Rushed cull gets ACAT greenlight

MrBigEars said :

IrishPete said :

As someone else has pointed out, the analogy with amateur pest control is invalid. As I have been unable to find population figures for kangaroos in the ACT, my own suspicion is that the ACT cull is an overall trim, and will have limited effect on road safety or starvation, though it may have an effect on issues like plant and small animal ecology in localised areas, unless and until another population of roos moves into the local area from the vast areas and populations not being culled in and around the ACT. The population increase figures for some of the culled reserves already show that replacement occurs too quickly to have been the result of breeding. So either the numbers are wrong, or the populations are more mobile than the ACT Government is claiming.

IP

Which reserves and what year?

See post 19 here http://the-riotact.com/skippy-lovers-keep-the-cull-in-court/107148

IP

IrishPete said :

As someone else has pointed out, the analogy with amateur pest control is invalid. As I have been unable to find population figures for kangaroos in the ACT, my own suspicion is that the ACT cull is an overall trim, and will have limited effect on road safety or starvation, though it may have an effect on issues like plant and small animal ecology in localised areas, unless and until another population of roos moves into the local area from the vast areas and populations not being culled in and around the ACT. The population increase figures for some of the culled reserves already show that replacement occurs too quickly to have been the result of breeding. So either the numbers are wrong, or the populations are more mobile than the ACT Government is claiming.

IP

Which reserves and what year?

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

We have a word for it here in Australia, it’s called “democracy”

Yes, they had one of those in Germany in 1933, too – it’s like a magic fairy wand that makes everything alright.

The problem with wishful thinkers is, just like people experiencing any other kind of anomalous psychiatric pattern, they have no idea how to recognise the irrationality of their thinking process.
“I don’t believe the science, something inside my head tells me something and all the relevant grown-ups who are saying the opposite must therefore be wrong”.

These kind of people *also* oppose shooting feral animals in national parks – they just “don’t believe” that reducing a population would reduce the cumulative effect on the environment of the individuals that make up that population.

Or that locking up criminals would recude crime.

It’s the same kind of thinking process that makes religion possible. Completely bananas.

Ah yes, Godwin’s Law finally raises its head.

If you had used my longer quote, including the comment about judicial review, then you would realise that if there had been independent judicial review of executive decisions in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, then Hitler’s powers would have been greatly curtailed. Democracy can never stand alone – it needs to be backed up by strong human rights, preferably in an almost untouchable Constitution, not just in law that can be changed by the Executive. Otherwise a group who comprise 51% of the population can exterminate the other 49%, but still claim to be democratic.

As someone else has pointed out, the analogy with amateur pest control is invalid. As I have been unable to find population figures for kangaroos in the ACT, my own suspicion is that the ACT cull is an overall trim, and will have limited effect on road safety or starvation, though it may have an effect on issues like plant and small animal ecology in localised areas, unless and until another population of roos moves into the local area from the vast areas and populations not being culled in and around the ACT. The population increase figures for some of the culled reserves already show that replacement occurs too quickly to have been the result of breeding. So either the numbers are wrong, or the populations are more mobile than the ACT Government is claiming.

The comment about crime and imprisonment is contrary to the science – the research on imprisonment and crime is clear and unequivocal. Locking people up does not prevent crime. Here is not the place for that debate, but you’re on my turf here, and while my knowledge of the science of macropods may be fairly slim, my knowledge of the science of crime and offenders is not (and my ability to understand ANY research is probably on the higher end of the scale among RiotACT contributors).

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

You can choose to draw your own conclusions all you like, petey boy, but that still means that science is right and you are wrong.

because contemporary science has never subsequently been proven wrong.

IP

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

We have a word for it here in Australia, it’s called “democracy”

Yes, they had one of those in Germany in 1933, too – it’s like a magic fairy wand that makes everything alright.

The problem with wishful thinkers is, just like people experiencing any other kind of anomalous psychiatric pattern, they have no idea how to recognise the irrationality of their thinking process.
“I don’t believe the science, something inside my head tells me something and all the relevant grown-ups who are saying the opposite must therefore be wrong”.

These kind of people *also* oppose shooting feral animals in national parks – they just “don’t believe” that reducing a population would reduce the cumulative effect on the environment of the individuals that make up that population.

Or that locking up criminals would recude crime.

It’s the same kind of thinking process that makes religion possible. Completely bananas.

It’s confirmation bias. We are all guilty of it, to one degree or another.

