Recreational hunting in the NSW State Forests a report

[Nuts]

My apologies (edit: Gayet) if you feel the need to apologise. I probably should use more acronyms (imo, fwiw). It would be a shame if Tony is upset with his (very specific) topic being diverted as I find the whole subject interesting (but I can see the point he was making) (fwiw )

[curwalker]

@sambar
Very interesting what you say there.


Before I get to my main point for this post, one thing first:
That big post about the impact of rabbits and the linked page doesn't look very convincing. The sources it claims are not any actual studies done but seem basically the same and with those numbers you would think Australia has become a wasteland by now. So what are these numbers based on?

Ok, now my main question here is:
What is the goal in all this killing?
Is it "back to the right way"? How? If supposedly so many species are extinct because of the ferals (personally I wonder whether it wasn't pastoralism and agriculture, after all the ferals have to fend for themselves too a much higher degree than livestock ever would) how could that ever work?
And by what standard is a situation regarded as good or bad, respectively better or worse?

Let's say it's eradication of everything "exotic" as sambar put it, does that include the ones doing the killing? After all, how many of them can claim not to be exotic to Australia? And when does a being stop being exotic? Arguably both dog and human are exotic to Australia, since both didn't evolve there, not as a species, only as a subset of a species and even then the difference is mostly cosmetic as it seems. So do they all have to go? If not, may other "exotic" species no longer be exotic? Rabbits adapted and aparantely so did others. Does that mean they are native now. Up here they are regarded as Neobiota (meaning "new animal", albeit the common german term of "new citizen" might be more appropriate) since they managed to exist and breed without direct human assistence for more than 25 years respectively more than 3 generations. And at least some are regarded as integrated now. And here is the rub, what do you do then? I mean there are all those rabbits in Australia, are humans, dogs, foxes, cats and eagles really the only ones feeding on them? No one else? And what would happen with these species (especially any native predators of rabbits) if rabbits are gone? Will it be better for them or worse? I get of course the potential danger of new arrivals on the continents but they are not the topic here. The topic are the ones that are already here and so, what would happen if you eradicate all those ungulates? Or worse, what would happen if you eradicate all the dogs? Let's say they manage that and want to repopulate the continent with what is termed the "pure" dingo, would they even be capable of that? Would they survive? After all the "pure" captive populations is not based on a big founder population. And lets say these dingoes do survive, how long would it take for them to repopulate the continent and wouldn't the whole conflict with pastoralists start all over?
Let's say again the ungulates get eradicated? What if they kept the exotic weeds in check? These are much harder to eradicate (something similar happened near the coast of California when sheep got massacred [there is no other word for it]) and therefore might be especially unstoppable. There aren't many examples because not much research has been done but I know of another example on Galapagos. When dogs were eradicated on one island due to potential danger to land iguanas (no evidence since the dogs didn't wander where the iguanas were on the island) it turned out that they had kept the number of feral cattle in check and the result was that cattle number trippled over the course of one year.
So what if removing all these "feral pests" is actually not better but even worse?
Does anybody here know whether that line of thought has ever been followed?

[Pteropus]

...Before I get to my main point for this post, one thing first:
That big post about the impact of rabbits and the linked page doesn't look very convincing. The sources it claims are not any actual studies done but seem basically the same and with those numbers you would think Australia has become a wasteland by now. So what are these numbers based on?

There are volumes of literature on the negative effects of introduced species on our environment. And some species, such as rabbits, did breed into such high numbers that they almost did turn some areas into wastelands. They have the capacity to breed up to large numbers in short time. They out compete many native fauna species, and livestock for that matter, by feeding on grass, herbs and even bark on trees. Their economic and environmental impacts from land degradation in the form of vegetation loss and erosion from rabbits has made them one of the main vertebrate pests. Two viruses, mixomatosis and calicivirus, have been introduced with some success. I don’t think anyone can argue that rabbits are anything other than a pest in Australia.

...Ok, now my main question here is:
What is the goal in all this killing?
Is it "back to the right way"? How? If supposedly so many species are extinct because of the ferals (personally I wonder whether it wasn't pastoralism and agriculture, after all the ferals have to fend for themselves too a much higher degree than livestock ever would) how could that ever work?
And by what standard is a situation regarded as good or bad, respectively better or worse?

The goal is, or should be, management to protect native biodiversity. After all, the environment is our own life support. But yes, agriculture (or habitat destruction) is the biggest cause of extinction, not predation/competition by feral species. There is, however, a cumulative or interaction effect between habitat loss and predation/competition by feral species.

... And here is the rub, what do you do then? I mean there are all those rabbits in Australia, are humans, dogs, foxes, cats and eagles really the only ones feeding on them? No one else? And what would happen with these species (especially any native predators of rabbits) if rabbits are gone?

Rabbits are not sustaining native and non-native predators. So that argument doesn’t hold. There is plenty of food sources out there. But cats and foxes are having a real good go at reducing numbers of native animal, and this is very well studied too. There has been an explosion of cats and foxes in parts of eastern Australia, and they have come close to wiping species such as the bilby out. Bilby’s only hang on in some regions due to captive breeding programmes and predator-exclusion enclosures. These cost money to maintain and manage. One could argue ‘what’s the point’, but the point is that in Australia we have some very unique fauna and flora and we risk losing these species because of feral species such as cats and foxes. Who wants to see our fauna, replaced with introduced species?

