the policy of four-wheel-drive clubs to seek permission from a property owner to cross through privately owned land. He believed a lot of city-based people do not understand the need to request permission to enter private property or the necessity of closing gates. Another participant noted the frustration resulting from inadequately signposted access roads:

The problem is that you don’t always find out that there is a locked gate somewhere until you actually run into it. You have just come miles and miles through this property and you come to a locked gate. Some of the landowners have said no to access and some have said yes, no problem, and sometimes there is no farmer around to ask permission. The difficulty is finding out who owns the land and having to go all the way back around because you come to a locked gate and its not sign posted or marked on the map.

Another added:

You can be driving down a forestry trail and over a ridge and down through a gully and all of a sudden you are in someone’s private property and you can’t get out. You have come to a main entrance to the road, you can’t get out, and its not fenced at the end you came from.

The meeting agreed there should be a better map service that clearly defines public and private lands.

Those in attendance had not experienced problems with farmers blocking off public roads or paying a toll as encountered by those in the northern Tablelands group. One did note there was one person in the district who had blocked access to a public road that traverses approximately 30 m of his property. He explained: ‘He has a locked gate either side and he won’t let anyone through – except those who pull the gate off the hinges’.

57

Another participant believed that much of the problems on farms were caused by four-wheel-drive clubs that come from the city or from over the border who ‘go rampant’ on properties. He added:

They bring dogs, guns and motorbikes with them and those three things together can cause problems. We used to go to an area in the north of the state that has now been totally closed down. Some people have no regard for property. The owners told us some even shot cattle and cut them up on the property. These people may not necessarily be a club but a loose group of people who call themselves a club that is not affiliated with an association.

Another believed that four-wheel-drive magazines could contribute to the problem by advertising a particular area in the magazine. He explained:

A year or so ago, there was a particular area which was owned privately that the magazine wrote up as a four-wheel-drive Mecca. Half of Australia turned up there with motorbikes roaring around. There is a responsibility by the magazines to do their homework before they promote an area for four-wheel-driving.

Another maintained that those people who do the wrong thing on private land are never in their own area. He added: ‘They won’t be known in their own area for destroying properties but they don’t mind going a couple of hundred kilometres to do it’. Another added:

Young blokes in four-wheel-drives are the same as the ones you get on the roads. Most of those who speed or who get killed on the road are young blokes – they don’t change their spots when they get in the bush.

As with other recreational clubs, this group was concerned about the reputation of those who do the wrong thing reflecting badly upon their club and contributing to more farmers closing off their lands to their club’s activities. When asked if they thought some farmers worry unnecessarily about trespassers on their land, one agreed that some do. He added:

Some farmers make claims that they won’t let vehicles on their properties for certain reasons and those reasons are not valid at all – they just need excuses to close their land.

You can go out west along the South Australian border and you can drive for 500 km and every property you come to will have signs on their boundary ‘No Shooting’, ‘No Hunting’, ‘No Fishing’, ‘No Camping’ – all the way along. It’s rare to see a property without signs on the gate.

The group was also asked about the future of recreational pursuits in Australia whether it would become more like the US where fees must be paid for access. One participant believed there was a place for the growing numbers of land-cruiser parks in Australia:

Land-cruiser parks are good for competitive events. In competitive events you are not driving as safely as you would in public areas and you are not driving in a way to look after the environment. It’s good in that it provides facilities for families. If you have kids, it’s hard to go camping without showers and toilets etc. If its an successful enterprise, its good. But it should not mean that we all have to go there.

58

Another participant agreed:

Those parks cater for the extreme sports. It attracts a lot of people because you can do what you like. It’s all right for those who like to go around in circles, but if you want to go out and do a scenic tour in a forest or national parks – it’s a totally different scene.

The land-cruiser parks don’t cater for the scenic touring. Even if the paddock is 10,000 acres you are still going around in circles. When we tour around, at least we know we have been somewhere. As for land-cruiser parks, once you have been there once or twice, you don’t really want to go there again.

One other participant pointed out:

I’d rather have a lot of those young fellas in those land-cruiser parks than tearing around in the bush. It puts them in a place where they are more controlled.

However, he added that he believed land-cruiser parks were the future of four-wheel-driving in Australia:

We are battling trying to work with the national parks for access for our type of recreation. We are opposing the establishment of national parks because its just stopping us from what we have been doing for years.

If you look at a map and note the national parks and wilderness areas, it stretches from the Victorian border to Queensland with hardly a break. The national parks are closing off so much land, that in the long run, these cruiser parks will be the only places you will be able drive a four-wheel-drive. There are very few areas left to go unless you go out to the western plains and beyond.

The group then discussed the concept of freehold ownership of rural land and the impact upon rights of access. One participant stated:

If someone owns a property they certainly have the right to stop people going in there. There are planning laws that state you cant do this and you cant do that but when it comes to access, if you own it, you certainly have a right to control who comes in.

When asked about places of national heritage on private land that the general public would have an interest in, all agreed that access remains at the discretion of the landowner. Another participant noted:

Freehold ownership tests that law of the 10 chains from the centre of a river course for people who want to go trout fishing. Some property boundaries go to the middle of the river and they actually own the river. For others, there is a public access along the riverbank and you can use the water. This is a problem in the Tablelands where you have the right to float a boat down a river but you can’t always get to the river.

Another participant maintained that landowners may have a problem with European cultural sites on their land in a similar way Aboriginal cultural sites on private land have been awarded protection. He cited one historical mining town that had recently become freehold land. Although there was little remaining apart from some old mining ruins, the area was often visited by club members. He stated:

As in a lot of these situations, up goes the fence and you have to negotiate access with the new owner. In some places there is just a fence and a gate but no house – the owner may live in Melbourne.

59

He suggested that the government could classify some of these places as national heritage and negotiate with the landowner about providing access to the general public.

Another noted that such arrangements exist in Queensland. The Queensland Mines Department have several gem fossicking areas located on private properties throughout the State where they have negotiated with the landowner to allow anyone to go onto the property and access certain areas for fossicking. Provided people stick to that area, they are allowed to access.

Another agreed:

It wouldn’t be a bad idea to have somebody within the government to negotiate access with a property owner where there are scenic places such as waterfalls, river areas or something historical on the property. The government could maintain the road and take on responsibility for public liability insurance.

Another participant continued:

If you are a member of a club that’s running organised trips you should be allowed to access national parks because you are a part of a recognised club that promotes responsible driving. As for private land where there are some significant sites, if the government did have some agreement with the landowner, a club member could approach the owner to say the club is conducting an organised trip and seek access, and most reasonable people would allow it. It would be useful if there were a register of clubs so that the landowner could validate the request.