Not to move this onto a tangent, but ad hoc removal of 1-2% of the feral population annually by amateur hunting is largely ineffective. If you have a 100 rabbits in an area, but over winter only food for 60, you will end up with 60. If you have a 100 rabbits in an area, but over winter only food for 60, and you shoot 2, you will end up with 60.

http://www.invasives.org.au/documents/file/reports/EssayProject_RecHunting_FeralControl.pdf

That’s not to say there isn’t a role for sporting shooters in biodiversity conservation, but only in a specific, co-ordinated effort. Like shooters patroling a fenced feral proof reserve, pushing back foxes and cats, or protecting sea bird breeding colonies from dogs and cats.

IrishPete said :

We have a word for it here in Australia, it’s called “democracy”

Yes, they had one of those in Germany in 1933, too – it’s like a magic fairy wand that makes everything alright.

The problem with wishful thinkers is, just like people experiencing any other kind of anomalous psychiatric pattern, they have no idea how to recognise the irrationality of their thinking process.
“I don’t believe the science, something inside my head tells me something and all the relevant grown-ups who are saying the opposite must therefore be wrong”.

These kind of people *also* oppose shooting feral animals in national parks – they just “don’t believe” that reducing a population would reduce the cumulative effect on the environment of the individuals that make up that population.

Or that locking up criminals would recude crime.

It’s the same kind of thinking process that makes religion possible. Completely bananas.

IrishPete said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Always so depressing that in this day and age there are so many ignorant morons who let emotions blind scientific facts.

I also find it astounding that so called animal lovers would rather have roos starve to death or die a slow agonising death via car strike than a quick and clean death via gunshot.

Are there currently any roos starving to death? Is there any evidence that the cull reduces car-strikes? Once again, the science claimed to support the cull is about little critters and plants. You cannot rely on science to support the cull, and then throw in starvation and road safety for which there is no research. That’s what we call being inconsistent. It grossly undermines your arguing position.

I continue to think the science is dubious – it is generalised from other places, or is not recent or is not published. You can choose to differ, but no-one has yet referred to any recent published research from or in the ACT (where the cull is occurring). After 4 completed culls, there’s plenty of opportunity for evaluations to be published, but none has. I choose to draw my own conclusions from that, until proved otherwise.

IP

You can choose to draw your own conclusions all you like, petey boy, but that still means that science is right and you are wrong.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Always so depressing that in this day and age there are so many ignorant morons who let emotions blind scientific facts.

I also find it astounding that so called animal lovers would rather have roos starve to death or die a slow agonising death via car strike than a quick and clean death via gunshot.

Are there currently any roos starving to death? Is there any evidence that the cull reduces car-strikes? Once again, the science claimed to support the cull is about little critters and plants. You cannot rely on science to support the cull, and then throw in starvation and road safety for which there is no research. That’s what we call being inconsistent. It grossly undermines your arguing position.

I continue to think the science is dubious – it is generalised from other places, or is not recent or is not published. You can choose to differ, but no-one has yet referred to any recent published research from or in the ACT (where the cull is occurring). After 4 completed culls, there’s plenty of opportunity for evaluations to be published, but none has. I choose to draw my own conclusions from that, until proved otherwise.

IP

Always so depressing that in this day and age there are so many ignorant morons who let emotions blind scientific facts.

I also find it astounding that so called animal lovers would rather have roos starve to death or die a slow agonising death via car strike than a quick and clean death via gunshot.

NathanaelB said :

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

Well, I know at least half a dozen highly skilled and experienced marksmen who’d have no qualms whatsoever about doing this. They’re not vile dribbling hillbillies either.

And I would be truly astounded if the shooters in this gig have an 80% miss rate.

crappicker said :

Australia cannot have it both ways.
Taking international judicial action against Japanese whalers that are killing mammals in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and meanwhile carrying on in their own backyard with one of the greatest wildlife slaughters on earth, the decimation of mammal roos throughout Australia and, as watched by many, in NATURE RESERVES throughout the national capital of Australia.

You really haven’t thought this through.

The japs come down here to kills whales for no good reason and are unable to substantiate their c;laims of “scientific research”. If they were doing it in their own waters we probably wouldn’t have much to say about it.
We here on the other hand, are culling an over-abundant mammal that is a pest species whose population numbers are having a detrimental effect on the environment, all of which is well-docuemtned in the scientific literature.

The bottom line seems to be that crappicker is being driven by emotions and not by any factual appreciation of the situation.

Roundhead89 said :

The only screaming I heard in my last encounter with a roo was the brakes after one of those bastards rammed into the side of me on Athllon Drive. There was also screaming in my head when I realised how fortunate it was that it happened at 6:40AM when the road was clear and not at another time when my swerving might have taken out another car or a pedestrian, causing me to crash or roll the car and suffer serious injury or even death.

