Advertisement

Rushed cull gets ACAT greenlight

By 10 July 2013 77

The judicial terrorism of the anti-cull nutjobs is mercifully at an end with TAMS declaring victory in their fight to manage kangaroo numbers:

The ACT Government today announced the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) has decided to uphold the licences issued by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna to undertake a kangaroo conservation cull to protect biodiversity in seven local reserves.

“The outcome of the hearing supports the scientific basis that underpins the need to undertake the conservation cull of Eastern grey kangaroos in the ACT,” said Daniel Iglesias, Director, ACT Parks and Conservation. “This is the second time that ACAT has upheld this science in the last five years.

“ACAT has ruled that culling can take place in each of the seven proposed reserves and adjacent unleased land. There has been a slight reduction in numbers for five of the licences meaning the conservation cull is for up to 1244 kangaroos, rather than the original plan of 1455.

“There is a significant volume of scientific evidence which demonstrates the impact that an overabundant kangaroo population has on other flora and fauna, including several local studies and countless national studies.

“The numbers of kangaroos to be culled have been based on scientific kangaroo counts in each location. This is then compared to what ACT Government ecologists establish as the sustainable carrying capacity for each area, taking into account the habitat requirements of grassland dependent animals and plants.

“The conservation cull is needed to maintain populations at appropriate levels to minimise impact on other flora and fauna. Ensuring that grasslands and woodlands are not overgrazed will protect threatened species and ecosystems, provide habitat for creatures such as lizards and ground-feeding birds, prevent excessive soil loss and maintain sustainable numbers of kangaroos.”

Mr Iglesias said the reserves will close again from midday on Thursday 11 July 2013 until midday on Thursday 1 August 2013 to allow the conservation cull to take place. The closures are for 24 hours per day and have been implemented to best meet operational and safety requirements.

Please login to post your comments
77 Responses to Rushed cull gets ACAT greenlight
#1
Chop7112:17 pm, 10 Jul 13

pow pow pow

#2
crappicker12:25 pm, 10 Jul 13

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

#3
damien haas1:07 pm, 10 Jul 13

Now that competing claims have been tested in court, and a decision arrived at, the protesters will take no further action. I mean why would you take them to court, if you didn’t respect the process?

#4
Antagonist1:23 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

The only thing that is not clever (or ethical) is the wasted opportunity to harvest animal products sustainably.

#5
MrBigEars1:26 pm, 10 Jul 13

In the end, you can’t fight science by shouting “No it isn’t!” over and over. You can only fight science with more science.

Do the work, keep records, publish the results.

#6
Northwest91:30 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

so suggest a better method then? surely your not suggesting 1080?

#7
taninaus1:37 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

Yes but if the competing evidence is as detailed on the radio this morning – that the applicants went out with 2 people for 1 hour and disputed the Government count that was generated using 8 people over a number of days – sorry but if this is the protesters/applicants quality/standard of evidence it doesn’t stack up to me.

Independent arbitar has spoken and everyone has had their day in court – As said above, if you respect that process enough to appeal to it then hopefully they will respect the decision and let the Government get on with what it has been given authority to do.

#8
LSWCHP2:31 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

The science involved in this process seems reputable. What’s your evidence for disputing it, apart from someone saying ‘I dispute this and I dispute that…”. I can go out and dispute that the sky is blue…

As for the archaic method of population control, I’d really like to know that the alternatives are to shooting them. A bullet through the head may not be a state of the art method of disposing of an animal, but it’s quick and effective, and a lot less painless than anything else I can think of.

#9
crappicker2:44 pm, 10 Jul 13

Come next bushfire season, I take it that Fletcher and Iglesias have worked out ways to keep the grass down in our nature reserves now that they are going to cull the most natural of ways. Will it be reintroduction of cattle and sheep or can we look forward to Stefaniak climbing on his ride-on lawnmower?

#10
p12:54 pm, 10 Jul 13

LSWCHP said :

As for the archaic method of population control, I’d really like to know that the alternatives are to shooting them…

Vasectomy? Tricky logistically, but less so then condoms.