Others agreed with one adding:

One of the problems of communication between farmers and four-wheel-drive clubs is that there are clubs that are part of the association that are community based and work hard at keeping lands open to them and then there are other clubs that are just a bunch of blokes who just want to go nuts in the bush. There has to be some sort of register of clubs so that farmers know who are the responsible people they can allow on their land.

One raised the possibility of negotiating a similar type of understanding with the National Farmers’ Federation to the one the association holds with the National Parks and Wildlife. Others agreed, as contact with farmers has been a problem for club members. One commented:

The only way we met one lot of farmers was because we were coming across a river crossing, they were coming the other way, and we got talking. We built them a bridge across the gully and they were very pleased with that.

The meeting agreed that more communication and cooperation between groups would benefit all parties:

We are negotiating at the moment with a small community shire council about access to an area of land that the National Parks don’t own. You have to go through four or five private properties to get to this particular site. National Parks has given key hold access to this site but they have passed the burden onto the local council to organise with the farmers who will maintain the access road and who will cover the insurance for any possible claim. The council is keen to promote tourism but unless people walk about 50 km, this needs to be resolved. There are no guidelines. There are National Parks on the one hand, the council on the other then are four-wheel-drive clubs and there is no one controlling the common ground.

60

6.4 Summary

The attitudes of members of four-wheel-drive clubs towards the question of access to private properties for recreational activities were explored in this chapter. As with the members of the shooting organisations who participated in this study, the four-wheel-drive club members wished to distance themselves from the activities of those people who trespass on private property. They emphasised that club members conformed to a strict code of ethics for touring in rural areas that included requesting permission to enter private property, leaving gates as they found them and respecting the environment. The study also revealed the extensive and valued voluntary community work that four-wheel-drive clubs undertake across Australia including providing courses on driver education and environmental awareness, and participating in cleanup campaigns.

Participants in all three groups reported that they had good working arrangements with landholders for access to tour around on their properties and these relationships were working well. None of the participants reported being denied access to private land as a result of landowners closing their properties following a negative experience with trespassers. Apart from a few people in the southern Queensland group, all participants strongly advocated the rights of landowners to control access to their land. They were most sympathetic towards the problems some landholders experience with illegal trespassers. Participants in all three regions believed that illegal trespassers were more likely to be local people who lacked respect for property, than city people. However, one group believed offenders travelled to neighbouring areas to trespass on private land and would be unlikely to commit the same acts within their own community where they are better known.

Participants noted the increasing numbers of private properties that are restricting access to recreationists. However, overall, the interests of these groups were more focused upon the increasing restriction of access to national parks and state forests for recreation rather than concerns about lack of access to private land. Participants were most concerned with the increasing areas being turned over to national parks and the closing off of more wilderness areas that deny access to four-wheel-drive vehicles. The loss of access to logging trails in state forests was also regretted. Consequently, the areas where people can legitimately tour are becoming less and less. Participants also noted that concerns about public liability also service to restrict access to public as well as private lands.

Four-wheel-drive enthusiasts do have the opportunity to enjoy their recreation within the number of land-cruiser parks being established in Australia. These parks seem to have a place in providing an opportunity for driving competitions and skills improvement but fail to provide the need of many enthusiasts to tour in rural areas.

The initiative in New South Wales of establishing a memorandum of understanding between four- wheel-drive groups and National Parks and Wildlife appears to be the most positive solution to these concerns. The agreement allows club members to pursue their recreation while providing voluntary support services for Nationals Parks, such as monitoring and maintaining park trails. This agreement provides a model for other possible cooperative ventures between recreational groups, farmer associations and various government agencies to provide access to private land for recreational activities.

A common complaint by participants was the lack of adequate signposts on public roads. Some believed that trespassing occurred because people are sometimes unaware that they have entered private property. Participants called for more detailed and up to date maps to be available for the touring public.

One of the main concerns of participants regarding restricted access to private property involved the practice of some landholders of blocking designated public access roads that traversed their properties. Related concerns included restricted access to waterways on private properties for fishing and the blocking of trails in state forests by graziers who have leased areas within the forests. Participants called for legislation to ensure that these public access ways remain established rights of way. As for

61

private roads, participants tolerated paying fees for access through private properties acknowledging the cost to landholders of maintaining roads. Participants in all groups called for governments to provide support to landholders for road maintenance and fencing as well as public liability insurance to allow for public access to national heritage sites which are located on private land.

The solution to illegal trespass on private property provided by participants in all three groups was driver education. Programs such as the Tread Lightly program, which encourages responsible driving and environmental awareness of the need for low impact driving in ecologically sensitive areas could be promoted and information for touring in rural areas could accompany touring maps and be made available to the public through organisations such as the NRMA.

The participants also provided some ideas for solving the problem of access for recreation. These included establishing cooperative arrangements with organisations like the fire brigade to check firebreaks across a community, which would allow members to enjoy their recreation while building up trust and positive relationships with local landholders. One other idea was to establish a memorandum of understanding with farmer organisations for access for legitimate clubs to private property and providing a voluntary service for landholders in return. A further suggestion was a register of legitimate four-wheel-drive clubs that could be available for landowners and National Parks and State Forests to validate requests for access to private land.

62

Chapter 7: Conclusions & Implications

7.1 Summary

The aim of the present study was to examine attitudes towards public access to private rural lands for outdoor recreation. The study explored the issue from the perspectives of farmers and also from the point of view of hunters and other recreationists who desire access to private land for recreation activities. First, concerns about safety and security on farms from the perspective of farmers were explored. In particular, the study examined the problem of illegal trespassers and shooters on farms and the influence of such offences on landholder attitudes towards granting access to recreationists. Second, the study investigated the perceptions of four-wheel-drive enthusiasts and hunters towards accessing private farmlands for recreation. The aim was to identify the primary concerns of each group and seek some solutions that may lead to some cooperative ventures between all stakeholders.

The report began with a review of those factors within society that can play a part in facilitating or inhibiting access to private land for recreational opportunities. The need for areas for outdoor recreation for the general public and the pressure that places on private property was examined. In modern society, people need to escape from the pressures of life, to relax and enjoy the outdoors. Public recreation areas such as national parks and forests are in limited supply and are not always available to the general public. This has placed greater pressure upon those recreational spaces that remain available and attention has turned to private land as a possible option for recreational activities.