We live in a city and we have a right like everybody else in this country to live our lives and drive in safety without the ever present threat that our lives might be brought to an end by hopping vermin. I resent the fact that I might have to stop going to the pool for my early morning swims because the drive to and from has become too dangerous.

I have two brief responses:

1) even I, an immigrant, know – don’t swerve.
2) Bush Capital. If you want to live in a concrete capital, go there.

IP

crappicker said :

IrishPete said :

NathanaelB said :

Also, from the ACT Gov website:

“A proportion of kangaroo meat (15-20%) resulting from the cull will be processed into baits for use within the ACT Government wild dog and fox control programs … the remaining kangaroo bodies will be buried”

Why? Why this year and not the four previous years? Because of the protests. So they might be annoying to some of you, but they have a positive effect. Hopefully the analogous Commonwealth Government action against whaling by Japan will also have an effect.

Roll on the Canberra Institute of Macropod Research and Marksmanship.

IP

IP, I usually like your well-argued comments, but I am wondering about this one.

Australia cannot have it both ways.
Taking international judicial action against Japanese whalers that are killing mammals in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and meanwhile carrying on in their own backyard with one of the greatest wildlife slaughters on earth, the decimation of mammal roos throughout Australia and, as watched by many, in NATURE RESERVES throughout the national capital of Australia.

As to your favoured research institute, I would suggest the Canberra Research Institute of Macropods and Markmanship, or.. CRIMM, as a more appropriate name.

Thanks for the compliment. It’s rare to get positive feedback n the RiotACT.

IP

IrishPete said :

NathanaelB said :

Also, from the ACT Gov website:

“A proportion of kangaroo meat (15-20%) resulting from the cull will be processed into baits for use within the ACT Government wild dog and fox control programs … the remaining kangaroo bodies will be buried”

Why? Why this year and not the four previous years? Because of the protests. So they might be annoying to some of you, but they have a positive effect. Hopefully the analogous Commonwealth Government action against whaling by Japan will also have an effect.

Roll on the Canberra Institute of Macropod Research and Marksmanship.

IP

IP, I usually like your well-argued comments, but I am wondering about this one.

Australia cannot have it both ways.
Taking international judicial action against Japanese whalers that are killing mammals in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and meanwhile carrying on in their own backyard with one of the greatest wildlife slaughters on earth, the decimation of mammal roos throughout Australia and, as watched by many, in NATURE RESERVES throughout the national capital of Australia.

As to your favoured research institute, I would suggest the Canberra Research Institute of Macropods and Markmanship, or.. CRIMM, as a more appropriate name.

troll-sniffer said :

Kangaroos are stupid. There, I’ve said it. By and large Australian animals are stupid. It’s not their fault, it’s an evolutionary adaptation, the brain being the organ that uses most energy, in a precarious continent such as Australia, minimal brain size is an advantage. .

I see you’ve adapted superbly to the Australian environment, but you may have overdone it.

damien haas said :

beardedclam said :

What is this screaming you speak of? I have never once heard a kangaroo scream.

I have seen kangaroos shot and not killed immediately, and they do scream. It is a piercing screech. If culling must take place, use professional shooters who are able to despatch the animal cleanly.

The only screaming I heard in my last encounter with a roo was the brakes after one of those bastards rammed into the side of me on Athllon Drive. There was also screaming in my head when I realised how fortunate it was that it happened at 6:40AM when the road was clear and not at another time when my swerving might have taken out another car or a pedestrian, causing me to crash or roll the car and suffer serious injury or even death.

We live in a city and we have a right like everybody else in this country to live our lives and drive in safety without the ever present threat that our lives might be brought to an end by hopping vermin. I resent the fact that I might have to stop going to the pool for my early morning swims because the drive to and from has become too dangerous.

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

The shooters that they get in for the culls are vile hillbillies who don’t give a shit about doing the job humanely. From my experience the ACT rangers who are involved are very decent people and most of them don’t want to be there, a lot of them oppose the cull.

NathanaelB said :

Also, from the ACT Gov website:

“A proportion of kangaroo meat (15-20%) resulting from the cull will be processed into baits for use within the ACT Government wild dog and fox control programs … the remaining kangaroo bodies will be buried”

Why? Why this year and not the four previous years? Because of the protests. So they might be annoying to some of you, but they have a positive effect. Hopefully the analogous Commonwealth Government action against whaling by Japan will also have an effect.

Roll on the Canberra Institute of Macropod Research and Marksmanship.