...Let's say again the ungulates get eradicated? What if they kept the exotic weeds in check? These are much harder to eradicate (something similar happened near the coast of California when sheep got massacred [there is no other word for it]) and therefore might be especially unstoppable. There aren't many examples because not much research has been done but I know of another example on Galapagos. When dogs were eradicated on one island due to potential danger to land iguanas (no evidence since the dogs didn't wander where the iguanas were on the island) it turned out that they had kept the number of feral cattle in check and the result was that cattle number trippled over the course of one year.

As far as ungulates are concerned, they are a key disperser of weeds. And their hooves cause extensive erosion too. There is plenty of information out there on ungulates as threatening processes in Australian habitats. Remember, ungulates have only been in our environment for the past 220 odd years...

However, there are many cases of native species becoming problems too, because we have disturbed the environment. Noisy miners, for example, are aggressive and territorial honey eaters that are cooperative breeders and occur on the edge of woodland and forests in natural settings. This gives them the ability to exploit fragmentation and can become dominant by excluding other birds and other vertebrates. They are considered a native pest, but their exploitation of human dominated landscapes are a symptom of human activity. Kangaroos also exploit the extensive pastures and extra water points that have been added to the landscape since European settlement. Basically human activity makes things harder for most species but easier for some.

However, there are many arguments to allow wild dogs/dingoes to be part of the landscape because they do depress the medium sized predators such as cats and foxes to some degree. They might also keep roo numbers and possibly smaller ungulates such as dear or goats down too. But just like in the USA with the re-introduction of wolves to some areas, graziers are never going to accept plans to allow wild dogs to have free rein. On the contrary, they are obviously the biggest supporters of wild dog control.

...So what if removing all these "feral pests" is actually not better but even worse?
Does anybody here know whether that line of thought has ever been followed?

The only other place I can think of off the top of my head where removing a feral or pest species is considered detrimental to the environment is in rehabilitation of habitat, where weed species might be the only plants providing habitat for native fauna, and a wholesale removal of said weeds could severely impact on those native animals. So rehabilitation and revegetation activities often take this into account, where areas of weeds are kept while native vegetation is re-establishing. Once established, the weeds are then removed.

[maddog]

...So what if removing all these "feral pests" is actually not better but even worse?
Does anybody here know whether that line of thought has ever been followed?

I don't know if this line of enquiry has been followed with any great enthusiasm, but it would seem to be a good fit with current ecological thought, specifically theories of ecological niches. If an ecological niche (e.g. top predator) has been vacated due to extinction (e.g. thylacine / quoll) then it should be filled by another species that will play the same part in the ecosystem (e.g. the dog / cat). Otherwise the weak and deformed are allowed en mass to reproduce reducing the quality of the gene pool. This is the same argument that is used to defend that monster of the sea, the great white shark, and for consistency it should also be applied to feral species such as dogs and cats that are moving into vacated ecological niches.

The only other place I can think of off the top of my head where removing a feral or pest species is considered detrimental to the environment is in rehabilitation of habitat, where weed species might be the only plants providing habitat for native fauna, and a wholesale removal of said weeds could severely impact on those native animals. So rehabilitation and revegetation activities often take this into account, where areas of weeds are kept while native vegetation is re-establishing. Once established, the weeds are then removed.

Weeds species can also protect native flora, for example camphor laurel protects lowland sub-tropical rainforest in northern NSW from exposure to outside influences (from the edge), and can attract native bird and bat species to an area to facilitate the distribution of native rainforest plants, thus reducing the isolation of rainforest remnants. Weed species may also be useful as pioneers (along the lines suggested by Peter Andrews).

Cheers

[curwalker]

Interesting. It looks like I finally found actual people for arguments.
The last few times, outside of this forum, I only found people that... well, they didn't stay polite.

@maddog
Who is Peter Andrews?

@Pteropus
Sorry but I know this sort of argument and in my experience that is not good enough. Not in this area. We need data, facts, know on what basis things are deemed right or wrong. After all, can you tell me how Australia looked 300 years ago? Isn't there also all this talk that dogs are the scourge of the bush despite them being in Australia for at least 4000 years as in that site calling itself sosnews.org, and actually not eradicating the Devil. And aren't there also voices that say that Feral Cats actually are praying mostly on introduced species, I think it was in "Ten Million Wildcats" and you yourself said that native species can be troublesome also. And all these rabbits just run around and get eaten by no one? All these eagles preying on them don't really need them? Their "native" prey is still abundant? Doesn't make sense in my eyes.
In addition, saying that the goal is to preserve biodiversity is not truly an answer. What diversity? Every diversity?

Therefore what studies show what you state?
What data are they based on?

I know such a thing is bothersome, but it is necessary in my eyes.

Ps. Are you an Australian that descents from British colonialists? If yes, well... Many British colonalists wanted to replace Australian fauna with British fauna.

And I am aware of cumulative impact, but what good does it really do if you tackle the much lesser of the two evils?