Recreational hunting is one activity that is dependent upon access to rural areas. Hunting is forbidden in national parks and state forests. A review of the Australian and international literature on the problems of illegal trespassing and hunting on farms, found that these offences are a common concern to farmers in many countries. Unfortunately, the lucrative rewards from hunting feral animals encourages illegal hunting on private lands. Furthermore, the practices of some unscrupulous hunters to ensure they sustain feral prey does nothing to eradicate the feral animal problem on farms and alienates landowners. In light of these widespread problems, landholders understandably adopt a negative attitude towards public access to their properties for recreational activities such as hunting.

The study reviewed previous research that investigated landholders’ attitudes towards recreational access to their land. It is apparent that landholder attitudes are determined by their personal values and beliefs; legal, economic and ecological concerns; national, local and family traditions; government incentives; the type and extent of recreational activities and past experiences with recreationists. The attitudes of landholders clearly determine the amount of private land available for recreation. These attitudes are also inextricably entwined with attitudes concerning the rights of ownership of land, which incorporates the right to exclude others. In Australia, the concept of inviolate rights of property ownership is widely accepted which also contributes to the restriction of recreational opportunities on private land.

In Chapter 3, the qualitative methodology utilised in the gathering of data for this study was presented. Focus groups and interviews were selected as the most suitable method for assessing the attitudes of three diverse groups of people within rural communities. In Chapter 4, the problems farmers experience with illegal trespassing and shooting on farms and their attitudes towards public access to their properties were explored. The findings revealed that concerns about illegal trespassing and shooting varied greatly between the three study regions. The areas most prone to illegal trespass and hunting are more likely to be grain-growing areas that have significant watercourses, which support large populations of feral pigs. In some areas, namely northwest New South Wales and one Queensland district, landholders’ experiences with illegal trespassers and shooters had resulted in considerable anxiety for farm families. Some of their accounts highlighted the dangerous practices of illegal hunters and the personal risks farmers face when confronting offenders. As a result of these negative experiences, landholders had closed their properties to all except trusted professional shooters

63

and close family and friends. In contrast, in the northern Tablelands of New South Wales and in other areas in southern Queensland, participants acknowledged experiences on their properties or in their neighbourhood with illegal trespassing and shooting as well as thefts, but were less concerned about these events. They appeared to have more of a sense of control over who entered their property than did the group in northwest New South Wales and many were relatively open to allowing recreationists on their land. There was an acknowledgement that people did need to escape the pressures of city life and providing them with opportunities for recreation was a positive thing for landowners to do.

The lack of police resources in remote areas was cited as a factor contributing to the high incidence of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms, a finding similar to that found by Barclay et al. (2001). There was a common perception that pig hunters were more likely to be responsible for these offences. These groups were also linked with other offences, such as the theft of fuel, vehicles, tools and small equipment from farms. Barclay et al. (2001) also identified a link between the occurrence of these types of thefts on farms and illegal trespassing and shooting. However, one police officer interviewed maintained that many offenders were purely thieves and used pig hunting as an excuse if caught illegally on a property. These findings suggest that pig hunters, like any other cohorts of society, comprise a wide range of law-abiding behaviours. Certainly the professional pig hunter interviewed displayed a high commitment to ethical hunting practices and prided himself on providing a professional service for landholders who afforded him the opportunity to hunt. However, the association in the minds of landholders between illegal behaviour and recreational activities does have implications for recreational access to private rural lands.

Kangaroos and feral animals on farms were a problem for producers in all three regions. All participants reported that they relied on professional and recreational shooters for pest management on their land, as their farming commitments left them little time to control the problem themselves. Many of the participants reported that regular visits by trusted hunters to control pests on their farms or people regularly fishing, deterred others from entering the property. Trusted hunters and fishermen were also prepared to guard their hunting territory against illegal trespassers and shooters.

Most participants only granted access to their properties providing specified conditions were met. These included shutting gates, no rubbish, and no dogs and only one hunting group at any one time. The failure to close gates was cited within all three groups as the most frequently occurring and annoying problem experienced at the hand of illegal trespassers. The time and cost of sorting out stock that had strayed through open gates caused considerable frustration for farmers. The leaving of rubbish at campsites by trespassers appeared to be particularly offensive to participants. Landholders appreciated hunters reporting back on the location and size of feral populations on the property and also information on anything out of order, such as injured stock or damaged fences. Such considerations ensured hunters ongoing access to the property.

Apart from some participation in Rural Watch groups, placing warning signs on property boundaries and locking gates and farmhouses, participants believed there was little they could do to prevent illegal trespass and shooting occurring on their lands. Farmers often say: ‘You cannot lock up a farm’. Few offences had been reported to police, due to the farmer’s inability to provide sufficient proof of an offence and a common belief that there was little the police could do to stop offenders.

There were common concerns about public liability in the event of an accident with illegal trespassers and shooters. One participant had visitors to the property sign a waiver for legal liability in the event of a mishap. All of the farmers in the study defended their rights to control access to private land. Most were passionately opposed to the perceived erosion of rights of landowners through increasing government control and regulation over their activities on their land.

In Chapter 5, the opinions of hunters from various sporting shooters’ associations were sought in relation to the issue of accessing private rural lands for hunting. The participants in all three focus groups were passionate about their sport and clearly invested a lot of time and money in pursuing their hunting activities as well as participating in voluntary environmental conservation projects. They

64

wished to emphasise the fact that members of shooting associations abided by a strict code of ethics for hunting and those who did not conform were disciplined by the association or were expelled with the subsequent loss of their firearm license. Participants distanced themselves from the activities of those people who hunted illegally or unethically. They resented the fact that deviant hunters damaged the reputation of legitimate hunting associations. Hunting does hold a negative image in the public’s mind, which is an obstacle that it must overcome for its future in Australia.

One of the most positive arrangements for hunters was the agreement between the Shooters’ Association and National Parks and Wildlife in Queensland where the shooters association members were able to assist National Parks with conservation programs and to occasionally conduct supervised feral animal eradication programs when a problem emerged in park areas. The hunters valued these opportunities and ensured that they completed all tasks in a professional manner. These opportunities clearly contributed to a more positive attitude towards the future of hunting amongst the Queensland group. Conversely, the hunters in New South Wales did not have any such opportunities with National Parks but were most interested to hear about the Queensland initiative.

