Shame on Jon Stanhope!...Shame on the ACT! ...Shame on everyone who supports this lunacy!

400 Eastern Grey Kangaroos, all culled (killed) rather than relocating them to another area, all supposedly due to the cost involvement, which was allegedly quoted at around $3.1 million ( where thase people get their figures from needs some investigation?)

Here we are complaining bitterly about the Japanese and their whale harvesting and at the same time we condone the killing and probable eating our national symbol, simply because we cannot be bothered relocating them!

If anyone who has raised just one of these animals from infancy and
received the love and response in return for his or her concern, can condone these irresponsible actions,.....then maybe we are not too far away from eating human babies!......a disgusting but realistic thought!

What happened to these unfortunate animals after they were euthanased?
....probably delivered to the Dog food manufacturers or worse!

If anybody thinks that the Japanese wouldn`t have noticed this little excursion into lunacy, they should think again! This is yet another example of "do as I say, and not what as I do!"

I would ask the question:... Didn`t we lose enough Roo`s during the ACT bushfires?....and wouldn`t it have been more responsible to return these animals to their own natural environment away from the dangers of so-called civilization?

Hi Cuppy

does it not occur to you the following:

1/ You can only 're-locate' roos until you reach a point where the place you relocate them to is out of food and they all then die slowly in suffering.

2/ We are experiencing a terrible drought.

There will come a point, where you have to choose between quick mercy killing and 'letting them suffer and die slowly'.

So...in 'principle' it is rather naive to claim that we are 'killing and eating our national symbol'

I thought far more of you Cuphandle and I thought you came from the bush maybe got that wrong.
This week across Australia more will die ,many more under the front of trucks and cars.
Many more will die of starvation in drought stricken paddocks.
More still will be born this year than ever before.
Our croups and water have built numbers up so very many times more than those that existed before white man came.
The 3 million killed each year for meat and hides could be doubled in some years without affecting their future.
Those 400 leave them? can you show me how to catch a roo keep it alive and transport it?
And it may not matter to some but farmers who are near broken by this drought, have to kill cattle and sheep or watch them die slowly can find better things to concern them.

This sort of thing really wrenches your heart-strings.

I appreciate your outrage Cuphandle. But without knowing the intimate details of the situation, I think that the perspective that Belly presents is pretty accurate.

I travel our highways and backroads a great deal. Dead roos, dead roos dead roos. Just so many killed on our roads. Enough to considerably raise the population density of crows, ravens, black kites and wedge-tailed eagles. It amounts to a major ecological factor, that for some species is right up there with the huge increase in water points in the otherwise dry inland and the massive clearing of the land over vast regions.

The occasional cull really is a very minor factor.

Belly:
Once again your response was predictable! You accused me of being a "pretend" farmer in another thread, and you now say you have lost respect for me as you thought I came from the bush!

I, like a lot of "farmers" have weathered some pretty bad times during the drought, but I have balanced my grazing with the local ecology and have not greedily overgrazed, thus allowing the the existing Roos and Wallabies to continue their habitation unhindered and happy in their coexistence with cattle and horses!

This is going to be a sad world when all the natural animal species have been eradicated ( driven to extinction by the arrogance and self greed of man!) but no doubt self-righteous people like yourself, who seem to ridicule and condemn any other form of opinion or thinking, save your own, will inherit a very bleak world indeed,....a world devoid of compassion and existing purely for power and money, a world which you and your kind deserve!

I would suggest to you, Belly, that if the sun was shining outside you would argue that it was overcast!....anything for an argument!.....It seems that you appear to suffer delusions of grandeur and maybe starved of affection or attention which you could possibly eliminate by taking in and caring for an orphan animal!

Yes! I am different than your average farmer,...and I am proud of my principles!

It makes me ill Cuphandle and I can feel it in The Holy Spirit as Im reading your opening comments.
God Created these little ones with His Love. He Gave the resposibility to man to care for them and despite "the fall" we still have that responsibility.
To put His Creation before money (the transportation to other greener fields) is disgusting.
I really think the The ACT government is going to fall itself.
Its one of the most decadent and disgusting governments Ive ever seen.
Their corruption has taken them over to the obscenity of homosexuality and lesbianism support.
I look to that day they get their Judgment with a smile.

That was supposed to read..."to put money before His Creation...

How very Christian of you Gibo, to look forward to someone else's suffering.

BTW Are you a vegetarian? Or do you you have a hierarchy of the importance of Gods creatures?

Cuphandle,

It would be a different story if the kangaroos were an endangered species, but they are not. you say you run cattle. What is the difference in killing cattle? Why is it ok for you to kill cows but not kangaroos?

If 3 million are already harvested for meat and skin what difference does another 400 make? if you and the other hypocrites care so much why didn't you pay for their removal yourself?

A fairly quick death via a bullet is much better than starving to death. Numbers of the most common roos (reds and eastern greys) commonly overpopulate in dry times. Mother Natures way of dealing with this is starvation. I've seen roos starving - skin and bone, so weak they fall over when trying to hop out of your way. Much better to take early action and ensure the well being of those that are left. If we were talking about endangered wallabies, then I would support relocation, but we are not. Culling is the most efficient and humane form of management.

I guess using poisons, the carcasses are useless for feeding folk.

For myself, I do appreciate Skippy bangers and skippy steaks and usually have some in the freezer ready for BBQ.

As for this little cluster, it is better to see 200 roos living well than 800 starving to death.

Now all we need to do is get the world so accept the same message for human population, although I am not suggesting a "cull".

Better adopting contraceptive responsibility and damn the Pope.

C'mon people.

This is just our own version of the fluffy baby seal syndrome.

If it is pretty, it must be off limits. If it's ugly, or makes us feel uncomfortable, squash it underfoot, or spray it to oblivion, or bring in the exterminator to do it for you.

No-one raises an eyebrow over the hundreds of thousands of animals we deprive of freedom so that we can keep them as pets. Or those that we happily consign to the abattoir when we feel like a steak sandwich.

If we are going to get upset about a handful of kangaroos, at least let us be consistent. Only those who are devoutly Buddhist, adamantly vegetarian, do not keep pets and enjoy the company of rats have any credibility in their disapproval.

It was a news item, designed to fill in some empty space. It doesn't have any meaning outside its entertainment value.

Kangaroos do less damage to the environment than hooved animals such as horses, cattle, sheep and goats. Australia's soil is fragile, and the impact of kangaroos is minimal. Kangaroos are active, and their meat is lean and healthier than that of cattle and sheep.

They are an intelligent, friendly animal. We had one who used to come around the house. Before he would eat the carrots and rolled oats we would put out for him he wanted a little cuddle. However, we eat other kangaroos.

Kangaroos are not an endangered species such as the hairy nosed wombat. Tonight we will have kangaroo meat for our evening meal. It is healthy and delicious.

If one is not going to be a vegetarian kangaroo is a good choice for meat. To help preserve the Australian environment don't let kangaroos be dog meat. Get rid of all dogs except for working dogs like guide and cattle dogs. They kill koalas and other indigenous creatures. Preserve the delicious kangaroo for human enjoyment.

While of course it's a regrettable situation, I agree with those who those who suggest that a humane cull is preferable to the roos starving to death, or being relocated to another location where they would undoubtedly compete with existing wildlife for scarce food in the current drought. And yes, there does seem to be a "baby seal" effect going on here.

Gibo: << I look to that day they get their Judgment with a smile. >>

And you wonder why you get a hard time from some of us. Hypocrite.

Relocating kangaroos is an absurd idea.

Did they do anything with the meat?

"....Their corruption has taken them over to the obscenity of homosexuality and lesbianism support.
I look to that day they get their Judgment with a smile."
Posted by Gibo, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:55:57 AM

..on a thread about a 'roo cull?

Giborish, you poor pathetic old sod!

Cuphandle, I agree with the other posts, but having said that I am so sorry that this has caused you so much distress.

CJ. I dont mind that much about getting a hard time from some on this site.
I think its fine to look to the fall of obscene, sexually immoral governments.
Its looking to God to bring Uniform Justice to corruption.
Theres part of the Bible that says God will destroy those who destroy His Creation.
This whole ugly thing was about money not love or caring for animals.
Today we stand on the absolute edge of the Bibles "Tribulation period" brought about by man destroying Gods Creation.
3 Million acres of Amazon forest in the last 12 months and all of its animals who were unable to escape.
How God must hate the fact that we tear down and rip up and hunt everything to death to convert to dollars.
The signs of the times tell me you chaps are going to live to see the worst time in human history very soon...all of the born again christians know its almost upon the earth because its "in The Holy Spirit" living within them.
I hope you receive Jesus before it begins so you can go with Him when He takes His people out in the Rapture.
Thats a Bible based view by the way. Soon the King Comes. Soon the Judgment. Lets be ready for it.

You certainly have my respect Cuphandle and it is refreshing to learn that you are managing your lands in a sustainable manner and with a compassionate regard for the animals which cohabit your property. Your efficient management says little for an industry which claims it cannot live in harmony with Australia's bush-life.

The proposal by Defence was to shoot about 400 kangaroos at Belconnen and 2800 kangaroos at Majura so the slaughter is not yet over.

At least the hunter will not have access to the ACT cull. These shooters would pull the joey out of his mother's blood spattered body, toss him to the ground and stamp on his head where he writhes in agony and is left to die. Older joeys who frantically hop away when their mothers are shot, have no chance of survival. They die a slow, lonely death from starvation or cold.

The total exploitation of wildlife provides a financial benefit for Australians prepared to accept the needless killing of the species and I question the Government's claims that kangaroos are in plague proportion and their claim that there are over 1,000 road kills per annum in Canberra - a dubious claim indeed.

There appears to be a constant orgy of animal slaughter by this nation. Australia now has the ignominious reputation for hypocrisy and the international community is objecting to Australia's inhumane treatment of its animals.

Between '97 and 2000, hundreds of companies in Britain boycotted kangaroo meat. The Australian Government failed to persuade the British public to support its massacre of kangaroos for meat and so actively turned to other markets - eg Asia, the USA, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and EU countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and Holland.

Despite the mass slaughter of wildlife by the heinous 1080 bait, trapping and shooting, successive Australian governments have been an abysmal failure in the sustainable management of our lands.

These are the leaders who conduct their business under a mask of economic rationale which is devoid of any morality.

Let them learn the hard way.

Sorry cuphandle. This really doesn't cut it as a serious issue.

I know that sounds dismissive and harsh. But frankly, I think this needs to be put in perspective. Consider these points:

Point 1): It's 400 kangaroos. To place it in context, here is the totals for Queensland's culls, over the last few years.

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/native_animals/permits_and_licences/kangaroo_harvesting/

This year's cull quotas for Queensland are over a million eastern grey kangaroos, 328,000 wallaroos, and 608,000 red kangaroos.

And yet, here are people getting worked up over 400 kangaroos. The poor dears. Good heavens, we mustn't hurt the *cute* animals.

Point 2): Australia is a country defined by its drought cycle. The natural order, is for kangaroo populations to explode, then die painfully of starvation during the drier periods.
Yes it sounds harsh, but nature is harsh. Ask the gazelles getting eaten by lions in every second Attenborough documentary.
Is starvation really a kinder alternative?

Ask yourself - in Queensland alone, more than one and a half million roos are being culled. Why is it that these 400 get people worked up, but there isn't so much comment on the larger roo cull?

Perhaps, some honest consideration of the facts would reveal that opposing these culls would be impractical. Aside from financial issues related to meat and so forth, the populations would return to the boom and bust starvation cycle. It would take a cruel mind to prefer this 'natural way' of starvation. But honest consideration is thin on the ground on this emotive issue. So these 400 make headlines.
Sentimental puffery.

-

To be brutally honest, I don't have much sympathy for the animal lovers banging on about these 400 kangaroos.

It sounds harsh, but I think they're sentimentally wasting their time, when they could either focus on endangered animals, or focus on issues more related to cruelty, such as the live export trade (an issue I do have some sympathy for, which is *despite* the efforts of a certain prolific organisation on OLO).

Pericles,

'This is just our own version of the fluffy baby seal syndrome'

Yesssss. I have a T-Shirt on . It has a can of 'Dolphin Chunks' on it, but they're 'Tuna Friendly'.

Also, notice there isn't half the outcry about saving the manatee?

http://www.savethemanatee.org/

Serious Question;

I have been looking to buy whale meat somewhere in Sydney. Does anyone know where I can get some?

Before I get flamed, I eat Kangaroo also, and there are 500,000 minke whales and the Japanese only killed 1000 of them last year. Also the Blue whale is endangered, and the minke whale is a competitor for the same foods as the Blue whale.

I think it's funny we are upset at the Japs because they say they're killing whales for scientific research, yet the Norwegians just refused to sign the treaty 'cause they said they just want to eat whales.

I think Australians rather someone tell us to piss off up front, rather than pretend to agree and just do what they want anyway. Or maybe it's just pure racism.

Idiot ideas do get lots of press, don't they?

Just because a journalist finds it profitable to play up the opposition of animal rights extremists and fluffy-bunny soft-hearted suburban airheads, doesn't mean these people are either right - or rational.

They are extremists. Anything they oppose is likely to be a better idea than the no doubt unpleasant alternatives.

I was one of those fluffy bunnies who shut my eyes and moaned (and not in a sexy way) when I saw the roos on the news. So thanks to those have posted here, I do see the arguments in favour of culling now.

As for Gibo and his "I look to that day they get their Judgment with a smile", it really says it all, doesn't it?

"I have been looking to buy whale meat somewhere in Sydney. Does anyone know where I can get some?" (Usual Suspect)

Usual Suspect

While your post is about 99.9% off topic, I did attempt to find a retailer in Sydney where you could buy your whale meat. Alas, to no avail.

However, a dead whale carcass offers no guarantee of a food fit for human consumption. Mother Nature's defenceless species have developed a very innovative strategy for teaching humans a lesson.

Therefore, could you enlighten me as to why you want to eat whale meat, considering the dangerous levels of mercury and dioxin found by Japanese scientists (and others) in over 150 samples of eight species of whales eaten in Japan?

Eating whale meat is actually quite dangerous for your health. Just ask the Japanese Health Department who are flogging off dolphin and porpoise as whale meat. These critters contain even more mercury than whales.

"I think it's funny we are upset at the Japs because they say they're killing whales for scientific research, yet the Norwegians just refused to sign the treaty 'cause they said they just want to eat whales."

Of course they do, Usual Suspect. Their government is not disimilar to our own when it comes to suppression of vital health information. However, in fairness to the Scandanavian governments, I advise they have, for many years, warned pregnant and breastfeeding women not to consume whale meat for the same reasons above.

So it seems it's OK for adults to be contaminated by heavy metals and dioxins as long as the babies aren't.

Sorry about the bad news but cheer up Usual Suspect.

Why don't you consider purchasing a nice wallet made from a roo's scrotum?

Dickie, it's probably because most of the time, those scrotum wallets are flogged off to tourists at ridiculous prices.

A fine example of the roo-defenders in action:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23735048-12377,00.html"

-Protesters 'save' wrong roos again

"There was a similar incident yesterday when two protesters got into the property and in a bid to disrupt the cull mistakenly agitated sedated kangaroos recovering from a fertility trial.

The animals that escaped overnight were also part of the trial and were not going to be culled, defence spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said.

"The action was dangerous because the animals were partly sedated and following release, could have drowned in the dam," Brig. Nikolic said."

The ACT Government has backed the cull of more than 400 kangaroos, saying it needs to be done to protect lowland native grasslands and threatened species.

As for your earlier points:

1) Countries such as Britain are boycotting Australia over the roo issue.

- Yes, and it's hurting producers. This is occurring, mainly because of the sentimental emotive campaigns that would lead to the roo starvation I mentioned earlier.

A basic consideration of the vast, vast numbers of roos being culled, combined with the fact that their numbers are remaining stable, should be enough to silence these critics, but somehow idiocy reigns.

- You object to 1080 bait.

I see. Tell me, do you have a better method of controlling wild dogs? 1080 bait is made from ingredients from native Australian flora. Thus, native species have a built up resistance, and it doesn't harm native wildlife, as opposed to introduced dog species. I grant you, it often gets domestic dogs, but not native animals.

The alternative, again, doesn't exist. The alternative, is letting wild dog numbers get out of control to wreak havoc on native species and livestock.

But oh no. Can't risk hurting the poor things?

This is what's known as the 'lesser of two evils.' Those who are afraid to admit that, are the ones who often to more damage to the environment through stupidity.

dickie,

'Therefore, could you enlighten me as to why you want to eat whale meat'

I hold an event called 'Meat Club' once a month where we fire up the BBQ and serve a menu of exotic meats, with no other food categories allowed. I'm running out of ideas for new meats.

I did once try whale meat while in Point Barrow at an inuit wedding, and I also understand the health repurcussions, but it's only for a special occasion and more for novelty value.

Cuphandle. If you want to save them all, I suggest you take them home to your place & feed them. ;-o

By the way they ARE good eating.

Is it just because you are possibly white anglosaxon, & they are not farm reared cattle, you won't eat them? That's the reason why the first settlers almost starved to death when Europeans first came to Australia. If they would have eaten them then, then we would have been eating them now as a matter of course. It's our European Culture that stops us from eating them. Consider other Cultures. They eat lots of things we wouldn't even consider. eg; Dog, Monkey, Rat & Crickets.

Fact: There are more Red & Grey Kangaroos now then when when European first arrived due to the clearing of the land which has allowed more grassland for them to graze on.

You have allowed yourself to become too emotionally attached to an IDEA.

Please, come back to reality & don't be such a crybaby.

“I see. Tell me, do you have a better method of controlling wild dogs?”

Yes I do but frankly I can’t be bothered advising you TRTL as I can see you are hell-bent on defending the use of 1080. However, I remind you that only neglectful humans are responsible for domestic animals seeking refuge in the bush.

And seemingly you are unconcerned with the threatened extinction of the dingo?

I remind you also that 58% of Australia's land mass is occupied by livestock which is predominantly responsible for our threatened eco-systems.

‘Thus, native species have a built up resistance, and it doesn't harm native wildlife, as opposed to introduced dog species. I grant you, it often gets domestic dogs’

Errr….no TRTL – not quite. You really should keep abreast of the current scientific research if you wish to act as an authority:

Scientists working at the State Government's Mount Pleasant Laboratories and the Australian Animal Health Laboratories are close to ruling out a viral cause.

A trial is about to examine whether natural or man-made toxins could be to blame. There was speculation last year that chemicals such as 1080 poison or herbicide sprays could be implicated. I have not yet learnt of the outcome. No doubt, as per usual, I anticipate the government's outcome will differ to an independent expert's theories:

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081401-16783-3.html

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/1080-seemour/

I shan’t prolong the post TRTL. It is clear that you are one of the many on this thread who believes they have dominion over all species and that they remain free to profit from the suffering of others. You are yet to realise that humankind has not woven the web of life.

Humans are but one thread within it. Whatever they do to the web, they do to themselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.

“Those who are afraid to admit that, are the ones who often to (sic)more damage to the environment through stupidity.”

Touche TRTL!

'Humans are but one thread within it. Whatever they do to the web, they do to themselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.'

Yep. Which makes it just as stupid to attempt to save a species from extinction when there is no proof we have caused the problem. It's just as bad as driving a species to extinction. Both are interferring with nature.

Also, when other animals want to eat, they don't think about the numbers of their prey that are left, and they just eat because they are hungry, and that is considered natural. Why are humans not part of the environment in this respect, but are part of it when it comes to conservation arguments?

