To cull or not to cull... that is the question...
- Thread starter slim6y
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aspidites ramsayi
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
Mayo
Very Well-Known Member
It was comercial kangaroo harvesters who cleaned up pucka, our farm's etc. I would class myself as a recreational shooter when we do a cull or I need dog food.
The problems faced at pucka were caused by over population. The result disease, starvation, destruction of local habbitat, and the extinction of other native flora and fauna due to lack of food, and natural order disruption.
Quote
"What I am not willing to accept however, is the fallacious argument that there is an over-population of roos that is resulting in the destruction of Australian ecosystems, and that this alleged over-population is justification in itself for their extermination by recreational and commercial operatives."
Richard Wells
That is a backflip.
The problems faced at pucka were caused by over population. The result disease, starvation, destruction of local habbitat, and the extinction of other native flora and fauna due to lack of food, and natural order disruption.
Quote
"What I am not willing to accept however, is the fallacious argument that there is an over-population of roos that is resulting in the destruction of Australian ecosystems, and that this alleged over-population is justification in itself for their extermination by recreational and commercial operatives."
Richard Wells
That is a backflip.
richardwells
Not so new Member
D
dynea
Guest
Richard you need to go and make a documentry and give it to Little Johnny (Howard) If your really that passionate about it, you wouldn't be waffling on here on a reptile forum.
It's great that you have dedicated your land to them, good for you. But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread.
It's great that you have dedicated your land to them, good for you. But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread.
Speak for yourself, I certainly don't think anything Richard has said deserve this comment "But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread." If anything "I was attecked by a kangaroo when i was just 14. I hate them, there mongrel animals. " and "and do need shooting. The same go's for fruit bats and flying fox's. " these comments cast a dark shadow over the thread.
We are talking about killing millions of native animals, I think the dark shadow has been cast already.
We are talking about killing millions of native animals, I think the dark shadow has been cast already.
Mayo
Very Well-Known Member
It doesn't take a scientific team or any of that ****** to see the problem. This is the wider problem I use Pucka as an example because it was a large cull and nothing about it was hidden. The Roo's were hunted well before the white man got here. What do you think was the cause for wide spread disease like that. They are called over population because that is what they are. If it is your stomach that can't take the fact that as things are a cull is required then bury your head in the sand and go on about your business while those who can do what has to be done get on with the job. Yet to see you find a scientific basis to prove that a cull is not required, but I can see why they are so readily required. You still haven't given an alternative. Populations are judged on what the land can sustain.
Yes we knock a few Roo's off for dog food or even ourselves if we find one in good condition. I am also sure that our neibours do the same, but still that does nothing to the numbers, and every few years we need to do another cull to bring the numbers back to normal. You make it sound like the Roo's are in danger of becoming extinct, where as they are thriving in this new environment we have created.
Pucka copped a lot of flack over the cull from bleeding hearts who didn't have a clue. You didn't need a gun to cull them you could have walked up to them and slit there throats. They were that diseased they couldn't even see you coming, and if it wasn't disease it was fleas and ticks not a nice way to die.Pucka is not the only place I have seen this.
As has been mentioned one study says this and there will be another saying the opposite. Depends who put the money up for the study in the first place and they will both be scientifically based so a little common scence is required to read between the lines, and when the evidence is right in front of you, you can judge it as you se it.
Yes we knock a few Roo's off for dog food or even ourselves if we find one in good condition. I am also sure that our neibours do the same, but still that does nothing to the numbers, and every few years we need to do another cull to bring the numbers back to normal. You make it sound like the Roo's are in danger of becoming extinct, where as they are thriving in this new environment we have created.
Pucka copped a lot of flack over the cull from bleeding hearts who didn't have a clue. You didn't need a gun to cull them you could have walked up to them and slit there throats. They were that diseased they couldn't even see you coming, and if it wasn't disease it was fleas and ticks not a nice way to die.Pucka is not the only place I have seen this.
As has been mentioned one study says this and there will be another saying the opposite. Depends who put the money up for the study in the first place and they will both be scientifically based so a little common scence is required to read between the lines, and when the evidence is right in front of you, you can judge it as you se it.
AntaresiaLady
Very Well-Known Member
I have a couple of things to ask here:
How do we know with 100% certainty where the animals lived before the settlement?
And is it possible the reason they're 200kms from where they are native is because as human populations have grown and pushed them out of their original homes?
I'm not for or against culling- I don't know enough to form an opinion yet, but I did wonder.
Marie.
richardwells
Not so new Member
Save the Roo !
I am sorry that you feel that way...I'll try to cast a more illuminating viewpoint in my future posts...say, about as illuminating as a white hot flash of truth in the face of the darkness of ignorance? [and please note, I am not mocking you or anyone else in saying this]
And please don't undersell the value of a reptile forum like this for espousing (not waffling) such views...you never know who its members are and who regularly monitors it...I believe this is a very important issue, and I commend the Site for having the courage to provide the arena to share this and many other hot topics.
Oh, and by the way, if you think that what I have written is an extreme view on the issue of the unnecessary and totally unjustified mass murder of millions upon millions of kangaroos you really shouldn't look into the matter too deeply...There are tens of thousands of people far more enraged than me about this situation...
I'm actually a meek and mild, peace-loving person that wouldn't hurt a fly, bla bla bla...anything but extreme, perhaps a little vocal, maybe a little boisterous, well...maybe a bit off the richter at times, mmm...possibly a bit extroverted,... (Whoops, I'm waffling again !)
Richard Wells
I am sorry that you feel that way...I'll try to cast a more illuminating viewpoint in my future posts...say, about as illuminating as a white hot flash of truth in the face of the darkness of ignorance? [and please note, I am not mocking you or anyone else in saying this]
And please don't undersell the value of a reptile forum like this for espousing (not waffling) such views...you never know who its members are and who regularly monitors it...I believe this is a very important issue, and I commend the Site for having the courage to provide the arena to share this and many other hot topics.
Oh, and by the way, if you think that what I have written is an extreme view on the issue of the unnecessary and totally unjustified mass murder of millions upon millions of kangaroos you really shouldn't look into the matter too deeply...There are tens of thousands of people far more enraged than me about this situation...
I'm actually a meek and mild, peace-loving person that wouldn't hurt a fly, bla bla bla...anything but extreme, perhaps a little vocal, maybe a little boisterous, well...maybe a bit off the richter at times, mmm...possibly a bit extroverted,... (Whoops, I'm waffling again !)