In all regions, hunters were able to hunt on their own properties or had private arrangements with landholders for hunting on their land. Some reported experiences of being denied permission to hunt on a property because of the poor behaviour of illegal hunters. The participants suggested several reasons for why this behaviour occurred, including: ƒ The increasing restriction of access to land frustrates hunters and encourages illegal hunting. ƒ The lack of ready contact with farmers by city people who desire to hunt also leads to illegal trespassing and shooting. ƒ The new regulations governing firearm ownership discourages people from obtaining a license and therefore they operate unlicensed and unregistered firearms. ƒ The negative attitudes held by the general public towards firearms and hunting practices resulting from the tragedy at Port Arthur as well as the activities of the animal welfare movement in Australia, discourages young people from joining sporting shooters’ associations and the opportunities to learn about correct hunting practices. ƒ Sporting shooting clubs are seen as unnecessary in rural communities where hunting is commonplace and therefore, many young people in rural areas have unethical hunting habits. ƒ The practices of some landholders of charging a fee for hunting on properties that do not have sufficient game frustrates hunters and can lead to some acts of reprisal. ƒ The restriction of access to properties by some landholders so that they may monopolise the rewards from feral pigs or other animals that bring a bounty, can encourage illegal hunting.

Other participants believed that modern farmers are more businesslike in their approach to farming and are therefore not as tolerant of illegal trespassing and shooting as their more traditional predecessors. Participants in the northern slopes of New South Wales believed many farmers were negative towards recreational hunters because they fail to acknowledge the economic value that hunters provide in eradicating feral animal problems on farms. They claimed that benefits accrue to local communities and to landholders by removing feral pests and their potential damage to the environment, but farmers rarely consider this when they complain about illegal hunting. Irrespective of these complaints regarding landholders, all participants in all three regions strongly advocated the rights of landholders to control who enters their property and to set conditions by which people may enter their land.

It is apparent that the recent tightening of regulations regarding wild game harvesters has had the positive effect of excluding some of the troublemakers from participating in hunting. There was a reluctant acceptance of the use of dogs with hunting amongst the focus groups. While the practice was opposed in principle, the participants did acknowledge that dogs might be the only means to catch wild pigs in rugged terrain.

65

Hunters in the northern slopes group were strongly opposed to the current pest management policies that seem to prefer costly baiting programs and allowing kangaroo carcasses to rot in paddocks than allowing people to hunt. Such practices are influenced by animal welfare groups and do not account for the economic benefits gained from allowing hunters to provide skins and meat and income for the community while enjoying their sport.

In all study areas, there were strong objections to the call by the RSPCA to restrict the killing of kangaroos to professional shooters only. Participants argued that members of shooting clubs would have a better shooting accuracy than many professional hunters. They based this claim on the fact that associations provide the accreditation for professional hunters. Participants in all clubs believed there was a place for both professional and recreational hunters as the size of the feral animal problem was sufficient to accommodate both groups. Professional shooters were not always available to deal with a feral animal outbreak and recreational shooters can assist farmers at these times.

There were differing views on the future of fee payment for hunting with some participants claiming that unlike the US, the size of the feral animal problem in Australia will preclude fee paying from becoming commonplace. Others believed that a commercialised hunting industry was the future of hunting in Australia providing income for landholders, opportunities for hunters, and a reduction in the incidence of illegal hunting and trespassing on farms. Safari tour operators maintained that landholders could earn significant returns by hosting safaris. Also the regular presence of hunting groups on their properties can deter illegal trespassers and shooters.

There was common disapproval of the bounty system for feral animal control. Most participants believed bounties encourage poor behaviour on the part of hunters and landowners. Bounty hunters were not regarded as ‘real hunters’ as they are primarily interested in the money reward, not the hunting reward. The alternative suggested by the Queensland group, of rural communities providing a donation to hunting clubs for members to deal with the feral animal problem, is most worthwhile.

In Chapter 6, the perspectives of members of four-wheel-drive clubs on the issue of access to private properties for touring were explored. As with the members of the shooting organisations, the four- wheel-drive club members also resented being associated with those people who trespass on private property. Like the hunting associations, four-wheel-drive clubs also conform to a strict code of ethics for touring in rural areas. In addition, these clubs also conduct significant voluntary community work providing courses on driver education and environmental awareness and participating in environmental maintenance programs across Australia.

Participants in all three groups had established arrangements with landholders for access to tour on their properties and these relationships were working well. None of the participants reported being denied access to private land as a result of landowners closing their properties following a negative experience with trespassers. The participants strongly advocated the rights of landowners to control access to their land and appreciated the problems some landholders experience with trespassers. Participants in all three regions believed that trespassers were more likely to be people from local communities who lacked respect for property. However, one group believed offenders travelled to neighbouring areas to trespass on private land and would be unlikely to commit the same acts within their own community where they are better known.

While participants noted the growing numbers of private properties that were restricting access to recreationists, they were more concerned with the increasing restriction of access to national parks and state forests for four-wheel-drive touring. More and more areas are being turned over to national parks and more areas are being declared as wilderness areas that deny access to four-wheel-drive vehicles. Similarly, participants expressed their disappointment over the closure of logging trails in state forests, which are often utilised by four-wheel-drive clubs. Consequently, the areas where people can legitimately tour are becoming less. The participants noted that concerns about public liability also serve to restrict access to public as well as private lands.

66

Land-cruiser parks, which are becoming more common in Australia, do provide recreation opportunities for four-wheel-drive enthusiasts. These parks provide the possibility for driving competitions and skills’ improvement but many participants claimed these parks fail to provide for the need of many enthusiasts to tour in rural areas.

The initiative in New South Wales of establishing a memorandum of understanding between four- wheel-drive groups and National Parks and Wildlife appears to be the most positive solution to these concerns. The agreement allows club members to pursue their recreation while providing voluntary support services for National Parks, such as monitoring and maintaining park trails.

The lack of adequate signposts on public roads was exasperating for four-wheel-drive tourists and some participants believed trespassing occurred because people were unaware that they had entered private property. There is a need for more detailed and up to date maps to be available for the touring public.

One of the main concerns of the four-wheel-drive groups was the practice of some landholders of blocking designated public access roads that traversed their properties. Related concerns included restricted access to waterways on private properties for fishing, and the blocking of trails in state forests by graziers who have leased areas within the forests. Participants called for legislation to ensure that these public access ways remain established rights of way. The practice of some landholders requesting fees for use of private roads on their properties was accepted by the participants as probably being necessary to cover the costs of maintaining the roads. Participants believed there was a need for governments to provide support to landholders for road maintenance and fencing, as well as public liability insurance to allow for public access to national heritage sites located on private property.

Participants in all three focus groups believed the solution to illegal trespass on private property was driver education. Programs such as the Tread Lightly program, which encourages responsible driving and awareness of the need for low impact driving in ecologically sensitive areas could be promoted. Information for touring in rural areas could accompany touring maps and be made available through organisations such as the NRMA.

The participants also provided some ideas for solving the problem of access for recreation. These included establishing cooperative arrangements with organisations such as fire brigades to check firebreaks across a community, which would allow members to enjoy their recreation while building up trust and positive relationships with local landholders. One other idea was to establish a memorandum of understanding with farmer organisations for access for legitimate clubs to private property. In return, members could provide a voluntary service for landholders. A further suggestion was a register of legitimate four-wheel-drive clubs that could be made available for landowners and National Parks and State Forests to validate requests for access to private land.