Yes we have a brain and tools and agriculture, but we are still part of the food chain. At the top, and maybe a parasite, but we are naturally occurring.

So now it's philosophy then Dickie?

You state: "It is clear that you are one of the many on this thread who believes they have dominion over all species and that they remain free to profit from the suffering of others."

You assume wrong.

I'm no such thing. I do view us as one element of a much larger system.
I don't believe we're anything different than another species, albeit one with the ability to apply reason.

So try applying reason here.

There are always two options - do something, or do nothing.

The implication of your argument is, that by interfering in wild dog numbers, or in the roo cull, we're doing something wrong.

What is it you propose? We stop doing anything?
We remove all our conservation programs? Pest control? Tree planting?

Of course, that can't happen. It'd be nice if humanity's footprint vanished tomorrow, but grownups can see this isn't going to happen.

I doubt you're advocating we halt all programs. The sensible conclusion is that we have to make decisions.

Often, they're hard decisions without the clear 'good' or 'bad' guys you seem to enjoy envisioning.

We can look at the bigger picture. We can accept wild dogs exist out there, be they because of neglectful owners or otherwise, and they're preying on native animals.

Or we can close our eyes and ears, stop killing the precious dogs, and watch them devastate many native species already on the verge of extinction, and livestock.

I'm aware of the threatened extinction of the dingo. I'm also aware that dingos by and large, are already extinct from most of mainland Australia, and that the remaining animals out there are crossbreeds.
Most of the pure dingoes reside on Fraser Island, which is a different issue again.

I've yet to hear you state whether we should just let wild dogs run rampant, killing native species. I've yet to hear a practical alternative.

Until you've the courage to make a practical decision or discuss it rationally, stop pretending your decisions have a monopoly on what's right and drop the self righteous moralising.

All other factors being equal, a humanely conducted kangaroo cull to prevent death by starvation is preferable - and I believe the cull was carried out by lethal dart in a painless fashion.

However, in Canberra as you can imagine there is much buzzing about this decision particularly given the DOD had decided to re-examine the option of relocation. Apparently there were offers by some landholders to take the kangaroos and it is purported that one animal rights group offered to pay the relocation costs.

If this was the case then relocation could have gone ahead and the cull would have been unecessary.

I have heard that relocation itself can be traumatic for kangaroos and often these animals find their way back to more familiar grazing ground. With the drought I wonder if there would have been enough food in the new location to sustain life.

I don't know the answers to these questions as I am not an expert on wildlife matters but it certainly makes one think.

I also wonder why the government has not undertaken a contraceptive control plan much earlier when the drought was well into its ravages some years ago. The DOD has let some kangaroos go as a control group to test the effects of contraceptive intervention. I guess time will tell if it is effective and worth following up on a larger scale should the drought continue.

"Until you've the courage to make a practical decision or discuss it rationally, stop pretending your decisions have a monopoly on what's right and drop the self righteous moralising."

My my TRTL. You insistence to continue off topic shows little regard for the author of this thread.

And it didn't take long for you to play the man eh?

You may continue with your vitriol, however, I have no intention of responding.

Nevertheless, my recommendations on improvements to the Dog Act are already officially recorded and well received.

But please don't fret TRTL. There are many here with whom you will find common interests.

So carry on with : "mine's bigger than yours swill." I shall decline your offer thank you.

Dear Cuphandle,

My heart felt heavy also, at the sight of the culling on the news reports.

I kept thinking - isn't there a better way? This is not a new problem. It's happened in the past, and will continue to happen again
in the future. Why hasn't there been better planning done? They know
the numbers will keep on increasing - why not use more permanent alternatives such as - sterilization?

Culling seems like such a 'band-aid' solution.

I just wish that there was a better way of handling this situation.
Because it's going to keep on happening again and again. Why doesn't the scientific community come up with better alternatives?

Awww Cuphandle, I wish the culling of kangaroos wasn’t necessary but like the RSPCA I reluctantly support it.
There are no reasonable alternatives, and if their numbers threaten their survival and that of other native animals, then culling, if done in a way that is as humane as possible, is probably the best solution.
I do wonder whether something could have been done earlier in the picture.
I feel pacified knowing that the RSPCA was monitoring the cull and that they said that animal welfare standards were met.

I have only tried to cook kangaroo meat once but it was a disaster. Do you treat the meat the same way as beef? Mine ended up like shoe leather :(

Hi Foxy,
I hadn't refreshed the page for ages and hadn't noticed your post.

Where I lived there was a pigeon plague and the pigeons were fed grains mixed with birth control granules or something. It worked, because a year or so later the numbers were back to normal.

I have no idea whether contraception would work for kangaroos, but I just assumed that alternatives would have been explored especially by some fanatical animal organisations.

Cuphandle may I ask you to trot out the evidence I once called you a pretend farmer?
And your insults are welcome I have seen you take other posters to task for far less.
How do you know what I think?
I gave up shooting roos a very long time ago, and for this bush born bloke they are food, just did not like them looking at me while I killed them.
Dickie ,well you too get heated far too easy in fact we can not agree on much.
But I remember that poem and my little dog still.
Your first post in this thread was purely emotive, did not address the issue but tried to use pure propaganda .
Yes Foxy culling is cruel but lets remember it will alway happen wild dogs horses roos cats endless but needed what alternatives exist?
National parks forests every government department is under staffed no people to do it any other way.
We have threads talking about the way we treat women that do not attract this many posts why?
We find less debate about politics or power sell of than here?
Gibo, well Ginx has it down to pat I once posted my view about gibberish and thought it was deleted but maybe it was a lost post?
Gibo brings it all on him/her self.
Cuphandle I did think far more of you, yes we have differed but this is not combat it is debate over all you ideas are not far from mine find that post please I have no memory of saying it but may have in what context?

I want to know how many of these anti-cull people are actually vegetarians.

I ask those who are not, Is it only the cuddly animals you object to being culled? I am interested in your hierachy of animal importance, since kangaroos are obviously more sacred than cows, pigs etc,

What pests is it OK to kill?

Thousands of Kangaroos and wallabies die on the roads every year, but I'll bet the anti-cull bunch aren't going to stop driving. I see a minimum of two a day on my drive in to town.

Whats even more surprising is that we hear nothing about the legal culling of millions of kangaroos, yet the televised plight of 400 roos is a huge issue. These people are armchair greenies. Only if the issue is brought into their living room do they stir themselves to outrage.

Dickie,

Being petulant will get you nowhere. I for one would like to hear your response to TLTRs post. Because I don't think you have any real answer to the questions posed.

I think Belly, Pericles and TRTL have summed up the situation well. The cull is unfortunate but necessary, like the Koalas on Kangaroo Island, they have eaten themselves out of their home.

The baby seal syndrone is really at play here and the media is milking it for all it is worth.

Last time I drove on Majura Drive, which goes around Canberra to the airport, I counted 10 dead roos beside the road and I am told the carcases are picked up daily. How many more roos are simply injured by vehicles everywhere and hop off to eventually die. Notice how the wildlife shows only show big cats doing clean kills, they never show the near misses that means the intended prey dies later from infection. I have seen wallabies with guts torn out by dingos and dieing from infection and fly strike.

Nature can be very cruel and this should be acknowledged. In many places roos have become plague proportions and economic use should be made of them.

If the teary, hand wringing lot want to save animals they could concentrate on those threatened with extinction. The Bilby for example, but it is only small so not very noticable.

*If anyone who has raised just one of these animals from infancy and
received the love and response in return for his or her concern, can condone these irresponsible actions,.....*

Well that is what it comes down to. All that motherly and nurturing
love, versus the realities of nature and the the argument of sustainability, the two being quite conflicting. Emotion versus
reason is what it comes down to, which is a major conflict for
us humans. Fair enough.

Just because we close our eyes and wish it went away, does not
make it so. Easier said then done, I concede.

Mostly the brickbats doent bother me Belly.
I really came here to tell folk about the Bibles endtimes and to spread news of visions and prophecies from The Lord to committed christians all over Australia of an invader...Gods Allowance because of the sins of the people. Im really into last days and endtimes and how people react to me doenst bother me. If you the reader are doing nothing later, have a read of Luke chapter 21 or click on the signs that we are in the end times.
Better to be loaded up with knowledge than caught short and perplexed as to whats happening.

I suppose it would be seen as unkind to suggest the culling of a few of the roos that are loose in Gibo's top paddock :)

Hi all

I'm wondering - as truly abhorrent as this cull is - why it is worse than what happens to the millions of sheep, cattle, pigs, chickens and others who are hauled off to slaughter daily.

Where this is wrong is that the Australian eco-systems were made for the native wildlife, not for livestock. Cloven-hooved, "exotic" animals have done untold damage to those ecosystems. That damage is done, and the kangaroos are being made to pay the price.

Belly, would you mind posting the story/poem about your dog here? I haven't been able to find it and I would love to see it.

Cheers
Nicky

I still don't understand why there isn't a comprehensive management plan in place, regarding these native animals.

Is it the profits to be made from the sale of their meat that finding
alternatives to solving this on-going problem are not being looked at?

Is culling them really the only solution available?

“Your first post in this thread was purely emotive, did not address the issue but tried to use pure propaganda .”

Please accept my apologies Belly. I rarely make claims without substantiation; however I stand corrected on the method I posted on the culling of joeys.

The recommendations for the new Draft Code now state that:

“orphaned joeys should be decapitated with a sharp blade; shot at close range; struck with a metal pipe; or "forcefully swung" against a solid metal object such as the tow bar of a vehicle.” You may access my “propaganda” - Section 6.1(i)of the code to verify this claim.

And while the draft Code states that all shooters ought to be "competent", there is no requirement for non-commercial shooters to pass a competency test (Section 4.1(1)). As a result of poor targeting, it is estimated that each year hundreds of thousands of kangaroos suffer prolonged and painful deaths when they are shot by hunters but not killed outright.

If you require links to additional "propaganda" I have spread, I can provide them but only after you've made a rational contribution to this thread. Your unwarranted and spiteful comments further mitigate your credibility.

Dr John Auty former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Animal Health stated:
.
"The conventional wisdom amongst kangaroo killers and their epigones is that kangaroos were not numerous at the time of white settlement due to predation by Aborigines and dingo.

"The historical record in fact shows that kangaroos were abundant and that Aborigines and the dingo had little effect on the number which have been estimated in the hundreds of millions.

contd....

Senior Principle research scientist, CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology and Dr Graham Arnold wrote:

"Unless the community manages remnant vegetation to minimise degradation and enhance the regeneration of native plants, kangaroos and some other native species will disappear from much of Western Australia over the next 100 years."

Kangaroos’ tails drag along behind them while they are grazing, pressing the ground, rolling seeds into the earth. Their urine and faeces is a natural fertilizer, essential to the health of the land and biodiversity.

Kim Stewart, BA Philosophy:

"It is suggested that kangaroos will cause land degradation as a result of overpopulation. Come on now, is anyone who knows that this country has 180 million cattle obliterating flora under hoof (about 70% of our land mass) so naïve as to say it is the kangaroo that is responsible for land degradation?"

http://www.omplace.com/articles/Kangaroo_Cull.html

”SA marsupial expert Doug Reilly:

“Where farmers and pastoralists (with sheep, cattle and crops) are in competition with any native animal, the government administrators always favour the land owner. Whatever native animal is involved, that animal is marked for destruction.”

Governments, despite research overseas into benign chemical repellants discouraging animals from entering specific areas, have failed miserably in sustaining the biodiversity of this nation.

However, a consortium of mining companies have instigated research at Curtin University WA where researchers revealed that the urine of dingoes can effectively repel kangaroos from areas of new-growth vegetation.

Do we still have the dingo?

Despite the institutionalised mass genocide of other species in this nation by inhumane means, the feral pig population is the highest in the world, more domestic dogs and cats are seeking refuge in the woods from cruel owners, the feral camel, deer, buffalo, goats and livestock are marked for a cruel fate, through live exports; kangaroo meat and hides exported to 55 countries and the ill-informed ones here, whose rationale is motivated by "greed, glorious greed," attack those with an informed opinion.

Little wonder Australia has the unenviable record of having the worst record of recent mammal extinction of any country in the world.

http://www.omplace.com/articles/Kangaroo_Cull.html

Dickie how about posting that poem for Nicky? it meant the world to me and its inch's away but it belongs to you.
And give me a break! this thread is not about the shot Joey's! its about 400 to be culled the issue of harvesting roos is not debated here.
Now how many here search each road kill for alive joey? not a pleasant job.
But two great Friends had a wildlife rescue home young wombats bashing the walls down Joey's in socks or pillow slips many bought to the door by me, in my road patrol days.
Do not brand me heartless I love animals but refuse to forget reality.
Foxy the bush paddock is a big place no other way exists we must cull Nicky is right why are we unconcerned about our breakfast sausages?
Roos exist in numbers so much larger than before white man came and we would not be able to live with the millions that would die in drought if we did not cull.
Culling is a method of keeping roos alive.
Gibo long before we invented your God man lived in caves the protein we got from eating animals helped us grow and it keeps us growing now.
Of all the invented Gods your invention is not the Jesus I once followed.

Belly:
Please accept my most sincere apology when I said the it was you that had referred to me as a "pretend farmer" on another Thread!....I made a mistake,...... it was supposed to have been aimed at "Bugsy"!

I am NOT too gracious to accept that I made a simple mistake by using the wrong "pseudonym".....you see when one gets so passionate about an ongoing issue, it is easy to confuse one simple name with another one,....especially when one is on a Dial-up connection and is thus rather limited to speed and performance!

I know that maybe to offer an apology is rather belated, however I realise now that I was just trying too hard to get my point across,... but the other comments that I made in response, I still stick to!

Belly...what evidence is there that man invented God? or that man lived in caves possibly millions of years ago as part of some evolutionary chain?
To me the whole evolution concept is unsubstantiated tripe.
A few bones here and a few bones there... and this huge mountain of no-evidence tripe theory.
The Bible has the true record and this is Confirmed to the christians by The Holy Spirit living within them.
You guys!
I cant help breaking up when you bring those old bones to the surface as being the way it all happened.
Dem bones, dem bones, dem bones:):):)
You need to read the Holy Bible and let God Touch you and bring you to know Jesus as your Saviour.

I just love numbers, particularly the images they conjure up. Sometimes they fascinate me so much, I have to dig a little deeper.

>>Come on now, is anyone who knows that this country has 180 million cattle obliterating flora under hoof (about 70% of our land mass)<<

So I tried to visualize this, all those moo-cows trampling the countryside underfoot.

70% of our land mass is 5,384,417 square kilometers.

So every moo-cow has 29,913 square meters to work with, that's a patch of land 173 meters square. Or a hundred metres wide by three hundred meters long. If the cow concerned were walking in a straight line, (let's give them a meter to work with, even though their hooves are only a few inches across), that's a 30 kilometer stretch.

But except when they are on their way to milking, they don't do a great deal of walking. It's more like standing around, with possibly a bit of mooching to pass the time of day. So probably no more than 1km a day, really.

When they are in motion, though, they will average about eight hoofprints per metre

That means every thirty days our bovine fauna-exterminator plants eight hoofprints per square meter, potentially damaging between 1,300 and 1,500 cm sq. as they go.

So in total, 1.5% of the land mass receives one hoofprint every month.

Doesn't really meet the "obliterating fauna" test, does it?

*Come on now, is anyone who knows that this country has 180 million cattle *

Only nobody thinks that, apart from perhaps Dickie, as its more
like 30 million cattle.

Pericles, I figure your analysis stands up against the less-than-truthful propaganda of the “friends-of-kangas”, who I suspect draw their analysis from the same tainted well as the AGW-believers, where lying to obtain a sentimental advantage is seen as fair-play.

Yabby “Only nobody thinks that, apart from perhaps Dickie, as its more like 30 million cattle.”

Its like they say

There are

Lies,

Damn lies and

Dickie.

Who, incidentally has never come up with any evidence of his claim that I had expressed support for cartels… I am still waiting dickie.

Dear Belly

Here's that poem for Nicky. From memory, I personalised your copy for your little dog Skeeta:

http://www.petloss.com/poems/maingrp/dogangel.htm

"Doesn't really meet the "obliterating fauna" test, does it?"

Yes indeed it does, Pericles but only to those are conversant with the official literature on the current state of the SOE and feels a responsibilty towards protecting what's left of this arid land.

And I note the author's error on the cattle numbers and I wonder why she only referred to one species of livestock?

I presume the article was written around 2001 and the ABS statistics for sheep around that time was approximately 111 million. Cattle was 28 million. By June '02, sheep figures were the lowest since 1948.

Total: 139 million.

Add to the above figure, any other cloven-hoofed animal that has four legs (3 will do,) manages to stand upright and guarantees a profit and you will exceed those figures.

ABS: "Official statistics produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are an important source of information but do not cover a range of agricultural commodities produced in Australia."

ANRS: "Stock included in the final database are beef bulls, beef heifers, beef calves, dairy cattle, rams, ewes, wethers, lambs and horses. The reliability of these data has been questioned (e.g. Mortiss 1995) with suggestions that the figures are likely to be underestimates."

Belly. I've been witness to kangaroos and emus caught in fenced mining leases, unsure how to return to the exit point. These animals die from starvation.

Even Pukapunyal's kangaroo slaughter was avoidable. Defence conceded the animals were grossly mismanaged by incarcerating them behind an electric fence with uncontrolled breeding where the "final solution" was slaughter.

Did Canberra learn from that experience? Do they care?

"Roos exist in numbers so much larger than before white man came."

Precisely the opposite, I'm afraid Belly - and they had to go!

We have indeed been poor stewards of our biodiversity when we remain indifferent to the legalised plundering and desecration of Australia's flora and fauna where we've already selfishly compromised the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Thanks Cuphandle thats the bloke I have come to respect.
Your passion is ok by me but in my view miss placed dickie thanks sometimes see her in my two new best mates
Killing these roos gee just down the track from here wild horses once stampeded across the highway every week killed a young bride on her way home from her wedding tragic but true.
Had they been culled? well locals dropped breeders in the bush then harvested the young ones good one got ridden bad ? dog meat.
What value that girls life? doggers fought against the culling.
We let sporting shooters , trained not just anyone kill in state forests thousands of feral animals.
Mostly cats and wild dogs and say it is what it is a conservation measure why is this not the same?

*Cattle was 28 million*

Ah ok, so it wasn't 180 million cattle, but 28 million, plus some
other species. Hey Dickie, remember there is a difference.

For your benefit, so that you can tell the difference, one lot
go mooooo, the other lot go baaaaa. We try and keep it simple
for you, given you clearly have trouble telling them apart.

Memo to Dickie:

You can actually enhance your argument when you admit when you're wrong. People might actually believe you next time.

Hi all

Dickie (and Belly) thanks for that delightful poem. I found a website years ago, which I think was called "Diamond Paws" which had a lot of beautiful material (if a bit Americanised) like that. But it brought back to my mind my 17 year old Border Collie Kelpie whom I lost in 2000.

This is a diverse, interesting and so far relatively polite thread. Maybe that's because PALE hasn't made it yet, but give it time!

Cheers
Nicky

"You can actually enhance your argument when you admit when you're wrong. People might actually believe you next time."

Very true C J Morgan

Here is the link where you can advise the author of her error:

http://www.omplace.com/articles/Kangaroo_Cull.html

I too will accept your apology for your petty endeavours to manipulate the facts.

