Victoria’s new duck hunting regulations are in.
That’s a problem – but so is who sided with the government on them
Claiming a loss to be a win
THE NEW WILDLIFE (GAME) REGULATIONS 2024 for Victorian hunters have been made and will come into effect soon.
They cover some of the rules around hunting, including duck hunting.
Some in the shooting community have labelled the regulations as a ‘win’ for shooters.
However that’s simply not true. They are a loss.
In this article, we explain why duck hunters, in particular, need to take action to protect what they have.
We also explain why maybe it’s time shooters in Victoria give Labor the boot.
What the rules cover
The regulations proposed several changes affecting hunters. Among the changes were:
- An immediate ban on using lead ammunition for quail hunting – but to allow lead-based ammunition to continue to be used for deer; and
- Prohibiting electronic callers for quail, but allowing them for ducks
Among these impacts are the ban on the use of lead for Damascus barrels.
As you will be aware, forcing owners to use steel will damage the internal surfaces of these barrels over time.
What it means for duck hunters
The really disappointing aspect of the regs is how they continue the political pressure on duck hunting. Among the changes are:
- Wednesday will remain the opening day – with an 8am start for the first five days of the season.
- Retaining Blue Winged Shovelers as a ‘game’ species, but retaining an all-year-round closed season on them “at this time”.
While the impacts on hunters were ‘reduced’, they are still clearly problematic. It doesn’t change the fact that hunting remains under constant attack.
Meet Dim
The good news, as duck hunters will recall, is that the Victorian Government recently rejected a parliamentary committee’s report to ban duck hunting.
Steve Dimopoulous MP
The government’s position to keep duck hunting was influenced by certain heavies within Labor, and the stance of unions who backed the sport.
However the bad news is that the regulations are the responsibility of Oakleigh MP, Steve Dimopoulous (pictured) who sits outside that circle.
Dimopoulous – or ‘Dim’ as most people call him for a reason – has not featured in recent discussions or debates on duck hunting.
However we have found some previous, albeit brief, references to his views on shooting through some simple searches on Hansard.
Dim’s views on shooting
Dim previously described Howard’s buyback as a true test of leadership.
He also backed the draconian firearm prohibition orders. introduced by previous Victorian police minister, Lisa Neville.
In 2020, Dimopoulous told parliament that sitting dates used to be timed around hunting.
That’s when he said “No, no. Not for this government”.
That’s disrespectful of both shooting and the importance of shooting to the state.
It’s clear: the minister with portfolio responsibility for the ‘outdoor recreations’ is not on our side. Labor needs to find a better minister.
Duck hunting – as both sides see it
Infighting within Labor over the future of duck hunting is nothing new. It’s been there for years, with several MPs being openly against duck shooting.
We’ve explained to many of them how many shooters are in their electorates. That’s because those are the number of votes they can win – or lose if they get it wrong. However most of them remain welded to radical left-wing views.
The issue is so divisive in Labor that Victorian shooters might remember how unions threatened to walk off the job if duck shooting got banned.
Unfortunately for Victoria, the anti-duck hunting sentiment can be found in some quarters of the Liberal Party. Liberal Brighton MP, James Newbury, for example, called for a ban on hunting in his inaugural speech.
He later backed down after being approached by the SSAA, however later reversed up the road on the matter when he felt it was safe to do so.
It means he also cannot be trusted.
However that is not to ignore the many other MPs who are supportive of hunting. It’s just that there is a lot more political work that needs to be done before we can get regulations that do the shooting sports good.
Insipid. There’s no other way to describe it
WE’RE NOT into conspiracy theories and are not accusing anyone of intending to harm other shooting interests.
However it was untrue for one shooting organisation who saw the regulations as a win, to say it helped “lead the charge to grow hunting opportunities and to push back against the constant attacks on hunting from animal rights extremists”.
To be fair, they did try their best. It is appropriate for an organisation to look after its own members.