[forest]

And all these rabbits just run around and get eaten by no one? All these eagles preying on them don't really need them? Their "native" prey is still abundant? Doesn't make sense in my eyes.

Are you suggesting that we retrace our steps to the pre myxomatosis and calicivirus day. Just let them be eh and intergrate ?? How'd that work out for us
Um maybe you should have a good look at how much damage rabbits in plague did to the Australian environment
The damage they did unchecked over such a short span of decades is massive. Please explain how that was good for Australia ??

I know it's fine for you to say the things you do, honestly you have some good interesting points to ponder.

Most of us here are completely in aggreance that something must be done to control introduced pest species in Australia.
Your take is to just let tham all be completely, are you just trying to stop harm to animal's period or is there real data behind this mindset "in Australia"

[Son of a Beach]

Therefore what studies show what you state?
What data are they based on?

I know such a thing is bothersome, but it is necessary in my eyes.

Be specific. What particular statements (exactly) are you looking for scientific data for? Note that when statements are generally accepted as truth by the population at large (with or without scientific data), the onus is really on the people questioning those statement to disprove them (again, this is not a fact and may not even be "fair", but it is the generally accepted way to conduct a debate).

PS. To make it clear, I'm talking about a debate within the context of a community discussion not a scientific forum.

[Tony]

Hi curwalker,

If you really want to find out more about rabbits in Australia a good place to start is the Invasive Animals CRC and if you check their data base feral.org you will find 400 scientific articles to read on Rabbits.

Tony

[alliecat]

Therefore what studies show what you state?
What data are they based on?

I know such a thing is bothersome, but it is necessary in my eyes.

Be specific. What particular statements (exactly) are you looking for scientific data for? Note that when statements are generally accepted as truth by the population at large (with or without scientific data), the onus is really on the people questioning those statement to disprove them (again, this is not a fact and may not even be "fair", but it is the generally accepted way to conduct a debate).

Um, no. Regardless of whether or not a statement is believed by the majority of people, any statement presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. If you make a claim, even if it's something that "everybody knows" the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence. If you can't, don't, or won't, then the statement is rhetoric, not argument.

Arguments without evidence are pointless - they are just people's opposing opinions with "I'm right, you're wrong" implied or stated explicitly. Arguments presented with evidence at least have the potential to be evaluated for consistency with that evidence. That's essentially why and how science works: claims can, and are, tested against evidence. And like it or not, when it comes to working out what works and what doesn't, science works better than anything else we've tried. Especially unsubstantiated opinions.

Cheers,
Stuart

[Nuts]

The only fact substantiated here is that (by estimate) there are 'a lot of feral animals' (edit: sorry Tony, a lot of animals and just to add- hunting in forests hasn't removed many). I much prefer robust conversation to argument, it allows room for pondering what might make sense as well as what should.

[Son of a Beach]

Therefore what studies show what you state?
What data are they based on?

I know such a thing is bothersome, but it is necessary in my eyes.

Be specific. What particular statements (exactly) are you looking for scientific data for? Note that when statements are generally accepted as truth by the population at large (with or without scientific data), the onus is really on the people questioning those statement to disprove them (again, this is not a fact and may not even be "fair", but it is the generally accepted way to conduct a debate).

Um, no. Regardless of whether or not a statement is believed by the majority of people, any statement presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. If you make a claim, even if it's something that "everybody knows" the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence. If you can't, don't, or won't, then the statement is rhetoric, not argument.

Arguments without evidence are pointless - they are just people's opposing opinions with "I'm right, you're wrong" implied or stated explicitly. Arguments presented with evidence at least have the potential to be evaluated for consistency with that evidence. That's essentially why and how science works: claims can, and are, tested against evidence. And like it or not, when it comes to working out what works and what doesn't, science works better than anything else we've tried. Especially unsubstantiated opinions.

Cheers,
Stuart

100% agreed - for a scientific conclusion. However, this is a community discussion, not a scientific forum.

If I was to say that you needed to prove that the grass is green or I won't believe it, then it would be entirely sensible for you to say, "that's ridiculous, everybody knows it's green, and I don't need to prove it" without providing any scientific evidence for your argument. It would be up to me to prove that it was not green.

Of course without proof, neither side is likely to change their mind, and therefore scientific data and proofs are still valuable even in a community discussion - even more than mere opinion alone.

PS. In most general discussions, no scientific data is required at all. It is only when people start having different opinions and feel the need to force their opinions on others that there is any need for proofs. If people choose not to do prove their point, then people have every right to say, "that's just your opinion and I don't agree" - unless of course it is also the opinion of the vast majority of other people, in which case, they cannot say, "that's just your opinion" but rather, "I don't agree with the opinion of the vast majority". Being a discussion, and not a scientific forum, people are likely to feel justified in their opinion by the agreement of the vast majority, and therefore not feel the need to back it up with scientific proofs. However, going against the opinion of the vast majority is going to look more ridiculous without good proof (even if it is correct - flat-earth anybody?).