7.2 Limitations of the research

The variability in the findings between the study areas highlights the limitations of the study. The enquiry was limited to three focus groups of farmers in diverse regions within a small area relative to the size of rural Australia. Thus the findings cannot be generalised to other parts of rural Australia. It is important to note that the information gathered is purely anecdotal and must be considered in that light. However, the findings do provide some insight into the attitudes and experiences of landholders on this matter as well as the point of view of hunters and four-wheel-drive enthusiasts on recreational access to private land.

67

7.3 Implications of the findings

In previous studies (Jenkins, et al. 1998), landholder attitudes towards recreational access to their land were found to be determined by their personal values and beliefs, legal, economic and ecological concerns, national local and family traditions, government incentives, the type and extent of recreational activities and their past experiences with recreationists. In the present study, the attitudes of the farmers were primarily influenced by the extent and nature of past experiences with recreationists particularly with illegal trespassers and shooters and thefts. Considering the dangerous nature of some of these experiences which involved illegal shooting, it is understandable that some landholders would choose to close their properties to all but trusted friends and family. The type and extent of recreational activities was another influencing factor with pig hunting with dogs being the least desired activity, while tourists who wish to camp and enjoy the countryside were encouraged in some areas. However, personal values and beliefs combined with local and family traditions clearly influenced the level of tolerance towards people illegally accessing properties for recreation. It was of interest to note one participant’s observation that today’s landholders are more businesslike in their approach to managing their operations and are less accepting of individuals entering their land without permission. The fact that public pressure recently resulted in modification to the New South Wales Inclosed Lands Acts 1901 to provide police with greater powers to control illegal trespass and shooting, may be evidence of the greater intolerance by landholders towards public access to their land.

Legal concerns about public liability in the event of a serious claim for damages incurred as the result of a person being illegally on a property was another factor that influenced landholders’ attitudes to access to their properties. Participants were particularly anxious about landholders having to pay a large sum in compensation to a person who was injured while illegally on a property. The risk of injury on properties is high and landholders are liable as part of their ‘duty of care’. While landholders are covered against such events under their public liability insurance policy, premiums would escalate following a major compensation payout. One participant had visitors sign a waiver against legal liability in the event of any mishap. However, it is unlikely that such a document would stand in court against a claim. Several participants called for the legitimisation of such waivers. This would place the responsibility of duty of care on the hunters and recreationists and ease landholders’ concerns, which may result in a more open attitude towards public access to their properties. Four- wheel-drive club members noted that the same fears about public liability were resulting in the closure of some national parks. Participants believed there was a need for legislation regarding an individual’s responsibility when entering an uncontrolled environment to prevent litigation against a landholder or national park or forest in the event of an accident.

The most important general finding in the study has been that landholders’ concerns about illegal trespassing and shooting varied greatly between the three study areas. Previous research by the author (Barclay et al. 2001) found reports of these offences were generally widespread across New South Wales. However, the findings of the present study reveal that a closer investigation has identified the variability between small communities. Barclay et al. (2001) also found that illegal trespassing and shooting offences were more often associated with properties that were close to a highway, were some distance from an urban centre, and had areas that were not visible from the farm residence. These conditions were characteristic of the northwest New South Wales area where participants reported the highest concerns with illegal trespass and shooting, and were not present in the Northern Tablelands area, which reported fewer problems. Yet, these conditions were present in the southern Queensland area where farmers reported some problems in the district but no significant concerns. Therefore other factors must define which farming regions are the ‘hot spots’ for these offences. Are offences confined to pig hunting? Certainly landholders’ attitudes play a significant role. However, there is a need for further research to clarify the predictive factors of these offences and why landholder attitudes vary spatially.

68

The problem of illegal trespass and shooting on farms is one that needs to be addressed before there any change can be expected in the attitudes of some landholders towards opening their properties to recreationists. In areas that are prone to higher levels of illegal trespass and shooting, farmers need to work together to strengthen communities for the wider safety and security of properties. Participants in the northern Tablelands who were the least anxious about illegal trespassing and hunting and theft in their district, referred to their small community where neighbours were concerned and interested in each other and were alert to suspicious activities in the area. Some participants reported that they placed warning signs on property boundaries, and locked gates and farmhouses although many felt these efforts were in vain. However, ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Property’ signs at entry points from roads or highways, access roads to paddocks and areas along boundary fences do notify unintentional intruders that they are trespassing. Sturdy fences with gates that are chained and locked prevent trespassing to some extent. Many of the participants reported that regular visits by trusted hunters to control pests on farms also helped to deter illegal hunters from entering the property. In addition, trusted hunters and fishermen tended to guard their hunting territory against illegal trespassers and shooters.

Farmers need to be encouraged to report incidences of illegal trespassing and shooting as well as thefts of fuel and other farming equipment to police, regardless of the time lost between the offence occurring and when it is discovered. Police require information to enable them to conduct effective operations to deal with the problem. Police also need to collect data such as the registration number, type, make and colour of suspicious vehicles and the time of day incidences occur to enable them to gather an understanding of the nature and extent of these offences. The database on incidences in the local community collated by the officer in southern Queensland is an excellent initiative but one which is dependent upon the community providing information.

There are some areas in which improvements can be made in the policing of illegal trespassing and shooting. A greater appreciation of the nature and extent of these types of offences is needed in the allocation of resources to rural areas. The size of the areas to be policed, the diversity of the terrain and the time and the staff required to undertake patrols in isolated areas at night must be taken into account.

The use of legislation other than that directly related to illegal trespassing and shooting such as the Traffic Act, was a useful suggestion by one officer. Penalties for drink driving for example, are severe and may be more effective in preventing trouble makers from operating. It may be helpful for police to circulate information on crime on farms in a district to local farmers to raise awareness and encourage better farm security. More time should be afforded to police to interact with the community to encourage the reporting of crimes. The formation of groups, such as Neighbourhood Watch or Rural Watch, need to be encouraged in rural communities. These groups should be tailored to meet the particular needs of each community. Rural Watch is more likely to succeed in socially supportive areas where there are smaller farms and residents have more opportunity to observe their neighbour's properties. In outback areas, the option of a UHF Rural Watch may be more applicable. Rural Watch groups may succeed if attached as part of an existing group, such as a rural fire brigade, Landcare or other farmer organisations. Rural Watch would be compatible with community feral animal control management committees as is the practice of catchment management groups in southern Queensland. A united approach to all these issues may lead to better security in rural areas.