Richard Wells
Mayo
Very Well-Known Member
You look at my side of the arguement as ignorant and I look at your's as a different point of view. But the truth of the matter is that with the way the country currently is, culls are required, and Rec shooters are not doing any damage to the survival of the kangaroos as a species. Regular culls are just keeping the species in check. Those that think we should sit on our hands and do nothing about the problem are deluded. Debat is a good start on solving the problem but without any action it is meaningless. The current strategy is regular cull's and I'm sure that there were study's and scientific papers written on the subject from both sides and the only answer that was given was regular cull's. If you can figure out a better solution to address the problem then please let us no. If you don't think that the Roo's are a problem well this thread shouldn't exist
OdessaStud
Very Well-Known Member
I agree with you 100% Mayo I live in a roo infested area and have roo shooters contracted by the council to clean up the excess.There are also private shooters that go onto private property and drop the numbers on that property for that day.The very next day there are the same amount of roos back again so where do you say no more?If you want any sort of useable land there has to be a line drawn as to what can eat it into the ground and what cant.Roos are not enviormentally freindly the eat down to ground level where as cattle do not.( ive been a dairy farmer for over 20 years)so i do know what im talking about Mr Wells.Everything needs to be controlled be it native animals or humans,we have to have some control.JMO
Cheers Odie
Cheers Odie
Richard: strange that you're still on your impressively high horse, even after conceding that culling can be necessary. No one is suggesting that we exterminate kangaroos, anyone who isn't a madman can see that there are more kangaroos now than there were 300 years ago if he wants to look into it and even you accept that there are cases where they need to be culled.
Why do you feel the need to deliberately stir up a large amount of gratuitous controversy? Let's have a think about the typical reasons people do this...
Meek and mild, anything but extreme, boisterous and off the richter, all in the one sentence! As I now understand, for you a backflip is barely a warm up! You missed your calling, you should have been a gymnast!
Caught any big ones lately? :lol:
Why do you feel the need to deliberately stir up a large amount of gratuitous controversy? Let's have a think about the typical reasons people do this...
Meek and mild, anything but extreme, boisterous and off the richter, all in the one sentence! As I now understand, for you a backflip is barely a warm up! You missed your calling, you should have been a gymnast!
Caught any big ones lately? :lol:
richardwells
Not so new Member
Save the Roo !
I am anything but deluded on the issue of the probable extinction in the very near future of Kangaroos and Wallabies in Australia. We still haven't recieved any serious study of the impact the horrendous 2003 cull had on the major roo species in NSW alone (where over two million were given over to the Final Solution Strategy. Some of the concerns about this awful slaughter that were raised then by Maryland Wilson are still relevant now, and I include them below:
Richard Wells
QUOTE
KILLING OF THE ALPHA MALES
" When a shooter enters the structured society of a mob of kangaroos, he destroys a rich, complex system by killing the alpha male, his immediate rivals, and the older females, who are the educators of the mob. This selective hunting results in females mating with young males and the loss of the inherited strengths of the mob."
The alpha male is critical for the social fabric of wild populations but for decades, the kangaroo killing industry has commercially targeted for profit, the alpha males. Night after night, kangaroo shooters have entered their domain and attacked the mobs of 'stress prone ' kangaroos, breaking up and destroying their family groups, killing their joeys, leaving them stressed, frightened and fearful . The late Dr Peter Rawlinson, zoologist La Trobe University said that when wild populations are under such stress, they breed furiously to preserve their species in a desperate attempt to prevent their demise.
NSW NPWS 2003 KANGAROO QUOTA IS IRRESPONSIBLE ; DROUGHT ADVERSELY AFFECTS 'ROOS
The NSW NPWS has failed to take into account the Precautionary Principle and has instead created a climate of economic opportunism to the detriment of kangaroo populations, particularly during this ever worsening current 2002 drought, without due regard for the welfare and future survival of kangaroos.
NPWS ignores the scientific advice from Dr Graham Caughley who warned that all kangaroo killing should cease during drought to allow the strongest to survive. This present environmental crisis warrants an immediate moratorium on kangaroo killing to allow the strongest of the species to survive. But NPWS continues its charade, and issues kangaroo destruction permits to any landholder who wants them, handing our wildlife icons over as a prize, with no questions asked. Such action is irresponsible.
Instead NPWS says " The Government appreciates the problems facing the landholders in drought-affected areas. In response to concerns raised by graziers, the Government has given an undertaking that the NPWS and NSW Agriculture will review the skin-only option as part of its drought assistance package…the Government will carefully assess its potential impact on the kangaroo industry, which is one of the most significant employers in the State's west, and an industry worth $70 million in NSW."
NSW BANNED SKIN ONLY SHOOTING (1997) DUE TO CRUELTY AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO POLICE
'FAST TRACKING' NON-COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS TO KILL KANGAROOS
Letter from Terry Korn NSW NPWS Director Western 24.9.2002 ( Re-introduction of skin only shooting)
" The NSW Government's extensive drought relief measures announced recently, included a commitment to "fast track" non-commercial applications to cull kangaroos. Farmers can get a free non-commercial license from the NPWS to shoot kangaroos that are competing for scarce resources in drought- affected areas. The license lasts for a period of three months. This initiative has been well received by landholders and the NPWS will continue to give priority to this program." Terry Korn NPWS
COMMERCIAL KILLING SEEN AS THE GOAL AND SCIENCE FOLLOWS SET PARAMETRES
Grigg and Pople refer to kangaroos as "pests" 40 times in their "Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia"
The 'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia', written by Gordon Grigg and Tony Pople is used as the definitive bible by Environment Australia for kangaroo management. It provides the basis upon which all scientific data is cynically used to justify the killing of millions of kangaroos each year.
Grigg and Pople provide the 'scientific' parametres for commercial kangaroo killing.
"Harvesting will invariably involve some injuries and protracted deaths. To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady density, it first must be manipulated in some way to promote the rate of increase. (e.g. reduce it below its ecological carrying capacity or supplement its resources)"
"Rates of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause the extinction of the populations (Arguments will be confounded when there are non-consumptive values attached to the resource such as for Tourism)."
Governments pay Gordon Grigg, Tony Pople, Peter Hale, Steve Mc Leod, Stuart Cairns etc for their research and provide $$$ in subsidies to prop up a brutally cruel kangaroo industry which would not survive without such generous and on going help, to counteract growing worldwide condemnation
ARTIFICIAL MANIPULATION OF KANGAROO POPULATIONS INCREASES POPULATIONS
THEN THE SCIENTISTS COUNT THE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH POPULATIONS AND SET THE QUOTAS
Australian scientists defy natural selection and artificially manipulate populations to accommodate the commercial kangaroo industry and papers produced by these scientists start from their basic political premise that kangaroos be commercially killed as a resource . They then produce facts and figures to accommodate and support the need for a commercial kangaroo killing industry.