[sambar358]

As a genreal comment it should be mentioned that NSW has only had legal hunting in state forests for the past 10 years and even this has been a gradual phase-in with many SF''s still not available for hunting despite carrying signifcant populations of feral animals. It is unlikely that in the short-term hunting pressure on some species such as goats and feral pigs that have been breeding-up in these areas for 100 years of more will make a noticable difference and it's unrealistic to assess the impact of recreational hunting in NSW SF's on the results of a maximum of 10 years hunting and in many SF's far less than that. From a Victorian perspective I know that more and more keen Vic hunters are embracing the NSW GC SF hunting initiatives and heading north-of-the-border to hunt each year and I would expect this to be a continuing trend that will further boost the already pretty impressive numbers of hunters who have (in a relatively short time) signed-up for the NSW GC R & G Licence systems.

In Victoria hunters have always had open access to state forests for feral animal, small game and the hunting of some deer species such as sambar and it always surprised me that NSW did not allow any form of game or feral animal hunting in their SF's until the NSW Game Council inititatives began 10 years ago. So in essence feral animals in SF's and NP's in NSW have had a pretty good and encouraging environment relatively free from hunting pressure to supress their numbers for a long long time. No wonder the estimated populations of the various feral species as indicated by Tony's numbers are so high. I was always amused when I met some 1st-time NSW hunters in Victoria down here hunting sambar.....they would have some dark and dingy out-of-the-way camp-site usually without a fire and they'd be initially reluctant to chat about what they were doing. However once they were told that (as long as they had the right licences etc) they could hunt freely, virtually camp where-ever they liked and cut firewood for a nice big campfire to cook on and keep them warm things changed for the better ! Obviously they were used to the restictive and illegal aspect of public land hunting as applied to NSW and just assumed that this was also the case in Victoria.

So I think this point needs to be remembered when we're looking at the impact of SF hunting over the past 10 years in NSW....this is early days, ferals have had a very long time to breed and disperse relatively unmolested and regaining some level of control is certainly a longer-term project rather than the short-term fix that the critics of this program seem to focus on. Food for thought anyway I guess. Cheers

sambar358

[Pteropus]

...@Pteropus
Sorry but I know this sort of argument and in my experience that is not good enough. Not in this area. We need data, facts, know on what basis things are deemed right or wrong. After all, can you tell me how Australia looked 300 years ago? Isn't there also all this talk that dogs are the scourge of the bush despite them being in Australia for at least 4000 years as in that site calling itself sosnews.org, and actually not eradicating the Devil.

Hi Curewalker, I am not sure what you are trying to say but there is a LOT of information out there regarding the impact of invasive non-native flora and fauna. Much of it is online and easy to access. For example:

Rabbits -> http://www.environment.gov.au/biodivers ... rabbit.pdf

Cats -> http://secure.environment.gov.au/biodiv ... l-cats.pdf

Add that to the info on the website that Tony posted and those are the tip of the iceberg. I am not going to find it all for you because it is easily accessible and I don’t have the time.

Be careful where your information comes from though. Blogs and similar sites are more often than not someone’s opinion soapbox. For example, on the dingo/wild dog issue, obviously people who are more agriculture-centric are going to be for wild dog control, while someone more eco centric-might want to push the benefits of dingos/wild dogs. Or not...depending where they sit with the issue...

...And aren't there also voices that say that Feral Cats actually are praying mostly on introduced species, I think it was in "Ten Million Wildcats" and you yourself said that native species can be troublesome also.

Many small mammals go through boom and bust cycles and populations can increase rapidly in times of abundance. This in turn will cause increases in their predator species. There is a lot of info on that too...once again the introduced predators such as cats generally take advantage -> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-01/f ... ls/3981908

As I have said, cats have had major negative impacts on bilbys, and this is now in the news -> http://www.seekingmedia.com.au/news.php?newsid=2562

When resources for the prey species are depressed, the populations naturally drop. But increased predation can reduce populations past a threshold and lead to extinction.

...And all these rabbits just run around and get eaten by no one? All these eagles preying on them don't really need them? Their "native" prey is still abundant? Doesn't make sense in my eyes.

Some native prey is very abundant. Such as many macropods which have benefited from the creation of pasture and artificial watering points (dams, troughs, bores etc). Eagles take down roos, no worries. They won’t starve without rabbits.

...In addition, saying that the goal is to preserve biodiversity is not truly an answer. What diversity? Every diversity?

I don’t understand what your argument is there. What do you mean by “what diversity”? Biodiversity is the ‘variety of life’. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/
Preserving biodiversity is important to me and should be important to everyone. I have no idea what it means to you, but the environment is our life support system, and biodiversity is strongly linked to ecosystem health. Without biodiversity ecosystem functioning can be reduced.

...Therefore what studies show what you state?
What data are they based on?
I know such a thing is bothersome, but it is necessary in my eyes.

As I mentioned, you need to look these things up too. You have made some pretty broad statements and assumptions yourself. Sure, they are opinion, which you are entitled to, but you haven't backed up anything as far as I can tell. There is a lot of freely accessible information out there without the need for one to get into data bases and scientific journals and the like. And if you have access to those, then all the better.

...Ps. Are you an Australian that descents from British colonialists? If yes, well... Many British colonalists wanted to replace Australian fauna with British fauna.