#11
crappicker3:16 pm, 10 Jul 13

taninaus said :

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

Yes but if the competing evidence is as detailed on the radio this morning – that the applicants went out with 2 people for 1 hour and disputed the Government count that was generated using 8 people over a number of days – sorry but if this is the protesters/applicants quality/standard of evidence it doesn’t stack up to me.

Independent arbitar has spoken and everyone has had their day in court – As said above, if you respect that process enough to appeal to it then hopefully they will respect the decision and let the Government get on with what it has been given authority to do.

LWSCHP, my opinion is based in part on extensive evidence form experienced ecologists like Ray Mjadwesch, available on the web, and in part on my own observations in the Wanniassa Hills Reserve. I walk there daily and would like to think that I have a fair idea of how the numbers stack up over time. I have also carried out a systematic count over five consecutive days and came up with only a fraction of the number Fletcher is spouting for Wanniassa Hills. Now I am not an ecologist, but as a field geologist I can distinguish kangaroos from rocks and trees and as a geophysicist I like to think that I can count. As to more humane ways of keeping the numbers down, if needed at all, I find It very disappointing that Shane Rattenbury has not opted to expedite fertility control experiments.

#12
beardedclam3:30 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

taninaus said :

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

Yes but if the competing evidence is as detailed on the radio this morning – that the applicants went out with 2 people for 1 hour and disputed the Government count that was generated using 8 people over a number of days – sorry but if this is the protesters/applicants quality/standard of evidence it doesn’t stack up to me.

Independent arbitar has spoken and everyone has had their day in court – As said above, if you respect that process enough to appeal to it then hopefully they will respect the decision and let the Government get on with what it has been given authority to do.

LWSCHP, my opinion is based in part on extensive evidence form experienced ecologists like Ray Mjadwesch, available on the web, and in part on my own observations in the Wanniassa Hills Reserve. I walk there daily and would like to think that I have a fair idea of how the numbers stack up over time. I have also carried out a systematic count over five consecutive days and came up with only a fraction of the number Fletcher is spouting for Wanniassa Hills. Now I am not an ecologist, but as a field geologist I can distinguish kangaroos from rocks and trees and as a geophysicist I like to think that I can count. As to more humane ways of keeping the numbers down, if needed at all, I find It very disappointing that Shane Rattenbury has not opted to expedite fertility control experiments.

Just one question, who do I sue when my car gets hit by a kangaroo?

#13
Diggety4:00 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

taninaus said :

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

Yes but if the competing evidence is as detailed on the radio this morning – that the applicants went out with 2 people for 1 hour and disputed the Government count that was generated using 8 people over a number of days – sorry but if this is the protesters/applicants quality/standard of evidence it doesn’t stack up to me.

Independent arbitar has spoken and everyone has had their day in court – As said above, if you respect that process enough to appeal to it then hopefully they will respect the decision and let the Government get on with what it has been given authority to do.

LWSCHP, my opinion is based in part on extensive evidence form experienced ecologists like Ray Mjadwesch, available on the web, and in part on my own observations in the Wanniassa Hills Reserve. I walk there daily and would like to think that I have a fair idea of how the numbers stack up over time. I have also carried out a systematic count over five consecutive days and came up with only a fraction of the number Fletcher is spouting for Wanniassa Hills. Now I am not an ecologist, but as a field geologist I can distinguish kangaroos from rocks and trees and as a geophysicist I like to think that I can count. As to more humane ways of keeping the numbers down, if needed at all, I find It very disappointing that Shane Rattenbury has not opted to expedite fertility control experiments.

There is a good reason why a methodology of research science is applied, checked and accepted in the peer-review process. And there is a good reason why you should not stand between a rifle and a Kangaroo in a cull.

Time to reassess your approach to this issue; your attempts at undermining science has failed, your ‘stand between shooter and roo’ activism is dangerous, and the digging up of carcuses as a PR exercise is – in my opinion – immoral.

#14
IrishPete4:09 pm, 10 Jul 13

How many times can you use the word “scientific” in the one media release. Protesting too much, perchance?

IP

#15
IrishPete4:12 pm, 10 Jul 13

beardedclam said :

crappicker said :

taninaus said :

crappicker said :

A ruling based on kangaroo counts disputed as substantially exaggerated and based on a disputed sustainable carrying capacity, forcing an archaic method of population control, … a clever country?