Perhaps now you would like to contribute something of value to the debate "A Culling Bloody Shame" or have you et al merely arrived here to trash yet another animal welfare thread and to spew more venom?

Here is just a little food for thought.

Have any of you seen what happens to a young family with children on board when a kangaroo comes through the windscreen of a car?

I think that vision might just change your views on culling.

I have seen it, and not a pretty site.

When human safety is an issue, Sorry Skippy.

So dickie, did they wipe them all out in 2002 or what?

dickie: << or have you et al merely arrived here to trash yet another animal welfare thread and to spew more venom? >>

If you'd bothered to read the previous comments before you "arrived" on this thread, you'd know that I'd expressed my opinion last Wednesday.

Meanwhile, you need to tone down and learn how to add up numbers. You're not doing your cause any great favours by continuing to spout bulldust, I'm afraid.

*Here is the link where you can advise the author of her error:*

The question is Dickie, why on earth would you quote an author
from animal liberation, who gets her statistics so screwed up
that she does not know the difference between sheep and cattle?

Just because something appears on a website, does not mean
it is true.

If you knew that the statistics were crapola, why try and
hoodwink the rest of us? Your credibilty goes out the window,
along with that of the author. Animal libs are not exactly known
for letting the truth get in the way of a good story, as we have
shown before.

Hi again all

In support of Dickie, I'd suggest that Yabby only has to see the words "animal", "liberation", or "rights" anywhere near each other to automatically declare the content of any research worthless, regardless of how well it is referenced and scientifically established. It is odd therefore that he believes without question the gospel of MLA about its Middle Eastern activities, despite all evidence to the contrary.

While on occasion his contributions have some merit, his last post does demonstrate the astonishing ability he has to see and believe what he wants to see and believe.

I personally believe that if a kangaroo comes through the windscreen of a car, someone is not driving very carefully, given the knowledge we have about the behaviour of the species. I have alarms on my car, but still drive at dusk with my heart in my mouth, and slowly. It is a almost always a matter of due care and attention, and I do a lot of dusk and night driving.

This cull though - the writer of the article cited by Dickie said it all really, When an animal is cute and cuddly, or in some other way extraordinary, it is amazing the lengths people will go to to protect it. But what about the millions of animals hauled off to slaughter that these people happily eat every day? And once an animal interferes with human greed and profit and is declared to be a "pest" no-one cares how cruel the methods of "control" used are.

Cheers
Nicky

Thanks for your support Nicky

Let them savour their kill - these pretenders know what they do.

See you on another thread.

Ciao.

Hi Dickie

Please come back to the other thread - I'm being massacred!

Cheers
Nicky

Come Nicky you know don't you that is wrong.
If a roo comes through the windscreen some one is not driving well, while getting into yabby about something you spoke those wrong words surely you do understand it is not true?
Roos come from blind side any side at the very last minute while idiots blowing horns impress me with their lack of understanding bush people know just why your heart is in your mouth you never know when one is coming.
The cull is not murder not even evil or wrong that description of the family in the car is light on detail but very horrific and true many times.

Belly. Light on detail. Yes! So here is more. (and you are 100% correct).
Kangaroos are not like the average unfortunate animal that gets killed on our roads. Most creature's are no more than 2.5 feet in height but the kangaroo is in a class of its own. This creature has the ability to jump 8 to 10 feet in the air and four-wheel drives are not safe either. At 100km's this a mid air missile will come crashing strait thorough the thin sheet of class( that why its called a windshield and not a roo shield) and most of time it dies on impact, but the odd one, (especially the big males) will still be alive thrashing with fear and if anyone has the unfortunate luck of sitting next to it, well like I said, its not a pretty site.( razor sharp claws)

Blood, guts, glass and bone fragments, well, at the hospital they will dig those out after they stitch you up and take care of the more serious injuries.

Iam against culling in general, so it is a bloody shame, but kangaroo's are in a class of there own and if you have love-ones, well, you get the picture.

* regardless of how well it is referenced and scientifically established.*

Ah you mean Nicky, when it is referenced and the figures are
still out by something like 600%. At that time it certainly
IS time to question the credibility of the author.

Or your own claims that "chunks of flesh" are removed by
mulesing. What is your reference? A Peta website perhaps?

This is the problem with animal liberation mobs. They don't seem
to have the foggiest about livestock or livestock production,
nor employ people who do, but will employ people who are
qualified in "cause related marketing", so that they can
push emotional buttons and rattle the proverbial tin more
effectively. No wonder that organisations like Peta can raise
20 million bucks a year, from the true believers who read the
crapola on their websites. Clearly the "truth", should not
interfere with those stories.

Giboo! I couldn't help reading your little conversation with belly and I have one more piece of fact for you.

When the human fetus is four months old, 'guess what', it has a tail and this my friend is a throw-back from our amphibious ancestry.

Sorry people I couldn't help myself.
Gibo! I do enjoy these little chats with you, but you and David are running out of ammunition.

All the best

EVO

Hi again, all

Evolution and Belly, thanks for the graphic description. Obviously accidents can happen, but you must know as well as I do that there is a lot of driving without proper care and attention on bush roads where it is known that these animals are prevalent at dusk. Remember too, that as we take over more and more the habitats of wildlife they will enroach further towards urban areas. With all the dusk and night driving I do, and have done for years, I have yet to hit one though (or be attacked by one)

Yabby, I might have missed something about the statistics being 600% out, but I'm sure you will clarify that. I also can't recall using the term "chunks of flesh" - I may have done so, and if so I'm sure you will correct me.

Perhaps you could favour us with exactly how YOU would describe the mulesing "procedure" (it shouldn't really be called that because it can be done by any idiot using whatever happens to be handy, sterile or not, and there is no analgesia or anaesthesia).

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky. Yes I hear what you are saying and you must of heard my comments on overpopulation. I support you in that point. But even you must understand that just one person is one to many.( contradiction in terms) Are little sardine world is putting pressure on everything and it seems that i am the only one that is seeing the magnitude of the situation.

Well that's good you have not experienced a close in-counter but many have, including me. Trust me! Experiences changes prospectives.

Let me tell you another real life story. Driving along at sixty Km,s right at the dawn period, a mob of 15 or more just bounded strait in front of me. Two hit the front guard of the car and one landed on the bonnet, lost grip on the paint work and slid off and jumped away.

I wonder what would of been the out-come at a hundred Km,s.
I maybe typing from a wheelchair right now.( or worse )

Its a rock and a hard place.

Please think about it.

All the best.

EVO

Hi again all

Evolution, you won't get any argument from me about over-population. This is my personal view only, but I think a large chunk of foreign aid should come in the form of birth control by whatever means. The "carbon footprint" we are leaving for future generations (to which I haven't contributed, but I must admit that was for selfish reasons at the time) is scary.

You're right, I haven't experienced a "close encounter" such as you describe with a large kangaroo (or group of same), but one bush road I travel at dusk twice weekly is heavily populated with wallabies (who are, I recognize, a quite different matter). I'm so frightened of hitting one that I drive at about 40klm/hour, which probably renders my alarms useless (must be why they don't seem to bother the animals too much! I just stop for them, but I am endlessly thankful that I have yet to hit anything).

I do take your point about some of the horrific injuries than can, and probably are, caused, but I guess this is digressing a bit from the matter of the cull. I understand that kangaroos implement their own sort of population control (nature being fairly brutal in some cases) with some joeys being abandoned by their mothers to starve (someone more knowledgeable about this might like to expand on it for me).

Thanks for your input - it has given me more to think about.

Cheers
Nicky
PS Why "even me"? Have you been listening to Yabby or am I being paranoid?

Ah there you are Nicky

Apparently trees are the main objects that rural drivers collide with.

Perhaps you can enlighten me. My 2007 archives contained a paper which advised that during 2005, Australian drivers hit 3,500 sheep and 800 cows and horses.

It also advised that only 32% of claims for car damage by animals was attributed to kangaroos.

Do you know if there were any human fatalities for that year?

Toodle pip.

Dickie! I didnt report mine, your numbers means nothing.

Here, fishy, fishy, fishy.

Sorry! I am needing some sleep.

All the best.

EVO

I do not live in the outback, just 40 klm from the sea in a near coastal village but we have roos.
Roos do charge out in front of the safest driven car or truck, it is no fun getting one out from between dual wheels and I have done it often.
Truck drivers do not charge over them they stink and get a freshly cleaned truck very dirty.
Trying to blame drivers or even say it is not true devalues every claim you make.
No intent to be rude it is the good well mannered thread Nicky spoke of but roo do not read road rules.
Big old man roos thrown out of the mob sit right on the highway edge and do die as evo said no driver could avoid them.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion I think some of you need to get a serious grasp on reality. With a conservative estimate of 25 million roo's in the country I fail to see how the culling of 400 will have any effect. Trying to compare the culling of these roo's to the killing of whales by Japan in the Great Southern Ocean is not only a flawed argument, it is an absurd one. As for relocating them? Ridiculous!

If you want to be useful and you are truly a conservationist, then how about helping the public in the Kimberleys stop the cane toad invasion of W.A. You could see if you could help with the plight of the Tasmanian Devil that are dying in their thousands due to a facial cancer. These are just two conservation projects you could get involved with that will have more of an impact on Australian wildlife than the deaths of 400 kangaroos.

Where I grew up and farmed there is still plenty of roo's, however the bush turkeys, emus, and various other wildlife are either non-existent or in extremely small numbers. The big picture is the destruction of thousands of acres of land in Australia for the expansion of cities around the coast, the destruction of the rainforest in the Amazon and Indonesia etc, …not the culling of 400 roo’s.

And yes, I am from the bush, born and bred. I have raised roo’s in case any of you would have a crack at that. My advice to some of you is get real, get a life and get onto the real issues. Oh by the way, in case you don’t know because our media is giving some of you so much attention, people in Zimbabwe and Burma are being murdered, raped, tortured, detained and made homeless every day. How about doing something about that, or is it because they’re people in far away countries and not furry cute animals. And yes I do my small bit for those people but I don’t call up the media to tell them.

Hi all

Hey, Belly, I did withdraw from my first stated position, be fair!

Dickie - I'd love to know where those stats came from; it would not surprise me in the least, but perhaps one of our farming contributors could enlighten us about why sheep, cows and horses are wandering the roads (in fact, at a nearby saleyard I have found large mobs of sheep wandering the back roads several times).

Myopinion, my view of this cull is that it is the wrong thing to do, but in the face of the abject cruelty we inflict upon millions of farmed animals day in, day out. year in, year out ... well, do the maths, (or math) as the Americans say. I also said earlier than it's sad that while an animal is cute, pretty and cuddly or is in some other way extraordinary people go to equally extraordinary lengths to protect it (whales, for example). We are an inconsistent lot.

But we continue to rob these animals of their habitats, then complain when they (also drought afflicted) encroach closer to urban areas. If control methods are the only alternative, they must be humane, not some of the horror stuff we use now like 1080, steel-jawed traps and strychnine. Many of the animals now regarded as "pest" animals are only out there as a result of human negligence, neglect, ignorance and indifference.

Cheers
Nicky

Bloody excellent post myopinion. Welcome to OLO.

Nicky

Yes human activity has eaten its way into Australia’s remaining patches of wilderness. Major roads block the paths of wild animals; residential and commercial areas seal off forests and farmland has destroyed habitats. What’s now left is too small for animals to raise their young, hide, graze or hunt and our thirst for development is far from quenched.

Herbert Hoover, who once worked in the Eastern Goldfields of WA would no doubt be turning in his grave. During the ‘20s, millions of koalas were killed and their skins exported. Hoover, during his US presidency, banned the import of koala skins and the trade collapsed. Now, from mismanagement, koalas must be culled.

Despite the irrational exuberance on this thread (normally attributed to animal lovers) few are asking questions (except Foxy) on how we can best manage the culling of our wildlife. There is a strong scent of mob violence mentality to “kill the bastards.”

No-one is asking about cull management or its effectiveness. The RIRDC state that only 60% of quotas are harvested. Animals confined by humans in small areas thus preventing immigration leads people to believe that the nation suffers a kangaroo population explosion. Some shooters have too many licences covering vast tracts of land and are physically unable to cover all the areas which could explain the out-of-control breeding (assuming statistics are accurate.)

Critical thought would allow people here to realize that a parochial view of kangaroo numbers does not portray an overall picture. I have lived for many decades in kangaroo country and have never sighted a wild kangaroo within the town boundaries. The bush, however, is more virginal and though in an arid area, reveals no damage inflicted by animals. Nevertheless, the road kill outside boundaries is prolific.

During 1994, a new viral disease causing blindness swept through kangaroos in the East and spread through to WA. Drivers should spare a thought for their next roadkill which may have been blind.

Here’s a couple of links for your perusal.

Cheers Nicky.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:4mNuR6J8jo4J:www.thylazine.org/gallery/roadkill/+western+australia+kangaroos+road+kill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s1896572.htm

Disclaimer: The poster bears no responsibility for the contents of the links provided.

Dickie posted "I have lived for many decades in kangaroo country and have never sighted a wild kangaroo within the town boundaries."

I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Why would the roo's enter the town boundary?

Let me give you a few figures about roo's. In Perth in the Upper Swan Valley there is a suburb that has two golf courses in the suburb boundary. Four years ago the City estimated there were approximately 2,500 roo's inside the suburb which is 32 square kilometres. That’s 78 roo’s per square kilometre. Admittedly about a quarter of the suburb was also bush (which has since been cleared). This suburb is 30 minutes drive from the CBD of Perth. The road kill is approximately 15 roo’s per year, so I think the breeding will out do the road kill, don’t you? How does this area sustain so many roo's? Simple: constant water and food supply with green grass all year round and no culling.

What most of you have failed to take into account is the lack of watering points there would have been decades ago. I would have thought that the lack of watering points would have naturally controlled the numbers of roo’s in a population. How many dams and troughs do you think are in Australia today on stations, farms and hobby farms? One of the main reasons for the roo numbers today would be plentiful feed and water. As for droughts, they have a way of naturally reducing numbers, but all droughts end and the numbers rise again. That’s a natural process.

Here’s something else for you all to protect, that is actually worthwhile.
Banded Hare-Wallaby, the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby, the Prosperine Rock-wallaby, and the Rufous Hare-wallaby. All are on the endangered Wallabies list

myopinion is on the money.

So, why is the Canberra Roo cull such an issue? What makes this particular situation so noteworthy?

The reason has little to do with killing kangaroos. Since Canberra has an airport, 5 star hotels, access to electronic media, vegetarian restaurants and drug dealers the highly dedicated animal libbers have access to the basic life style needs for the professional AL protester. Minimal effort and maximum effect along with maximum expenditure of tax deductible donations. Nirvana.

When wild animals over populate they are highly exposed to the possibility of diseases or starvation. This has resulted in documented cases of a collapse in animal populations.

Recently we were in the Brisbane Ranges and after an estimated 216 man hours moving about quietly, on foot, in the bush, the nine of us noted that we had not sighted one Kangaroo. Dingoes we surmised but later learned from the property owner that the drought and a virus had finished them off. They apparently die frothing at the mouth over a period of days.

Now the dilemma. Is it unethical to manage a wild population by monitoring and culling or is it more ethical to allow them to die a slow agonising death due to starvation or disease. I know what a reasonable person would conclude but unfortunately, an animal libber is not reasonable, by definition.

Peter Singer the founding Father of AL advocates consensual sex with animals. Boston Globe -- April 11, 2001; NO HEAVY PETTING; Author: CATHY YOUNG

AL will not rest until every farm that raises animals for consumption is bankrupt, we have no pets, there are no pet shops and animals are not raced or used for work. So I guess there won't be anything else to do with them except to have sex.

What we did see in Queensland was 10s of thousands of small cane toads due to the recent wet weather. The Greens do not have the collective will, the integrity or the intellect to address the greatest environmental threat to our fauna.

*Since Canberra has an airport, 5 star hotels, access to electronic media, vegetarian restaurants and drug dealers the highly dedicated animal libbers have access to the basic life style needs for the professional AL protester*

Hehe, I love it :)

.

Nicky it is called the long paddock. Cockies leave home for months following the narrow ribbon of green adjacent to the roadways so their animals can eat. Eating meals and sleeping in conditions not fit for our undocumented refugees, away from their families and consumed with worry.

Myopinion failed to mention the awful suicide rate of our rural males. Not headline worthy in Politically Correct Sydney, 400 kangaroos on the other hand is a major issue. Our society has lost its way.

In regards to part of Cowboy Joe's comment of suicides of rural males. He is correct. I am fully aware of the suicides of males in rural Australia. It is not a lack of concern on my part that this very important problem wasn't addressed in my posts. What I was trying to do, was show on a large scale, that far more pressing problems are in this country and the world than the culling of 400 roo's when the species is not even endangered. And yes, male suicides in rural Australia is definitely one of the more important issues.

The locals of Kununurra in the Kimberleys are fighting the invasion of the cane toad from the NT around the clock, and yet hardly even rate a mention in the press. And yet these "over the top, zealous, misinformed greenies" are raving on about this culling like it is the end of civilization as we know it. If they researched what the cane toads have done to the environment in Queensland and the NT well then they might have some sympathy for the wildlife here if they get a foothold. But I suppose the control of cane toads is about killing and all they're interested in is saving life and so it doesn't effect them. Talk about wrong priorities!!

I recently encountered two roadkill Proserpine rock wallabies side by side near Airlie Beach. I stopped and took photos and reported it to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.

I dare say that these two deaths were considerably more significant than the culling of 400 egroos (eastern greys) in the ACT.

"I dare say that these two deaths were considerably more significant than the culling of 400 egroos (eastern greys) in the ACT

"But I suppose the control of cane toads is about killing and all they're interested in is saving life and so it doesn't effect them. Talk about wrong priorities!!

"Myopinion failed to mention the awful suicide rate of our rural males. Not headline worthy in Politically Correct Sydney, 400 kangaroos on the other hand is a major issue. Our society has lost its way.

All very concerning gentlemen though hardly relevant to the contents of the author's thread - "A Culling Bloody Shame."

If you'd prefer to debate these other important issues , why not commence a thread of your own rather than take this debate off topic or resort to the ad-homs?

I'm sure we'd all be happy to participate and I would be especially interested in WA's 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities where this mismanagement has seen WA officially listed amongst the world's worst environmental hotspots.

Cheers

Dickie, why do you want to uphold such a narrow focus? What is wrong with presenting a broader perspective? What is wrong a poster mentioning anything that they feel is connected to the subject of the thread?

Dickie is a privileged individual at OLO and so has enlarged the scope of informal authority he feels entitled to wield.

Be careful what you say to Dickie you might be disciplined by the moderator.

Dickie is an expert at feigning obtuseness. It has to be a pretence because Dickie consistently chooses to miss the point of many postings.

The main point Dickie -- (in lower case letters for the moderator) And yet these "over the top, zealous, misinformed greenies" are raving on about this culling like it is the end of civilisation as we know it.

MyOpinion -- my apologies as I did not mean to insinuate anything in your direction. Merely, attempting to reinforce your points by highlighting a current issue of human suffering that ALs seem immune to. I also wonder if they ever do anything other than protest and harass others to change their behaviour and value systems.

oooooooooow. Bitch fight!

Human sensibility! Rock and a hard place! It never stops. So? What are you going to do about it?

Roo's or humans?

EVO

Where are you Nicky?

Good news awaits you.

