The Forum > General Discussion > Australia Slaughters Brumby for Export Profit
Australia Slaughters Brumby for Export Profit
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 8 January 2011 3:33:42 PM
| |
What AU needs to do is put some roo in the stew.
It should be a butcher shop commodity. If it weren't for road kill we would be overrun. The Brumby need to be controlled, and so do ferrel pigs. Wholesale disaster will be caused by the bush pig one day. Beef meat is getting beyond the average butchers stock list, there needs to be an alternate supply. Posted by 579, Saturday, 8 January 2011 4:10:18 PM
| |
As we know brumbies are not destructive in the ways of damaging assets, they roll in and rummage around like any other of natures animals through bins etc then roll out as one not long after.
I have viewed this while visiting an aborigines community for a week, not harm or damage was done they stuck around for not more than 20-30mins. Thank you for pointing out Cornflower “However conservation hunting will keep the numbers down. It makes sound environmental and economic sense, as well as being infinitely preferable for humane reasons”. Let’s look at this from another angle – The Solution Firstly we establish as a species what is for human consumption and what’s not, this is determined culturally in each country according to moral judgement of what’s acceptable in our lands. If numbers was the problem and our purpose of what we are doing is for environmental and economical sense would it not be more logical to not slaughter them but inhibit their breeding abilities to an extent that such animals stay within an acceptable limits. So far we have established that we use anywhere up to four bullets per kill, we have established that kangaroos is a market that is or will bottom out and we have established that this problem is only a problem because the right measures were not in place to control. So the answer is a simple one – 1. Rather than bullets we use tranquilizer cartridges that are reusable saving the continual cost of bullets and transport. 2. Rather than slaughter them, we ring the males so they cannot produce and/or bring the female population down via separation or targeting direct. 3. Make use of them via donating them to camps and other organisations for the purpose of entertainment of other. (Breaking-in for riding). Posted by BrettH, Sunday, 9 January 2011 1:25:11 AM
| |
BrettH, "As we know brumbies are not destructive in the ways of damaging assets.."
Absolute rot, haven't you been keeping up with the frank comment given here, or referred to a DPI site? Think about such obvious serious problems as damage to soils near watercourses (hooves) and pollution of the water (manure). Imagine erosion caused by trampled paths through forest. You are paying attention? BrettH, "Firstly we establish as a species what is for human consumption and what’s not.." The market already does that and with the changes in Australia's demographics and eating habits doubtless there are many more who would try lean, nutritious, free range horse meat if given the chance. They eat crocs don't they? Besides, there is an export market. BrettH, "So far we have established that we use anywhere up to four bullets per kill.." Horses' apples, make that one bullet. Hop on your bike and have a Bo Peep at the roos hanging on the back of the fourbys for the freezer truck and you will see that they are all head shot. That is the formal requirement. Now you might also have noticed that a horse's brain box is a damn sight bigger than a roo's and that is where the .308 will go for a quick, certain death. The rest of your comments are exasperating garbage as well. Honestly Brett, where do you get this stuff from? To take another example, although I realise I am wasting my time, have you considered that the 'control' methods you suggest are more traumatic for the horses than shooting and the cost would be exorbitant. It would also be ridiculously futile, as anyone who has chased brumbies into high country would know. Say, you wouldn't have relatives in a veterinary practice who are short of a bit of business by any chance? Because it sounds as though you want to make vets rich, taxpayers poor and have thousands of brumbies destroying the bush and watercourses. Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 9 January 2011 4:59:50 AM
| |
Actually, horse meat sounds like quite good nosh, so it is a pity to use it as pet food,
"The Merits of Horse Meat It’s splendidly healthy, with half the fat of beef and ten times the chloresterol busting Omega 3s. It’s said to taste similar to beef, our national dish. It’s free from bird flu, mad cow disease, tuberculosis, foot-and-mouth and tape worm, the scourge of our traditional meat industry. And apparently Gordon Ramsey wants us to eat it." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551693/The-merits-of-horse-meat.html The Italians use horse meat in sausages. It is a low fat replacement for any other meat, so no special recipes are required. I would think a marinade would make it more moist on the BBQ. Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 9 January 2011 5:15:28 AM
| |
Cornflower,
You are right in that you are wasting your time. The title of this thread tells you all you need to know of Brett's mind set and his agenda. An attempt to get to peoples emotions! Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 9 January 2011 9:50:16 AM
|
You don't have to transport pigs to different areas, they spread widely after being set free for meat by early explorers. As for pig hunters spreading pigs that is more a myth than anything. The only case we ever heard of was a fellow who allegedly trapped and castrated young pigs, hoping to return later to shoot the barrows for food. What a waste of time.
You are right though to say that the hunting organisations are ethical and conservation minded - but always to Australia's environment first. Their lobbying is why some coastal salt water lagoons exist, when for years Councils had a program of draining them (and still do).
Belly, "Conservation shooters can and do reduce numbers but not eradicate, it is not in their interests to do that."
The fearful 1080 program doesn't eradicate either and it can affect non target species. Government contractors with helicopters are expensive and necessary because there isn't recreational shooting as there was years ago.
As for (say) deer, even if we had a magic wand to eradicate them would it be smart to do so? I think not because conservation management means smaller herds, no appreciable environmental effect, another source of income for small country towns and chemical free meat who those who are prepared to complete the onerous licensing requirements.
The red deer on Queensland's coat of arms is partly (deer have heraldic meanings) a reminder of Queen Victoria's gift of deer from the royal hunting ground, no less. Let us eat the Royal venison if Major Anna Bligh will allow us to do what Queens Victoria wanted us to do - instead of poisoning the herds with 1080.