Yes but if the competing evidence is as detailed on the radio this morning – that the applicants went out with 2 people for 1 hour and disputed the Government count that was generated using 8 people over a number of days – sorry but if this is the protesters/applicants quality/standard of evidence it doesn’t stack up to me.

Independent arbitar has spoken and everyone has had their day in court – As said above, if you respect that process enough to appeal to it then hopefully they will respect the decision and let the Government get on with what it has been given authority to do.

LWSCHP, my opinion is based in part on extensive evidence form experienced ecologists like Ray Mjadwesch, available on the web, and in part on my own observations in the Wanniassa Hills Reserve. I walk there daily and would like to think that I have a fair idea of how the numbers stack up over time. I have also carried out a systematic count over five consecutive days and came up with only a fraction of the number Fletcher is spouting for Wanniassa Hills. Now I am not an ecologist, but as a field geologist I can distinguish kangaroos from rocks and trees and as a geophysicist I like to think that I can count. As to more humane ways of keeping the numbers down, if needed at all, I find It very disappointing that Shane Rattenbury has not opted to expedite fertility control experiments.

Just one question, who do I sue when my car gets hit by a kangaroo?

Are you American? Why do you feel you have to sue someone any time something bad happens to you?

IP

#16
IrishPete4:14 pm, 10 Jul 13

I look forward to the ACT Government establishing an Institute of Macropod Research, whose spokesperson will speak English with a Japanese accent.

IP

#17
MrBigEars4:15 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

LWSCHP, my opinion is based in part on extensive evidence form experienced ecologists like Ray Mjadwesch, available on the web, and in part on my own observations in the Wanniassa Hills Reserve. I walk there daily and would like to think that I have a fair idea of how the numbers stack up over time. I have also carried out a systematic count over five consecutive days and came up with only a fraction of the number Fletcher is spouting for Wanniassa Hills. Now I am not an ecologist, but as a field geologist I can distinguish kangaroos from rocks and trees and as a geophysicist I like to think that I can count. As to more humane ways of keeping the numbers down, if needed at all, I find It very disappointing that Shane Rattenbury has not opted to expedite fertility control experiments.

With all due respect to Ray Mjadwesch, he might be an expert, but in the context of scientific endeavour he’s not published a lot on kangaroos. In comparison to evaluating counting methods published by Caughley, Grigg, Pople, Coulson (and indeed, Fletcher), the weight of evidence is there to be read.

Macropod fertility control is certainly a future option, although an effective broad-scale delivery method is still in development. Given that no one has done a large scale trial on free living animals yet, I am cautious about it’s use in population management. But somewhat optimistic.

There is no black-and-white solution here, just decisions made on the best available information.

#18
poetix5:16 pm, 10 Jul 13

Still seems cruel to me, which is not a scientific concept. They are scape-roos for our own uncontrolled development of the land.

The term ‘conservation cull’ is a wonderful euphemism. Worthy of the military.

#19
johnboy5:18 pm, 10 Jul 13

They’re conserving the rest of the environment from kanga depradations

#20
EvanJames5:18 pm, 10 Jul 13

Some of the commenters here have forgotten it’s SUPPOSED to be for the roos’ welfare, as they’re apparently starving and all. It’s not meant to be about protection of residents’ cars. Which is probably why the scientific evidence for the scientific cull is very dodgy. They just had to come up with something so they could get some shooters to go shoot away in the name of dents and duco.

#21
poetix5:23 pm, 10 Jul 13

While we build new suburbs on bushland. There’s a skippy in the logic somewhere.

#22
bundah5:48 pm, 10 Jul 13

There are apparently around 25 million Skippy’s in Oz and they harvest approx. 2 million a year so 1244 is negligible..

#23
tommo6:15 pm, 10 Jul 13

Antagonist said :

The only thing that is not clever (or ethical) is the wasted opportunity to harvest animal products sustainably.

Agreed. I think a mass Roo-BQ by the lake would be fantastic! Afterwards everyone can take home a souvenir coin pouch.