Jordanian King’s sister, Princess Alia, armed with Animals Australia’s footage and emails of concern from Australia, has personally intervened in the issue of the disgraceful abattoir in Jordan which was portrayed on the ABC. As a result, this brutal abattoir and also the main livestock market where Animals Australia investigators filmed cruel treatment of Australian sheep have been closed down. This outcome, which will save countless animals from unimaginable terror and suffering, could not have been achieved without the efforts of AA and the Action Team members.

Animals Australia’s work in exposing the cruelty endured by Australian live exported animals in the Middle East is also resulting in much needed change for non-Australian animals in the region.

Importantly they have been able to reveal just how flawed and misleading one of the live export industry’s public defences of their trade is. We regularly hear their carefully crafted PR mantra that they ‘need to export animals in order to improve welfare in the Middle East’. As Animals Australia’s achievements in Jordan and Egypt have proven, it is exposing and opposing cruelty that creates change—not participating in it by supplying millions of animals each year to be cruelly treated.

I understand Princess Alia has expressed her heart-felt thanks to Animals Australia for documenting this evidence and to their supporters for bringing their concerns to the attention of the Jordanian Royal Family.

Bye for now.

Hi all

Dickie
I'm sorry. I got suspended for 24 hours or so because I hurt PALE's feelings on the other thread (I quoted some stuff from the 2006 "Animal Welfare" thread).

I did know about that, AA sent out a media release and it's wonderful news. I happened to be watching a tape of that footage again just recently, and that poor bull will never leave my mind. He was hit so hard with a metal bar that it brought him to his knees, trembling. The he was hacked to death with machetes.

Now we must all keep up the pressure. The resumption of the trade in cattle to Egypt is just a disaster. Those savages had two "MoU"s in place which were shown to be absolutely worthless (as are all the others of course, and the OIE Standards, since there are clearly no sanctions imposed). There is another thread about this, but no-one seems to be responding to that one.

Australia asked Egypt for an explanation after the last expose, but at the last time I checked, Egypt had not even condescended to reply. As for a "new abattoir" for Australian animals, what does that achieve, beyond some kind of bizarre salvaging of the government's conscience? And what are the guarantees - for Australian or indeed any animals, while we keep supplying them?

Anyway - I'm back now, and great to catch up.

Cheers
Nicky

Oops, Nicky and others will now have to eat their words about
them all being a bunch of savages in the Middle East. AA are
clearly learning from farmers, that it is better to work with
people and progress, then just call them names as Nicky does.

Which has been the point all along.

With all this drama over mulesing, many farmers are switching
to meat sheep, which don't need mulesing. What that will mean
however is extra lambs, as they are far more fertile. So we'll
need extra ships to cope with rising numbers shipped to the
ME.

Running unmulesed merinos would be cruel, as most farmers know,
but the animal liberation brigade know too little about livestock
to even understand that fact. Ignorance is bliss in Nicky's world!

Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 21 May 2008
"Despite the mass slaughter of wildlife by the heinous 1080 bait, trapping and shooting."

What would you suggest is used for the control and eradication of foxes, which is what 1080 was designed for? I really look forward to your answer on this one.

Posted by dickie, Monday, 26 May 2008:
"If you'd prefer to debate these other important issues , why not commence a thread of your own rather than take this debate off topic or resort to the ad-homs?"

This was in reference to posts made on this thread by myself and Cowboy Joe.

Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 27 May 2008:
"Jordanian King’s sister, Princess Alia, armed with Animals Australia’s footage and emails of concern from Australia, has personally intervened in the issue of the disgraceful abattoir in Jordan which was portrayed on the ABC...continued."

You made a post in regard to Australian live exports to the Middle East, which has nothing to do with this thread about the culling of 400 roo's.
I would suggest that before you become the forum sheriff and lecture us on deviating from the original subject of this thread, that you should take you own advice first.

Greetings Nicky

I welcome your induction into the "Fellowship for Victims of Dobbers" and it is of some comfort to realise that we of the fellowship are at least separated from the sookies - the informers who continue to dish it out but are adept at hitting the delete button when they feel offended.

The resumption of live exports to Egypt must indeed be addressed. This decision is futher proof to the international community of the moral decay they have already witnessed in corporate Australia and its sycophantic government.

I trust they suffer the curse of a thousand mummies! Where are you Tut?

Nevertheless, my mood remains bouyant with the splendid news on the supreme efforts of Animals Australia, their affiliates and the hundreds of thousands of emails of protest from decent Australians over the unspeakable atrocities committed at the Jordanian abattoirs and the livestock marketplace. It is sickening to try to fathom just how many of our Australian and non-Australian animals suffered at the hands of these brutal men.

The AA achievement portrays the might of people power over a bent industry and an aligned government and is testament to goodness prevailing over evil.

And all praise to the very kind Princess Alia - clearly an angel of compassion.

Hallelujah, hallelujah.

Hi all

Yabby, which words are they that you suggest I should eat? I'm a bit mystified about that. Animals Australia worked with the Jordanian Royal family, as I understand it, not MLA's animal "welfare" pretenders. And on that basis, they may be able to shut down so many such "outlets" that you won't need any of your tramp ships at all. Then you will be faced with finding an alternative instead of just complaining about a lack of them.

You've had plenty of time to do something about mulesing, and you have only yourselves to blame for not addressing it before. If you have trouble accessing Trisolfen, tell us what we could be doing to help instead of complaining about it. Like the "improvements' in live export markets (pitiful as they are), you only started pretending to do something 'cause you were caught out.

Myopinion, my apolgies; there was a thread started - two, in fact, on this (live export) topic. Dickie, do you mind if I refer you to those rather than us continuing to ruffle feathers on this one?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1781

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1780

Cheers
Nicky

Peter Singer the founding Father of Animal Liberation advocates consensual sex with animals. Boston Globe -- April 11, 2001; NO HEAVY PETTING; Author: CATHY YOUNG

Dickie laments moral decay - This decision is further proof to the international community of the moral decay they have already witnessed in corporate Australia and its sycophantic government.

Dickie's continued silence on the Boston Globe article can only be construed that Dickie supports bestiality, consensual of course.

Hi all

Cowvoy Joe, without having seen the reference to which you direct us (please post link again if you don't mind) dare one suggest that the operative word is "consensual"? I can't think of an animal in its right mind who would want to get that close to a human, given the unequal balance of power (not to say cruelty of which they are on the receiving end).

Dickie, yes, I was absolutely in disgrace. But in fairness to PALE. I (for the first time) hit the delete button on them for a post against ASymonaekis (apologies for any spelling errors) on another thread which was nothing short of racial vilification. So they retaliated where I quoted several posts from a pig farmer from 2006 in support of my request for PALE to declare its credentials as far as actually achieving anything for animals is concerned (actually, I said "put up or shut up"). I have been trying to get to the bottom of what they actually DO for animal welfare. Just a shred of evidence would have done.

Let's move our live export discussions to the other threads. But I'm with you about Princess Alia, letters of appreciation wouldn't go astray either, perhaps.

Cheers
Nicky

Posted by Nicky, Tuesday, 27 May 2008;
"You've had plenty of time to do something about mulesing, and you have only yourselves to blame for not addressing it before.

Nicky you are talking absolute crap about mulesing. You obviously know very little about it, why it is being done and what the ramifications are if sheep, particularly ewes to be used for lambing, aren't mulesed.
I farmed sheep for over 20 years and my family were the first to introduce fat lamb breeding into W.A. I have seen the results of fly strike non-mulesed sheep during winter, particularly during a wet season.

As for Animals Australia and that rabid PETA dictating to Australian sheep farmers what they can and cannot do..are you people serious? I find it mind boggling that you support organizations whose policies are to destroy the wool industry in this country.

While I'm knocking these two organizations, I happened to have a little read on the articles that they have on rodeo. The articles are little fact surrounded by complete lies. I rode bulls professionally, both here and in the U.S. and what is written in that article is pure unadulterated rubbish. If you want to debate me on this one as well, then lets go for it.

From article:
"Regrettably the World Bull Riding Championships is setting an example of how to torment animals, which can only influence young people negatively."

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? There is none.

"Bull-riding is eight seconds of pure bullying. Bulls are not meant to be ridden. Their reaction to a rider on their back is violent, resulting in injuries to the animal that can and have been fatal."

REALLY? EXPLAIN TO ME HOW 75kg PERSON CAN BULLY A BULL THAT WEIGHS ON AVERAGE 810kg. A BULL CAN BREAK A MAN'S LEG WITH ONE KICK BUT A MAN CAN'T BREAK THE BULL'S LEG WITH A KICK. HOW IS THAT BULLYING? I'VE SEEN PLENTY OF BULLRIDERS CARTED OUT OF AN ARENA, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN A BULL CARTED OUT.

Nickie you have caught the obtuseness virus from Dickie.

Copy paste it into your search engine for cripes sake.

*I find it mind boggling that you support organizations whose policies are to destroy the wool industry in this country. *

Oh, thats only the start of it! They want to shut livestock farming
down too! Its a bit like a religion to alot of these people.
Thats why I call them the Animal Taliban

*Yabby, which words are they that you suggest I should eat? I'm a bit mystified about that. Animals Australia worked with the Jordanian Royal family*

Sheesh Nicky, you are not the brightest at times, when it suits you.

I remind you that the Jordanian Royal Family are from the Middle
East. Time and time again on animal welfare threads, I've pointed
out to you that if you want to improve animal welfare in the ME,
work with people there to achieve it. You've claimed that they
were all a bunch of savages and that there was no hope. I pointed
out that people are not all the same, be it in Australia or the ME,
that all types exist and to write them all off as a bunch of
savages, as you do, is wrong.

Now perhaps you should eat your words and agree with me, unless
of course you would like to include the Jordanian Royal Family
in your "bunch of savages" statement

Today I will start a thread on PETA and Animals Australia. Then we'll see what arguments come up.

Hi all
Myopinion, all I can say is shame on you. There was a case of a bull in Tasmania who reached national prominence when he broke his back exiting a chute. According to the nationally televised story, he was forced, by means of kicks to his face, head and body, to drag himself with his front legs to a truck (comment from that State's Chief Veterinarian was that some of the kicks were to his eyes, and even Harry Cooper said he was sickened - Cooper has commercial interests in animals too). He was left there for over an hour, from the reports, before any form of assistance arrived, then it was a vet nurse, who just said "you'll have to shoot it". He was then driven away rather than disrupt the "enjoyment" of the barbarians who find such spectacles amusing. And that's just the beginning of the story. What of all the calves who are maimed and injured and killed, nationally, in "calf roping"? And all the animals maimed and killed in "practice" activities, that are never made public? Collateral damage? As for mulesing, everyone knows the truth about it now, and that's why you people have been forced to find a solution. Try anaesthesia and analgesia.

Yabby, you really are tragic. The Jordanian Royal Family has been prevailed upon to see the awful cruelty to which animals are subjected, and have decided to take a stand. They are something of a minority, don't you think? The rest of the savages will just continue as they always have, although I suspect it will only be a matter of time now. None of that had anything to do with MLA's little band of "pretenders" (you could probably fit them all in a phone box). Animals Australia is not about fraudulent "improvements", they are about putting a complete full stop to this disgraceful element of Australia's international activities. Does international profile not worry you people at all?

Cheers
Nicky

Ah Nicky, so now you seem to be excluding the Jordanian Royal Family from your
“savages” inclusion, but calling the rest of them savages. What about the many
people who might live in the ME, who might not be “savages” by your definition?

But then you describe most of us as savages lol. If somebody is not a veggie
nut like yourself, you seem to include them, given that most of us eat meat and
wear leather etc.

The thing is, my point has been proven, change is possible in the ME, if you work
with the locals in a sensible way, to bring it about. Australian farmers have been
the only ones, doing anything active on that score, now AA are joining the party.
I have no problem with that, I have suggested it all along. Perhaps somebody has
pointed it out to them.

Sure they are opposed to the live trade, as they are to eating meat. Hey that is their
problem, not our problem. What we can show is that floating feedlots, where animals gain weight, are just as good or better then land based feedlots and far more
regulated. Two weeks on a boat is no big deal in the life of a sheep, which it has spent outdoors for most of the time.

If there is a problem with animal welfare in the ME, as AA have now shown, something can be done about it, if animal welfare groups get off their little
butts and don’t just spend their days rattling the proverbial tin in Australia or
America. 20 million $ as raised by Peta, is big bucks, its about time they spent
it in a sensible way, rather then just trying to send Australian farmers broke.

But then as you have said, you think we should not be farming livestock at all.

If you think that farmers are doing nothing for animal welfare,
should we take back the 70 slaughter boxes installed in Indonesia
and let them go back to the old ways, like in the ME?

I find it astonishing that people take a handful of incidents and then paint the entire sport or profession as being guilty of the same misdeeds. There is no doubt that cruel and unwarranted acts are committed on animals on farms, stations, in homes, in the bush and most everywhere else. However trying to lay the blame for something that happened to a bull at a rodeo in Tasmania on all rodeo participants in the world is as preposterous as saying every dog owner is responsible for what someone did to their dog that lives in Nairobi.

Posted by Nicky, Wednesday, 28 May 2008

“What of all the calves who are maimed and injured and killed, nationally, in "calf roping"?

What of them Nicky? How many? When? Where? Facts would be helpful instead of generalization's, which is what your arguments seem to be.

“And all the animals maimed and killed in "practice" activities, that are never made public?”
What of them Nicky? How many? When? Where? If the numbers are never made public how is that you know that this happens.

“As for mulesing, everyone knows the truth about it now, and that's why you people have been forced to find a solution. Try anesthesia and analgesia.”

Really Nicky. You and all the people in the world know all about mulesing? I find that fascinating considering I have not found after reading through PETA’s information on the subject, that even they know all the facts. But of course city dwellers will always know more about the country than country people, after all we’re only uneducated barbarians. "Try anesthesia and analgesia.” Well that's a good idea. Would you like to pay for it? How about PETA with their US$22 million income, would they like to pay for it. No, of course I forgot. YOU PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE IN FARMING ANIMALS.

Obviously the self appointed guru’s of animal welfare only want their opinion voiced. My suggestion to you is to get your facts right instead of coming to an argument with 5% fact and 95% hearsay.

Freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

I LOVE Rodeos. Are you surprised?

I think it is great that there are still rodeo riders around who are prepared to live their dream in spite of the Dicks and Nicks of the world who wish to feminise them.

I can recollect the deaths of two participants, one a bull rider the other a saddle bronc rider. They died loving what they did.

Many riders experience injury and pain and I am sure that the total human pain greatly exceeds the animal pain.

How can anyone 'know' that the animals don't enjoy the activity? I have watched bulls that have thrown their rider exhibit what can only be described as a cocky, boisterous and self satisfied manner.

There should be a weekly rodeo on Channel 9! Let's have a rally.

I've been to Rodeos where the wildest bucking bull was taking kids for a ride not long after his turn out of the crush.

The Bulls know what they are doing and why they are there. They love to put on an act for the crowd. Some of them are so docile even young girls lead them around on leads behind the arena.

Mind you I grew up in the bush. When I was a kid we used to ride the bulls in the yards. Some you had to watch but most were OK, especially with kids. If you fell off they would come & sniff & nuzzle you to make sure you were alright.

Hi all

Myopinion, you clearly did not read my post very well. My point was that the real numbers of animals maimed and killed at rodeos and at "practice" activities for these "events" is never made public.

As for you people who say these animals "enjoy it", how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? I would suggest that a terrified young animal, having a choking rope yanked around its neck, being forced to the ground by an overwhelming bully and having its legs tied together is very unlikely to enjoy the experience, I'd suggest. Not to mention the fact that their young bodies are still developing. These "events" are nothing more than exercises in cruel domination simply because you can.

And if the riders are hurt more, you've made my evening. Call it the animals' revenge.

As for farm practices, do you cut off your dogs' and cats' testicles, cut away half their backside, and hot-iron brand them without anaesthesia? I thought not. But if not, why not?

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky I've come to the conclusion that apart from being a fanatic you are also a misinformed "know-it-all". Obviously if anyone disagrees to you or dickies perception of how the world should be, then they are deemed wrong. You two have no sense of reasoning or logic. A lot of what PETA and Animals Australia says about mulesing and rodeo is not only wrong but complete lies, spun to suck in gullible followers like you two. They have succeeded but their lies will not succeed. People like you are in a very small minority and you will not succeed in destroying people's livelihood.
I thought that by joining this forum that one would be able to have a serious discussion on these issues, but the forum allowing clowns like you and dickie to run around making absurd and baseless allegations has shown it was not worth joining.
If you think you're so right, instead of being the faceless cowards that you are on the internet, why don't you go to some of the sheep farms or country pubs and rattle of your diatribe. I can assure you it would not be long before you had a boot up your arse and told to piss off!

Hi all

My opinion, I don't really think that little diatribe is worth dignifying with an answer, beyond saying that I know gross animal abuse when I see it, and I'm sure Dickie does too.

As for the rest, try peddling that in any civilized society and you would meet with a similar response to your extremely poorly expressed one in your post.

And spare us the tears of blood about farmers' livelihoods, you don't care about anyone's but your own. And you certainly don't care about your animals. PETA, Animals Australia, and the growing animal advocacy movement is exposing you people for what you are, and you don't like it.

You didn't answer my questions, either.

Nicky

"thought that by joining this forum that one would be able to have a serious discussion on these issues, but the forum allowing clowns like you and dickie to run around making absurd and baseless allegations has shown it was not worth joining."

Leaving us are you myopinion? My that was a short stay on OLO. Kitchen a bit hot for you eh?

So you joined OLO to force your "expert" opinion on the issue of culling, became so vicious that you in turn were culled.

"faceless cowards that you are on the internet," Mmmm. that's worth an analysis I daresay.

And what a pity you so wrongly presumed you were waterboarding a group of bimbos.

Instead you have had to face the unvarnished truth but truth is irrelevant in your dark place.

Never mind. The vaudeville show's over for you but we still have the last man standing - Yabby. You'd need several tonnes of explosives to remove him. Not a worry though since everyone's cut him loose. Psst....he just hasn't got it yet.

Auf Wiedersehen

You're one sick puppy gibbo

Hi all

Yes, Dickie, they just can't hack it when they're faced with the truth, can they? It's interesting that we are "brainwashed" by PETA and Animals Australia, yet they are not by the farming lobby mantras, isn't it?

No, we'll never shift Yabby. He's got nothing better to do than read the MLA bible every day and regale us with the propaganda.

Dickie, visit the thread about the Livestock Standards and Guidelines when you've got a minute

Cheers
Nicky

Since, the topic of truth hacking has been established by the self appointed regulators of OLO have Nick n'Dick worked out how to enter the consensual sex with animals reference into their search engine yet?

Or is the topic too hot? Nickie, heavily panting tries to formulate a response but.....more panting and then wait for it (momentarily distracted by an attractive & lithesome Dalmatian) ........ we continue to wait in anticipation for pearls of wisdom from the Animal Taliban ........ and wait ........... and wait.

BTW the video of the Egyptian abattoir workers was barbaric. Hopefully such behaviour has been cleaned up.

Well Nicky sure seems to be following the animal liberation philosophy, as promoted by Singer. Which species her partner
is, she has never mentioned, so it could be anything :)

Hi guys

Now, Yabby, did I not see you contributing to the thread about the artist who painted (?) photographed (?) young children nude? Shame on you. What with that and your aunties ...

Cowboy Joe - thank you for at least watching that video. That was last December, by the way, so I wouldn;t be especially hopeful about anyone cleaning up their act.

