‘Duck shooting does not “successfully co-exist with tourism”’
It’s disappointing to read unfair attacks by CEOs of shooting organisations (“The Greens are the new invasive species in the bush”, Bendigo Advertiser, Letters to the Editor, August 13 and “Duck figures don’t add up”, Bendigo Advertiser, Letters to the Editor, August 22), on rural people voicing valid concerns about duck shooting adversely impacting tourism.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Independent studies show duck shooting does not “successfully co-exist with tourism” or “benefit all of regional Victoria”.
Of the claimed estimate of benefit of duck shooting ($42.5 million direct for the state), a huge 39 per cent goes to Melbourne metro, while many rural areas see little if any benefit at all.
Claimed benefit to Greater Bendigo pales to insignificance against say Phillip Island Nature Parks’ 800 jobs and $123 million just to the local Bass Coast area.
An Independent government report found nature-based activity was worth $7.4 billion (much of it to regional areas) and 71,000 jobs in Victoria. By far the most popular activities were walking, cycling and running (Marsden Jacob 2016).
Nature-based tourism is worth over $40 billion across the country with record participation in bushwalking, visits to aboriginal culture sites and nature parks (Tourism Research Australia 2018). Regions typically see an increase in tourists when classed as National Parks of between 28-62 per cent (Dumsday 2001, Gillespie Economics 2008). No wonder Kakadu recently won a top tourism award.
If duck shooting successfully co-existed with nature-based tourism, compliance officers wouldn’t need armed police with them to approach shooters and areas of public waterways wouldn’t need to be closed to the public at times during shooting.
If duck shooting successfully co-existed with nature-based tourism, compliance officers wouldn’t need armed police with them to approach shooters and areas of public waterways wouldn’t need to be closed to the public at times during shooting.
A study by The Australia Institute (2012), found over 50 per cent of people would avoid being around duck shooters (only 16 per cent weren’t bothered), there would be little if any economic loss if Victoria banned duck shooting like other states have and a positive impact worth $60 million to do so.
A recent Auditor General’s report followed by SGS Economics analysis (2016) showed Victoria’s rural economies were faring worse than other states’. Five of the ten poorest postcodes in the country are in rural Victoria (ATO 2018), including in areas around traditional duck shooting towns like Donald, Kerang and Boort where duck shooting doesn’t seem to have helped their economies.
Many of our rural Victorian towns are rich in habitats which could rival Kakadu.
It’s time to look at a better, more prosperous way for our waterways to be used and enjoyed by all Victorians, particularly those in rural locations.R ecreational duck shooting is banned in NSW, WA, QLD and ACT for reasons of preventing cruelty and preferences for ecotourism. In Victoria, less than 0.4% population shoot birds (GMA license statistics) while 87% of Victorians including rural, want it banned (Morgan Poll).
It’s also time to let rural people voice concerns without fear of such retribution.
Kerrie Allen is a spokesperson for Regional Victorians Opposed to Duck Shooting (OTDS) Inc
Have Your Say
Letters must carry the name, full address and telephone number of the author. We reserve the right to edit letters. Send letters to PO Box 61, Bendigo 3552 or at bendigoadvertiser.com.au
Have you signed up to the Bendigo Advertiser's daily newsletter and breaking news emails? You can register below and make sure you are up to date with everything that's happening in central Victoria.