#24
CraigT6:18 pm, 10 Jul 13

IrishPete said :

beardedclam said :

Just one question, who do I sue when my car gets hit by a kangaroo?

Are you American? Why do you feel you have to sue someone any time something bad happens to you?

IP

Why are the animal rights nutters constantly wasting court time with their neurotic bull****? Are *they* american?

#25
CraigT6:19 pm, 10 Jul 13

poetix said :

Still seems cruel to me,

They are being killed, not tortured. That is not cruel. Your problem is in your faulty perception of reality.

#26
CraigT6:25 pm, 10 Jul 13

crappicker said :

LWSCHP, my opinion is based in part on extensive evidence form experienced ecologists like Ray Mjadwesch, available on the web, and in part on my own observations in the Wanniassa Hills Reserve. I walk there daily and would like to think that I have a fair idea of how the numbers stack up over time. I have also carried out a systematic count over five consecutive days and came up with only a fraction of the number Fletcher is spouting for Wanniassa Hills. Now I am not an ecologist, but as a field geologist I can distinguish kangaroos from rocks and trees and as a geophysicist I like to think that I can count. As to more humane ways of keeping the numbers down, if needed at all, I find It very disappointing that Shane Rattenbury has not opted to expedite fertility control experiments.

Your approach to the scientific method appears to be on par with your fellow-geologist, Ian Plimer’s. The research has been done. There are too many kangaroos. They will be culled.
The vasxt majority of people have no problem with that. There is a tiny fraction of Canberra that has a neurotic opposition to animals being killed and who seek every year to derail the good running of the territory with their spurious complaints and their expensive and frivolous mis-use of the legal system.

As for “fertility control” – the easiest and cheapest form it takes is to shoot them. Whatever *you* have in mind sounds like it belongs on the scale of uselessness somewhere between chocolate teapots and carbon capture and storage.

#27
Mr Evil6:47 pm, 10 Jul 13

What I don’t understand is if the ACT Govt is running the show, how could anyone possibly think that there would be anything dodgy, not properly thought out, badly organised or ill conceive about the whole Kangaroo culling program?

Anyway, no doubt over the next few weeks we’ll be seeing more footage of badly injured, but still alive roos, dumped into pits after they’ve been ‘humanely’ culled by ‘professional’ shooters – just like the last time they did this in the ACT.

#28
poetix7:49 pm, 10 Jul 13

CraigT said :

….

As for “fertility control” – the easiest and cheapest form it takes is to shoot them. Whatever *you* have in mind sounds like it belongs on the scale of uselessness somewhere between chocolate teapots and carbon capture and storage.

Chocolate teapot
dormouse so darkly tacky
Alice licks him clean

Thanks. I had never heard of chocolate teapots before your comment.

#29
NathanaelB8:27 pm, 10 Jul 13

I see how much damage the 700+ roos at The Pinnacle cause to the ground cover and it’s not sustainable. I support the cull for the health of the land, flora and the roos (of course when it comes to supporting an overburdened planet of 9 billion humans that isn’t an option).

However I have little confidence that even 80% of the roos will be dispatched cleanly and at an average rate of 10 roos a day being killed at our local reserve I don’t wanna hear the screams of injured roos thrashing around.

I also worry about the long-term psychological effects on roos of having a quarter of your family and fellow roos shot, bled and dragged off by humans and how that may affect the relationship between humans and roos. Would be nice if someone looked into that. Isn’t nice to think that these culls make roos more fearful of us or more hostile. Maybe their brains aren’t capable of linking man with gun to recreational jogger.

Also, who the hell volunteers for this sort of thing?

#30
IrishPete9:59 pm, 10 Jul 13

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

beardedclam said :

Just one question, who do I sue when my car gets hit by a kangaroo?

Are you American? Why do you feel you have to sue someone any time something bad happens to you?

IP

Why are the animal rights nutters constantly wasting court time with their neurotic bull****? Are *they* american?

We have a word for it here in Australia, it’s called “democracy” (or probably something a bit more complex like “the right to seek judicial review of government decisions”).

It’s not really comparable with someone wanting to sue someone for ever mishap that occurs to them in life.

IP

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.