And I haven't found the reference about consensual sex between humans and animals (sorry!), but the only cases I'm aware of it having happened is when it was perpetrated by the male of the human species the most recent reported one being of Brendan Francis McMahon, the Sydney financier a couple of years ago, who tortured and mutilated dozens of rabbits and was also charged with bestiality. Pet shops kept selling them to him.

But in his case the drugs made him do it, and he got off on the grounds of mental illness. I wrote to the Attorney General and pointed out that smoking methamphetamine is in fact a lifestyle choice not a mental illness, but to no avail.

If you could post that reference again I'd be more than happy to comment on it. I'm sure Dickie would too (how on earth did THAT get on this thread?)

Nite guys,
Nicky

"Since, the topic of truth hacking has been established by the self appointed regulators of OLO have Nick n'Dick worked out how to enter the consensual sex with animals reference into their search engine yet?

"Or is the topic too hot? Nickie, heavily panting tries to formulate a response but.....more panting and then wait for it (momentarily distracted by an attractive & lithesome Dalmatian)"

Hi Nicky

Yes indeed. I've been anticipating Cockroach Joe's reference to bestiality. On all welfare threads in which he has engaged, he alludes to sex with animals.

This unhinged poster has a perverse and obscene fascination with bestiality.

Are his fantasies realised when he shoots up and straddles the big bucks (compliant but dead) in our native forests? Are his fantasies fullfilled during his "Operation Animal Hate" orgies? Is this what he means when he refers to "consensual sex with animals?"

This is a disturbed human being consumed with power, violence and terrorism who lacks compassion and understanding.

Does he not realise that the greatest lesson in humility is by the observation of other species?

And equally disturbing is his support of and participation in a cruel industry which is also an ecological disaster.

And despite his past suspension for promoting his hate-based sexual paranoia, he persists with this vile bile.

May the Karmic forces be with him.

Cowboy Joe and his Supporters:

You lost all your credibility re Bulls and Rodeos when you stated that the Bulls enjoyed what they were doing!

How enjoyable is is to have a "kicking strap" reefed up around your guts and then if you don`t want to perform you get a few quick "touch-ups" from a Cattle prod!

"They enjoy what they are doing!".....I have never known anyone to ever ask a rodeo bull if he enjoys what he is doing!

I would suggest to you and your coharts that live bucking bulls that "perform" at Rodeos DO NOT have any choice in the matter, unlike the "cowboy" who performs and participates by his own choice in this
pastime for money, competition, excitement or plain stupidity!

I would suggest to you "CJ" that a very severe "wedgy" be applied to your anatomy and see how it feels!

*Now, Yabby, did I not see you contributing to the thread about the artist who painted (?) photographed (?) young children nude? Shame on you.*

I certainly did post on that thread Nicky and I stand by what I
wrote. Those discussions about the topic, have been some of the
most popular on OLO, judging by the number of threads and postings.

When it comes to bestiality, its in fact Dickie who raises the
topic most often, then you sometimes. Clearly you girls, both
Singer fans, have the topic on your mind, so anything is possible.

We tend to raise and eat other species, you girls want to
bemother them and who knows what else! I gather that Singer
was the founding prez of AA, so it sounds like its one big
happy family in the animal liberation world :)

Thank you Cuphandle and please accept my sincere apologies for being party to the corruption of your topic.

And why do I feel the need to scrub after debating with the sadists, who without fail, infiltrate animal welfare threads to cause mischief and can only offer solutions which will enhance their bank balances?

Congratulations on your endeavours to farm with compassion Cuphandle. You have set a fine example and are indeed a very special member of an industry which has lost its way when avaricious participants continue to engage in animal cruelty befitting of medieval times.

Hi Nicky

AA mission accomplished. I shall say no more.

Cheerio

Hi all

Cuphandle, my sincere apologies also, and I echo Dickie's sentiments (although I don't know what kind of farming you do).

Yabby, to the best of my recollection, I have only mentioned bestiality twice - once requesting CJ to re-post whatever this link is, and one other time only. You, on the other hand, make particularly dirty and indefensible insinuations on the subject. Is it for shock value, because you have lost your arguments so often? Whatever, it is really offensive, as is the deed itself.

Go and have a good wash, there's a good boy.

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky, your recollection is clearly not very good, for you have
tried to be a smartarse and crap on about the aunty story a few times
now. You know perfectly well that I was disussing agriculture.

If you have studied a bit of evolutionary psychology, then you also
know that tit for tat is far better then turning the other cheek.
You girls think you can dish out the crap on a fairly constant basis
and that you won't get some of it back. Well think again. I might
do it in a lighthearted manner, because to me its just a bit of
humour, but don't debate on the internet, if you are so easily
offended.

As to losing arguments, I can't remember losing any, but keep
kidding yourself lol.

Now go and untwist your knickers, there is a good girl.

Cuphandle: << I would suggest to you "CJ" that a very severe "wedgy" be applied to your anatomy and see how it feels! >>

Oi! Oh, you're talking to Cowboy Joe (I hope).

Hi all

CJ Morgan, I think those who matter certainly know the difference. Fear not!

Yabby, the difference between us is that you like to dish it out but can't take it, and we do not indulge in obscenity in labelling an entire movement or section of the community as partaking in bestiality simply because we do not like what they do - and because we have no rational argument against the facts they present.

Cheers
Nicky

Well. hasn't this discussion degenerated into crap.

C J Morgan:
Sorry if you thought that the "CJ" was a reference to you! That was the first time I have used initials instead of the full "posted" title!

*the difference between us is that you like to dish it out but can't take it, and we do not indulge in obscenity*

Ahem Nicky, it has been Dickie and yourself who raised the issue
of beastiality. I am happy to sink to your level and discuss it
at your level, if that is what you two wish.

As a matter of interest, this is what some of your heroes think
of the subject, ie Newkirk and Singer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/09/arts/09TANK.html?ex=1212292800&en=b561093c90e1f557&ei=5070

It seems to be more important to some, wether they animal enjoys
it or not!

On that basis, what people like Dickie do with their dogs, I really
don't know lol.

Please no more Peta ,and others who live in big cities and think that they know more than our indigenous Australians who have been killing roos for food and fur for forty thousand years in Australia.
I hope that the roos killed in the ACT will feed our growing population and their loved pets.
I hope that the furs and skins will be used, like the famous Red kangaroo coat worn by Rugby League Coach Jack Gibson in the 1970's.
Most kangaroos love to jump into the front of my car so the less Roos near roads the better.
The number of kangaroos in the wild today, total more than one hundred million.

Hello Brock

Could you please provide a link supporting the claim that there are currently "100 hundred million" kangaroos?

Thanks

The Boston Globe
Boston Globe
April 11, 2001
NO HEAVY PETTING
Author: CATHY YOUNG

THE LATEST ANIMAL RIGHTS CONTROVERSY IS NOT ABOUT ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION, FUR COATS, OR THE SLAUGHTER OF FARM ANIMALS IN EUROPE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE. IT'S ABOUT THE MORALITY OF SEX BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS.
Admittedly, bestiality is hardly a burning issue. But it's being discussed in editorials in the Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, thanks to an essay by controversial philosopher Peter Singer in the online magazine Nerve, titled "Heavy Petting."
Singer, author of the 1979 book "Animal Liberation," argues that our revulsion at human-animal coupling is as irrational as the old prohibitions on homosexuality and that the persistence of this taboo attests to "our desire to differentiate ourselves . . . from animals.
Singer scoffs at the belief that humans have a unique spiritual nature or moral stature. To him, "we are animals," which means that interspecies sex "ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings" and is not wrong unless it involves violence to the animal.
Singer's essay has been roundly denounced. Interestingly, however, many of his critics suggest that what makes sexual activity with animals immoral is not that it degrades humans but that it exploits animals: Since animals cannot give meaningful consent to sex, bestiality is akin to paedophilia.
Such an argument, however persuasive, raises inevitable questions about other human uses of animals (isn't being butchered worse than being sexually abused?)
It also poses problems for animal rights advocates: If animals can have sex with each other but not with people, that means drawing a clear line between humanity and other species and denying the moral autonomy of animals.
Surprisingly few commentators have challenged Singer's dubious basic premise: that human beings have no special status or worth and that "species ism" is a prejudice not much different from racism. This premise is shared by the animal rights movement, even if Singer's endorsement of bestiality generally is not.

But the notion of moral equality between humans and animals is pernicious even if it's not extended to the bedroom.
As philosopher Tibor Machan argues in a 1991 essay on animal rights, human beings have rights because they are "moral agents," capable of distinguishing and choosing between right and wrong. There is, writes Machan, "no valid intellectual place for rights in the non-human world . . . in which moral responsibility is for all practical purposes absent."
Yes, some animals can exhibit caring behaviors, such as helping an injured fellow beast, that animal rights activists invoke as evidence of morality; but no one really expects animals to respect the rights of other living things.
I'd like to see Singer try to persuade wolves not to mistreat sheep. Gary Francione, an animal-rights legal theorist, does feed his dogs a vegan diet, free of all animal products; but it's rather ironic that a champion of animal rights would use his human power to coerce animals into something so unnatural.
Indeed, Machan points out, most animal rights advocates "never urge animals to behave morally" or propose that animals be held responsible for moral wrongs. This is evident in Singer's discussion of an incident in which a woman visiting an orangutan rehabilitation camp was forcibly grabbed by an aroused male ape, and the female primatologist who ran the camp told her not to worry since it wouldn't hurt her. (The animal lost interest before anything serious happened.)
Singer is impressed by the primatologist's lack of shock or horror at an orang-utan's sexual attraction to a human. Yet surely, if someone reacted so casually to an attempted rape by a human male, we would be appalled.
This is not to say that animal welfare shouldn't be included in our sphere of moral concern. Most people believe that we should refrain from inflicting unnecessary pain on sentient beings. But any argument for the benign treatment of animals must be based not so much on animal rights as on the human values of compassion and respect for life.
Blurring human-animal boundaries, ostensibly meant to elevate animals,

Singer, author of the 1979 book "Animal Liberation."

Haha. Hell I bet that book was a best seller!! The misguided, ignorant and arrogant comments on this thread and many others by 'nicky' and 'dickie' once again displays why humans should probably have selected breeding similar to what farmers use in their cattle herds and sheep flocks. The continual ramblings of similar arguments of these two is similar to Rudd and the Labour government. Say the same thing over and over again and enough uninformed, ignorant people will believe it. Definition of this is propaganda. These two self professed experts, 'nicky' and 'dickie' are like they have lupinosis or have eaten too much loco weed, running around in circles, frothing at the mouth and dribbling.

Every negative comment about PETA is treated by these two and some others as derogatory. Since you're both self proclaimed experts on everything from animal welfare, farming, rodeo, God and heaven knows what else, tell me one organisation in the world that hasn't or doesn't make mistakes.

The difference is with PETA is that while they condone animal rights, there true agenda is animal liberation. Two totally different concepts and they conflict with each other. 'Nicky' and 'dickie' should show some rare honesty and state whether they are animal liberationists or are only for animal rights.

'Cuphandles' comment: "How enjoyable is is to have a "kicking strap" reefed up around your guts and then if you don`t want to perform you get a few quick "touch-ups" from a Cattle prod!

'Cuphandles' comment shows her ignorance on cattle. The kicking strap or rope that is used on bulls and horses in rodeo is not put around the guts as she calls it but around the lower abdomen just in front of the back legs. It is not reefed up as she claims because if this is done on cattle or horses they immediately want to sit down or go down on their back legs. The best stock are the ones that kick the highest and therefore if the rope or strap was tight it would defeat that purpose. The rope or strap actually works as a form of tickler to get the animal to kick high.

Bulls and horses used on the Pro Rodeo circuit in the U.S. are supplied by contractors who own the stock. The days of stock being supplied straight from ranches for this purpose have long since gone. I rode in the U.S. and I have seen bulls that once the cowboy is bucked off, the bull will stop bucking and walk towards the gate to exit the arena. If the rope or straps made them buck why do they stop bucking? Some bulls will 'hunt' the cowboy, a lot won't. In my opinion, no different to the way some people react. Some bulls have an aggressive temperament and some don't, just like people.

As for giving the stock a hit with a cattle prod if they don't perform. (LOL) Where and when has someone gone into an arena and tried to hit a bull or horse with a cattle prod if they aren't performing. This is just an absurd, totally ridiculous statement with you trying to cloud an argument when you obviously no very little or anything about it.

As I have said on here before, get your facts right instead of coming to an argument with 5% fact and 95% bulldust!

Heavy Petting
Peter Singer
Nerve, 2001
________________________________________
Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man -ing a large quadruped of indeterminate species. a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey,

while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be _ her _, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a bj.
Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.
Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great

Ingrid Newkirk on bestiality: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/mar/01032904.html
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031222/014119.html

My Opinion:

I apologize to you for NOT specifying the correct anatomical position in relation to the positioning of the "kicking strap" on a bull!....I should have used precise and simple terminology more appropriate to your mentality! Instead of stating "pulled up around it`s guts" I should have said "reefed up around it`s pizzle and knackers!" because that is where I would consider a bucking bulls "guts" to be!

The reference to the application of the use of the "jigger" ( cattle prod ) was intended ( as you should quite well know ) to the "failure to perform" (refusal to leave the chute / lay down ) and had nothing to do with performance in the arena!

I would take further issue with your statement "that the best bull is the one that kicks the highest!"....Your pathetic attempt to belittle me in the mistaken assumption that I am a female ( who you and your ilk seem to obtain the utmost satisfaction in demeaning ) was a failure once again, as even an "experienced" gun rodeo participant like yourself should be aware that the "best" performing bucking bull is the one that uses more twists, turns etc ( in your appropriate terminology ) "every which way!" in his effort to unseat his rider ( tormentor )!

For your enlightenment, I am a 69 year old Australian MALE who has spent a large chunk of his life involved in horses and cattle!( I have also served for a subsatantial period of time in the Defence Forces) I have sadly witnessed many barbaric and unneccesarily cruel treatments applied to our animals and over the years have gradually withdrawn myself from these types of procedures!....Our animals deserve and are entitled to better treatment that what is currently being dealt out to them!

Your reference to the "US Pro Rodeo Circuit" and "ranchers" compel me to make the following observations: I do NOT particularly like the US or it`s policies! I do NOT particularly like loud-mouthed Americans! If you are one those or a supporter, then I do NOT particularly like you!

Cuphandle, I have the utmost respect for anyone, male or female who has served in the Australian Defence Force. However I have no respect for some of your misinformed, biased opinions on rodeo.

I’m glad you take further issue with my statement “that the best bull is the one that kicks the highest.” This statement was in reference to the use of the kicking strap or rope on a bull or horse and to my knowledge has no effect on the animal to encourage twists or turns but only an effect on them kicking high when bucking. But what would I know, I only rode for six years!

As to the reference that I was an experienced gun rodeo participant, that is so uncanny, how did you possibly know that?

As to your reference that “you do NOT particularly like loud-mouthed Americans!” I agree, I don’t like loud-mouthed Americans either, but I also don’t like loud-mouthed Aussies and you’re starting to sound like one.

Dekkers agrees that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets"

The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all non-human animals — maintains this separation.
On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.
Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his ground breaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the V

Three Essays on Sexuality, Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal but only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)

Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orang-utans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orang-utans"

Goodall of orang-utans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orang-utans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orang-utan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orang-utan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orang-utan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orang-utans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orang-utan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orang-utan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

NicknDick will now pretend to not understand the ramifications of constructing a moral and legal system around the inane premise that humans do not have a special place in the world order. Denying that humans have moral autonomy just like animals who also do not have moral autonomy will formalise the treating of humans like animals.

Another obtuse assertion of ALs equates killing with cruelty. Clearly they are not the same. Think of the movements around the world to legalise euthanasia. Methods of killing my be cruel but I am not confident that ALs will make distinctions.

If one were to compare an athletic Rodeo Bull with human athletes one would immediately recognise that relatively high levels of pain are common in sporting competitions.

Boxing, full contact Karate, Thai Kick Boxing, all versions of football including soccer involve varying levels of pain etc etc etc. My daughter frequently deals with ankle pain when playing netball but she loves to play so never misses a game.

Again, how do ALs & the likes of NicksnDicks know that the Bulls do not enjoy Rodeoing? There is no evidence to prove that the Bulls dislike the activity so they assert that the Bull can simply not enjoy performing in a Rodeo because pain is involved.

The undeniable fact is that pain is part of life. I experience pain many times a day and have adapted to my arthritic neck, hands and feet.

If the Bulls do experience pain on what scale is the pain? I can not see how the pain associated with the straps would be significant.

MyOpinion, good to see some rational comments -- would you be aware of any who exhibit what mental health professionals call projection? This involves unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people so that one doesn't have to own them.

In some cases, these intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object or a sport. Psychologists assert that Projection is a defence mechanism. Defence mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect such individuals from feelings that they cannot consciously accept.

They operate without normal levels of awareness, so that they don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Projection is a particularly an insidious defence mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his/her own feelings, it also creates a world where he/she perceives everyone else as directing his/her own hostile feelings back at him/her.

How did you like the musings of Singer? Dangerous? Delusional? Unbalanced? Creepy? Irrational? Sickening?

Oh rational arguments don't mean anything to this lot. I read this on site the other day and thought it was hilarious so I've copied it here. My sentiments exactly!

I've always said that if you scratch the surface of a rabid vegan, you'll be certain to find a religious nutcase micrometers below the surface. Now, thanks to the heavily delusional freaks at PETA, we no longer need to do that.

Last Monday, I had to go into Providence, RI for what would prove to be the very worst job interview I've ever had. So bad was it, that I nearly got up and left halfway through. All the signs and stumbling blocks that the universe as a whole had tossed before me said not to even bother going. But for the only reason of an exciting ride, flying into the face of certain oblivion on the bare back of sheer stupidity, I went. I knew what I was in for, but I also had many years of prior experience that told me some reward would have to be reaped, if I returned whole. And while it was a small reward, it was worth it.

The compensation was simply, a double billboard.
As you are driving along Route 93, going into Providence, watch the billboards. You will eventually see a ridiculous white guy, badly dressed up to look like Charleton Heston's interpretation of Moses in "The Ten Commandments" or an anorexic Zeus. To his right, in big bold white on red letters was the phrase "I SAID 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL'". Below that, a URL for Peta.

I couldn't believe my eyes.

To be continued below …………….

continued............

I turned around just to verify what I had seen. Unfortunately, we had passed it. But on the other side, was yet another surreal visage. This one featured a young (possibly six), blue-eyed, blond haired girl, hands folded together looking mournfully upwards. Next to her in even bigger letters was the phrase "DEAR GOD, PLEASE SAVE AMERICA."

I knew then that this was to be a strange and terrible journey indeed.

I won't bore you with the details. I'll just say that two kids, ages seven and three, who've been sucking down caffeine since 9:15 and who are stuck in the same car as you can quickly make you understand quite a lot. Mostly, they'll make you understand the mindset of people like Susan Smith, when she intentionally drove her car and two kids into the John D. Long Lake in SC, October of 1994.

Which is where we come back to the Peta Billboard. Thanks to Peta, I decided that consumption of a double cheeseburger made from the tender meat of a calf that was force-fed, while it labored to stand in it's own festering waste within a cramped crate, as the rancher evilly injected it with all sorts of vile, unnatural chemicals, was a good idea. Yes, this would be far more beneficial to all parties.

So tonight, I had a chance to look over their web site, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. PETA has a great propaganda machine. So good that it would make Joseph Goebbels hang his head in shame.