What has that got to do with the price of eggs? What is your point? Where are you from anyway? Are you even familiar with biodiversity, the Australian environment and the history of landuse here etc? Sure, the colonialists wanted to change things but we know better now and are paying for their mistakes. Millions are spent to rectify the damage done.

[maddog]

@maddog
Who is Peter Andrews?

Peter Andrews is a land manager (agricultural) who developed his own ideas on good land management, such as growing weeds in preference to natives (e.g. willow) for the rehabilitation of degraded landscapes, and dumping large logs in creeks to create a 'chain of ponds' rather than a constructed drain-like network of creeks and rivers draining a landscape. These ideas were initially dismissed by both the scientific community and Government regulators. After a few years of struggle, Peter Andrews was able to display a revitalised landscape to those doubters, who since have devoted considerable attention to understanding how the improvements have come to be (i.e. reassessing their own theories on what is good).

Peter and his work have been featured on ABC television, and he has written a book called 'Back from the Brink' explaining his ideas. The Federal Government has also published similar ideas (though advocating native species) in a series called 'River Landscapes' (Dept. of Land and Water), which you should be able to find with Google.

Cheers

[curwalker]

You mean this book?
http://shop.abc.net.au/products/back-from-the-brink

What has that got to do with the price of eggs? What is your point? Where are you from anyway? Are you even familiar with biodiversity, the Australian environment and the history of landuse here etc? Sure, the colonialists wanted to change things but we know better now and are paying for their mistakes. Millions are spent to rectify the damage done.

First I am from Germany and yes I know what biodiversity is and in case you are not aware of it, Europe is a continent with lots of new arrivals, both human and non-human, as well and many have been here longer than any species you had in Australia (except for the wild-living dog).
So yes there is lots of data and experience with such efforts, and guess what, it didn't work. Killing the abundant "invaders" did not work only the already rare ones, many of the "invasive weeds" only could reach high numbers because of human altering of landscape. E.g aking the Rhine river cleaner actually helped the Chinese mitten crab, the ring-necked parrot and the mandarin duck did not became the threat for biodiversity it was claimed to be. In addition neither did the rabbit (who came from the Iberian peninsula by human hand and is therefore an "invader" in most parts of Europe) or the pheasant, which came from Asia. Neither was the raccoon, and the nutria could only become abundant because the beaver had been removed as a competition. Once wolves were back in Lusatia, the introduced mouflon gone pretty quickly. Many of the abundant water weeds a few decades back were native and so are many pests (e.g. boars).
And what does the history of landuse matter in this regard? Wasn't that landuse exactly what altered the Australian landscape more than any introduced species?
And how do you know that you actually do know better now?


Ok since a lot of people posted since I was here the last time I am gonna have to do it this way:

First, I don't get the majority of my infos from blogs and the like, but articles, books and official papers.

Saying that something is community and not science is not a reason for not demanding proof in my eyes either, because when you go by that, what you ultimately end up with is a shouting match where the winner is the party that shouts the loudest and is the most popular.
And here is the problem on environmental discourses:
They are usually not done with logic, evidence and sound reasoning but with getting opinions, appealing on an emotional level and plain propaganda.

Now the site feral.org was already known to me as well as the articles linked here, but there lies the problem. They are almost exclusively concerned with rabbit control, not with their effects or interactions with native species. But if such a thing makes it valid to just kill them all and assume that what little is there is true, then about 20 years back you should have said the same about the dingo, what apparently many did.
And as I stated earlier many of the species mentioned here have a long history of being hunted by humans and still they didn't die out. So how could current killing practices be effective, even in principle?
It is, at least I hope it is, common knowledge that you have to look both ways to reach the right decision but the more I read and the more I see that it is always the same that is said without any depth I can do no other than wonder whether all this opposition is based on sound reasoning and hard data or simply on repeating opinions. And considered that these are "invasive animals" I think the latter option is more likely.
Now, at least according to Mark Davis (DeWitt Wallace professor of biology at Macalester College, St Paul, Minnesota, USA) in the article "Don't judge species on their origins": "over the past few decades, ‘non-native’ species have been vilified for driving beloved ‘native’ species to extinction and generally polluting ‘natural’ environments. Intentionally or not, such characterizations have helped to create a pervasive bias against alien species that has been embraced by the public, conservationists, land managers and policy-makers, as well by as many scientists, throughout the world."
In addition:
"It wasn’t until the 1990s that ‘invasion biology’ became a discipline in its own right. By this point, partly fuelled by Elton’s book [note: Charles Elton, 1958, The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants], proponents of biodiversity preservation and ecological restoration commonly used military metaphors and exaggerated claims of impending harm to help convey the message that introduced species are the enemies of man and nature."
…
"Classifying biota according to their adherence to cultural standards of belonging, citizenship, fair play and morality does not advance our understanding of ecology. Over the past few decades, this perspective has led many conservation and restoration efforts down paths that make little ecological or economic sense."
So if this is the case all over the world, who says that it is different in Australia?
And Davis and his 18 mentioned colleagues are not the only ones I know of who question this "threat" attitude, it is simply the fastest I could find right now.

