Thread: No hunting under level 3

Someone just asked the question at the press conference, Robertson said hunting isn't banned and is under consideration for being allowed under level 3.

Originally Posted by Cigar

Someone just asked the question at the press conference, Robertson said hunting isn't banned and is under consideration for being allowed under level 3.

ARSEHOLES

Hopefully Monday’s announcement will clear things up as far as hunting goes,clear as mud right now..

The problem for us is that all risk matrices that are used to assess hunting are likely to attach a “moderate” or “medium” risk to the activity, because the highest “consequence” outcome is at the worst level - “fatality” - even when the “likelihood” is assessed at its lowest level, i.e. “very unlikely”.

So when government looks for low risk activities, hunting probably doesn’t fall into this category when a standard risk assessment process is applied to outdoor activities.

This is just the reality - risk is assessed like this (in simplistic terms) across almost all industrial, commercial and governmental sectors.

As a general rule the type of tools used in risk assessments are pretty reasonable, the fact is we just don’t like the outcome. But the amount of apparent contradiction on display yesterday strongly suggests that our representatives should push very hard for a rethink, because it does not take any rocket science to look at the relative consequences (statistically) of hunting vs. swimming, tramping, mountain biking and so on. Top of mind for me is the number of drowning and tramping accidents annually, versus hunting.

I would suggest from the wording of Robertson’s response in the press conference that someone half sensible behind the scenes has said hey hang on a minute, this is going to make us look really stupid. Unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t go ahead and ban it anyway. However I am cautiously optimistic that there will be some relaxation of the ban, and I say that in hope but also as a reflection of what Robertson said, he simply wouldn’t have responded like that if it wasn’t for the fact that someone somewhere was asking serious questions of the decision-making. If they truly didn’t give a fuck they would’ve just ban it anyway and say so. Plus we will have the problem of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing... Nash’s comments yesterday were entirely disingenuous simply because he linked hunting activity directly to needing to drive somewhere, which for a lot of us is not the case at all.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

The problem for us is that all risk matrices that are used to assess hunting are likely to attach a “moderate” or “medium” risk to the activity, because the highest “consequence” outcome is at the worst level - “fatality” - even when the “likelihood” is assessed at its lowest level, i.e. “very unlikely”.

So when government looks for low risk activities, hunting probably doesn’t fall into this category when a standard risk assessment process is applied to outdoor activities.

The government can't use risk analysis to get themselves off the hook on this one. Looking at the ACC data posted on the other thread, there are no more fatalities in hunting in than other sports and the cost per case isn't higher either. While the latter doesn't take in to account healthcare costs from hunting accidents, I imagine it would be a pretty good indicator. Admittedly, there is no incidence rate for hunting, but the number of overall claims is relatively small.