In the 2002 Kangaroo Management Program, 'damage mitigation' was removed because it could not be audited, as the sole cause of killing kangaroos and kangaroos are killed as a resource to provide profits.
Official Policy of Environment Australia
"Australian native wildlife is a renewable resource. If managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, wildlife can provide a perpetual source of economic benefits for all Australians."
AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATE KANGAROO POPULATIONS WITH AN UP TO 80% MALE BIAS IN COMMERCIAL KILLING, THUS DEFYING NATURAL SELECTION SO ESSENTIAL TO WILD POPULATIONS, AND CAUSING A CONSTANT EROSION OF THE GENE POOL
Letter from SA Environment Minister David Wooten 24 March 1982
"The Department is encouraging the increased harvesting of smaller kangaroos including females, as there is concern at the effect of preferential harvesting of larger kangaroos. Male kangaroos are generally larger than the females and the continued taking of the elite males could result in a deterioration of the quality of the population as a whole, because the smaller and less robust males would tend to be conserved while the larger, healthier animals would be shot out. The reduction in the number of female animals would also reduce the breeding rate of the overall population and therefore reduce the need for such high killing rates as is necessary at the present time"
' ROO SLAUGHTER FEAR' LOSS OF GENE POOL
The Sydney Sun Herald 5/1/1997 by Fia Cumming :
"A WILDLIFE expert has warned of a dramatic crash in kangaroo numbers because commercial culling is killing off the biggest and most healthy animals. Wildlife gene researcher claims legal culling of millions of kangaroos each year leaves only smaller, weaker animals to reproduce - causing a constant erosion of the genetic pool."
"And he says the annual quota of kangaroos to be killed - more than 3.7 million in 1996 - is based on false information about their numbers." Dr Ian Gunn said "The evidence is indisputable. If left to continue, (it) has the potential to result in reduced genetic viability, lower reproductive efficiency and a radical reduction in the populations density below sustainable numbers in certain regions "
Dr Gunn says " ..one obvious result of years of shooting the largest animals will be a reduction in the overall size of the animals. Removing the dominant males who did most of the breeding would allow less healthy males to become the main source of the genes. Really we don't know, no-one knows, the effect of killing a high percentage of the larger males or females of the population."
'FROM CONSERVATION TO EXPLOITATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'
Doug Reilly ( Macropod expert Chinaman Creek Environmental Research Station SA)
"In any wild animal, if you disrupt in a short period of time the normal reproduction processes that have evolved over tens of thousands of years you are in danger of putting the species at risk. Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species (seals, bison,wolves) have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Many of these species suffered incursion of exotic bacterias and viruses when their populations contained a critical and unsustainable gene pool."
PROFESSOR DAVID CONOVER STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
(Science magazine SMH July 8, 2002)
FISH THROWM BACK MEANS SMALL FRY
Professor Conover says that size is genetically controlled, as well as being associated with age. "We need to pay more attention to what the evolutionary impacts are. We just can't look at the ecological effect of harvesting. We have to add the Darwinian effect." (Darwin's theory of natural selection)
Dr Peter Hale
Queensland University, states that inappropriate and destructive 'culling' practices have no bearing on genetic loss or threats to kangaroo populations. But his research does not take into consideration emerging wildlife diseases, caused by viruses that are totally new to science . Professor John Mac Kenzie, University of Queensland said, " It is important scientists have the resources to look for agents that cause all major outbreaks of disease in Australia, such as kangaroo blindness and pilchard kills." The ability of kangaroos to adapt to climate change and disease threats is ignored by Hale. Floods follow drought and kangaroos face the terrible choroid blindness disease as well as other ignored bacterias and viruses. AWPC does not accept Hales' assurances nor do several other scientists that there is no loss to the gene pool by the present artificial manipulation of kangaroo populations and inappropriate 'culling practices.
But Environment Australia's Jonathan Miller A/g Assistant Sec Wildlife Australia 29 September 2002 supports Hale:
" In regard to the genetic impact of kangaroo harvesting there is currently no information coming from the harvest data collected by the States that indicates that commercial harvesting has had any deleterious impacts on the genetic fitness of kangaroo populations. However, kangaroo management plans allow for adaptive management, and should such information arise, changes to harvesting procedures could be implemented in response."
We condemn their lack of concern and what if Peter Hale and Environment Australia are wrong? The survival of kangaroos is being used as a political football.
Further, NPWS totally ignores the inherent cruelty to kangaroos, in-pouch and ex-pouch joeys…
Where is the implementation of the Precautionary Principle or is the NSW NPWS merely the marketing arm of the kangaroo industry? If so, perhaps an overt declaration to the general community would be appropriate.
Do we wait to see if there is a threat and then act, hoping it will not be too late?
Do we wait to see if the gene pool has been depleted or that kangaroos populations crash beyond the point of no return? Wake up please NPWS to the enormous threats to kangaroo populations.
AUSTRALIA'S SHAME
There are almost no areas left where kangaroos are safe from shooters. Nothing has changed since 1982.
92% of NSW has been drought declared. and the NSW NPWS has set a commercial kill for 2003 of 2,107,620 kangaroos with a Proposed special quota of another 134,000 kangaroos for farmers. This so-called non-commercial kill becomes a commercial kill which is then part of the quota. How mischievous!
LEAVING THE YOUNG RECRUITS
Dr Stuart Cairns
"All of Mulyungarie is easily accessible to a professional shooter, enabling him to cull predominantly mature males. This means that the Mootooroo Pastoral Company is turning the 'roo into something resembling a domestic animal, culling any surplus males and topping up each night with a few does. It is the nearest thing to sustainable farming in Australia. Essentially, they are lifting the food resource base for new recruits - animals just leaving the pouch and the young at foot. It is certainly a sustainable harvest"
TOTAL GRAZING PRESSURE DAMAGE BY KANGAROOS EXAGGERATED BY UP TO 500%
Professor Gordon Grigg
The damage done on grazing lands by kangaroos has been overestimated by up to 500%. "This would mean that kangaroos are a much smaller component of the total grazing pressure than is generally accepted. The hope of getting a significant improvement in wool production by pest control of kangaroos is probably doomed to failure." Grigg says that kangaroos should be regarded as a resource.