However these regulations are not going to grow hunting opportunities or push back against left-wing attacks.
Accepting the outcome as a win is insipid.
It surrenders the agenda to those who want to shut hunting down, when they should have dug their heels in.
Instead, the big losers in this are duck hunters. In fact, all shooters.
IT ALSO CONCERNS US that the same organisation posted an interview with Minister Dimopoulous where he justified his position. The post carried no editorial comment. Why?
We can only assume there was no desire to ‘rock the boat’ and to stay in favour with government. That will always be to our detriment – and is selfish.
Glass half full – or half empty?
Yes, the regulations weren’t as catastrophic as they could have been. Congratulations to those who went in for the good fight – such as VDHA, FGA and VHH.
However, the regulations are part of a bigger problem which is where the government needs to be taken head-on.
This starts with finding the right people with the right political skills. There is simply too much at stake to leave it to those who do not.
Don’t let political parties feel ‘comfortable’
While much of what we have covered casts a dark shadow, the ability to change regulations remains an option – but we have to first change the minister and probably the government.
This is in line with the sentiments expressed at the National Gun Conference.
As industry leaders who presented at the conference said, governments that think you are comfortable with them have no reason to do anything to chase your vote. That’s why it’s dangerous to accept bad laws.
Labor may be ‘on the nose’ but is the Coalition up to the job?
One option for shooters may be to vote against the Allan Labor Government at the 2026 Victorian State Election. Remember, that they adopted a policy of banning guns on the basis of “opportunistic misuse” which could be extended to any firearm.
I would be all for going after Labor – except for one thing. The Victorian Liberal Party remains weak on firearm issues. This means they are not guaranteed to be a better choice. If we get it wrong, there is a risk Victoria could end up with it’s own version of John Howard, or Paul Papalia. James Newbury, for example.
That’s why we won’t be settling on any voting advice until closer to the time, probably a couple of weeks before the election. That’s because that’ll be when policies, candidates and preferences become known.
However that should not prevent us from putting as much pressure on both sides now. It starts with rejecting regulations designed to achieve a negative political result.
Hopefully history will repeat itself
Past efforts in Victoria have shown what can be achieved.
Cooperation across the shooting community resulted in the major parties putting out dedicated pro-hunting policies that not only protected duck hunting, but resulted in investments that boosted shooting in the state.
The political game is now more sophisticated, but the same results are possible.
The first step involves making shooters understand that they HAVE to become politically aware and vote for their sport if they want it to continue.
Shooting organisations also need to re-engage with the political process. They need to discuss this with their executives and be prepared to be bold and uncompromising in their approach.
Then, history can repeat itself.
The impact on duck hunting: find out more
If you’re a duck hunter, you can see more details on the regulations that have been made at: https://engage.vic.gov.au/proposed-wildlife-game-regulations-2024-and-regulatory-impact-statement
What you can do
CHANGE is always possible.
If you are shooter wondering what you can do to help with the broader political fight, then the first simple step is to join Politics Reloaded.
That will not only help us get our message out to more shooters, but it’ll make sure you stay in touch with what is happening around the nation through our significant email list.
You’ll also get access to the voting advice you need, regardless of what state or territory you’re in.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
Sport shooting of wildlife should be totally banned, except when shooting ferals. Hunting for NEEDED food should be allowed.
Hi Keith.
I assume by this you are not suggesting hunting be banned – just shooting wildlife for the heck of it? I hope so.
Keith, thank you for your comment, I am not sure if you are aware or not but most genuine HUNTERS feel the same. Killing for killing sake is abhorrent to us and we do not condone that sort of conduct. I personally find the killing of any thing that is not needed or unethical to be a blight on those that do but unfortunately ALL types of people and professions, be it Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers and Politicians have individuals that the community can very well do with out.
No worries. I actually do not know of any shooters who kill ‘for killing sake’. However I take your point, so thanks for that.