I am perfectly aware that it is said that rabbits destroy this and that but on what basis is it judge whether the result is good or bad?
In such a case it is usually just said that they cause erosion and destroy plants and that it supposedly takes a very long time to regenerate, but why then isn't Australia already devastated? How often does that really occur and is it simply due to the rabbits? If not, what if they are not the main culprit?
And where the effected species abundant before that or rare to begin with?

Also how do you know that eagles "won't starve without rabbits" in areas where rabbits are their main prey?

And why is those plants growing the right state of things, why isn't it wrong? Because of biodiversity (more to that in a few minutes)? Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't man-made fire very prevalent in Australia prior to the Europeans arrival? So on what basis is the state of plant communities without rabbits or any other introduced species deemed the right one? Wouldn't they be equally wrong since it is product of human interaction as well?
Therefore simply saying "have a good look at how much damage rabbits in plague did to the Australian environment" is not an argument in my eyes, since it a) doesn't say what state is the right one and b) implies that only rabbits can be a problem and not natives. But how often did rabbits really reach "plague" proportions and how often does that occur? And what is a "plague" proportion anyway? Without a definition of it such a statement is useless.
And by what scale was it assessed that the damage they did is "massive"?
Seriously, where is the scale? On what basis is a state considered the right one?
And if you don't know that, if you never looked the other way or what role rabbits play in full, how do you want to know whether all the killing will really do any good and not just perpetuate the problem?
Seriously, how?
Perhaps a better approach would not be to ask what they destroy, but what doesn't get destroyed. Like I said, Australia is not devastated by rabbits despite their over a century long occurrence and hunting definitely doesn't seem to be the factor limiting them. So if it's not hunting and, at least according to the claims, it is not a shortage of food, than what is it?
Again, if they are this scourge of the land they are portrayed to be, why haven't they devastated everything already?


Now to quote the Davis article again:
"But many of the claims driving people’s perception that introduced species pose an apocalyptic threat to biodiversity are not backed by data. Take the conclusion made in a 1998 paper[note: Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. & Losos, E. BioScience 48, 607–615 (1998)] that invaders are the second-greatest threat to the survival of threatened or endangered species after habitat destruction. Little of the information used to support this claim involved data, as the original authors were careful to point out. Indeed, recent analyses suggest that invaders do not represent a major extinction threat to most species in most environments — predators and pathogens on islands and in lakes being the main exception. In fact, the introduction of non-native species has almost always increased the number of species in a region.
The effects of non-native species may vary with time, and species that are not causing harm now might do so in the future. But the same is true of natives, particularly in rapidly changing environments."
In addition, a species doing harm now might no longer do so in the future.

Furthermore if you simply want to preserve the "variety of life" then by pure logic you would have to preserve the "Ferals" as well, no matter what effects their presence has. And here is the problem: Even if you use the hazy term of biodiversity and equate high biodiversity with ecological health as a basis than even at the time Europeans invaded Australia the Australian ecosystems already were unhealthy because many species already had died out long ago.
And here is another problem: biodiversity on what level and to what extent? If you state maximal biodiversity as a goal wouldn't that mean that things like flue would have to be preserved as well? And considered that e.g. the mixture of dingoes with non-dingo dogs is considered a threat to biodiversity doesn't that mean that we would have to label everyone that is "racially mixed" as a threat to biodiversity as well?
Of course not many would since many "environmental concepts" only work respectively are permitted because humans are arbitrarily separated from everything non-human, but I will not further comment on that here.
Fact is that all these species that you talk about have been in Australia longer than the hunting for extermination was and they are portrayed as these scourges of the landscape, but, again, if that is so and especially foxes, rabbits and cats breed so much and so abundant and destroy everything, please tell me why do you still have an ecosystem? Or don't you? Is the current one bad? If yes why? Is it dysfunctional? Then how do you know?

And if human landuse is the main source for environmental altering, why are the introduced species the main targets and not the human landuse? Or is it the target and that information simply doesn't get through all the way up here?

[Son of a Beach]

Curwalker. I agree on your point about scientific data. But criticising or questioning other people's opinions due to lack of scientific data without offering any scientific data or proofs to the contrary is not likely to progress the debate in a very useful way.

Or did I miss the counter-proofs?

[maddog]

It seems that the Shooters are opposed to effective feral control (baiting) on humanitarian grounds, with the fortunate coincidence that this will ensure the preservation of a 'game' species:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conse ... 22gy4.html

Cheers

[Pteropus]

Hi curwalker,
I have a hypothetical question for you. Assume you don’t feel well and you visit you doctor. Your doctor conducts some tests and discovers you have an internal parasite. Not much is known about the parasite except it can cause serious declines in human health. It won’t kill you but your quality of life will be dramatically reduced. There is, however, a trial of a drug for treating the parasite. The drug is new and the treatment outcomes are uncertain, but you can be a part of the trial and see if it is effective. You take the drug for a while but it is only partially successful. However, after a while the parasite has developed some immunity and your health declines again. You return to your doctor, who tells you there are new and more effective ways of treating the parasite.

So would you turn to your doctor and say, “Sure, let’s give this new method a crack because I want my quality of life to be how it was, when I was able to do the things I love. I want the parasite gone, or at least under control.”

