Croc hunt will endanger humans - Bob Irwin

[Sinners121]

Why does everything need to be measured in conservation value to determine its value. There is also an ethical question about whether its right to kill native wildlife for fun. If its not imperative for maintaining ecosystems, then why allow slaughter of native wildlife? Seems absurd the government would allow this. Its amazing how loud hunting lobby groups can be.

there are already culls which in most cases is the government paying other people to shoot them. there is no real reason not to allow the hunting (please use appropriate terms, slaughter implies something that hunting is not) of native wildlife. Lets also keep in mind that a real hunter is ethical! it seems absurd the government hasn't allowed this earlier with all the revenue it could raise for them, the owners of the land and without even impacting on the population. Hunting lobby's are not nearly as loud as greenies!!

i apologise if i sound rude, i dont mean to there is just a few misconceptions.

[abnrmal91]

I am not a hunter, I don't like hunting however these animals are already being culled every year. There is something like 500 crocs killed every year, the trophy hunting would only be removing 50 of the 500. The main reason I support it is that it can/will create an income for traditional owners. Coupled with that is once the croc has a monetary value, communities will be less likely to kill crocs on their land without good reason. Why destroy something if it takes money out of your pocket. This means in the long term there is the potential for the croc numbers to increase, even with the culling.

This then means the crocodiles have a use. A quote from Grahame Webb on the topic of conserving Australia's crocodiles through commercial incentives "Without a use, any item, wildlife included, runs the risk of being seen as useless".

[Skeptic]

LOL, gotta love the term 'hunting'. They pay a guide to take them to the animal and shoot them with a high powered rifle from a safe distance. Ooohh, so tough! I personally hate hunting and have serious concerns about people who enjoy it. The idea of someone taking the life of a beautiful animal so they can blow their load is unintelligible to me. But hey, money talks.

And..... go

[Bluetongue1]

Please follow Waterrats’ advice and express facts rather than opinions as if they were facts. Crocodiles have been intensively studied since the early 1970's when Sydney University set up a research station at Maningrida. Dr. Graeme Webb was one of the early scientists to get involved, along with his then Ph.D. research student, now Dr. Charlie Manolis. Both individuals ended up forgoing the academic life of teaching to devote themselves exclusively to research in studying this animal full time over many years. There have been plenty of other researchers involved over time, not the least of which is (now retired) Professor Gordon Grigg, who expressed sentiments similar to those of Graeme Webb, as quoted by Abnormal in post No.32. Having spent a fair bit of time with Gordon, many years ago, I know just how passionate he is about all aspects of wildlife, not the least of which is conservation. He would not make that statement unless he believed it was ultimately in the best interests of the animal concerned.

Historically, it is interesting to note that original funding for the research was drummed up by Prof. Harry Messel, Head of Physical Sciences at the Uni. He was a American who came to visit and stayed and had a knack for funding research projects. He convinced the government of the day that crocs were in imminent danger of extinction and they had to do something and he knew what. As time went by and the research data clearly showed that crocs were far from on the brink of extinction, Messel maintained his initial line to continue the funding. That caused a bit of in-fighting and some good measure of public confusion about what was really the case at the time… but the money kept flowing.

If you want a good read as well as the facts, try Graeme Webb’s “Crocodiles of Australia” by Webb and Manolis. Reed 1989. Getting a little dated but the history and facts contained therein have not changed. There is also a great foreward by Hal Cogger.

Blue

[Waterrat]

Crocodile conservation in Australia is an outstanding success and it clearly illustrates that government's protection of species can only be successful if the wider community and business gets involved. Such was and still is the case of crocodile populations recovery. Crocodile farmer's contribution and people's understanding of crocodiles played a major part in crocodiles going from CITES Appendix I (near extinction) to having healthy populations across northern Australia as we see it today. Along the recovery success, we have a thriving crocodile industry that supplies the world with best quality skins and meat, indigenous people can practice traditional hunting (with modern weapons ) and tourism is benefiting big way.
Why did all this happen? Because along with the great research done by the gentlemen mentioned above, crocodile farmers established a monetary value on crocodile's head. Like with everything else, worthless things are not worth taking care of and all the greenies and governments in the country couldn't achieve this level of conservation without the industry.

Times are changing; I was involved in removal of "nuisance" salties in NQ in the eighties, we took them out of the Daintree River, Cooper Creek and other waterways where crocs are well established today and tourists are paying money to see them. As BigWillieStyles said, it's now more of an ethical question whether they should be hunted for trophies rather than economical. If the 50 shot crocs is going to bring $500,000 per year, it's nice but both the crocs and the people can live without that money. Estuarine crocodiles don't need any other, higher level of protection that they are having today. Do the property owners, indigenous communities and the administrators need the money? I can't answer the question but I tend to lean towards "no".

M

[happynagini]

Swamp people aus style haha

[Waterrat]

Swamp people aus style haha

Ke?

