Australia pledges to halt loss of native mammal species

[maddog]

Australia pledges to halt loss of native mammal species by 2020

[Tony]

Hi Maddog,

Thanks for posting the link, I hope something comes of the pledge, cats are a very big problem, but I have to be skeptical as I have heard it all before, talk is cheap, this government is making it easier for farmers, loggers and miners to destroy more wildlife habitat which is a bigger problem.

Tony.

[photohiker]

I know this is cynical, but perhaps the Government knows that by 2020 all the marginal Australian mammal species will be extinct by then?

Or perhaps they know they won't be in Government to take the caning for making false promises?

[Hallu]

Yeah our first instinct after reading the article is that it feels a lot like hollow promises. Still, I was glad to finally read that "Hunt admitted Australia has a legacy of “clear and significant failures” in protecting its wildlife". Too bad he's only focusing on the obvious, with feral cats, and isn't talking about cane toads. But then for the toads there is no solution in the books so... I would also have liked to see him mention that while South Australia and Tasmania are ahead in terms of conservation, Queensland is far behind, historically (and still) being governed by industrialists who couldn't care less about conservation (NT and WA aren't exactly shining either, with their mining oligarchs...). Hence it's gonna be tough to have a clear Nation-wide policy : it's probable that in Queensland they're gonna do what the hell they wanna do, as usual.

I also hope they don't just slaughter the cats blindly and hope for the best, and that they'll have a global long term plan. It's better to protect a whole habitat, have measures encouraging biodiversity that will affect several species. Because killing the cats might boost the fox and wild dog population, with more food for them.

[geoskid]

Australia pledges to halt loss of native mammal species by 2020

Happy Walking All.

Had a good vent all typed up,(and chose to delete it), but the act of typing it did the trick.

I'm no longer bent out of shape that we don't have a Science Minister.

Love yer work Maddog.
I'm reading.

Edit: Cleaned it up even further- to the extent of beige, non offence, bland, boring, submissive No *&%$#! Science Minister type of post.

[geoskid]

From the article linked by Maddog in the OP

Greg Hunt says:

“I know too well that legislation alone is not the solution,” he said. “It can provide a framework and a guide, but too often we become complacent and expect the laws to provide the solution. As our track record on the environment shows, that has provided only limited success.

“Good policy and change is driven by the community. The environment is no different. My aim as minister is to inspire people to join me on this journey, to refocus the way we manage our environment and to help the community engage at their local level.

“It is only then that we will see a real difference and it is one that no legislator will ever achieve by law alone.”

A miss is as good as a mile - He is in the Hunt , but should have stayed at home.
He does not get that Science is what will direct him to solutions, not the community. The community looks to competent ministers to find solutions - competent ministers look to science to inform them of consequential relationships of importance to society- incompetent ministers fiddle and fudge and pray and lie and generally *&%$#! up.

[Tony]

This article To eradicate feral cats, we need to know how many are out there has just appeared in the Conversation.

I expect the so called "Conservation Hunters" to come out soon and say they can solve the feral cat problem like they tried to make us believe they could eradicate ferals from NSW National Parks.

Tony

[wander]

It is almost pointless for us to make claims to try and stop an extinctions while we;

A - Completely fail to control habitat loss via Urban Sprawl, this applies just as much to towns outside the cities.
B - Completely fail to control habitat loss via land clearance for agriculture.
C - Completely fail to have in place the most cost effective feral animal controls to aim for zero feral animals for all feral animals.
D - Do not have in place any real and enforced obligations for land owners to eradicate feral animals or prevent feral animals from invading neighbours.
E - Have very little real funding to do anything on the ground.
F - A propensity to get bogged down in Consultative processes rather than getting on with the fundamental blindingly obvious work of eradicating feral animals as per C.

And these matters must be equally addressed across all States and Territories. Not modified to suit "local issues".

Cats are big part of the story in some areas. And like foxes being small and clever animals are very very difficult to eradicate often compromised by D above.

And unless we can directly link any of the above to economic growth and jobs and such there is no real hope of the Government doing anything more than the absolute minimum at minimum cost to be seen to be doing something nothing more will happen.

A nihilist view perhaps, but 30 years of watching this stuff slide by these are the conclusions I have drawn.

On the up side I have seen the growth in private land ownership by more than one organisation who un-fettered by public service and Government ownership issues have been able to secure large tracts of Australia and effect real eradication of feral plants and animals and see a bounce back of native animals and plants. But again they sometimes have struggles with D above.

[maddog]

THE State Government has called on the army to cull tens of thousands of super-size cats ... in outback Queensland.

[wander]

What are they going to do? Squash them under APC tracks?

Seriously.

[maddog]

Take advantage of a disciplined, well-trained resource, available at zero net cost and made available to eradicate (or control) specific feral animals in the areas they are actually a problem. Why not?

[Hallu]

What are they going to do? Squash them under APC tracks?

Seriously.

Australian soldiers are all trained for survival (including hunting) in the bush. That's why they have some of the specific skills required to hunt those cats. Although "calling in the army" may sound ridiculous, they're not gonna deploy them as squads assaulting a fixed position, they're gonna work as any other pest eradication group, except they have better weapon training, most of them are recreational hunters already, and they have great communication skills and equipment. I sincerely hope it works...

[Pteropus]

I guess this is relevant for this thread: Proposed (European Red Fox) Pest Control Order 2014 - have your say.

[wander]

Take advantage of a disciplined, well-trained resource, available at zero net cost and made available to eradicate (or control) specific feral animals in the areas they are actually a problem. Why not

But they are not trained or resourced to chase and kill cats. They could be, but that actually would be a waste of resources. They have already been trained the defend and fill people. And they are a precious few, our Army is tiny. It would be cheaper to train others to chase and kill cats.

Blokes I knew who went into the Army thought being called up for this sort of stuff was the biggest joke. They were sometimes called out to chase camels and buffalo and so on. They always volunteered for it was it was better than whatever the Army had them doing at the time. Their view was they did do the best they could but really were not equipped and almost always were not provided with the flexibility or support to do the job. They would spend 1/2 their time sitting waiting for a drop of food, fuel and more signed orders and authorisations to go into another area. In the mean time the targets wandered off to another area out of sight or requiring another bunch of paperwork to move on. It was a tail chase more often than not. *&%$#! they had some fun tho.

[maddog]

Wander,
The Army is well resourced and we already expend vast resources on their upkeep making the additional cost of such programs minimal. In between active service it makes sense for the armed forces to be involved in useful activities such as pest control as it makes sense when they provide assistance in the event of natural disasters. Where our army is otherwise usefully employed we could always use the reservists.

[wander]

Sorry Maddog, I beg to differ about some of the detailing of the resources for the proposed task, other tasks, not a problem, the Army will do them very well, we can only leave it for time to tell.

[Mark F]

The army has less than glorious record in the destruction of animal species. Look no further than their attempt to control an invasion of emus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

[icefest]

The army has less than glorious record in the destruction of animal species. Look no further than their attempt to control an invasion of emus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

Great call!

We have great track record of successful military missions. Maybe we should stick to pig bristles and emus.