2. In all probability, most hardcore members of PETA harbor Bestiality desires. They look forward to the day when they can live in a world where their fantasies of shagging a goat is as legal and common as inter-alien relationships on Star Trek, instead of icky coitus with members of their own species.

So as Easter approaches, make yourself a nice pot of Rabbit stew, and enjoy this fine site from PETA!

Hi all

I have been off the air for a few days with a shocking flu, and I am quite sickened by the tone this thread has taken. Myopinion and Cowboy Joe, you are indeed sick people. Is there something wrong with a pure love for animals of all species that does not involve sexualization? Is there something wrong with despising cruelty, be it rodeos. farming practices, zoos and circuses?

You can criticize PETA, Ingrid Newkirk and Peter Singer all you like, but I would rather be upholding their kind of morality than yours.

Nicky

That’s an interesting comment, define “pure love”.

“You can criticize PETA, Ingrid Newkirk and Peter Singer all you like, but I would rather be upholding their kind of morality than yours.”

You can guarantee that I will continue to criticize them. Of course you’ll support them, you’re another rabid nutcase and that’s why I’ll criticize your comments as well if I disagree with them and let’s face it I haven’t seen many yet that I agree with.

*I am quite sickened by the tone this thread has taken.*

Err Nicky, I remind you that it was Dickie and then you, who
started the bestiality topic. Now that the topic has swung
to what vegans do with their pets, you are sickened. Talk
about being a hypocrite!

In fact its all been enlightening. We now know that the
vegan leaders think that sex with your pets is no big deal,
as long as they enjoy it.

Ok, whatever keeps you girls happy lol, we don't want
your pets to be miserable :)

nicky - "I am quite sickened by the tone this thread has taken."
nicky - "I have been off the air for a few days with a shocking flu"

See what happens when you non meat eating vegans don't eat any meat or fish but just rabbit food, you get sick all the time!

Now let's all forget our differences for a moment and go and have a big "cook up" and plough into a few big juicy scotch fillets, medium rare, some free range eggs sunny side up and some fried onions. Oh and throw in a few pork snaggers if you like them. Then you'll all feel better!

Hi all

Yabby, as usual, you are quote wrong; it was you people who originally brought up the bestiality elements, purely for what I think you thought would be shock value. It's not shocking, but it does show a somewhat deranged mind in the contexts in which you people express it.

Myopinion, I've had flu once in five years, and I'll stack my cholesterol levels up against yours any day. Not to mention risk of colorectal cancers.

Feel free to enjoy your scotch fillet, eggs and sausages if it makes you feel good; we all know that we won't stop people butchering animals any time soon. BTW, why do you not throw a couple of the local dogs or cats on the barbecue?

Enjoy!
Nicky

nicky - "BTW, why do you not throw a couple of the local dogs or cats on the barbecue?"

Hell, that's a strange comment but I'm used to them from you. The only meat I eat is beef, mutton, pork, poultry, venison and rabbit.

You haven't answered my question on an earlier post and on the other thread, so I'll repeat them.

1) Are you an animal liberationist or are only for animal welfare?
2) And what is your opinion of control of foxes, rabbits and feral cats?

Hi again all

Myopinion, my apologies, I did intend to answer those questions. Put it down to the flu medication manifesting itself in forgetfulness.

1. What do I think of control of rabbits, foxes and feral cats?

Those animals (and others determined by the greatest predator of all, the human, to be "pests") are out there, in the numbers that they are, because of human ignorance, indifference, neglect and/or negligence. Therefore I believe we have a moral duty, if control methods MUST be used, to ensure that they are humane (and therefore do not include such horrors as steel-jawed traps, 1080, strychnine and the like).

2. Am I for animal welfare or animal liberation?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to see every animal live a normal life span free from cruelty and exploitation. Read the "Five Freedoms". That's what I believe every animal should have an unalienable right to.

Now here's one for you. Why do you only eat the meats you mentioned? What's the problem with eating the local cats and dogs (or rats, mice, guinea pigs and hamsters?) The animals you mention suffer no less than cats and dogs would in the same circumstances.

Cheers
Nicky

1) Okay nicky have I determined correctly that you grudgingly agree that control methods for the control of rabbits, foxes and feral cats should be used. If you are not agreeable to steel-jawed traps, 1080, strychnine and the like being used as a control method, what control method do you suggest should be used?

2) My definition of welfare is the well being of something, so in this case for sake of argument - the well-being of animals.
My definition of liberation is to set something free. Does this mean that you want to set all animals free? If so what exactly do you mean by “all animals having freedom?”

I only eat the meats I mentioned because I have “taste”. As for you stating that cats and dogs etc suffer the same as the animals I eat, I think you should travel to some parts of Asia and see how they kill them. When I was farming and killed the beef and mutton that I ate, I can assure you they didn’t feel much. Much less than a human would feel being attacked by a great white shark, tiger snake, lion, or getting mangled by a hippo.

Thankfully, our kangaroo's anatomical formation is too awkward for the live export trade - or is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk

nicky as usual you haven't answered my questions. I have re posted two below.

1) Okay nicky have I determined correctly that you grudgingly agree that control methods for the control of rabbits, foxes and feral cats should be used. If you are not agreeable to steel-jawed traps, 1080, strychnine and the like being used as a control method, what control method do you suggest should be used?

2) My definition of welfare is the well being of something, so in this case for sake of argument - the well-being of animals.
My definition of liberation is to set something free. Does this mean that you want to set all animals free? If so what exactly do you mean by “all animals having freedom?”

The 1080 question is a very good one, one that I have posed to those who oppose the use of 1080.

As yet, I've not heard a convincing answer as to whether they are:

a) proposing another practical control method.

or b) are therefore willing to see wild dog numbers increase dramatically, at the expense of native animals as well as livestock and the livelihoods of farmers.

Until I see an answer to this proposition, I do not believe they are capable of making difficult decisions, and place a higher emphasis on looking moral and talking the talk, instead of making the tough call and walking the walk.

I agree TurnRightThenLeft.

Three of the biggest problems facing Australia in the terms of decimation of the natural wildlife is the ever encroaching takeover by the cane toad and the wanton killing done by foxes and feral cats. To me this is far more important than whether farmers use an anesthetic on the sheep before they mules them.
nicky-dicky and the "carry on" crew have insinuated that they know of better and more reliable methods of control than 1080, trapping, shooting etc, but as yet I am waiting to hear what they are. I won't hold my breath waiting, although I am sure they would like to see me do that. LOL.

Nicky “You can criticize PETA, Ingrid Newkirk and Peter Singer all you like, but I would rather be upholding their kind of morality than yours.”

That is the “morality” which pursues the destruction of other peoples legal livelihoods because PETA has a view that they should not be allowed to pursue those legal livelihoods?

The first rule of morality is tolerance.

Morality without tolerance for those who dissent with your view is the first step on the path to totalitarianism.

In this respect, PETA is no different to every other despotic association which demands to impose its view over the free will of others, who do not share its extremist views.

If my view were "all members of PETA are fair game and should be culled during PETA open season", you would have right to complain.

But PETA is a more strident an advocate of manic opinions than I would bother (I am more for the live and let live).

Somewhere along the way, whilst supposedly supporting “animal rights” PETA has forgotten “human rights” and most of all forgotten the right of other cognitive beings to dissent from the PETA view.

“What's the problem with eating the local cats and dogs (or rats, mice, guinea pigs and hamsters?)”

It reminds me of the part in the series a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where a variety of cattle had been bred who actually wanted to be eaten and the critter presented itself and suggested which cuts of itself were the tastiest to the customers in a restaurant.

Unfortunately here on earth, the reasoning skills of cattle, pigs, chooks, kangaroos and sheep are hardly up to conversational French, let alone conversational English.

As for dogs and cats, maybe I am more liberated than most but I see no problem in munching on pussy.

Hi all

Myopinion, I said I was not going to debate matters further with you. Read the "Five Freedoms", it's not rocket science. If you do not know cruelty and suffering when you see it, you are beyond educating.

Col Rouge, I don't see that kind of totalitarianism on PETA's various websites. PETA, like most of the animal advocacy organizations, (note the terminology, myopinion) recognizes that people are going to continue to eat meat for at least the foreseeable future. They campaign against cruelty, and I see no problem with that. They encourage people not to eat meat and wear leather and wool, and people have a choice about that. I choose not to, but PETA, like all animal advocacy organizations, would have a majority membership who agree with their positions on cruelty in its various forms but still choose to eat meat, and wear wool and leather, etc. But you people will see that position as threatening because you are, or have been, part of the cruelty.

Nicky

*Read the "Five Freedoms", it's not rocket science.*

Which of course ignores the fact that when you apply the
5 freedoms, they breed like bunny rabbits, next thing they
are starving to death.

All this feelgood philosophy might comfort some, but
ignores the realities of this world and nature. So we
just close our eyes and pretend it is not true!

Nicky on another thread, claimed that horses don't overbreed
in the wild. Huh?

Once again the public face of the so called animal liberation fraternity REFUSE to answer any of the appropriate questions put to them regarding fly strike and sheep farming.

There is a reason why they (nicky and dickie) don’t answer the questions, THEY DON’T KNOW THE ANSWERS!

These two morons that are completely illiterate in regards to farming, think that by continually spewing out a steady stream of nonsensical propaganda that they will be part of the attempted campaign to destroy livestock farming in Australia.

The reality is that these two gullible clowns, Peta, Animals Australia, Animal Liberation Inc., and a number of other organisations have the same agenda. This agenda is from their own propaganda and web sites:

THEY SEEK THE ABOLITION OF THE FOLLOWING:
ALL ARE LEGAL IN AUSTRALIA.

Circuses
Rodeo
Horse Racing
Trots
Steeplechases
Duck shooting
Hunting
Fishing Industry
Live stock export
Mulesing
Wearing or selling of any fur products

THEY ARE AGAINST THE LEGAL CONTROL METHODS OF FERAL PESTS AND WANT POISONING, SHOOTING AND TRAPPING ABOLISHED. THIS IS THEIR SOLUTION TO THE CONTROL OF THE MAJOR FERAL PESTS, FOXES, RABBITS, DINGOES, FERAL CATS & THE CANE TOAD:

The following statement is from the Animal Liberation Inc (South Australia) web site.

“Fertility control is a more humane way to control animal populations.”
“If you care about animals, the most important thing you can do is to stop eating them.”

These fanatics will only be happy when they have ended ALL forms of farming livestock, the wool industry, all sports that involve any type of animal, and the fishing industry. Then all the people that have become unemployed by having their industy destroyed, can join the hairy armpit brigade like nicky and dickie and grow lentils and cabbages to live on.

They all need a good kick up the arse with my Ugg boots (made from skin from a dead sheep)!

2000 to 2007 Australia: Four hundred and fourteen thousand *(414,000) livestock, succumbing to the inhumane incarceration on Australia's ships of death and dumped overboard whilst small children die from starvation, reduced to skin and bone whilst slipping into comas from malnutrition.

* Source: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

dickie -"whilst small children die from starvation, reduced to skin and bone whilst slipping into comas from malnutrition."

So now you have decided to give this public persona that you actually care about the starving of children overseas, ie Dhofur, Zimababwe, Borneo etc.
Let me ask you then, since you are so concerned about them, and in reality you’re not, how much financial aid or donations do you give towards these starving children, and how long have you been giving donations?

We all know that you have used the starvation of children overseas to highlight your argument against the live export trade because it makes your arguments more emotive.

You are completely wrong trying to link the two and this is why. I intimately know about the conflicts in these three countries. The three dictatorships in these countries are not interested in supplying any food to any part of the population that doesn’t support them. The control of food supplies to these people by their government is part of the strategy used to control, subdue and annihilate them. Therefore your so-called concern for the three countries that have the most starving children is tactless and insensitive to say the least.

Best you buy those sheep Dickie, and give them to the starving children. They are for sale in Australia. Your choice.

Surely you are not now expecting farmers to also finance the
feeding of the world's poor, on top of all your other fanatical
demands?

But then, given your many irrational posts, as part of your
admitted "crusade", anything is possible.

Hi all
"Animal Liberationists seek the abolition of the following":-

Circuses - only those using animals. Please explain how it can possibly be in an animal's interests to be part of a circus. Also explain what benefit there is to morons who want to see animals in such environments
Rodeo - Likewise
Horse Racing - Likewise (read about the latest mishaps in horse racing in the media, and how poor breeding has resulted in horses too fragile to cope with the rigours of the "sport"
Trots - What benefit is there to the animal (as above) as well as having its natural gait ruined?
Steeplechases - likewise, plus dangerous and indefensible
Duck shooting - cruel and unnecessary, particularly as migratory bird populations are declining as a result of the drought. Acknowledged in every state in Australia except Tasmania; former Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, said "(duck shooting) is not (going to be) part of contemporary society in the smart state" when he banned it a couple of years ago
Hunting - Why? Because you morons just like blowing defenceless animals away?
Live stock export - Completely obvious
Mulesing - Likewise. for reasons we have all stated multiple times, along with the alternatives
Wearing or selling of any fur products - totally indefensible.

The fact that something is legal in Australia has nothing to do with whether or not it is cruel, for reasons explained multiple times already.

And those are my final comments in reply to the endlessly repetitive, totally moronic comments from the same three idiots on this thread.

Nicky

I will answer all of your questions above as soon as you answer the questions that I have asked in regard to sheep farming and that you and dickie continue to ignore.

YOU NICKY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY!

This is why:

You stated to PALE – ““If you want any of these people to enter debates with you you should stop libelling them on these threads and ask them nicely.”

You have stated above – “Also explain what benefit there is to morons who want to see animals in such environments.”

Verdict; YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

You have stated above – “Because you morons just like blowing defenceless animals away?”

Verdict; YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

You have stated above – “And those are my final comments in reply to the endlessly repetitive, totally moronic comments from the same three idiots on this thread.”

Verdict; YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

You really are pathetic! You should have been a politician since lying comes so easily to you. On a number of threads all I have seen of you or dickies comments is a contemptible disregard of anyone else’s opinion that disagrees with yours. You then have the temerity to lecture someone else. One word for you; HYPOCRITE!

Nicky your list:

I dislike circuses so I never go but I do not seek to impose my choice to refrain upon other people

I do enjoy rodeos, having been a horse rider, I understand the skill as well as the relationship between horse and rider displayed in rodeos.

Same too horse racing and trotting and fox hunting.

Duck shooting I have never shot but it is an historic hunting practice and there is nothing wrong with it,

Live stock export – practical and regulated by government inspectors, if you have a problem, complain to change the regulations.

Museling – dunno enough about it but work on the basis a pastoralist will not seek to inflict unnecessary cruelty on the animals in his care further, there is no governmental regulation which outlaws it, change the law first!

Furs – a legally commercial business, if you do not like it, don’t support it buy buying furs but that does not give you the right to interfere with other people going about their business.

PETA should learn how to tolerate and accept other peoples right to hold an alternate view.

“The fact that something is legal in Australia has nothing to do with whether or not it is cruel, for reasons explained multiple times already.”

We are regulated by what is legal in Australia and must never descend to being held as the hostage of mainiacal zealots of any form or view.

Any group, regardless of its self perceived moral right, which thinks it has a moral view which places it above the laws of Australia,

carries with it the same dangers commonly associated with people like Bader Meinhoff, the Italian Red Brigades and Robert Mugabe.

“And those are my final comments in reply to the endlessly repetitive, totally moronic comments from the same three idiots on this thread.”

Descent into generalizations like that is the hall mark of a failed viewpoint.

Well it doesn't really matter in the long run. There is nothing better than a good juicy Kangaroo steak. Mmmmmmm!

Guys, I have some sympathy for some (certainly not all or most) of the animal rights causes.

But until such time as you can explain your alternative methods of control for things such as wild dogs, and how they will be practically applied (sterilisation sounds all well and good, but how the hell do you plan to get such a program practically running?) it really is just hot air.

Unless, you really do prefer to not get your hands dirty, and would just let wild dog numbers get out of control and destroy native species.

Deny reality all you want, but don't expect others to join in.

Thank you for those words of wisdom TRTL.

Unlike those here who are antagonistic to truth and refuse to acknowledge the video I provided, I am confident we can look forward to your esteemed opinion on the footage I have provided.

May I have your expert appraisal on the contents - and also on any solutions you have to offer - providing you believe there is anything to be solved of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk

And isn't freedom a glorious trait? Look how our democracy generously permits extremes of liberty. Who cares whether they lead to extreme sadism when the mob sets up a cabal of tyrants to champion the cause:

2000 to 2007 Australia: Four hundred and fourteen thousand *(414,000) livestock, succumbing to the inhumane incarceration on Australia's ships of death and dumped overboard whilst small children die from starvation, reduced to skin and bone whilst and slipping into comas from malnutrition.

And your comments TRTL?

Dickie dear, err around 40 million died, they were eaten.

We can't keep all the little darlings, not enough grass you know.

On the boats, no more were lost before being eaten , then are
lost in Australian feedlots before being eaten.

What Nicky has yet to explain, is why according to her little
fantacial philosophy, 1 sheep living 5 years is better then 5
sheep living one year each. After all, only so many at once can
live on the planet at one time.

Putting them all on the pill, as AL nuts suggest, is hardly
natural. It doesent help feed the starving babies that you worry
about, either.

Hi all

Col Rouge, I'm happy to respond to you, because your comments, in your eyes at least, make some sense. I don't think anyone has condemned horse riding here, have they? Horse racing and trotting place unreasonable distress on the animals concerned so cannot be condoned, fox hunting is simply about allowing an animal to be ripped to bits by a pack of dogs for fun. But rodeo events such as bull riding and in particular calf roping are indefensible. And so, I'm afraid, are circuses featuring wild animals, who spend their lives in cages, being transported.

Just because duck shooting is "historic" doesn't mean it is acceptable in contemporary society - that's why all state governments have either banned it or placed moratoria on it this year (except Tasmania, I believe). But really - what makes you WANT do see caged animals, and shoot and otherwise torment defenceless ones? What sort of people are you?

Australia has a ban on the importation of dog and cat fur - why do you think that is? Because 90%+ of the world's fur comes from China, where animals are routinely beaten to death/skinned alive. Dog and cat fur is often labelled something else because there are no "truth in labelling" laws in China.

Finally, please watch the video at the link Dickie has posted. Please also read the AQIS (yes, written by AQIS) mortality reports which can be found at that site or at Animals Australia's site. It will all give you a good picture of exactly how well regulated the live export industry is. And I have seen how well regulated it is, attending feedlots and ship loadings. That's only IN Australia, too.

Nicky

Irrelevant dickie, you're evading the question.

I've said on a number of threads (I can provide links if need be) that I have sympathy for the live exports cause and I don't agree with it in the slightest.

I've also said that I have sympathy for this cause, *despite* the efforts of certain posters on OLO whose methods I disagree with.

And I still think that none of the animal liberationists have answered my questions regarding things like wild dog control. I view it as an evil, yes, but a necessary one that must be done.

I think that those who can't explain the alternatives, are blatantly misleading themselves. Instead of compromising and going for the best outcomes, they're refusing to budge in the slightest, which ultimately doesn't help animals.

Take the roo issue. There's a very persuasive article on the front page of OLO, though granted, it is from an industry figure. But his facts appear to be sound.

Now, I'd say that harvesting kangaroos for meat is a far more practical option than livestock. Ultimately, it would be better for Australian native wildlife to have a native species bred in Australia for food (or harvested) especially given the necessity of culling roos anyway.