Or would you say, “No, sorry, I don’t need to try controling this parasite anymore. Even though my quality of life has changed, the parasite within me is a natural invader that won’t kill me and I think I should just get used to living with it.”

It seems to me that you believe that pest species, in particular the rabbit in Australia, are not a problem or that we shouldn't bother trying to manage them. I do see your point, that some species are potentially not as detrimental as we fear. However, there are often lag times between the introduction of a species and the time they become naturalised. Some species might have little effect on other species, but some have potential to become over abundant and do negatively impact on other species or the environment, through processes such as competition and predation, which can potentially out-strip resources.

Much is written on population dynamics and resource use, and the impact and consequences of species that grow exponentially, out-stripping their resources. One might look at human populations and resource use and predict we are heading for a fall.

Oh, and I agree about the use of the word ‘plague’. It has no place in describing the abundances of animals and has no value. I never use it to describe an over abundance and never will.

However, the rabbit has been a major problem in Australia, and did devastate some areas, particularly arid and semi-arid rangelands. The only thing that has prevented further damage is the introduction of mixomitosis and rabbit calicivirus. If you want to know more on the rabbit, go to Google Scholar or Web of Science if you are in the position for access, and type in the search terms ‘rabbit’, ‘Australia’ and ‘impact’. You will see there is a plethora of quantitative studies. Sure, pests such as the rabbit will always be here, but is that a reason to give up on management? Like in my parasite analogy at the beginning of this post, should we just give up on management programmes?

...Fact is that all these species that you talk about have been in Australia longer than the hunting for extermination was and they are portrayed as these scourges of the landscape, but, again, if that is so and especially foxes, rabbits and cats breed so much and so abundant and destroy everything, please tell me why do you still have an ecosystem? Or don't you? Is the current one bad? If yes why? Is it dysfunctional? Then how do you know?

Of course there is an ecosystem that is still functioning. Rabbits, foxes and cats haven’t wiped out everything, and to suggest they will is ridiculous. But there are winners and losers. Rabbits have in the past denuded areas of vegetation, and many of the losers are the small mammals, birds and reptiles that are preyed upon by cats and foxes or out competed by rabbits. Species that might play an important role in ecosystem function, such as pollinators or insectivores, might be reduced and this can have on going effects to ecosystem health and functionality. A good place to look for info on this topic would be work by Chris Dickman (Professor in terrestrial ecology at The University of Sydney).

...And if human landuse is the main source for environmental altering, why are the introduced species the main targets and not the human landuse? Or is it the target and that information simply doesn't get through all the way up here?

I don’t think anyone has suggested that managing pest species is the main target of environmental management. This is a topic on hunting in State Forests and so hunting and pest management is the topic of conversation. Once again it is easy to do some research, and find that protecting the environment is not all about managing pest species but environmental management requires an integrated landscape approach. But this all depends on what management outcomes are.

Are you familiar with the concept of ecological resilience? In short, ecological resilience is the capacity for an ecosystem to respond and recover from disturbance. One concept in ecological resilience is that there are alternative states that an ecosystem can have, and there is a threshold at which altering the ecosystem will send it into a new state. Some ecosystems would have low thresholds or tolerances to disturbance, others would have higher thresholds. Once in the new state it might be very difficult or impossible, to return the system to its previous state. Of course there is not a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ state, which are arbitrary concepts, but a healthy environment with all the ecosystem services it provides us is better than the unknown future that may include expensive restoration programmes. Prevention is better than the cure...

[Nuts]

One of the events that left a distaste for dogging was the fact that they lost a dog... I'd imagine if a dog would survive this dog would. I'm trying to make sense of it being a good addition to the environment? If so should we release the hounds ?

[maddog]

I'm trying to make sense of it being a good addition to the environment? If so should we release the hounds ?

It is consistent with ecological theory, though not generally recognized as such by environmentalists, that the release of an introduced organism (such as a dog, cat, or woolly mammoth) may be of environmental benefit to fill a vacant ecological niche, but only in a circumstance where the indigenous equivalent is extinct or its reintroduction is not viable (i.e. the niche is vacant).

However, placental mammals dogs and cats are often 'fitter' than their marsupial cousins, so they can outcompete (and actively hunt) the natives (competitors for the niche) where they do exist (i.e. the niche is occupied), leading to the extinction of the native. Many would object to this as representing a 'McDonaldization' (homogenization) of ecosystems, with reduced biological value, and something that we should try to prevent with an integrated feral managment stategy.

Cheers

[curwalker]

@Son of a Beach
What sort of example would you want? Something in general or specifically from Australia?

@Pteropus
I don't think that your hypothetical question is a fitting comparison. Medicine has a good idea about in what sort of condition a human body can be considered healthy. Based on decades of research and experimentation, but still with a lot of holes.
But on what is the assessing of a certain ecological state based on?
In addition, what you seem to suggest is the old "better safe than sorry", while this is understandable, it carries the real danger of seeing problems that are not there and thereby overlooking the actual ones.
Like I said, who has a bigger impact on Australian ecosystems? The Ferals or your own species?

I am aware of the effect of rabbits in arid and semi-arid landscapes, but the question is whether there effect is due to them being rabbits or being herbivores. Every herbivore can cause erosion, so what evidence is there that this would only have happened due to the rabbits? And what impact did climate have?
And you said it yourself "some areas". So how many are we actually talking about?

