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