Ref: Wagga Daily Advertiser. 21/07/17
Department of Environment and Heritage have informed Altina Wildlife Park. That they could be fined $3,000 per carcass gathered. The wildlife Park wanted to collect road kill to feed some of it's animals, with the support and encouragement of even the Murrumbidgee Shire Council, DEH has said no.

Among the animals that the Park want to feed are Tasmania Devils.

It would seem that if I shoot a hare then I can use the carcass for dog food but if I hit one with the car then it must be left to rot; funny.

The local newspaper tells us that there is a road
safety issue but it can be overcome.

We're told that "obviously we don't want people
jumping in the middle of roads dragging off dead
kangaroos to feed their dogs."

However, Gino Altin of the Altine Wildlife Park
has been removing the road-kill carcasses from
the road for seven years. His actions have stopped
other predators from getting on the road. It has also
kept the roads clear of hazards. The park has been
picking up roughly 12 dead kangaroos each week.
No wonder the Murrumbidgee Shire Council approves of
the actions.

It makes sense to use an already dead animal for a zoo.

So I'm allowed to cross the road, but not stop to remove a road hazard.
I'm betting the idiot that came up with this law isn't a mortorcycle rider.

Is it the local Council that normally removes these
dead carcasses from their roads?

I wonder if in that case the Council could not hire
the owner of the Altine Wildlife Park to remove
these carcasses on their behalf and then get around
the law that way? Because then he would be doing it
officially on behalf of the Council.

Just a suggestion.

That's an excellent suggestion Foxy that would solve all issues.
That way he's covered in the event of an accident or council liability.

But theres another aspect to your suggestion which makes me wonder how smart we really are, but I don't want to take away from your good idea.

That point is that we would outlaw someone who is doing a public service for free, in support of someone doing that exact same job for pay, but taking 80k from that which would otherwise be spent on parks, schools or other upgrades for the community.

Dear AC,

Your suggestion is a good one. The owner of the
Altine Wildlife Park is currently doing it "for
free" except that he gets to keep the carcasses
to feed his zoo animals which apparently is
against the law. So how about the Council signs
him up with a contract and instead of a salary
he still gets to keep the carcasses to feed the
zoo animals? As he's working for the Council and
not himself - he gets paid by carcasses instead of
money. I wonder if that would be within the law?

Hi Foxy.
I'm sure there must be some kind of compromise that would benefit all parties.
It seems like such a trival matter, where removing the carcasses from the road benefits the community, and someone is willing to do it for free.
Is it just a matter of insurance / liability I wonder?
Surely they can work something out, seems silly if they can't.

Dear Foxy,

Common-sense undermines the British/Australian pompous traditions of "law and order".

We find this tradition also in the latest storm-in-a-teacup episode regarding parliamentary dual-citizenship.

Take the example of Israel: it is so successful because there they follow common-sense rather than the letter of the law. If you continue to exhibit this un-Australian tall-poppy trait and show too much intelligence, people here might come to believe that your are Jewish and send you over to Israel.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Travelling to Israel has always been something
that I have wanted to do. Perhaps one day
soon ...

The NSW Office (not Department) of Environment and Heritage advises:

"If possible, move dead animals away from roads as their predators could be in danger of becoming roadkill."

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/questions/injured-sick-animal

Perhaps it's a matter of one hand of OEH not knowing what the other's doing?

Hi there YUYUTSU and FOXY...

The more I see of our legal system, both civil and criminal, the more stupid it appears to be. The old common law, had a certain merit to it, much like that which seems to be in practice in Israel YUYUTSU, based essentially on common sense. But then we became all modern and our States became condified, with little or no common law remaining.

It is little wonder, our Country is bogged down in all manner of rules and regulations, when half the time the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, nor could it even care?

This 'homeless demo.' in Martin Place is a good example, where the coppers are too afraid to act, and the City Council won't act. The consequence is we're the laughing stock of the bloody world! In the old days, a citizen would only need to make a complaint, and the place would've been cleaned up inside an hour. Or the police F150's would be ferrying the great unwashed to gaol. Somehow I don't believe the Israeli police would cop it for too long?

We have all seen the signs at the top of steep hills

"TRUCKS AND BUSES MUST USE LOW GEAR"

Anyone who's driven trucks knows that compliance, in some trucks, would mean that the driver could possibly be booked for obstructing the traffic; some low gears are really low!!

Are the signs open to interpretation or do the signs mean what they say?

It seems almost inevitable that the public servant issuing the edict
is a product of one the universities illustrated in the heading of
this thread.
It is an example of such people being unable to look past such white
man logic.
The man picking up the carcasses will be on worker compo anyway.
From what we read about the universities it would seem that almost
all their graduates head for the public service.

It explains much.

Dear Bazz,

Quite a few enter politics.

Indeed Foxy !

Although not a law as such the decision is as effective as a passed law.

In effect the terrorists have won, I wonder if the same excuse will be used to stop a Mosque being built?

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4

Bondi synagogue ban over terrorism risk leaves Jewish community shocked and furious

A LOCAL council has banned the construction of a synagogue in Bondi because it could be a terrorist target, in a shock move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent.

The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places.

The Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to prohibit the construction of the synagogue in Wellington St, Bondi — just a few hundred metres from Australia’s most famous beach — because it was too much of a security risk for users and local residents.

A great suggestion Foxy.

Bazz: It seems almost inevitable that the public servant issuing the edict.

Exactly. They were having a slow day & hadn't done anything all day. Then this comes across their desk. WH&S steps in & whamo! A new stupid edict.

Foxy: Quite a few enter politics.

Well, we all can see where that gets us.

Philip S: Oops!

Of course some government authority would abject to this among other many things they have to justify their existence and raise revenue to do this - reason and common sense have noting to do with it.

Would it make more sense to remove the source of the risk ?
Are not we always being told Prevention is better than cure ?

We must be careful what we say, I see that the HRC is running around looking for customers.

In answering this question I would like to take a broader view and look at who approved the law. Not every law is passed by parliament. I am particularly and continually enraged by the laws surrounding vehicles. Whether it be the driving of said vehicle or its condition. Some states have yearly inspections, some don't.(thank god) I personally have been severely compromised financially many years ago after spending the better part of three years designing and building a new concept of transport (vehicle). During this period I was always in contact with the head of the RTA's engineering division, the number one right at the top. He was well aware of what I was doing as I consulted him along the way. When it came to licensing them he calmly said he could not license them because HE said, in his words, 'he would not let his daughter ride in one'. At this point I must say I never felt at ease with him. He had a problem with me and this was the 'pay-back'. I explained to him, his personal opinion meant less than nothing in this matter and because the vehicle was built in accordance with all the current VSR's and ADR's of the day his duty was to approve it especially when he was involved from the beginning. At the time I could not afford to take him and/or the RTA to court but had I done so I believe that without political or inside forces at play I would have won. So the moral of the story is that the law is only there to keep us mushrooms in line. Most laws are silly and unnecessary, and are only created because a few noisy, selfish, ignorant bastards insist on having their way and to hell with the rest of us. Think about it, in an election it pretty much always ends up with a tiny majority, over the losers. What you basically have is half the population got what they wanted and the other half can go and get stuffed, basically. That's not democracy, that's BS.