In an act of extraordinary intellectual dishonesty, the Alannah & Madeline Foundation (AMF) and/or their astroturf front, the Australian Gun Safety Alliance (AGSA), have submitted an
unsolicited smear to the NSW Parliament’s Game Bill inquiry, not against a policy proposal, but against an evidence-based scientific study.
Their target?
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the ecological effects of Australian deer, a paper authored by internationally respected ecologists and published in a reputable scientific journal.
Their complaint? It was co-funded by hunters, specifically, the Blond Bay Hog Deer Advisory Group, the Australian Deer Association, and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Victoria).
In doing so, they have revealed not just the weakness of their position, but the hollow nature of their entire contribution to the public policy debate.
When you can’t refute the science, smear the scientists
At no point do AMF or AGSA engage with the study’s methodology, the qualifications of its authors, or the quality of their analysis. Why? Because they can’t. The research speaks for itself. It’s rigorous, transparent, and entirely within the established norms of academic inquiry.
So instead, they seek to tarnish it by implication: if hunters helped fund it, it must be tainted.
This line of attack is as offensive as it is absurd. By that standard, no research funded by environmental NGOs, philanthropic organisations, or universities themselves could ever be trusted, and the entire edifice of modern science would collapse.
It’s a desperate tactic. But it’s not new.
Ideology masquerading as expertise
A reasonable observer might ask: what does a systematic review of deer ecology have to do with
firearm safety?
The answer, of course, is nothing.
But that hasn’t stopped AMF and AGSA from weighing in, because
irrelevance has never been a barrier to their commentary before. They bring nothing of substance to this debate, just as they bring nothing of substance to the various government consultative committees they have inserted themselves into, and nothing of value to the media platforms that inexplicably continue to quote them as authorities.
Their role is not to inform but to influence. Their tactic is not to contribute but to control. And when faced with serious, credible science that doesn’t align with their ideological position, their instinct is not to engage, but to discredit.
The hypocrisy is transparent
This latest outburst would almost be comical if it weren’t so corrosive.
While AMF and AGSA dismiss university-led research because it was co-funded by stakeholders, they have no qualms commissioning partisan hit-pieces from ideologically aligned think tanks like
The Australia Institute. These “reports” are routinely authored by generalists with no subject-matter expertise, cherry-picked to serve a political outcome, and released under the pretence of academic integrity.
The contrast could not be more stark:
- We find rigorous, peer-reviewed science to inform better environmental management.
- They fund propaganda.
And yet, only one side is being accused of bias.
The gun grabbers' signature mood: Smear and distract
This is not new behaviour from AMF and AGSA. Whether it’s opposing the use of silencers for licensed shooters, distorting crime statistics, or now casting baseless aspersions on published science, their approach is entirely consistent:
avoid the evidence, attack the people.
It’s a tactic designed to poison the well, to imply corruption without having to prove it, to undermine without engaging.
It is also deeply disrespectful to the scientists involved, to the Parliamentary process, and to the intelligence of the Australian public.
We stand behind science. They stand behind nothing.
SSAA Victoria, along with our partners, make no apology for funding independent scientific research. We do it because we believe in evidence-based policy. We do it because proper management requires proper data. And we do it because no one else is stepping up.
The AMF and AGSA, self-styled “gun safety advocates” have contributed nothing of value to their pet issue. No fieldwork. No data. No subject matter expertise. No solutions. Just noise, obstruction, and unfounded innuendo.
Their submission to the NSW Parliament is a textbook case of bad-faith advocacy: fact-free, ideologically driven, and fundamentally unserious.
Our elected leaders and their bureaucrats need to reject smear over substance
This episode should serve as a wake-up call to policymakers and media alike.
When organisations like AMF and AGSA attack the funding of rigorous ecological research without providing evidence, expertise, or an alternative, it is not science or its funders they are damaging. It is
the very idea that science should inform public policy at all.
We will continue to support credible research. We will continue to advocate for sensible, evidence-based wildlife management. And we will continue to expose those who trade in fear, cynicism, and manipulation.
Let the record show: We funded facts. They funded a smear.