GLOVE BOX GUIDE TO KANGAROOS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IN THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN
Translated, this means finding more and better ways to kill kangaroos
Dr Steve Mc Leod
'Culling during drought, when the need seems greatest from a pastoral perspective, may be less beneficial in the long run than culling in the immediate post-drought period. Culling during drought simply removes animals that would die in any event and, paradoxically, favors survival of those remaining. Culling in the immediate post-drought period, when the population is beginning to rebuild from a low base and food is plentiful (so that culled animals represent a genuine reduction in the populations) will have longer lasting effects." Page. 18
' In most situations, establishment of self -mustering yards is probably the best way to ensure that waters can be closed to kangaroos when required.' Page. 17
''The impact of harvesting or culling on kangaroo density depends greatly on the ratio of males to females taken. If only males are taken, little if any long term reduction in density will result from harvest rates that would rapidly lead to extinction if the harvest were balanced. Conversely, a harvest that is strongly biased towards females will achieve a much greater reduction in density than would otherwise occur. Careful selection of the animals targeted may thus make a substantial difference to the overall result achieved." Pages. 17 & 18
'When animals are taken under shoot and let lie permits, greater opportunity exists for selective harvesting. Carefully targeted shooting under these conditions could be expected to have much greater impact in the long run than hasty, indiscriminate culling" Page 18
MANAGING KANGAROOS IN THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN SEPTEMBER 2002
Ron Hacker, Steve Mc Leod, John Durhan, Brigitte Tenhumberg and Udai Pradhan
Scenarios for kangaroo killing
'A major outcome of this collaboration was the Committee's decision to recommend that additional funding be provided to support both a sub-project related to the effects of kangaroo harvesting on population genetics and the production of an expanded range of publications." Page 3
" A spatial model of kangaroos harvesting was developed to examine the likely distribution of the commercial harvest effort over the landscape. The model assumes that the level of profit required by a harvester determines the density at which harvesting will cease in a given area under specified assumptions regarding operating costs and commodity price.." page 7
" The best overall combination was an annual harvest rate of 10% male only harvesting. The preferred options for the kangaroo industry were also strongly male biased. The best overall combination was male-only harvesting at an annual rate of 40%. Pastoralists' preferred options, in contrast, were characterised by harvest rates greater than 30% made up of at least 30% females. The best overall combination was an annual harvest rate of 90% made up of 70% females". Page 9
The above would cause the extinction of the species.
The above reveals a hatred of and contempt for kangaroos which is deeply imbedded in the Australian psyche . The pastoralists want kangaroos dead. These are OUR taxes at work…on how to kill off kangaroos in Australia. The Rural Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) and other agricultural bodies have been subsidising this type of research for many years. The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) works hand in hand with Australian scientists such as Grigg, Mc Leod, Hacker, Tenhumberg, Pople, Cairns, Hale, Pradhan, Druhan, Archer, Hopwood etc
Maryland Wilson
President
END OF QUOTE
I am anything but deluded on the issue of the probable extinction in the very near future of Kangaroos and Wallabies in Australia. We still haven't recieved any serious study of the impact the horrendous 2003 cull had on the major roo species in NSW alone (where over two million were given over to the Final Solution Strategy. Some of the concerns about this awful slaughter that were raised then by Maryland Wilson are still relevant now, and I include them below:
Richard Wells
QUOTE
KILLING OF THE ALPHA MALES
" When a shooter enters the structured society of a mob of kangaroos, he destroys a rich, complex system by killing the alpha male, his immediate rivals, and the older females, who are the educators of the mob. This selective hunting results in females mating with young males and the loss of the inherited strengths of the mob."
The alpha male is critical for the social fabric of wild populations but for decades, the kangaroo killing industry has commercially targeted for profit, the alpha males. Night after night, kangaroo shooters have entered their domain and attacked the mobs of 'stress prone ' kangaroos, breaking up and destroying their family groups, killing their joeys, leaving them stressed, frightened and fearful . The late Dr Peter Rawlinson, zoologist La Trobe University said that when wild populations are under such stress, they breed furiously to preserve their species in a desperate attempt to prevent their demise.
NSW NPWS 2003 KANGAROO QUOTA IS IRRESPONSIBLE ; DROUGHT ADVERSELY AFFECTS 'ROOS
The NSW NPWS has failed to take into account the Precautionary Principle and has instead created a climate of economic opportunism to the detriment of kangaroo populations, particularly during this ever worsening current 2002 drought, without due regard for the welfare and future survival of kangaroos.
NPWS ignores the scientific advice from Dr Graham Caughley who warned that all kangaroo killing should cease during drought to allow the strongest to survive. This present environmental crisis warrants an immediate moratorium on kangaroo killing to allow the strongest of the species to survive. But NPWS continues its charade, and issues kangaroo destruction permits to any landholder who wants them, handing our wildlife icons over as a prize, with no questions asked. Such action is irresponsible.
Instead NPWS says " The Government appreciates the problems facing the landholders in drought-affected areas. In response to concerns raised by graziers, the Government has given an undertaking that the NPWS and NSW Agriculture will review the skin-only option as part of its drought assistance package…the Government will carefully assess its potential impact on the kangaroo industry, which is one of the most significant employers in the State's west, and an industry worth $70 million in NSW."
NSW BANNED SKIN ONLY SHOOTING (1997) DUE TO CRUELTY AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO POLICE
'FAST TRACKING' NON-COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS TO KILL KANGAROOS
Letter from Terry Korn NSW NPWS Director Western 24.9.2002 ( Re-introduction of skin only shooting)
" The NSW Government's extensive drought relief measures announced recently, included a commitment to "fast track" non-commercial applications to cull kangaroos. Farmers can get a free non-commercial license from the NPWS to shoot kangaroos that are competing for scarce resources in drought- affected areas. The license lasts for a period of three months. This initiative has been well received by landholders and the NPWS will continue to give priority to this program." Terry Korn NPWS
COMMERCIAL KILLING SEEN AS THE GOAL AND SCIENCE FOLLOWS SET PARAMETRES
Grigg and Pople refer to kangaroos as "pests" 40 times in their "Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia"
The 'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia', written by Gordon Grigg and Tony Pople is used as the definitive bible by Environment Australia for kangaroo management. It provides the basis upon which all scientific data is cynically used to justify the killing of millions of kangaroos each year.
Grigg and Pople provide the 'scientific' parametres for commercial kangaroo killing.