One solution to the problems landholders experience is participation in fee payment for recreational opportunities. Hunting safaris are attracting significant numbers of people seeking hunting opportunities in outback areas. However, these operations were having difficulty in securing sufficient properties to meet the need. The benefits for landholders in opening up their properties to such ventures include the financial return, the eradication of pests on farm, and a reduction in the occurrence of illegal trespassers and shooters who are deterred from entering the property because of the presence of regular hunting parties. In the US, landholders revealed that neither closing their properties to the public or opening them up as a gesture of goodwill prevented illegal trespassing and shooting and vandalism. However, participation in organised fee payment for hunting programs was

69

effective in controlling these offences. Benson (2001b) argues that the advantage of fee payment for hunting is that a contract either verbal or written is formed between landowner and hunter that bonds both parties to a cooperative arrangement. Hunters tend not to cause problems and landowners are satisfied. Such arrangements are an incentive for the owner to permit access. It is important to note that any fee-paying arrangement with hunters necessitates the landholder ensuring there is sufficient game on the property for hunting.

One other solution to the problems of illegal trespass and hunting suggested by both the hunters and the four-wheel-drive clubs was education. Lack of awareness about the protocol for seeking permission to enter private rural lands or to act responsibly and respect the farming operation was cited as part of the cause of the problems of illegal trespassing and shooting. There is a need for more awareness and support of the education programs that are available such as “Tread Lightly” for improved driver education as well as for the weapons safety and handling and ethical hunting courses offered by sporting shooters associations.

The study highlighted the significant contribution these hunters and four-wheel-drive groups make to the community in the way of these public education programs and in environmental conservation projects. Their members were as critical of the behaviour of illegal trespassers and shooters as were the landholders, and resented the damage such behaviour caused to the reputation of legitimate organisations. Given the opportunity, these groups could provide significant support to landholders in return for the opportunity to participate in their chosen recreation on private land. These groups abide by a strict code of ethics for recreational activities on private land, they are keen to preserve the environment, and will respect landholders’ conditions for access. Also their regular presence on properties will deter illegal trespassers and shooters. The idea of four-wheel-drive clubs of checking firebreaks across a community is one example of a possible collaborative project. The idea of shooting clubs being contracted by communities to deal with feral animal problems that arise is preferable to offering bounties, which seem to encourage problems with illegal trespassers and shooters. While feral animal eradication controls will probably continue to centre upon large-scale baiting and aerial shooting programs, there could be some consideration of the benefits hunting associations could provide.

There is a need for increased communication between various groups of recreationists and property owners towards creating possible cooperative arrangements for recreation opportunities on private land. Amongst the recreational groups, there was some antagonism towards landholders who block access to their land even though there was an acknowledgement of their right to do so. Some of the hunters were defensive about hunting. As Bauer and Giles (2002) note, with the negative image of hunting in the public’s eyes, hunters tend to shy away from open discussions on hunting. Amongst some landholders, there was antagonism towards all recreationists except for those who were well known and trusted family and friends. It became evident in the course of conducting this research that each group, the farmers, the hunters and the four-wheel-drive clubs were striving to meet their particular objectives in isolation. The four-wheel-drive clubs in New South Wales and Sporting Shooters’ Association in Queensland had each negotiated cooperative arrangements with National Parks and similar ventures could be established between several stakeholders, including farmer organisations, National Parks and State Forests, hunters, four-wheel-drive groups and several other recreation groups with an interest in accessing private rural lands, such as bushwalkers and fishing clubs. Such cooperative ventures would require the support and encouragement of government agencies. This may include negotiating with landowners for public access to national heritage sites on private land and the provision of public liability cover as well as assistance with providing public amenities, fencing and maintenance of access roads. This may also involve the provision of better quality maps for tourists that include up-to-date status of rights of way and promotion of landholder’s conditions by consultative arrangements between landowners and various recreation groups. Such maps could be made available through tourist information centres, organisations such as the NRMA, and National Parks’ offices. This could also include providing landholders with a register of approved shooting clubs, four-wheel-drive-clubs or fishing or bushwalking clubs so that landholders can validate requests for access to their property for recreation.

70

It was the consensus of all participants from all three interest groups that whether or not a private landholder allows access to their property for recreation remains a matter of choice for the landholders concerned. This is a principle that is culturally determined and was reinforced by the findings of the present study. In particular, farmers in this study were passionate about the perceived erosion of their rights to manage their operations without interference from government regulations. Thus the rights of landholders must be acknowledged in any future program or policy developments in this area.

However, legally, a person does not own land, merely the rights to land and these rights are not absolute. As Pigram and Jenkins (1999, p.167) suggest, there is a need for a refined definition of rights to property to identify those that accrue to the landowner, to the state and to the community. A landowner assumes effective control of the resources of the land he/she occupies, which may be valued by the wider community for recreation. This privilege may imply a responsibility for making those resources available to society. However, few landholders would be prepared to acknowledge this responsibility (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999, p.168). This study has found that landholders’ attitudes towards their rights of ownership and protecting their land are changing as they take a more businesslike approach to their farming operations. More research is needed to understand why landholder attitudes vary spatially with respect to rights of ownership. It would be timely to conduct a closer investigation of property rights that are culturally, socially and legally determined to clarify the positions of all those sections of the community who have an interest in how the resources of country areas are to be managed and utilised.

7.4 Further research

Several ideas emerged through the course of conducting this study for further research on the issue of recreational access to private properties and the continuing problem of illegal trespass and shooting. While previous studies had examined the issue of illegal trespassing and shooting on farms in New South Wales, no such study has been completed in Queensland. The variability in the findings between each of the three study regions in the present study support the need for further investigation into illegal and trespassing and shooting on farms in Queensland, as well as in other States in Australia.

It may be useful to conduct an enquiry into feral pig harvesting to further clarify many of the issues raised in this study such as the actual contribution to local and national economies of recreational and professional hunters and the problems associated with hunting methods such as the use of dogs in pig hunting.

The common concerns amongst the participants about the increasing areas of national parks and forests being closed to the general public and the growing restriction of designated areas for recreation suggests a need for a social impact study on current government policy in this regard. While acknowledging the need for environmental conservation, some solutions to the public needs for outdoor recreation are required.

Finally, in light of the significant concerns expressed by landholders regarding the perceived erosion of rights of land ownership in this country, it may be timely to conduct a social impact study of the various changes in legislation and regulations regarding land ownership rights. There is a need for further examination of the attitudes of landowners towards the rights of ownership to understand why these attitudes vary between communities.