[MR_IAN_DAVO]

You have got to love crocs, marinated in coconut milk & spices cooked on the BBQ.LOL.

[Sezzzzzzzzz]

Ke?

tv show on 7mate, on Thursday night about alligator hunters...

[abnrmal91]

If you want a good read as well as the facts, try Graeme Webb’s “Crocodiles of Australia” by Webb and Manolis. Reed 1989. Getting a little dated but the history and facts contained therein have not changed. There is also a great foreward by Hal Cogger.

This book is a good beginners book if people want to get an understanding on Australian Crocodiles. It can be bought from Andrew Isles bookshop for $35 or so.

[apprenticegnome]

With unrestrained hunting they were shot in their thousands every year. Yet 40 years on they are a problem again, in term of both numbers and large animals encroaching into populated areas. And at the same time, thousands of eggs have been harvested from nests each year to supply crocodile farms. If 50 large crocs per year sounds like a lot, that is because you have no concept of the absolute numbers present, the massive area over which they occur and their reproductive potential.

Why should removal of large crocs affect the gene pool? Dominant croc have “mating rights” for their stretch of water and so their genes are present in the offspring. The big males will kill or chase off any male that is smaller. When they are too old to fight effectively, one of the subordinates will take over but it will have to battle for the position. It doesn’t matter if it comes from that stretch of water and is a son or if comes from elsewhere and is unrelated. The stronger will win. The same thing happens when you shoot the dominant croc. The remaining crocs battle it out until one establishes dominance.


Evolution is not survival the strongest, it is survival of the “fittest”, which means the “best suited” to a given environment. What data leads you to believe there has been a weakening of the gene pool in kangaroos as a result of culling?

Blue

I'm in total agreeance. Unless you decimated the majority of the crocidile population you definately wouldn't be affecting the gene pool and the previous harvesting of crocs in Australia for skins has proven this. I'd like to know where the weakening of the gene pool in kangaroos is proven? It's hard to believe that if this was evident that the issuing of culling permits is still readilly available. I'd recommend a trip out in the country and I don't mean an hour or 2 west of Sydney or Canberra to see the numbers of roos that thrive out there despite culling. Controlled culling can be beneficial in financially supporting the policing of illegal and unregulated hunting.

[abnrmal91]

Crocodiles are still not even close to recorded population sizes before hunting nearly wiped them out so i would have to say i am against trophy hunting until we see an increase in population size, they are still no where near as numerous as they should be.

Its estimated that between 1945-1970 the total number of crocodiles killed was 330000 (140000 from NT & 190000 from QLD & WA). In 1993 Saltwater croc numbers for NT where calculated to be 59400 with a population increase of 6.5% p.a.

If you consider how many where culled & how quickly they where able to build their numbers up again it is really remarkable. During the 1945-1972 heavily vegetated freshwater swamps acted as safe havens for Saltwater crocs, once commercial hunting stopped their numbers started to increase again. As the core habit they previously inhabited hadn't changed, it allowed for the crocodiles to re-inhabit these areas once again. We continue to see this spread today.

[Bluetongue1]

At that rate of increase, current numbers would exceed 150,000 in the NT and they could be expected to increase by more than 9,000 this year alone. Still concerned of a cull of 50?

A medical treatment has affected this part of my memory so I am not sure if I have it right. Please correct me if you know otherwise. My understanding is that crocs were getting to sufficient size and numbers on a lot of stations that they were starting to account for significant stock losses. Although they are not supposed to, the station owners were shooting them and this became evident and aan issue. In order to get rid of them on a more permanent basis, they took to doing things like dropping a few sticks of jelly into the billabong or water hole in the river and blew the crap out of everything. I think a billabong was filled in with a font-end loader or possibly pumped dry. The idea of the hunting bounty was to make it worth the station owners while to maintain the environment for the crocs by paying for stock losses and some. What I am certain of is that the motivation was to provide an incentive to maintain the environment in which crocs currently live.

[NTNed]

Some more stats from NRETAS.
Just how many Crocs are captured in populated areas in the NT?
How many of these are actually relocated and not slaughtered anyway?

50 Crocs a year...... oh yeah, that's gonna decimate em for sure............ I better get out there somewhere and see them in the wild within the next couple of million years or I'll miss out.

Have a look on a map and see how many of these captures in rivers equate to them being in Darwin Harbour per year. But hey, it's easy to be an expert when it's not in your back yard.

Crocodile Captures - NRETAS Internet Site

[Bluetongue1]

Thanks for that NTNed. And to think... I have been swimming in the Katherine River at night. Not any more!
Those in the Katherine River certainly are a long way inland. I was dubious about a fella telling me they regularly cleared the crocs out of Berry Springs so that tourists can swim. I can see I did him an injustice.
You can only imagine how many there are out in the gulf country.