Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Rushed cull gets ACAT greenlight

By johnboy - 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.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
77 Responses to
Rushed cull gets ACAT greenlight
1
Chop71 12:17 pm
10 Jul 13
#

pow pow pow

Report this comment

2
crappicker 12:25 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?

Report this comment

3
damien haas 1:07 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?

Report this comment

4
Antagonist 1:23 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.

Report this comment

5
MrBigEars 1:26 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.

Report this comment

6
Northwest9 1:30 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?

Report this comment

7
taninaus 1:37 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.

Report this comment

8
LSWCHP 2:31 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.

Report this comment

9
crappicker 2:44 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?

Report this comment

10
p1 2:54 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.

Report this comment

11
crappicker 3:16 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.

Report this comment

12
beardedclam 3:30 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?

Report this comment

13
Diggety 4:00 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.

Report this comment

14
IrishPete 4:09 pm
10 Jul 13
#

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

IP

Report this comment

15
IrishPete 4:12 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

Report this comment

1 2 3 6

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site