As for them "whiping" out everything:
I think you might have to take a step back and take a look at how all this talk about their effects actually presents itself. It's sounds as though they are some apocalyptic threat to everything around them.

And yes, I am familiar with the concept of ecological resistence. It is common up here and happened constant times. Albeit its debatable whether you can call those instances disturbances in every case. E.g. I know of no detrimental impacts by the introduction of the rabbit or the pheasant over here. Neither is the one of the ring-necked parrot or the pink flamingo.

[walkinTas]

Probably none of us are old enough to have experienced rural Australia pre myxomatosis (Myxoma virus) and rabbit haemorrhagic disease (calicivirus) but the economic and environmental devastation caused by rabbits is well and truly documented both in historical records and in current scientific literature. Even in my childhood in rural Tasmania we collected rabbit carcases by the ton. In terms of cost to control and in terms of the damage they do, rabbits are still one of Australia's major environmental pest species.

• http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/RABFS3_impacts.pdf "Low-density rabbit populations can cause significant damage to native plants and pastures, suggesting there might be no ‘safe’ level of rabbit density".
• http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/pest-animals/lc0298-rabbits-and-their-impact "A single pair of rabbits can increase in 18 months to 184 individuals" "The impact of rabbits on the Australian environment has been disastrous. Rabbits have significantly altered the botanical composition of extensive areas of natural habitat."
• http://www.ddmrb.org.au/Files/Managing%20Vertebrate%20Pests.%20%20Rabbits.pdf "Today, rabbit damage is worst in the rangelands, where a whole suite of plant species and their dependent animals are threatened with severe range contraction or extinction."
• http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/rabbit.pdf "Feral rabbits may have caused the extinction of several small (up to 5.5 kilograms) ground-dwelling mammals of Australia’s arid lands, and have contributed to the decline in numbers of many native plants and animals."
• http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-rabbit-background.pdf "the decline and extinction of many of Australia’s terrestrial mammals that weigh between 35 and 5500 g (sometimes referred to as critical-weight-range species), particularly in the arid and semiarid zones, have been associated with the appearance of the rabbit (Calaby 1969)."
• http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/docs/mcleod.pdf "Rabbits, foxes, feral pigs and feral cats were shown to inflict the greatest cost impact on the Australian economy".

@curwalker There is plenty of info out there, so I guess it is just up to you to do the reading now.

[curwalker]

Ok, with all due respect, but I have to say this now:
And so could you!
There is also plenty of info out there when "invaders" did not have the impact that was claimed (e.g. the racoon, the ring-necked parrot, the Australian wild dog, the feral dogs of Italy, etc.), respectively that the mechanisms to control them where proven to be ineffective.
More than one person here told me to "go lock it up", as if I didn't know the info already, but did anybody ever bother to do the same?

And I know you meant well walkinTas, but all of what you showed me is already known to me. And this is why I ask questions. Like in other parts of "invasive ecology" the talk is mostly "may", "potential", "significant", "severe", "many" etc. etc. Hard data, actual numbers, which are necessary to give such a claim it's truth, are practically not there, except when it come to estimation of economic impact.
And when it comes to on what basis the resulting or previous state is good there is also nothing.
Why always this hazy talk? If they have been so long in Australia with such massive impact and as well documented as you claim, why is there no data that is clearer on their ecological impact?
What if these weeds are not the sign of a healthy ecosystem? But rather one out of balance? After all, the rabbits came after the first Europeans and where is the data on how the various ecosystems looked before that? Often in environmental discourses some state was arbitrary deemed the right one, it happened up here with the state of the 19th century, it happened in America with the state of pre-British American and here I can give a well known example:
The big herds of buffalo of the American plains are mostly regarded as an example of pre-British America, as a sign of nature's bounty and health. However at that time (17-1800s) the vast majority of the Native American population of the plains had been eradicated by imported diseases and so the buffalo's main predator was nearly non-existent, which points to the conclusion that those big-herds where rather a sign of "an ecosystem out of balance". This was made public by Charles C. Mann in his book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus". As evidence for this he pointed out the lack of Bison reports in the early 16th century or lack of places which southeast native people named after the buffalo.
So what if something similar is going on in Australia? The ecosystem that results due to rabbits is not the one without them, no arguing in that, but is there any actual clue how it looked without the impacts caused by European activity?

And in addition, where is the proof that all this killing keeps "it's promise" of controlling the problem? Sure local populations might collapse due to hunting, but we had the same situation over here with foxes and there it was only temporary, on the big scale it actually increased their numbers.
So what if all this talk about their impact steers the focus away from developing an effective method of rabbit control?
Like I already said, they are represented as this Mega-threat and that a lot is done, but it seems that the results are lacking.
As hard as that sounds it wouldn't be the first time that the very things one does to make the environment better actually results in a state that makes it worse in the eyes of the respective party. So has it ever been checked whether the control methods really make it better and not actually worse?


I am perfectly capable of acknowledging their danger and based on the presented information this seems to be the case. However, I still have this nagging feeling that something is not right there because of the problems I mentioned. