Recent reporting by the ABC regarding Victoria’s hunting regulator and wetland compliance raises serious allegations and broad conclusions about hunting regulation in this state.
Robust scrutiny of regulators is healthy and necessary. Recreational hunting is a lawful activity carried out largely on public land and it should be subject to strong oversight, high expectations and public accountability.
But scrutiny cuts both ways.
Where allegations are serious, readers deserve context, current data and a fair representation of both the legal framework and the publicly available evidence.
A number of important facts and points of context were absent from the article.
Compliance activity is not absent and the public record shows that
One of the recurring themes in the article is an implication that illegal hunting is tolerated or inadequately enforced.
That proposition sits awkwardly against the publicly available compliance record.
The Game Management Authority regularly publishes compliance outcomes, infringement activity and enforcement summaries and frequently publicises enforcement action against unlawful hunting behaviour. SSAA Victoria regularly shares those outcomes and publicly condemns illegal conduct.
Illegal hunting damages wildlife, damages public confidence and damages the reputation of lawful hunters.
Hunters who break the law should be prosecuted.
That position should not be controversial.
The more useful question is not whether enforcement occurs, plainly it does, but whether enforcement effort is proportionate, effective and appropriately targeted.
Importantly, public safety incidents are not exclusively attributable to hunters.
Public reporting has shown that public safety matters typically include anti-hunting activist activity and interactions on wetlands, while the balance of hunting-related compliance matters concern licensed hunters breaching game laws and conditions.
That distinction matters because broad claims that the regulator “turns a blind eye” to illegal hunting should be tested against actual enforcement outcomes.
Presence on wetlands is not itself unlawful
Another area where reporting risks creating confusion is around who can legally be present on wetlands.
The suggestion that children or non-hunters are generally prohibited from being present around wetlands during duck season is wrong.
Victorian law creates specific and limited exclusion zones at specific times around specified hunting waters.
During duck season:
- restrictions apply only to specified hunting waters and defined areas around those waters; and
- restrictions only apply during prescribed periods associated with active hunting times.
Outside those prescribed circumstances, simply being physically present on a wetland is not an offence.
Holding a Game Licence authorises hunting, it is not a general access permit.
Children, birdwatchers, photographers and other members of the public are not generally prohibited from being present in wetland environments.
Access rights and authorisation to hunt are separate concepts.
That distinction should be clearly communicated because public debate quickly becomes distorted when readers are left with the impression that wetlands are somehow closed to ordinary Victorians.
Historical allegations deserve context
The article relies heavily on views advanced by former GMA compliance manager George Buchhorn.
Mr Buchhorn’s evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements made serious criticisms of GMA culture, enforcement capability and regulatory independence.
That evidence should be considered.
But readers should also understand that parliamentary questioning explored broader context around those claims.
Committee members questioned Mr Buchhorn about compliance outcomes during his own tenure and noted lower enforcement and prosecution outputs during the period he led compliance compared with periods before and after. Mr Buchhorn disputed those implications and stated he did not have the figures available to comment.
Mr Buchhorn also confirmed that a meeting he referenced with then-Minister Lisa Neville had been arranged through Andy Meddick MP of the Animal Justice Party.
None of this invalidates his observations.
But where historical allegations are presented as authoritative evidence of current regulatory culture, readers should be given sufficient context to assess competing interpretations.
Accuracy matters: who commissioned the Pegasus Report matters
One point in the article that warrants correction is the description of the Pegasus Report.
The article describes the Pegasus review as though it were commissioned by “the Government”.
That is not what the report itself says.
The Pegasus report states that the Game Management Authority engaged Pegasus Economics in July 2017 to provide an independent assessment for the GMA Board into the effectiveness of the Authority’s compliance and enforcement regime, operating model and capability.
The report further explains that the review arose in response to events on the opening weekend of the 2017 duck hunting season, when the GMA Board indicated to the Minister that it would commission an urgent, independent review of GMA’s operating model and resourcing levels.
That distinction matters.
This was not a Government review imposed externally on the regulator.
It was an internal review commissioned by the GMA Board into the effectiveness of GMA’s own compliance and enforcement function.
That context matters because the review examined compliance arrangements during the period in which Mr Buchhorn was Manager of Game Compliance – a point that was expressly canvassed during the Parliamentary Inquiry. Committee questioning noted that the review arose from compliance concerns during the relevant period and asked whether criticism of the regulator reflected challenges that emerged under the compliance function then being led. Mr Buchhorn rejected that proposition.
None of this means the Pegasus findings should be dismissed.
Many of the report’s observations helped shape later reforms and remain relevant.
But readers should be given the correct context about who commissioned the review, why it was commissioned and what operational period it was examining.
Independence cuts both ways
The article also relies on commentary regarding regulatory independence and alleged conflicts.
Claims that a regulator is inherently incapable of acting independently because staff, officers or board members understand or participate in the activity they regulate are not self-proving.
Equally, broad assertions that regulators are captured by hunters require more than anecdote.
Public regulators should be judged on their structures, transparency, decisions and outcomes.
It is also notable that concerns now being raised publicly about regulatory independence were not advanced with the same prominence during periods when some commentators themselves occupied governance positions within the regulator.
Assertions are not evidence.
The standard should be evidence, not implication
Victoria’s game compliance framework is not perfect, no regulator is.
There should be strong enforcement against illegal hunting.
There should be accountability where agencies fall short.
There should also be accountability where anti-hunting activist activity breaches the law.
But if the objective is an informed public debate, then allegations should be tested against current compliance data, legal realities and complete historical context.
Hunters should expect strong compliance.
Activists should expect the law to apply equally to them.
And the public should expect reporting that distinguishes clearly between allegation, historical grievance and demonstrated fact.
UPDATED – We sought clarification from the Game Management Authority on a number of issues raised in the ABC article – we share the following responses:
Compliance data:
Over the 2025 and 2026 duck seasons (with the last weekend of the 2026 season pending) 93.5% of GMA compliance actions have been related to hunting offenses and 6.5% have been related to public safety offences.
Presence on wetlands during hunting activity:
Duck hunting occurs across a wide range of wetlands and waterways on both public and private land. Generally, there are no restrictions regarding who can be present at these locations, however, there are restrictions for a minimal number of wetlands on public land that are prescribed as specified hunting areas. These restrictions (Public Safety Laws) were introduced because there was a history of protestors getting into dangerous confrontations with duck hunters, putting themselves and officers in harm’s way. This resulted in a protestor being accidentally shot the face in 2011.
As a result, the following restrictions (Public Safety laws) apply:
During a duck hunting season, only people who hold a valid Game Licence endorsed for duck hunting and a valid Firearms Licence can enter specified hunting areas during specified times.
Specified hunting areas:
- the waters of any State Game Reserve and the land within 25 metres of the water shoreline of those waters;
- the waters of the hunting areas described in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024 and the land within 25 metres of the water shoreline of those waters.
Specified times are:
- From midnight of the first day of duck season until 11 a.m. of that day.
- From 2 hours before sunset of the first five days of the duck season (including the first day) until 11 a.m. of the following day
- For the remainder of the season, from 2 hours before sunset of each day of duck season (including the first day) until 10 a.m. of the following day.
- From 2 hours before sunset of the last day of the duck season until 30 minutes after sunset of that day.
These restrictions do not prohibit people from legally protesting. Further, for genuine rescuers, it allows them to enter the waters of specified hunting areas to collect or search for birds outside of the main hunting times (Specified times)
In addition, it is an offence for anyone to hinder, harass, interfere with, or obstruct a person engaged in hunting at any location and time. Examples of this illegal behaviour include, but are not limited to:
- Preventing hunters from taking a shot by standing or remaining within their firing line.
- Using sounds or visual instruments to intentionally scare birds away from hunters or change their natural flight patterns.
- Standing or remaining within or close to a hunters decoy spread to prevent birds from landing.
- Preventing or impeding a hunter from retrieving a downed bird.
- Interfering with or touching a gundog.
As a government regulator, the GMA handles matters involving children in accordance with criminal liability laws . The enforcement of the public safety laws for children under the age of 12, is subject to the minimum age of criminal responsibility as defined in the Youth Justice Act 2024 (the Act). Section 10 of the Act states: It is conclusively presumed that a child who is under 12 years of age cannot commit an offence.
Game Licences are issued to people for the purpose of recreationally, hunting, taking and destroying game. Anyone with a Game Licence must adhere to hunting laws as prescribed in the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024
Pegasus report – commissioning arrangements:
The Pegasus report was commissioned by the GMA following the shooting of threatened species by duck hunters at the Marshes in 2017.
All 26 of the accepted recommendations of the Pegasus report have been implemented. These include recommendations on the effectiveness of the Game Management Authority, regulatory governance and approach to regulation, structural separation of its licensing, compliance and enforcement functions, and building capacity and capability. GMA compliance capacity has increased from 6 authorised officers at the time of the Pegasus report to 23 authorised officers today.
In addition to addressing the findings of the Pegasus report, since 2018, the GMA has introduced several changes to improve hunter compliance, including:
- Delivering mandatory education and testing for gamebird hunting
- Developing and supporting implementation of the Waterfowl Wounding Reduction Action Plan
- Implementing evidence-based Adaptive Harvest Management for setting seasonal bag limits
- Developed new online education modules for all Game Licence applicants and holders
- Increased communication on changes to regulations and penalties for breaching public safety and hunting laws
- Issuing in-field Game Licence suspensions.
Other matters:
The article also raises issues regarding the use of images of prosecuted protesters. On 11 May 2026, the Magistrates Court in Bendigo granted an application for Media Outlets to access documents and exhibits including the photograph of the Maldon man referenced in the article. A subsequent article (preceding the GMA social media post where the man was not named and the photo was included but with an obscured face) in the Bendigo Advertiser named the man, the town he lived in, and included a photo without obscuring his identity.
The GMA does not use images of individual persons being prosecuted unless those images have been released to the media by the courts. In cases where an image of an offender has been released to media, the GMA may use this image but will obscure the offender’s face. Decisions about what material to post to social media are made in the context of the most effective way to raise awareness of the laws and deter offending.
The GMA monitors comments on its Facebook page and will remove posts that are discriminatory, potentially defamatory, false, or misleading, offensive or otherwise inappropriate.
