scotto, on 20 August 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:
I'm not differentiating between legal and illegal, mainly because it is impossible to tell if the wankers shooting native animals lately have licences - they have run away, haven't they? So it is obivuosly far too many, whatever the objective number.
Right. More conspiracy stuff. Of course it was greenies. Probably communist greenies, watermelons. Probably vegetarian lesbian communist greenie watermelons.
That's just it there is no way to tell if the illegal shooters have licences but the odds are thatthey do not because of the potential loss if they are caught.
No one that has invested time and much money to become a licenced hunter is going to risk that along with valuable firearms by doing stupid things like shooting 'roos in front of witnesses.
Not only loss of licence but confiscation of all firearms, ammunition etc., and with no recompense and the mandatory loss of licence is for five years or more if the Commissioner thinks that it should not be reissued.
A bit of illegal hunting could easily cost a licence holder ten or twenty thousand dollars or more.
So the odds on illegal hunters being licenced is small and the odds that some of these illegal activities are being done to damage hunters is high, given the convenience with which they happen, and the frequency with which the antis in general are prone to mishandling the truth.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please
login now to make this message go away.