"Harvesting will invariably involve some injuries and protracted deaths. To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady density, it first must be manipulated in some way to promote the rate of increase. (e.g. reduce it below its ecological carrying capacity or supplement its resources)"
"Rates of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause the extinction of the populations (Arguments will be confounded when there are non-consumptive values attached to the resource such as for Tourism)."
Governments pay Gordon Grigg, Tony Pople, Peter Hale, Steve Mc Leod, Stuart Cairns etc for their research and provide $$$ in subsidies to prop up a brutally cruel kangaroo industry which would not survive without such generous and on going help, to counteract growing worldwide condemnation
ARTIFICIAL MANIPULATION OF KANGAROO POPULATIONS INCREASES POPULATIONS
THEN THE SCIENTISTS COUNT THE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH POPULATIONS AND SET THE QUOTAS
Australian scientists defy natural selection and artificially manipulate populations to accommodate the commercial kangaroo industry and papers produced by these scientists start from their basic political premise that kangaroos be commercially killed as a resource . They then produce facts and figures to accommodate and support the need for a commercial kangaroo killing industry.
In the 2002 Kangaroo Management Program, 'damage mitigation' was removed because it could not be audited, as the sole cause of killing kangaroos and kangaroos are killed as a resource to provide profits.
Official Policy of Environment Australia
"Australian native wildlife is a renewable resource. If managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, wildlife can provide a perpetual source of economic benefits for all Australians."
AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATE KANGAROO POPULATIONS WITH AN UP TO 80% MALE BIAS IN COMMERCIAL KILLING, THUS DEFYING NATURAL SELECTION SO ESSENTIAL TO WILD POPULATIONS, AND CAUSING A CONSTANT EROSION OF THE GENE POOL
Letter from SA Environment Minister David Wooten 24 March 1982
"The Department is encouraging the increased harvesting of smaller kangaroos including females, as there is concern at the effect of preferential harvesting of larger kangaroos. Male kangaroos are generally larger than the females and the continued taking of the elite males could result in a deterioration of the quality of the population as a whole, because the smaller and less robust males would tend to be conserved while the larger, healthier animals would be shot out. The reduction in the number of female animals would also reduce the breeding rate of the overall population and therefore reduce the need for such high killing rates as is necessary at the present time"
' ROO SLAUGHTER FEAR' LOSS OF GENE POOL
The Sydney Sun Herald 5/1/1997 by Fia Cumming :
"A WILDLIFE expert has warned of a dramatic crash in kangaroo numbers because commercial culling is killing off the biggest and most healthy animals. Wildlife gene researcher claims legal culling of millions of kangaroos each year leaves only smaller, weaker animals to reproduce - causing a constant erosion of the genetic pool."
"And he says the annual quota of kangaroos to be killed - more than 3.7 million in 1996 - is based on false information about their numbers." Dr Ian Gunn said "The evidence is indisputable. If left to continue, (it) has the potential to result in reduced genetic viability, lower reproductive efficiency and a radical reduction in the populations density below sustainable numbers in certain regions "
Dr Gunn says " ..one obvious result of years of shooting the largest animals will be a reduction in the overall size of the animals. Removing the dominant males who did most of the breeding would allow less healthy males to become the main source of the genes. Really we don't know, no-one knows, the effect of killing a high percentage of the larger males or females of the population."
'FROM CONSERVATION TO EXPLOITATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'
Doug Reilly ( Macropod expert Chinaman Creek Environmental Research Station SA)
"In any wild animal, if you disrupt in a short period of time the normal reproduction processes that have evolved over tens of thousands of years you are in danger of putting the species at risk. Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species (seals, bison,wolves) have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Many of these species suffered incursion of exotic bacterias and viruses when their populations contained a critical and unsustainable gene pool."
PROFESSOR DAVID CONOVER STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
(Science magazine SMH July 8, 2002)
FISH THROWM BACK MEANS SMALL FRY
Professor Conover says that size is genetically controlled, as well as being associated with age. "We need to pay more attention to what the evolutionary impacts are. We just can't look at the ecological effect of harvesting. We have to add the Darwinian effect." (Darwin's theory of natural selection)
Dr Peter Hale
Queensland University, states that inappropriate and destructive 'culling' practices have no bearing on genetic loss or threats to kangaroo populations. But his research does not take into consideration emerging wildlife diseases, caused by viruses that are totally new to science . Professor John Mac Kenzie, University of Queensland said, " It is important scientists have the resources to look for agents that cause all major outbreaks of disease in Australia, such as kangaroo blindness and pilchard kills." The ability of kangaroos to adapt to climate change and disease threats is ignored by Hale. Floods follow drought and kangaroos face the terrible choroid blindness disease as well as other ignored bacterias and viruses. AWPC does not accept Hales' assurances nor do several other scientists that there is no loss to the gene pool by the present artificial manipulation of kangaroo populations and inappropriate 'culling practices.
But Environment Australia's Jonathan Miller A/g Assistant Sec Wildlife Australia 29 September 2002 supports Hale:
" In regard to the genetic impact of kangaroo harvesting there is currently no information coming from the harvest data collected by the States that indicates that commercial harvesting has had any deleterious impacts on the genetic fitness of kangaroo populations. However, kangaroo management plans allow for adaptive management, and should such information arise, changes to harvesting procedures could be implemented in response."
We condemn their lack of concern and what if Peter Hale and Environment Australia are wrong? The survival of kangaroos is being used as a political football.
Further, NPWS totally ignores the inherent cruelty to kangaroos, in-pouch and ex-pouch joeys…
Where is the implementation of the Precautionary Principle or is the NSW NPWS merely the marketing arm of the kangaroo industry? If so, perhaps an overt declaration to the general community would be appropriate.
Do we wait to see if there is a threat and then act, hoping it will not be too late?
Do we wait to see if the gene pool has been depleted or that kangaroos populations crash beyond the point of no return? Wake up please NPWS to the enormous threats to kangaroo populations.
AUSTRALIA'S SHAME
There are almost no areas left where kangaroos are safe from shooters. Nothing has changed since 1982.
92% of NSW has been drought declared. and the NSW NPWS has set a commercial kill for 2003 of 2,107,620 kangaroos with a Proposed special quota of another 134,000 kangaroos for farmers. This so-called non-commercial kill becomes a commercial kill which is then part of the quota. How mischievous!
