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.....