71

7.5 Conclusion

Recreation in the great outdoors is a vital and necessary part of modern life in Australia. However, recreational opportunities are very much dependent on the amount of available space. The available space is dependent upon government policies regarding public access to national parks and forests and upon the attitudes of landowners towards public access to their private land. Improved communication between farmer organisations, National Parks and State Forests, hunters, four-wheel- drive groups and several other recreation groups with an interest in accessing private rural lands would improve understanding and an awareness of mutual responsibilities, which may lead to improved opportunities for outdoor recreation in rural areas. However, the problem of illegal trespass and shooting on farms is one that needs to be addressed before there any change can be expected in the attitudes of some landholders towards opening their properties for recreation. There is a need for more empirical research into the whole question of property rights, public access and rights of way to provide a greater understanding of these issues in planning future policies and programs for recreation opportunities in rural areas.

7.6 Recommendations

The following recommendations have been drawn from the findings of this study.

♦ Recommendation 1 That farmers consider setting up an arrangement with local shooting associations for feral animal control on their properties. This will solve the feral animal problem while allowing club members to enjoy their sport. Also their regular presence on properties will deter illegal trespassers and shooters.

♦ Recommendation 2 That farmers consider working with professional hunting safari organisations to increase financial returns, eradicate feral animals on their properties, and through their regular presence on properties, deter illegal trespassers and shooters.

♦ Recommendation 3 That farmers consider an arrangement with local four-wheel-drive clubs for regular visits to their property. These groups may be happy to contribute to any ecological conservation projects on private property and through their regular presence on properties, will deter illegal trespassers and shooters.

♦ Recommendation 4 That rural fire brigades in conjunction with landowners, consider utilising four-wheel-drive clubs to check firebreaks in country areas which will also allow members to enjoy their recreation while providing a community service.

♦ Recommendation 5 That landholders and government agencies consider using reputable sporting shooting associations to eradicate feral animal problems as an alternative to offering bounties.

♦ Recommendation 6 That farmers be encouraged to place ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Property’ signs at entry points from roads or highways, access roads to paddocks and areas along boundary fences to notify unintentional intruders that they are trespassing.

72

♦ Recommendation 7 That farmers be encouraged to report crimes to police, be alert to suspicious activities in their district and ensure that they pass information on to police. Furthermore, that communities be encouraged to form local groups concerned with crime, such as Rural Watch or Neighbourhood Watch in conjunction with existing community groups such as feral animal control management committees, Landcare or other farmer organisations.

♦ Recommendation 8 That more recognition be given by the Police Service to the time, staff, and resources required to effectively police illegal shooting and trespassing in rural areas, and accordingly to provide more resources for rural communities.

♦ Recommendation 9 That the government look at developing and supporting an education program on ethical hunting practices and weapons safety and handling for prospective hunters in rural communities.

♦ Recommendation 10 That awareness be raised in the community about the educational programs conducted by sporting shooters associations for firearms safety and handling and ethical hunting practices as well as those conducted by four-wheel-drive clubs on driver education and environmental awareness.

♦ Recommendation 11 That the government consider negotiating with landholders for public access to national heritage sites on private land. Furthermore, that the government support landowners who agree to access to these sites by providing road maintenance and fencing, public amenities, and public liability insurance cover.

♦ Recommendation 12 That governments and local communities work together to ensure that there are sufficient signposts on country roads to assist in the problem of unintentional trespass on private land.

♦ Recommendation 13 That authorities ensure that designated public access roads that cross private land are maintained as rights of way for the general public.

♦ Recommendation 14 That information on the protocol for accessing private land in rural areas be provided to tourists through tourist information centres, the NRMA and other relevant agencies.

♦ Recommendation 15 That governments ensure that touring maps for the general public are kept up to date and include details of private and lease holdings to assist in the problem of unintentional trespass on private land.

♦ Recommendation 16 That a register of registered recreational clubs such as sporting shooters association or hunters associations, four-wheel-drive clubs and fishing clubs be compiled and be available to landholders who wish to validate requests for access to their property.

73

♦ Recommendation 17 That the issue of public liability regarding recreation on private property be examined. Specifically that the legality of the signing of public liability waivers by recreationists seeking access to private property be explored as a possible legitimate option for landowners providing recreational opportunities on their land. Furthermore, that the legislation regarding “duty of care” under public liability be reconsidered to take into account an individual taking responsibility for their own actions in an uncontrolled environment in public or private space.

♦ Recommendation 18 That the government consider the public’s need for outdoor recreational space when planning future policies and directions for national parks and forests.

74

References

Barclay, E.M., Donnermeyer, J.F., Doyle, B.D. and Talary, D. (2001). Property Crime Victimisation and Crime Prevention on Farms, report to the NSW Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Division, Armidale, Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England.

Bauer, J. & Giles, J. (2002). “Recreational hunting, An international perspective”, Wildlife Tourism Research Report Series, , No. 13, CRC Sustainable Tourism.

Belcher, (1993). The Problem With Accessing Sports Fishing Streams In New England: A Private Landholder’s Response, Unpublished Honours Thesis, Armidale, The University of New England.

Bell, A.R.W., Dorward, P.T., Edwards, D. and Tranter, R.B. (1998). ‘Attitudes of rights of way in Berkshire: that farmer’s perspective’, Farm Management, 10, 4, pp. 171-182.

Benson, D.E., (1989). ‘What fee hunting means to sportsmen’. Proceedings of the first International Wildlife Ranching Symposium. New Mexico State University, 16-21 May 1989, Las Cruces, US.

Benson, D.E., (2001a). ‘Wildlife and recreation management on private lands in the United States’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 1, 359-371.

Benson, D.E., (2001b). ‘Survey of state programs for habitat, hunting, and non-game management on private lands in the Unites States’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 1, 354-358.