LEAVING THE YOUNG RECRUITS
Dr Stuart Cairns
"All of Mulyungarie is easily accessible to a professional shooter, enabling him to cull predominantly mature males. This means that the Mootooroo Pastoral Company is turning the 'roo into something resembling a domestic animal, culling any surplus males and topping up each night with a few does. It is the nearest thing to sustainable farming in Australia. Essentially, they are lifting the food resource base for new recruits - animals just leaving the pouch and the young at foot. It is certainly a sustainable harvest"
TOTAL GRAZING PRESSURE DAMAGE BY KANGAROOS EXAGGERATED BY UP TO 500%
Professor Gordon Grigg
The damage done on grazing lands by kangaroos has been overestimated by up to 500%. "This would mean that kangaroos are a much smaller component of the total grazing pressure than is generally accepted. The hope of getting a significant improvement in wool production by pest control of kangaroos is probably doomed to failure." Grigg says that kangaroos should be regarded as a resource.
GLOVE BOX GUIDE TO KANGAROOS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IN THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN
Translated, this means finding more and better ways to kill kangaroos
Dr Steve Mc Leod
'Culling during drought, when the need seems greatest from a pastoral perspective, may be less beneficial in the long run than culling in the immediate post-drought period. Culling during drought simply removes animals that would die in any event and, paradoxically, favors survival of those remaining. Culling in the immediate post-drought period, when the population is beginning to rebuild from a low base and food is plentiful (so that culled animals represent a genuine reduction in the populations) will have longer lasting effects." Page. 18
' In most situations, establishment of self -mustering yards is probably the best way to ensure that waters can be closed to kangaroos when required.' Page. 17
''The impact of harvesting or culling on kangaroo density depends greatly on the ratio of males to females taken. If only males are taken, little if any long term reduction in density will result from harvest rates that would rapidly lead to extinction if the harvest were balanced. Conversely, a harvest that is strongly biased towards females will achieve a much greater reduction in density than would otherwise occur. Careful selection of the animals targeted may thus make a substantial difference to the overall result achieved." Pages. 17 & 18
'When animals are taken under shoot and let lie permits, greater opportunity exists for selective harvesting. Carefully targeted shooting under these conditions could be expected to have much greater impact in the long run than hasty, indiscriminate culling" Page 18
MANAGING KANGAROOS IN THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN SEPTEMBER 2002
Ron Hacker, Steve Mc Leod, John Durhan, Brigitte Tenhumberg and Udai Pradhan
Scenarios for kangaroo killing
'A major outcome of this collaboration was the Committee's decision to recommend that additional funding be provided to support both a sub-project related to the effects of kangaroo harvesting on population genetics and the production of an expanded range of publications." Page 3
" A spatial model of kangaroos harvesting was developed to examine the likely distribution of the commercial harvest effort over the landscape. The model assumes that the level of profit required by a harvester determines the density at which harvesting will cease in a given area under specified assumptions regarding operating costs and commodity price.." page 7
" The best overall combination was an annual harvest rate of 10% male only harvesting. The preferred options for the kangaroo industry were also strongly male biased. The best overall combination was male-only harvesting at an annual rate of 40%. Pastoralists' preferred options, in contrast, were characterised by harvest rates greater than 30% made up of at least 30% females. The best overall combination was an annual harvest rate of 90% made up of 70% females". Page 9
The above would cause the extinction of the species.
The above reveals a hatred of and contempt for kangaroos which is deeply imbedded in the Australian psyche . The pastoralists want kangaroos dead. These are OUR taxes at work…on how to kill off kangaroos in Australia. The Rural Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) and other agricultural bodies have been subsidising this type of research for many years. The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) works hand in hand with Australian scientists such as Grigg, Mc Leod, Hacker, Tenhumberg, Pople, Cairns, Hale, Pradhan, Druhan, Archer, Hopwood etc
Maryland Wilson
President
END OF QUOTE
Mayo
Very Well-Known Member
I read about 3/4 of that and don't believe half of it. No one is hunting kangaroos to the brink of extinction what a crock. If you want to debate such matters get to the point, hiding behind the works of others and using long winded bolocks does not help your arguement at all. It is easy for these people to mock institutions like NPWS etc but let's see them come up with some practical solution, can't find any, because they don't have any. I could sit here and pick so many holes through what I read it was amazing half of it was even written. Dr, Professor, Expert, for some of those I doubt it. I'm not going to bother going looking for the supportive side as it is obvious that it is not required for this all that searching and still I see very little practical info. Yes I acknowledge that we are taking the strongest of the species at the moment and yes that is something that should change but the culls are still required. The extinction of the species is so far fetched that it's not funny. The diseases that they are talking about have come about due to over population. Disease mutation occurs most when there are a multitude of hosts such as over population.
richardwells
Not so new Member
Save the Roo !
Odie...
Experience can be a funny thing...I mean to say you can have 20 Years Experience...or a Year's Experience 20 times, but either way, I'm sure you would know more about a dairy than me.
From my experience, we have had absolutely no trouble at all will roos "eating down to ground level", although some years back the cattle on our property consumed the place down to rocks in places - before they were finally removed to the abattoirs and our place saved for wildlife.
Roos are a very environmentally friendly component of the ecosystem - even during environmental perturbations like the drought we are still in down here.
I cannot do much better than quote those more experienced than me in the value of the Kangaroo to Australia (reproduced below). Perhaps they might convince your to dump the Moos for the Roos?
Cheers - Richard Wells
Quote:
ACTION
Wildlife and eco-tourism have tremendous national wealth and jobs potential. The kangaroo is a universally loved icon yet millions, now declared a resource, are slaughtered to accommodate destructive agricultural practices.
It is time for the tourism industry to maximize on the already established international reputation of the kangaroo as a major tourist icon.
Australia's leaders hide behind a protective wall of propaganda and irresponsible legislation, so that a few may gain from the death of a species.
Australia has the highest rate of extinctions in the world but there appears to be no shame, only apathy about this appalling record.
Myth: Plagues of kangaroos? Australia overrun by kangaroos?
Fact: Kangaroos were widespread and abundant at the time of early settlement. Now they are fugitives in their own country and Skippy is relentlessly pursued.
Myth: Kangaroos degrade and destroy the environment.
Fact: The soft padded feet and long tail of the kangaroo are integral to the ecological health of the land as regenerators of native grasses. It is destructive agricultural practices on marginal land that are proving to be unsustainable.
Myth: We need to kill and eat our wildlife to save it. Wildlife must 'pay its way'.
Fact: It is imperative that we link wildlife corridors throughout Australia to restore kangaroo and wildlife habitat. Tourists want to see tourist icon Skippy... but kangaroos are being decimated and the outback is turning to dust. The ecological and economic value of wildlife nature-based tourism is ignored.