IP

Kangaroos are stupid. There, I’ve said it. By and large Australian animals are stupid. It’s not their fault, it’s an evolutionary adaptation, the brain being the organ that uses most energy, in a precarious continent such as Australia, minimal brain size is an advantage. Kangaroos in particular have just enough cranial processing power to identify a probable risk and jump somewhere in the hope that they escape from danger. Once the danger has passed it’s immediately back to staying as alert as necessary to get through the day and night.

It’s easy in a safe urban existence to attribute human-like cognisance and sentience to kanaroos, mostly because if you look deep into their cute puppy-dog eyes it’s easy to believe they think like we do, but to put it bluntly, they don’t. Admittedly they will feel terror and apprehension and want to flee from the culling shooters, (as they will feel when faced with all manner of threats on a daily basis) but I can guarantee you this, five minutes after they have escaped, (those that do escape) they will resume their browsing and foraging, ever alert for danger, but no more so than before some of their number failed to make it.

in regards to #42 (i cant comment on the second page for some reason) that would not be nice to hear, at least shoot them dead quickly.

IrishPete said :

If you are suggesting that animals can’t learn, or can’t experience trauma, then you’re wrong. The poster may have been stretching a long bow, but yours is even longer.

Just posing the question, that’s all. Seems no one is bothered to investigate … “they’re just dumb animals, they’ll have forgotten within hours that some men with guns came and killed 200 amongst them and then the next day … oh look, just some benevolent humans, business as usual”

Statement from Friends of The Pinnacle re support for last year’s roo cull:

http://fotpin.hussat.com.au/advocacy.html#roocull2012

Also, from the ACT Gov website:

“A proportion of kangaroo meat (15-20%) resulting from the cull will be processed into baits for use within the ACT Government wild dog and fox control programs … the remaining kangaroo bodies will be buried”

Dumped still kicking into pits is the likely scenario.

It’s not as if the last cull went swimmingly.

Dead animals still move on occasion. It’s not the movies where you drop to the ground and lie still. Muscles, tendons and sinews contract and release for some minutes after an animal has been killed.

beardedclam said :

What is this screaming you speak of? I have never once heard a kangaroo scream.

I have seen kangaroos shot and not killed immediately, and they do scream. It is a piercing screech. If culling must take place, use professional shooters who are able to despatch the animal cleanly.

IrishPete said :

RadioVK said :

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropomorphisation

If you are suggesting that animals can’t learn, or can’t experience trauma, then you’re wrong. The poster may have been stretching a long bow, but yours is even longer.

IP

Not at all. I’m just suggesting that one must be careful when ascribing human traits to animals. The comparison is not always valid.

This is the trap that many conservationists fall into.

RadioVK said :

NathanaelB said :

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?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropomorphisation

Professional shooters volunteer. Who else would be a better volunteer?
10 a day in your local reserve will not make much dent I would think. What is this screaming you speak of? I have never once heard a kangaroo scream.

RadioVK said :

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropomorphisation

If you are suggesting that animals can’t learn, or can’t experience trauma, then you’re wrong. The poster may have been stretching a long bow, but yours is even longer.

IP

beardedclam said :

1. If I was American I would just go out and shoot them.
2. Ironic, you state Americans take things to court and what is this thread about?
3. Fishing – Hook, line and sinker
4. Too easy IP, too easy

1. true – if you were in America, that is. I wouldn’t recommend it here regardless of the colour of your passport.
2. see post number 30 above. there’s a world of difference between judicial review and suing. Judicial review of government decisions is a cornerstone of our democracy (and the USA democracy, incidentally, which is why they have easy access to guns).

IP

NathanaelB said :

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?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropomorphisation

Mysteryman said :

NathanaelB said :

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.

Considering they have an average lifespan of about 6 years and have been hunted by indigenous people for thousands of years, I doubt there are “long-term psychological effects” from a cull.

And no doubt a whole lot less traumatising than catching them repeatedly to administer contraceptives.

Good to see common sense prevails.

But as a thought, perhaps the ACT government should investigate other options. Like selling the surplus roos to zoos around the world. The animal rights people get to keep the roos alive and the ACT government gets rid of them. Plus, we might make an extra buck or two.

Alternatively, we could just drive them down to Cooma and dump them there…..

NathanaelB said :

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.

Considering they have an average lifespan of about 6 years and have been hunted by indigenous people for thousands of years, I doubt there are “long-term psychological effects” from a cull.

IrishPete said :

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

1. If I was American I would just go out and shoot them.
2. Ironic, you state Americans take things to court and what is this thread about?
3. Fishing – Hook, line and sinker
4. Too easy IP, too easy

NathanaelB said :

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?

not sure if serious????

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

IP

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

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

IP

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

pow pow pow