And I do believe the realistic, best option for the environment is the roo cull. Again, the lesser of two evils.

Cont'd.

This approach would lead to a better outcome for animals, and result in less cruelty - but it is violently opposed by many animal liberationists, which digusts me, because they're putting their self righteousness ahead of what can be reasonably achieved.

But oh no. There's no compromise - it's be vegetarian or nothing.

I eat meat. I'm not the least bit ashamed of that. I've no plans to turn vegetarian, and I'm not going to be guilted into doing so. I put it to you that the things I put forward are a more reasonable way.

It comes back to things like the wild dog baiting. All the options are unpleasant.

Pick one:

a) Use control methods such as 1080
b) don't use control methods such as 1080 and watch them decimate wildlife
c) Use another method, that is actually practical.

This is the brutal reality. To continue to preach self righteousness and refuse to accept this, I think if anything just makes things worse. But I wouldn't want to get in the way of a good ole fashioned simplistic rant about the bad men who shoot the cute animals.

Hi all

TRTL, I thought I had commented on the wild dog issue but it may have been on another thread. Wild dogs, feral cats, foxes, rabbits etc are out there because of human neglect. negligence, ignorance and/or indifference. I believe that it therefore behoves us, if control measures MUST be implemented, to ensure that those measures are humane.

If poisons are to be used, why can a barbiturate component not be incorporated into them so that the animal is unconscious when the poisons take effect?

I am not an expert on macropods, but my understanding from various sources is that they have an innate capacity for their own population control. Dickie may be able to shed some light on that; if not, I'll try and find the information. This is what one person sent me on it:

"kangaroos and wallabies have a unique ability to adjust their numbers to changes in the ability of the environment to support them. That suggests, I think, that the starvation issue is irrelevant (unless, of course, the animals have been confined in areas too small to allow for normal population expansion and control)".

That was in response to a plan by the Tasmanian government to undertake a cull of rare pademelons and Forrester wallabies on Maria Island, which, ironically the Tasmanian government promotes as a fauna-rich tourism attraction.

Cheers
Nicky

"I've said on a number of threads (I can provide links if need be) that I have sympathy for the live exports cause and I don't agree with it in the slightest."

TRTL. While you accuse others of "simplistic rants," you are guilty of similar. You have asked me for my solutions but offer none on the above issue.

Furthermore, whilst you et al manipulate our written objections to animal cruelty you refuse to acknowledge that we have said many times that we are not opposed to surgical procedures on animals providing anaesthesia and analgesics are used to prevent pain.

My views on feral cats and dogs are officially documented. I have for many years lobbied to prevent ownership to all and sundry. I have lobbied for a short term course on animal welfare at a tertiary institute for prospective owners, a significant increase in licensing fees, inspections of the potential address for animals and mandatory sterilisation of all pets at sixth months (with very specific exemptions)and a mandatory reporting system forthwith to verify adherence to those council by-laws. Breaches should incur very stiff penalities and/or seizure of the animal without delay.

All these obligations cost money for the potental owner but will enhance the coffers of local government in conjunction with teaching facilities, even before animal ownership is permitted, which will also discourage half wits and hoons, who shrink from close inspection, and who obtain dogs merely to make them savage, beat and starve them, allow them to breed indiscriminately, lock them in backyards where they can't see out and even more abominable, for organised dog fights or to rip a cat to pieces.

These obligations would also prevent ownership to indigenous fringe dwelling folk who come to town with 4,5 or 6 dogs trailing behind. I have witnessed these severely neglected dogs heading for the bush on several occasions. Rangers are eager to prosecute town dwellers if they find a dog at large. I've yet to hear of a fringe dweller being prosecuted - no chance of increasing the revenue there mate!

contd....

Nicky – “I thought I had commented on the wild dog issue but it may have been on another thread. Wild dogs, feral cats, foxes, rabbits etc are out there because of human neglect. Negligence, ignorance and/or indifference. I believe that it therefore behoves us, if control measures MUST be implemented, to ensure that those measures are humane. If poisons are to be used, why can a barbiturate component not be incorporated into them so that the animal is unconscious when the poisons take effect?”

It is totally irrelevant that foxes and rabbits were introduced to Australia and it is a worthless exercise laying blame on anyone because it happened in the 1800’s. What is relevant is how to control or exterminate the problem.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that nicky states that “if control measures MUST be implemented.” This once again shows her total inexperience or knowledge of the damage that foxes, rabbits, feral cats and wild dogs do.

I have seen the extensive damage that both foxes and rabbits can inflict on farms and the environment of the bush. I won’t go into the descriptions of what I have seen foxes do to lambs and chooks etc.

Under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Some of these endangered and vulnerable species that the fox poses a threat to include:

the malleefowl (Leipoaocellata)
Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis)
mountain pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus)
broadtoothed rat (Mastacomys fuscus)
long-footed potoroo (Potorous longipes)
little tern (Sterna albifrons)
yellow-footed rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthorpus)
brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata)
southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus)

I have read that in some circumstances foxes can kill up to 30% of newly born lambs.

I don’t entirely agree with this as it would be relevant to the size of the flock and other circumstances. This is no doubt that foxes will kill, particularly in pairs for ‘sport’.

The Department of Environment and Conservation in W.A. that foxes and cats have contributed to the extinction of ten native mammals. Twenty-eight more species are threatened.

The Department of Environment and Conservation in W.A. that foxes and feral cats are threatening the existence of the following in Western Australia:

Bilby
Woylie
Carpet python
Numbat
Western ringtail possum
Banded bare wallaby
Mallee fowl
Western swamp tortoise

The Western Shield program has shown an increase in numbers of native animals in the Jarrah forest. Woylie numbers have increased in Batalling Forest after baiting began in 1991. Woylies are now no longer and endangered species in this area.

Western Shield, the Department's leading nature conservation program, is safeguarding Western Australia's native animals. Launched in 1996, it is now the biggest wildlife conservation program ever undertaken in Australia.

The main weapon in the fight against the fox and feral cat is use of the naturally occurring poison 1080, found in native plants called gastrolobiums or 'poison peas'. While our native animals have evolved with these plants and have a high tolerance to the poison, introduced animals do not.
In the southwest forests, scientific research and monitoring has shown that where baiting has reduced fox numbers, there has been a dramatic increase in native animal numbers. Trap success rates for medium-sized mammals in the jarrah forest of Kingston Block, near Manjimup, reflect a seven-fold increase since baiting began in 1993.

The key to this success - predator control through baiting. Western Shield involves aerial and hand baiting on almost 3.5 million hectares of Department-managed land. Baiting operations take place four times a year throughout the State from as far north as Karratha to Esperance in the south. Smaller nature reserves are baited more frequently.

Of course farmers can also use Foxoff which uses as the main ingredient sodium fluoroacetate which is also the main ingredient of 1080 and comes from several species of Australian plants. Shooting is extremely difficult in difficult terrain and much less effective. When I was shooting and baiting foxes in the early to mid 80’s, baiting with cyanide resulted in approximately 95% of fox casualties and shooting only 5%

Horses were used extensively for station work. With the advent of motor cycles etc, many station owners released these horses to the bush to become feral.

I've been a guest at a pastoral station where the cat ate my strawberries. It was desperately hungry. The litter, I was advised by the well-respected station owner, was abandoned in the bush. Two cattle dogs are tied to the two posts at the arid entrance to the property in 43 degree heat and 2 half, 44 gallon drums for them to keep "cool" in. They were extremely savage and stressed and the owners were completely oblivious.

TRTL, there are current kangaroo shooters who claim they can't find any.

In the meantime, the 1080 bait is proven useless, the Tazzie devil suffers from facial cancers, the livestock suffers a myriad of diseases from bleeding them dry - diseases infecting humans, kangaroos suffers toxoplasmosis and blindness, the live exports - "a blight on our collective conscience, as millions of animals are brutalised, year in, year out, in the full knowledge of those who send them," whilst the wool industry has employed celebrities to beat PETA at their own game:

Shannon Noll and Gina Jeffries, fashion designer, Alex Perry, together with retailer, Myer.

The most comical and astonishing quotes for the week came from Max Watts head of WAFarmers wool sector (unbelievable eh Nicky?):

"Mulesing was introduced in Australia in the 1930s but was not common practice in WA until the 1950s because the breeds used in WA until then tended to have fewer folds in their skin, making them less susceptible to fly strike."

So while the farmers angled for more wool production by breeding sheep with woolly bums and pretty pleats, this imbecile, in typical fashion for those who believe they're God's gift to the planet they've trashed, and who expect and receive more handouts than a Russian Ogliarch stated:

"It would be far better for PETA to contribute some of their funds to finding an alternative."

Yeah....right you are Mr Bean!

Hi all

Which, Dickie, bears out everything I said about these "feral" animals being there because of human neglect, negligence, indifference and/or ignorance.

1080, strychnine and cyanide are cruel, vicious, indefensible substances. If such measures are approved, it should be mandatory that they contain a barbiturate component so that the animal is unconscious as the poisons take effect. 1080, or sodium monofluoroacetate, is beginning to attract international attention now.

The stories of the treatment of farm dogs are many and tragic. One I read was of a Kelpie puppy, who was tied to the farm gate. There it stayed for 12 years. The farmer and his wife had two lap dogs, who lived in the house with them, while the Kelpie went insane on the chain at the farm gate until it finally died. But they are WORKING dogs, of course.

Nicky

Dickie – “In the meantime, the 1080 bait is proven useless.”

Well of course you would know more than people like myself and many other property owners who have in the past used it extensively for the control of foxes.

You would obviously know more than CALM, The Department of Environment and Conservation in W.A., the Agricultural Department and the CSIRO.

If you can’t understand the information that I have posted regarding the use and effects of 1080, please feel free to ask and I will try and explain it in simpler terms.

Nicky – “If such measures are approved, it should be mandatory that they contain a barbiturate component so that the animal is unconscious as the poisons take effect. 1080, or sodium monofluoroacetate, is beginning to attract international attention now.”

Well Einstein, 1080 baiting is approved. "Is beginning to attract international attention now." Oh well another ‘cause’ for the fanatics like Peta and the hairy arm pit brigade to rail against….Next!

Nicky – “The stories of the treatment of farm dogs are many and tragic. One I read was of a Kelpie puppy, which was tied to the farm gate…..it stayed for 12 years….went insane.”

Insane, well there’s a word that would describe you and dickie to a tee. Of course all farmers behave badly, have no morals rah, rah, rah, rah……more rah, rah! Another one of your pathetic generalisations.

Dickie – “Max Watts head of WA Farmers wool sector”…”this imbecile”…” Mr Bean.”

Another person who has said something that dickie doesn’t like. Well be rest assured that he wouldn’t care what you have to say as his level of success in life would no doubt be a lot higher than yours.

The continual use by you to use the starving children of the world as part of an emotive reason for your arguments is flawed as previously explained to you. As pointed out before by myself and others, generalisations are not an argument, neither is hearsay.
Do continue though with your tripe, it's pathetic but amusing. In fact if it wasn't so funny it would be sad.

* But they are WORKING dogs, of course.*

Err hang on, my dogs are working dogs. They have beanbag each,
have never seen a chain in their lives. All this generalisation
about farmers is in your little imagination.

*If such measures are approved, it should be mandatory that they contain a barbiturate component so that the animal is unconscious as the poisons take effect. *

I can just see the regulators approving that one! Heaps of oldies
are flying to Mexico to obtain their dose of Nembutal, for when
its time to say goodbye. They could avoid all the expense, simply
swallow one of your baits! You have buckley's. The Catholic
Church would protest loudly. Euthanasia is not accepted in Australia
and they will fight it tooth and nail.

nicky and dickie I have a question for you. How much pain does a fox, feral cat or wild dog feel when it gets shot in the head by a .17 calibre (4.37mm), 25 grain projectile travelling at between 3600 to 3200 fps?

When the projectile enters the brain and then breaks apart at that velocity, how much pain or consciousness do you think the animal has? Do you think it thinks, "My god I have just been shot in the head by that cruel farmer."

You won’t know the answer, although you’ll probably pretend you do, so I’ll supply the answer.

None! It is instant death as far as the brain and nervous system is concerned.

Now by your terms you classify that as cruel. By my terms I don’t.

I classify this as cruel, and in every case I have seen this myself.

Damage by foxes:

The heads of 27 geese bitten off and not one eaten.
Over a dozen chooks killed in a chook pen, none taken or eaten.
Over a 25 year period hundreds of lambs killed by foxes. These included with their tails half bitten off and tongues and anuses eaten out.
Baby calves killed with the above damage.

If this is what they do to animals that I can readily see, what damage do you think they are doing to the natural wildlife? In my opinion the only good fox is a dead one.

Your continual melodramatic assumptions and your prima donna attitudes are laughable. You sprout off about everything and anything and in reality know very little. Typical 'arm chair detectives'. I pity anyone that knows you in real life and has to listen to your continual diatribe of accusations and guilt shifting, just so that you two obviously mentally challenged and sexually frustrated hags can make yourselves feel good. LOL. You two have really got some very serious mental issues that you should have seen to.

Dear me, Dickie. They do have trouble dealing with the truth don't they? Don't demean yourself with a response to this clown.

Cheer
Nicky

Lordy be. Now that he's drowned his rubber ducky, he's gorn orff and loaded his water pistol!

MyOpinion:
I have sat back and read with interest the continuous and rapidly escalating responses from you and find that your attitude and treatment of Nicky and Dickie leaves a lot to be desired!

The childish insults and pathetic name-calling that you have been employing calls into account your mentality in regard to the ongoing and emotive issue of animal cruelty!

Nicky and Dickie have simply been trying to support their own belief and opinion in this issue, but you have consistently and fanatically cried them down, finally resorting to offensive (to all concerned) comments as to their physical attributes!

You mught have "Your Opinion" but please let others exercise theirs too, without resorting to churlish name-calling and damned sheer rudeness!......this is supposed to be a Forum for opinion NOT a bloody battleground!

Myopinion, you know, as well as I do, that Nicky, Dicky & Cuphandle live in fairyland. Enough said.

Nicky “Horse racing and trotting place unreasonable distress on the animals concerned so cannot be condoned,”

That is mere opinion. I see it unlikely to be considered as such by the vast majority of people (the mainstream).

“fox hunting is simply about allowing an animal to be ripped to bits by a pack of dogs for fun.”

The thrill is in the hunt. Foxes are vermin, better off dead than slaughtering chicken (I see no comment on the right of chooks to be defended from the butchery of foxes).

“But rodeo events such as bull riding and in particular calf roping are indefensible.”

Every bull ride I have seen has tended to leave the rider worse off than the bull.
As for calf roping, that competition evolved out of the normal management of cattle.

Again duck shooting, you do not represent the exclusive view of “contemporary society”.

“What sort of people are you?”

I am the sort of person who believes in the rights of fellow people to exercise the legal freedoms enjoyed by their forefathers and their right to elect a government to make laws in their interest, not in the interest of fanatical fringe groups.

Those fringe groups, who seem motivated by an unduly sentimental and emotionally distorted perception of the comparative rights of dumb animals versus humans, who run around with an idea that they are above the law and illegally pursue their misplaced belief by invading and destroying peoples legally conducted businesses, because those businesses offend them.

I am one of the millions who believe in democratic representation and who will vote for the politician who represents a bulwark against the insanity and undue interference of animal liberationist.

That is the sort of person I am.

A live and let live sort of fellow who does not indulge in deliberate cruelty, who believes the mainstream of people are as compassionate and balanced as I am, neither cruel nor over sentimental but equally accepts the rights of critters are not the same or on a par with humans.

Mmm, there is a lot of emotive rhetoric here, coming from both sides. To respond to the various points:

1) Dickie, you state: "you are guilty of similar. You have asked me for my solutions but offer none on the above issue."

On the other hand, I don't sledge those who practice 1080 baiting or roo culling. I don't tell them to be "ashamed" and I don't launch tirades against them. Thus, I think if you are going to do these harsh things, you need to have a practical alternative, because as I have outlined, it is necessary to protect native species.

As I see it, either you are not serious about the threat these animals pose to native species, because it interferes with your idealised - and yes, very simplistic - morality.

If indeed a barbiturate is a practical option as nicky suggests, then yes, I think that would be better. But I suspect there are reasons why it is not.

I concur with licensing of cats in regional areas. Given they can wreak more environmental havoc than dogs, yes, I believe they should be registered and heavy fines should be meted out when they are allowed to roam at night.

That being said, that won't solve the problems of the ones already out there. Trapping and humanely putting them down is ideal, but very resource intensive in terms of the amount of time it would take to make any kind of significant impact.

Cont'd.

Cont'd

Of course I don't condone the cruelty to animals you speak of. But what you speak of was one station. Not all are like that.

You state: "TRTL, there are current kangaroo shooters who claim they can't find any."

Then I suggest they are incompetent, or looking in the wrong places.

"In the meantime, the 1080 bait is proven useless."

I'm extremely skeptical of this, but if you can suggest a more effective poison that won't harm native animals, then I'm all ears. If you've not a constructive solution, then you've got nothing.

Are you really suggesting halting the control of wild dogs? If not, what is it you prefer, that won't result in an explosion of wild dog numbers? You speak of better control - fair enough. But that will take a long time to be effective.

I grant you, I haven't suggested alternatives, though I support the idea of better control.

But I'm not out there, insulting and demeaning those who I think are doing a necessary job.

Yes it certainly is more expedient to bait wild dogs with 1080 but for anybody who has seen his own dog die a most distressing and painful death from picking up one of these baits, believe me you would have to be a dead set bastard to continue or condone using it!

Wild dogs/Dingo`s and Dingo cross dogs could be trapped and administered a lethal shot of barbiturate Nembutol (Green Dream), but the cost is certainly prohibitive, (in comparison to the cost of 1080 or a bullet!) and who knows, if we could access the green dream stuff with ease, some terminally sick poor old person might get hold of it and use it for self administered Voluntary Euthanasia?.....woe betide those twisted people!....we don`t want them to escape so easily from a system that tolerates hundreds of thousands of animals being legally euthanased annually, but it`s self same pathetic attitude to terminally ill people will NOT allow self-administered Euthanasia.

With the social attitudes and mentalities that exist today, one can only hope that eventually reality will prevail and both animals and human beings will be given a fair go to bring a speedy end to unecassary suffering!....( and stuff the almighty Dollar!)

TRTL, That you have had to resort to the ad hominem places you and I on common ground and permits me to speak frankly on your vacuous and ill-informed post.

“grant you, I haven't suggested alternatives, though I support the idea of better control”

Which leads me to believe that you are simply here to create mischief and I detect an underlying penchant for cruelty when you audaciously describe morality as “simplistic.”

The 1080 bait is inhumane and causes an agonising death for several species that have the misfortune to consume it. No conclusive evidence has yet been established on the volume of pain incurred on ingesting 1080. However, your indifference to this issue is disturbing but comes as no surprise as it simply reflects the unconscionable mindset of those in control who, from ignorance and self-interest, continue on with a “bomb and destroy” mentality .

Clive A Marks is the director of Nocturnal Wildlife Research Pty Ltd and former head of Vertebrate Pest Research at the Victorian Institute of Animal Science. He has published some 60 scientific papers and has contributed many articles on issues of vertebrate pest and wildlife management:

“There is great potential for some of the current vertebrate pest control practices to cause international embarrassment and boycotts of our markets and subsequent economic hardship to Australian agriculture.

"Most of our technologies in current use have not changed fundamentally for many decades and a lack of innovation and progress leaves us exposed to criticism. A failure to openly identify and address such deficiencies has become a hallmark of the vertebrate pest control community.

contd.....