Bureau of Rural Science (BRS) (2002). Managing Pest Animals in Australia: Science for Decision Makers, Bureau of Rural Science, accessed 7/2/03, http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/word/rural_science/decision_maker/sfdm_pests.doc

Carter, D. (2002). ‘A discussion of recreational hunting policy for Australia’, The Global Gun Site, accessed 7/02/03, http://www.globebuster.com.au/shoot/hunter1.htm

Environment Australia (2003a). ‘Feral cats’, Feral Animals, Environment Australia, accessed 7/2/03, http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/pests/cat.html

Environment Australia (2003b). ‘European Rabbit’, Feral Animals, Environment Australia, accessed 7/2/03, http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/pests/rabbit.html

Environment Australia (2003c). ‘European Red Fox’, Feral Animals, Environment Australia, accessed 7/2/03, http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/pests/fox.html

Environment Australia (2003d). ‘Feral goats’, Feral Animals, Environment Australia, accessed 7/2/03, http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/pests/goat.html

Field and Game Federation of Australia Inc, (2002). Hunting in Society, Field and Game Federation of Australia Inc, accessed 30/10/02, http://sportingclays.org.au/habitat.htm

Four Wheel Drive NSW & ACT (2000). Memorandum of Understanding between NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association NSW & ACT Inc. accessed, 7/02/03, http://4wdnsw.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/articles/MOU/mou.htm

Four Wheel Drive NSW & ACT (2003a). Code of Ethics. accessed, 7/02/03,

75

http://4wdnsw.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/docs/Code_of_Ethics.htm

Four Wheel Drive NSW & ACT (2003b). Articles. accessed, 7/02/03, http://4wdnsw.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/articles.htm

Grigg, G. (2002 in press). “Conservation benefit from harvesting kangaroos:status report at the start o a new millennium”, A Zoological Revolution, Royal Zoological Society, Mosman.

Gun Control Australia (2000). A Beginners Guide to Australian Gun Laws, accessed 26/2/03 http://www.guncontrol.org.au/top5.html

Jenkins, J., Ravenscroft, N., Philips, D. and Bennett, M. (1998). ‘Rural recreation: perspectives on landholder attitudes and public access to private lands’, Tourism and Visitor Attractions, Leisure, Culture and Commerce, Leisure Studies Association; Eastbourne U.K.

Jobes, P.C. (1992). ‘Vandalism in rapidly developing rural areas: Consequences of the changing meaning of property access’, in Vandalism: Research, Prevention and Social Policy, eds H. Christensen, D.R. Johnson and M. and Brookes, Portland, Oregon, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-293.

Jordan, L.A. and Workman, J.P. (1990). Survey of fee hunting for deer and elk on private land in Utah, Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin REC439, Utah State University, Logan.

Kelly, J. (2002). Kangaroo Industry Background, Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, accessed 7/02/03, http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM

Kerr, K. (2001). Introduced Species: Placing Australian Environments in Danger. Pearson Education. Accessed 7/02/03, http://www.longman.com.au/atlas/compweb/012/case.html

McGaw, C.C. & Mitchell, J. (1998). “Feral Pigs in Queensland”, Pest Status Review Series – Land Protection, Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland, Accessed 7/2/03, http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/pests/psas/pdfs/Pig.pdf

Messmer, T.A., Dixson, C.E., Shields, W. Barras, S.C. and Schroeder, S.A. (1998). ‘Cooperative Wildlife Management Units: achieving hunter, landowner, and wildlife management agency objectives’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 2, 325-332.

New South Wales Agriculture (2002). Meeting to combat deliberate spread of feral pigs, Media Release 21 May 2002, NSW Agriculture, accessed 23/07/02, http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/13922

New South Wales Parliament (2002). Game and Feral Animal Control Bill 2002, accessed 7/02/03, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/

Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party, (2000). Report to the Minister for Police and the Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Sydney, NSW Police Ministry.

Pigram, J. J. (1981). Outdoor recreation and access to countryside: Focus on the Australian experience, Natural Resources Journal, 21, 1: 107-23.

Pigram, J. J. (1983). Outdoor recreation and Resource management, London, Croom Helm. Pigram, J. J. & Jenkins, J. M., (1999). Outdoor Recreation Management, London, Routledge.

76

Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation (QORF) (2002). Summary Of The 2001 South East Queensland Outdoor Recreational Demand Study, Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation, accessed 18/03/03, http://www.qorf.org.au

Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association NSW & ACT Inc.(RFWDCA) (2002). Memorandum of Understanding between NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association NSW & ACT Inc, Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association NSW & ACT Inc., accessed 14/01/03, http://www.rfwdca.asn.au/articles?MOU/mou.htm

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) (2002). RSPCA calls for ban on non- commercial roo shooting, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Accessed 7/02/03, http://www.rspca.org.au/news -info/release30.asp

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, (1998). ‘Hunting’, Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife, Report to the Parliament of Australia June 1998, Chapter 19, accessed 18/03/03, http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/wild/report/c19.htm

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, SSAA (2002a). Code of Ethics, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia accessed 27/11/02, http://www.ssaa.org.au/aims.html

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, SSAA (2002b). Shooting- It’s Serious FUN And A GREAT Sport, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia accessed 27/11/02, http://www.ssaa.org.au/beginnersguide.pdf

Stayner, R., & Foskey, R. (1997). Access to Government Services in Rural New South Wales, Report to the NSW Office of Rural Communities, Sydney; NSW Agriculture.

Swensson, E.J. and Knight, J.E. (2001). “Hunter management strategies used by Montana farmers”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 1, 306-310.

Tread Lightly, (2002). Education, Treadlightly! Australia, accessed 13/03/03 http://www.treadlightlyaustralia.com.au/outdoorreccare/recreation.htm

77

Appendix 1

The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia: Code of Ethics

ƒ Having first obtained a landholder's permission to shoot on his property, members consider themselves to be invited guests, so that they will be welcome on subsequent visits.

ƒ They obey the rules of safe firearm handling and diplomatically yet firmly insist others to do the same.

ƒ They obey relevant game laws and regulations.

ƒ They acquire marksmanship and hunting skills which will ensure clean harvesting of game.

ƒ They support game conservation programs.

ƒ And, most importantly, they pass on to youngsters the attitudes to game and conservation and the skills of safe firearms ownership which are the hallmark of the sporting shooter.

Any breach of the code of ethics may result in suspension of membership or expulsion from the Association.

78

Appendix 2

Four-Wheel-Drive Clubs’ Association: Code of Ethics

ƒ Obey the laws and regulations for recreational vehicles that apply to public lands.

ƒ Respect the cultural, heritage and environmental values of public/private land by obeying restrictions that may apply.

ƒ Respect our flora and fauna. Stop and look but never disturb.

ƒ Keep to formed vehicle tracks.

ƒ Keep the environment clean. Carry your own and any other rubbish out.

ƒ Keep your vehicle mechanically sound and clean to reduce the environmental impact.

ƒ Adopt minimal impact camping and driving practices.

ƒ Seek permission before driving on private land. Do not disturb livestock or watering points, leave gates as found.

ƒ Take adequate water, food, fuel, basic spares and a first aid kit on trips. In remote areas travel with another vehicle and have Royal Flying Doctor Service, or equivalent, radio contact.

ƒ Enjoy your recreation and respect the rights of others.

ƒ Plan ahead and lodge trip details with a responsible person.

ƒ Support four-wheel-drive touring as a responsible and legitimate family recreational activity.

ƒ Consider joining an affiliated four-wheel-drive club.

79