Fail to acknowledge different and specific needs of the four commercially killed species and 'manage' them as one:
Use 'guesstimates' and changing correction factors to estimate populations
Totally disregard the biological and social needs of kangaroos
Ignore natural selection and manipulate kangaroo populations for artificial results to benefit the kangaroo industry
Do not monitor the legal or illegal killing of kangaroos
Ignore studies which prove kangaroos do not compete with cattle and sheep
Removed 'damage mitigation' as the sole reason for killing kangaroos
Ignore the Precautionary Principle
Ignore the $6 billion nature-based tourism industry
Red kangaroos are a threatened species:
Red kangaroos are now being killed at a rate three times higher than they are reproducing. In the 1960's their average age was 12; today it is 2. Their average weight was 35 kg in the 1960's, which today is 18kg. Commercial killing has put insupportable pressure on Red kangaroos which now threatens the species.
Australians brutally slaughter kangaroos and bash their joeys to death:
Government sanctioned cruelty
The Code of Practice says joeys can be ripped from their slain mother's pouch and hit on the head with a water pipe or iron bar until dead; shooters even bash joeys against their vehicle or a tree trunk.
Older, ex-pouch, but still dependent joeys flee in terror when their mothers are killed to die from cold, starvation, predation and maternal depravation. A million or more joeys die in this way every year.
No Shooter will ever allow himself to be filmed killing joeys.
The Code of Practice is not linked to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and is legally unenforcable.
Contrary to public perception, the RSPCA does NOT monitor or police cruelty to commercially killed kangaroos.
Loss of inherited genetic strengths a threat to kangaroo species:
Selective hunting of kangaroos for commercial gain results in females mating with younger non-Alpha males, and the loss of inherited genetic strengths, which sustain the mob.
Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Exotic bacteria and viruses can decimate genetically weakened populations.
Kangaroos as GAME meat; you'd have to be game to eat it!
Kangaroos are shot in the wild at night, disembowelled amongst the faeces of other animals, dirt and dust. 'Game-meats' are a source of infection for hunters, processors and consumers.
Undercooked or raw kangaroo meat can carry hydatids , nematode worms, parasitic zoonoses and other bacterial, fungal and viral diseases. Kangaroo meat inspection ignores the normal principles for meat hygiene.
Raw kangaroo may be unsafe for your pets as well. For decades farmers have been told not to feed sheep offal to their dogs because of hydatids, but there is no difference between dogs eating sheep offal or eating kangaroo offal.
The best way to resurrect tourism is to save Kangaroos with help from sympathetic, cooperative farmers who share an empathy for the preservation of our wildlife. This will generate jobs, income and restore life to the bush.
Contact:
National Kangaroo Protection Coalition,
PO Box 309 Beerwah 4519
Queensland 0408 711 344.
Email: mailto:[email protected]
END QUOTE
Odie...
Experience can be a funny thing...I mean to say you can have 20 Years Experience...or a Year's Experience 20 times, but either way, I'm sure you would know more about a dairy than me.
From my experience, we have had absolutely no trouble at all will roos "eating down to ground level", although some years back the cattle on our property consumed the place down to rocks in places - before they were finally removed to the abattoirs and our place saved for wildlife.
Roos are a very environmentally friendly component of the ecosystem - even during environmental perturbations like the drought we are still in down here.
I cannot do much better than quote those more experienced than me in the value of the Kangaroo to Australia (reproduced below). Perhaps they might convince your to dump the Moos for the Roos?
Cheers - Richard Wells
Quote:
ACTION
Wildlife and eco-tourism have tremendous national wealth and jobs potential. The kangaroo is a universally loved icon yet millions, now declared a resource, are slaughtered to accommodate destructive agricultural practices.
It is time for the tourism industry to maximize on the already established international reputation of the kangaroo as a major tourist icon.
Australia's leaders hide behind a protective wall of propaganda and irresponsible legislation, so that a few may gain from the death of a species.
Australia has the highest rate of extinctions in the world but there appears to be no shame, only apathy about this appalling record.
Myth: Plagues of kangaroos? Australia overrun by kangaroos?
Fact: Kangaroos were widespread and abundant at the time of early settlement. Now they are fugitives in their own country and Skippy is relentlessly pursued.
Myth: Kangaroos degrade and destroy the environment.
Fact: The soft padded feet and long tail of the kangaroo are integral to the ecological health of the land as regenerators of native grasses. It is destructive agricultural practices on marginal land that are proving to be unsustainable.
Myth: We need to kill and eat our wildlife to save it. Wildlife must 'pay its way'.
Fact: It is imperative that we link wildlife corridors throughout Australia to restore kangaroo and wildlife habitat. Tourists want to see tourist icon Skippy... but kangaroos are being decimated and the outback is turning to dust. The ecological and economic value of wildlife nature-based tourism is ignored.
Fail to acknowledge different and specific needs of the four commercially killed species and 'manage' them as one:
Use 'guesstimates' and changing correction factors to estimate populations
Totally disregard the biological and social needs of kangaroos
Ignore natural selection and manipulate kangaroo populations for artificial results to benefit the kangaroo industry
Do not monitor the legal or illegal killing of kangaroos
Ignore studies which prove kangaroos do not compete with cattle and sheep
Removed 'damage mitigation' as the sole reason for killing kangaroos
Ignore the Precautionary Principle
Ignore the $6 billion nature-based tourism industry
Red kangaroos are a threatened species:
Red kangaroos are now being killed at a rate three times higher than they are reproducing. In the 1960's their average age was 12; today it is 2. Their average weight was 35 kg in the 1960's, which today is 18kg. Commercial killing has put insupportable pressure on Red kangaroos which now threatens the species.
Australians brutally slaughter kangaroos and bash their joeys to death:
Government sanctioned cruelty
The Code of Practice says joeys can be ripped from their slain mother's pouch and hit on the head with a water pipe or iron bar until dead; shooters even bash joeys against their vehicle or a tree trunk.
Older, ex-pouch, but still dependent joeys flee in terror when their mothers are killed to die from cold, starvation, predation and maternal depravation. A million or more joeys die in this way every year.
No Shooter will ever allow himself to be filmed killing joeys.
The Code of Practice is not linked to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and is legally unenforcable.
Contrary to public perception, the RSPCA does NOT monitor or police cruelty to commercially killed kangaroos.
Loss of inherited genetic strengths a threat to kangaroo species:
Selective hunting of kangaroos for commercial gain results in females mating with younger non-Alpha males, and the loss of inherited genetic strengths, which sustain the mob.
Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Exotic bacteria and viruses can decimate genetically weakened populations.
Kangaroos as GAME meat; you'd have to be game to eat it!
Kangaroos are shot in the wild at night, disembowelled amongst the faeces of other animals, dirt and dust. 'Game-meats' are a source of infection for hunters, processors and consumers.
Undercooked or raw kangaroo meat can carry hydatids , nematode worms, parasitic zoonoses and other bacterial, fungal and viral diseases. Kangaroo meat inspection ignores the normal principles for meat hygiene.
Raw kangaroo may be unsafe for your pets as well. For decades farmers have been told not to feed sheep offal to their dogs because of hydatids, but there is no difference between dogs eating sheep offal or eating kangaroo offal.
The best way to resurrect tourism is to save Kangaroos with help from sympathetic, cooperative farmers who share an empathy for the preservation of our wildlife. This will generate jobs, income and restore life to the bush.
Contact:
National Kangaroo Protection Coalition,
PO Box 309 Beerwah 4519
Queensland 0408 711 344.
Email: mailto:[email protected]
END QUOTE
Mayo
Very Well-Known Member
Took a quick look at Maryland Wilson site, you have got to be kidding, all diseased Roo's at pucka should be treated and euthanised as a last resort by a vet. She has lost her mind, if you read that bolocks and believe it you truely are lost, and the bigger picture is beyond you. There are more agendas there than you can poke a stick at you seem inteligent enough but to believe that or try and use it in an inteligent arguement is rediculous.
If you can't come up with a convincing story, just throw more at them than they're willing to read and hope they'll assume there was something worthwhile in it, huh?
Cutting and pasting material written by people who have their heads in the sand or clouds isn't exactly a compelling way to argue your point, especially when much of it is irrelevant!
Of the "relevant" material, I most loved the claims that kangaroos don't compete for food with domestic stock such as sheep and cows! Kangaroos love to eat grass... remind me, what do sheep and cows like to eat?
Cutting and pasting material written by people who have their heads in the sand or clouds isn't exactly a compelling way to argue your point, especially when much of it is irrelevant!
Of the "relevant" material, I most loved the claims that kangaroos don't compete for food with domestic stock such as sheep and cows! Kangaroos love to eat grass... remind me, what do sheep and cows like to eat?
Mayo
Very Well-Known Member
Well where do I start with that one. Aboriginals have been eating them for thousands of years, yes people are making a profit from the cull's that is just life.
Quote
"Odie...Experience can be a funny thing...I mean to say you can have 20 Years Experience...or a Year's Experience 20 times, but either way, I'm sure you would know more about a dairy than me."
No you wouldn't mock anyone nor would you abuse anyone knowingly.
Roo's do not nessaserily compete with sheep and cattle, because Roo's will eat grasses right to the ground and will even dig up the root's and eat those, sheep and cattle do not.
Tourists want to see the Roo's in the zoo's like steve Erwins so thay can pat them and think they are friendly, very few tourist's go to the bush to see a Roo in the wild.
If no one profits from a 6 billion dollar industry how can it be a 6 billion dollar industry.
They are only half the weight they were in the 60's funnily enough we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts in over a hundred years.
And that was just a start stop hiding behind so called experts a drught like this will and should decimate numbers but it's not and survival of the fitest is becoming irrelevant because most of the hardships have been removed.
Quote
"Odie...Experience can be a funny thing...I mean to say you can have 20 Years Experience...or a Year's Experience 20 times, but either way, I'm sure you would know more about a dairy than me."
No you wouldn't mock anyone nor would you abuse anyone knowingly.
Roo's do not nessaserily compete with sheep and cattle, because Roo's will eat grasses right to the ground and will even dig up the root's and eat those, sheep and cattle do not.
Tourists want to see the Roo's in the zoo's like steve Erwins so thay can pat them and think they are friendly, very few tourist's go to the bush to see a Roo in the wild.
If no one profits from a 6 billion dollar industry how can it be a 6 billion dollar industry.
They are only half the weight they were in the 60's funnily enough we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts in over a hundred years.
And that was just a start stop hiding behind so called experts a drught like this will and should decimate numbers but it's not and survival of the fitest is becoming irrelevant because most of the hardships have been removed.
OdessaStud
Very Well-Known Member
Quote:From my experience, we have had absolutely no trouble at all will roos "eating down to ground level", although some years back the cattle on our property consumed the place down to rocks in places - before they were finally removed to the abattoirs and our place saved for wildlife.
Richard Wells how can you be making a stand against roos and yet you left cows to eat dirt on your property???The cows were introduced and had no choice on grazing the land given to them.Roos on the other hand move from property to property eating everthing in their path.How can you admit to doing that to the cows that is far worse than culling roos.
Mr Wells I believe you should continue in your protest but maybe not be so self rightious in your own opions when you sir left cows to starve on your own land.
Richard Wells how can you be making a stand against roos and yet you left cows to eat dirt on your property???The cows were introduced and had no choice on grazing the land given to them.Roos on the other hand move from property to property eating everthing in their path.How can you admit to doing that to the cows that is far worse than culling roos.
Mr Wells I believe you should continue in your protest but maybe not be so self rightious in your own opions when you sir left cows to starve on your own land.
freddy
Well-Known Member
odessa what part claims he starved them just because they couldnt graze doesnt mean they were starved before he took them to the abattoir>>> correct me if im wrong but i work on a dairy and seem to believe they could survive without grass or crops to graze on for a period of time prior to the abattoir.>>>> i havent read this entire thread and dont plan on doing so, so if you could just point out that part i'll be off
OdessaStud
Very Well-Known Member
Quote Freddy::correct me if im wrong but i work on a dairy and seem to believe they could survive without grass or crops to graze on for a period of time prior to the abattoir
Freddy in light of the fact that you cant be bothered reading the whole thread you are out of line making any comment at all JMO>you have picked up on one comment that I made and have gone with it making the remark that you did.
Cows cannot live without feed for a period of time as you call it,sure they wont drop dead in the first month or so but for a cow to eat the ground down to rock??? Sorry Freddy the dairy man but I recon that could be seen as being starved?
Freddy in light of the fact that you cant be bothered reading the whole thread you are out of line making any comment at all JMO>you have picked up on one comment that I made and have gone with it making the remark that you did.
Cows cannot live without feed for a period of time as you call it,sure they wont drop dead in the first month or so but for a cow to eat the ground down to rock??? Sorry Freddy the dairy man but I recon that could be seen as being starved?
- Status
Similar threads