Hi all

Cuphandle, thank you for your support.

As it happens, about three years ago, I presented a paper on feral animal control at a National seminar, and part of that involved researching the effects of 1080. Cuphandle, you are absolutely right. The experimenters (in their twisted wisdom) examined the effects of 1080 in wallabies, and it discussed a period of a couple of days of fitting, frothing and bleeding from the mouth before final collapse, then some time to actually die. These experimental animals were conscious throughout. Certainly a bullet is kinder than that. That is not to suggest that I support the obvious enjoyment people such as myopinion have for shooting harmless and defenceless animals for fun, however.

So to me there can be no possible defence for subjecting any animal to such control methods without some mitigating element such as a barbiturate to render them unconscious. Australia's reputation overseas is already under considerable criticism over its treatment of animals, and its preferred use of 1080 as a "control" method is only going to exacerbate that.

Finally, I'm with you about voluntary euthanasia. I can think of a few people for whom I would favour involuntary euthanasia too, as it happens.

Cheers
Nicky

contd...

“It is highly misleading and lacking in due diligence to ignore evidence that 1080 causes some suffering in some species before collapse and convulsions.

“The selective use of a reference in some recently produced documents concerning 1080, maintain that humans do not report pain/distress during poisoning with 1080, ignores others that do (eg. epigastric pain, retching and headache etc). This is unacceptable as these papers are freely available.”

"The use of analgesic, sedative or anxiety reducing agents combined with 1080 was proposed as a means to limit any potential suffering that may be associated with 1080 poisoning. This approach was suggested in recognition of the difficulties involved in assessing pain or distress states in foxes poisoned with 1080.

"The response of a range of animal welfare organisations to this work has been extremely positive. Both animal welfare stakeholders and farmers have indicated that incorporation of analgesic agents into 1080 predator baits is a positive and forward step that improves this practice." (Submission to Parliament June 2005 - House of Reps Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)

The following was also included in the submission:

"The fumigation of burrowing mammals with chloropicrin has been discontinued in many countries. In publications by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, chloropicrin is not considered to be a humane method of fox den or rabbit warren fumigation.

Chloropicrin has been rejected as an inhumane means of rabbit control in the United Kingdom.

This information indicates your ignorant views are shared amongst our politicians and senior bureaucrats who, for decades, have failed to acknowledge that any civilized country must legislate for rightless species to be treated humanely. They have failed, and small wonder when, amongst those leaders and legislators - are members who in recent years have been found guilty of:

Paedophilia, perjury, corruption, graft, drunkness, abuse, collusion, bribery and suppression of vital freedom of information documents.

"TRTL, there are current kangaroo shooters who claim they can't find any."

Your response:

"Then I suggest they are incompetent, or looking in the wrong places."

What an astonishingly intensive line of enquiry you've performed, TRTL. Bravo!

Hi all

Thanks so much for that, Dickie, it provides a scientific basis for what I said earlier.

TRTL, I try not to engage in trading insults, but it does get awfully difficult after reading the abuse that myopinion targets at anyone who defends animal welfare. Yabby at least is a little more articulate. It is difficult to understand for example what myopinion regards as "hypocritical" in clear statements of opinion, usually backed with scientific foundation, but that's the sort of mentality we have to deal with here, I'm afraid. And that is the most minor abuse he has levelled at us. The red delete button does get tempting in the light of some of his worst abuses.

In response to your question, no doubt a loaded one, I think if you research PETA in a little more depth, you will find that they actually negotiate with a number of their "targets" (for want of a better expression) to try and improve the lot of animals, this has been shown to be the case in the US in a number of instances. Where that fails, they will take action as they see fit in the form of undercover investigations and publicity. I have no problems with that methodology. Nor do I believe that either Dickie or I have undermined the profile of the animal advocacy movement in statements and opinions we have expressed on these threads. But there are some who will draw those conclusions without even thinking about anything we have said.

Cheers
Nicky

Dickie – “In the meantime, the 1080 bait is proven useless.”

January 2008

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has completed a review of the chemical sodium fluoroacetate, commonly known as 1080.
The chemical is used for controlling feral animals. Its use for animal control was first pioneered in Australia as a rabbit poison in the early 1950s. It is now used to control wild dogs, feral pigs, foxes and rabbits, cats, dingoes.

The APVMA reviewed the use of 1080 because of concerns over poisoning of non-target animals. The review was started in July 2002.

The review found that although poisoning of non-target animals occurs, it is limited to individual animals and does not adversely affect overall populations of the non-target animals. The review also determined that the 1080 container labels do not have adequate instructions on them for the safe use of 1080.
The key outcomes of the review are (i) amendments to the labels and (ii) imposition of new conditions of registration.
The labels now contain adequate instructions for the chemical to be used safely with respect to the environment. As per the label instructions, it is mandatory for the users of 1080 to notify their neighbours of imminent baiting and to observe certain minimum distances from roads, dwellings and water sources while placing baits.
With these changes, the APVMA is satisfied that the continued use of products containing 1080 is unlikely to cause significant harm to non-target animals or to the environment.

1080 is approved for the control of vermin, wild dogs, feral pigs, foxes and rabbits.

Nicky “That is not to suggest that I support the obvious enjoyment people such as myopinion have for shooting harmless and defenceless animals for fun, however.”

There is enough scientific evidence that foxes ARE NOT harmless and defenceless animals which you and your kind seem to completely ignore. I make no excuses for shooting or baiting foxes and in my opinion the only good fox is a dead one! I wish sometimes I wasn’t such a good shot and didn’t hit them in the head every time.

Continued……….

Dickie – “In the meantime, the 1080 bait is proven useless.”

Effectiveness of 1080 in biodiversity conservation

Rabbits, feral pigs, foxes and wild dogs in Australia cause losses to agricultural production and cause environmental damage by removing native vegetation or preying on native animals.
Increases in native plant growth and return of associated bird life has been reported following rabbit baiting. In WA, the Western Shield fox-baiting program has allowed the recovery of various species including quolls, wallabies, bettongs, possums and numbats. Phascogales6 in WA appear to be unharmed by fox baiting. In western NSW, populations of rock wallabies and mallee fowl are increasing following successful fox control, while fox control in coastal regions has contributed to high fledging success in threatened shorebirds. Victorian baiting programs have noted positive effects on populations of bush-stone curlews, possums, dunnarts, phascogales, potoroos and bandicoots.

Alternatives to 1080

Several other vertebrate pest control techniques such as fencing, shooting and trapping, tree guards in plantations, repellents, are available as non-chemical alternatives to 1080.

Humaneness

In the interest of animal welfare, research has been conducted into the use of analgesics and sedatives in 1080 baits. The study report commented that if such methods were to be used more widely, further research would be needed to ensure that the additives have no detrimental effect on non-target animals.

The supply and use of 1080 is regulated by a combination of Commonwealth and State legislation. The APVMA regulates 1080 up to and at the point of retail sale. Once sold or supplied to the end-user, it comes under the regulation of individual State legislation.

It is difficult to understand why the advantages of broad scale baiting would be questioned.

The success of large-scale programs such as Western Shield provides strong evidence for the advantages of treating large areas. Experts in wildlife management were unanimous in their support for the benefits of 1080 for biodiversity. For example, the Australian Mammal Society emphasized the critical importance of broad scale 1080 baiting programs to the conservation of Australia’s mammalian fauna.

Obviously dickie knows more about the 1080 baiting programs than anyone.

I've just thought of a great idea that will please all the treehuggers & fairyland people.

We get all the feral animals together and as them to not be so cruel to the domestic animals. We explain to them the anguish they are causing the domestic animals and that if we really try, we can all get along & live in peace & harmony. Awwwwwww.....

Alternatives, Dickie. Alternatives.

I see plenty of insults and so forth, but little by way of alternatives.

For the umpteenth time, do you have any suggestions that will not result in an explosion of wild dog numbers and the accompanying destruction of native wildlife?

Speak of the alleged nastiness of 1080 all you want, but please try to acknowledge this crucial part of the debate. Acknowledge that halting 1080 use would either require an alternative method of control or massive increases in the wild dog population.

I'm willing to acknowledge 1080 has its problems. But as I've mentioned many times, it's a necessary evil in lieu of an alternative, which frankly, you remain unable to put forward.

So the logical conclusion is that you are indeed willing to countenance massive destruction of native wildlife provided wild dogs aren't hurt.

"For the umpteenth time, do you have any suggestions that will not result in an explosion of wild dog numbers and the accompanying destruction of native wildlife?"

For the umpteenth time, TRTL, you are truly unbelievable. You are so full of yourself, you didn't even read my post or do you also have a problem with comprehension?

"The use of analgesic, sedative or anxiety reducing agents combined with 1080 was proposed as a means to limit any potential suffering that may be associated with 1080 poisoning. This approach was suggested in recognition of the difficulties involved in assessing pain or distress states in foxes poisoned with 1080.

"The response of a range of animal welfare organisations to this work has been extremely positive. Both animal welfare stakeholders and farmers have indicated that incorporation of analgesic agents into 1080 predator baits is a positive and forward step that improves this practice." (Submission to Parliament June 2005 - House of Reps Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)

Now go away, please.

Dickie, given that you've stated: "in the meantime, 1080 bait is proven useless" I can only assume that you're not really in favour of using a 'useless' control mechanism.

Given your hostility to this, I had also concluded that you do not really support the use of analgesics in conjunction with 1080 as a control method.

Is this really your proposal? If you really are in favour of using 1080 and painkillers? Your rhetoric sounds far from supportive. If this is the course of action you recommend, why do you say 1080 is proven useless?

In fact, the only clear position you appear to be taking is that you're against cruelty to animals. Fair enough.

But you're not the only one. Believe it or not, the people you're attacking aren't in favour of cruelty to animals either. They just understand the damage wild dogs wreak upon the environment and are willing to take action.

Your rhetoric however, attacks those who support the use of 1080 at all.

TRTL

"1080 bait is proven useless"

You will see why I have made that claim if you bother to read the following link which states that wild dog numbers recover within a year of baiting. It also stated that the use of 1080 is decimating the pure dingo.

http://www.savethedingo.com/HeritagePg.html

In the meantime, I was referred to the submission presented to the House of Representative's Standing Committee where respected scientist, Clive Marks advised that the alternative method to the immoral use of the cruel 1080 compound was to include in that poison, an analgesic, sedative or anxiety reducing agents.

That is a method I have no objections to and it is a method already available which does not result in an agonising death for the animal. However, (and to Australia's shame) it has not been implemented.

Despite my acceptance of the above method as an alternative measure for mitigating pain in feral animals, and despite the prolific use of 1080 for decades, the wild dog numbers have increased.

Therefore, since you appear to only think in the short term by your indifference to my cause and effect long term proposal for stringent legislation of dog ownership, you may advise me if you believe 1080 has been effective, or does it remain relatively useless where the 1080 bait will need to be used for perpetuity and the international community continues to judge this nation on the way it treats its animals?

I accept the use of 1080, even though it's acknowledged that it has its problems, and yes, I've heard DNR representatives say that it's one of the few tools they have to combat wild dogs, and it isn't as effective as they'd like.

But all that doesn't change the fact it's one of the only methods we have.

Trapping cannot be done in significant enough numbers to have an impact. It's far too resource intensive to employ enough trappers and experienced ones are thin on the ground anyway.

Same for shooters.

Depending on the cost of the painkillers, I'd be supportive - but it really does depend on the cost, as harsh as that sounds. Whether we like it or not, DNR and other assorted wildlife agencies have a limited budget.

'To hell with the cost' sounds nice, but if I had the choice I'd direct these imaginary funds to things like our woefully underresourced mental health and social services. I don't regard this as a 'heartless' priority.

I know the damage wild dogs can wreak and I know that aside from 1080, we really don't have much by way of alternatives.

In the US, they make use of cyanide-puff injectors. The death is rapid and in the majority of instances the wild dog dies within a few minutes of consuming the bait. However, it's indiscriminate. One of the most positive things about 1080 is the little damage it does to native species - something I've been emphasizing at every point here.

I concede 1080 is flawed. But it's all we have, which is why I'm genuinely interested in better suggestions, preferably those that don't stem from an attitude which refuses to consider any method of killing wild dogs.
If you do genuinely condone the culling of wild dogs, be it to protect native species or livestock, then I apologise if I've misread your attitude, but the vast majority of all your posts put in such scathing words for those who do accept this is necessary, it seems like you're out to halt the practice completely.

Media Alert

Press conference - End cruelty to kangaroos and their young

What: Senator Bartlett has lent his support to a campaign to end cruelty to mother kangaroos and their young.

Senator Bartlett is hosting a press conference to outline the concerns of representatives of 56 international animal and environment groups and high profile individuals who today requested Environment Minister Peter Garrett take steps to end the cruelty.

Representatives of these groups are to meet with Mr Garrett to outline their concerns.

Up to one million young kangaroos are being left to die of starvation, dehydration or predation each year when their mothers are shot by the commercial industry. The world's largest animal groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society International and the International Fund for Animal Welfare have united for the first time to end this cruelty to kangaroos.

Speakers include Senator Andrew Bartlett, The Hon Richard Jones and Dr Teresa Buss-Carden of WLPA

When: Committee Room 1S6

Where: Tuesday 17th June, 1.30pm

Media contact – Tracee McPate – 0417 607 655

Hi all

TRTL, it is hard to express an opinion in favour of condoning the culling of wild dogs, because they (like other "pest" animals) are out there as a result of human neglect, negligence, ignorance and/or indifference. But I think we need to get away from the approach that because an animals is declared to be a "pest" that any method of disposal, no matter how cruel, is acceptable.

I cannot believe, given the massive body of research in these matters, that it would be that difficult to incorporate whatever it takes to mitigate the suffering of these animals if they MUST be culled (barbiturates, analgesia, anaesthesia). Why does it have to be something that causes hours and days of agony?

And I cannot understand those who are so clearly against any thought even being given to this. It is never the right thing to do to practice wanton cruelty because an animal has been declared to be a "pest". After all, they are out there because they or their predecessors were dumped and they are just trying to survive. Capture/neuter programs would be an ideal solution but I can see that they won't happen. So at least come up with something that is painless. It cannot be that difficult.

Nicky

I see your point Nicky, I really do, but the crucial part is this:

"So at least come up with something that is painless. It cannot be that difficult."

I think it is incredibly difficult, given the stretched resources. The agencies responsible for controlling wild dog numbers do the best they can with what they have. More funds for them to do such things would be great, but it comes back to priorities, and being able to persuasively argue what other government programs will be cut in order to make this achievable, and make no mistake, the costs will be very high. But if there is indeed a painless, cost effective way of managing this problem, I'd be very supportive.

TRTL

It is interesting that you allude to the wild dogs' impacts on "native species and livestock." I have an interest in biodiversity - particularly in native habitats or what's left of them.

While you have focused only on the wild dogs' impacts on native species and livestock, I wish to draw your attention to the state of Western Australia's biodiversity.

Currently agriculture covers 25 million hectares. In addition, there are 525 pastoral leases each ranging from 3,000 - 5,000 hectares.

Loss and degradation of native vegetation continues to negatively affect biodiversity in WA.

The agricultural Wheatbelt zone is the most highly cleared area in WA due to past land clearing. Some local government areas have less than 5% of original native vegetation remaining.

850 ha of native vegetation was cleared each year in the Perth metropolitan region (equivalent to more than 1 football oval per day) between 1998 and 2004.

About 7000 and 8000 hectares were approved for clearing in 2005 and 2006 respectively under the clearing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (which equates to about 10 football ovals per day).

This has greatly led to the overuse of natural resources.

There is a need for a consolidated and accurate record of the total amount of native vegetation being cleared in WA every year.

At a national level, Western Australia has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots.

At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's 34 biodiversity hotspots.

WA currently has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

Recovery plans have been developed for less than one-third of threatened species and ecological communities.

contd.....

Hi all

TRTL, do we KNOW that? Clearly considerable investment has gone into coming up with the baits in the form in which they are used now, one step further surely cannot be impossible. We don't know how much it would cost; perhaps the way to find that out would be to try and get such information from the CSIRO. I understand that some talks were held with animal welfare organizations that were quite positive about this as the best of the worst options. I think we all recognize the harm that wild dogs and other like animals do, but it seems wrong that they have to suffer so terribly for struggling to survive.

I think that a whole lot of research goes on that is possibly borderline unnecessary, certainly it has been identified that the same experiments can be carried out in multiple institutions in different states simply because there is no database that cross-references them. I find that appalling. Also research on animals is carried out to "prove" the same experiment that has been carried out before - that is equally shameful.

There must be better ways of doing what we do. And I don't think that is a radical view, either.

Nicky

TRTL
Not so really. The companies involved do and can recieve grants from both State and Federal Governments. They have a duty to improve methods as better alternatives are found.
The Government are far too joined at the hip with one or two companies when it comes to supply .
Open the compertion if these blokes wont work with known improvements.
They have known about saffron for several years since we raised it with them.
All sorts of promises were made and fained interest but nobody has taken things a step futher and tried to reproduce a gentic eqaul.
Nobody is pushing it or following up on this information either.

We certainly cant afford to produce an alternative but the larger groups could if they really wanted to.
These are the sorts of things I would like to see PETA and others actually get involved by investing in.
It would make such a big difference to Animal Welfare but so far we have not been able to raise any interest.

Have a Good Night Everyone

Hi all

I would suggest that it is the RSPCA who should be pushing this, and using some of its accumulated, invested funds for this purpose. It is reportedly the wealthiest of all the charities behind the churches.

No other local animal advocacy groups have that sort of money at their disposal, and I don't think their ethical policies would be encouraging experimentation that could be harmful to the subject animals. The RSPCA has no such philosophies about the use of anumals "provided it is done humanely".

PALE, if you have any scientific data proving your claims about saffron I suggest you post them here.

Nicky

Contd......

The livestock industry are largely responsible for the destruction of native habitats - "bomb and destroy!" Not to be deterred by this trivia, they remain the most vociferous proponents of the use of 1080.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has issued a disturbing reports:

“Today, an estimated 80 percent of growth in the livestock sector comes from industrial production systems. Owing to those shifts, the report says, livestock are entering into direct competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources

“The sheer quantity of animals being raised for human consumption also poses a threat of the Earth's biodiversity. Livestock account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the land area they now occupy was once habitat for wildlife.

In 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, livestock are identified as "a current threat", while 23 of Conservation International's 35 "global hotspots for biodiversity" (WA is one) - characterized by serious levels of habitat loss - are affected by livestock production.

“livestock holders who emit waste into waterways or release ammonia into the atmosphere should pay for the damage. Applying the "polluter pays" principle should not present insurmountable problems for offenders, given the burgeoning demand for livestock products.”

Australia produces enough food and crops to feed a hundred million people. However, the Meat and Livestock industry are vigorously spending taxpayers’ money overseas, seeking new countries in which to flog and expand their live export production.

This is in direct conflict with all scientific reports on the state of the planet's biodiversity. However, growing more meat in this country appears to be regarded as a mere peccadillo by an industry out of control. Clearly the ecological ramifications are not a concern.

Mr Watts, head of WAFarmers wool sector declared PETA should fund an alternative" to mulesing.

I would recommend the enforcement of the "polluter pays" principle to ensure that the live export industry fulfills its moral and ethical obligation to fund the new 1080 alternative.

http://www.eurekalert.org/images/release_graphics/pdf/EH5.pdf