RSPCA can’t have it both ways
Firstly let me congratulate you on an excellent magazine and for the work you do in promoting shooting and hunting. I am a Field & Game Australia member and as a drought-stricken farmer unfortunately can’t afford to be a SSAA member as well (also, the FGA shooting range at Moama is only about 2km from my place).
My neighbour is a SSAA member and passes your magazines to me when he’s finished with them. In the Australian Shooter’s Journal Vol.15 Issue 1 (November 2018) you quote an RSPCA statement that ‘shooting by itself is not an effective way to significantly reduce animal numbers and is of limited use to achieve long-term control’. If this is the RSPCA’s belief then why do they have a problem with duck shooting if it’s not an effective way to reduce animal numbers?
I think the RSPCA view could be used as an argument to the Game Management Authority in Victoria that there should be a normal season as shooting does not significantly reduce numbers. RSPCA cannot have it both ways - either shooting is an effective way to reduce pest animals and shooters should be encouraged, or it is not effective and there should be a normal duck season in terms of both length and bag limit.
Ray Wilson, NSW
08 April 2019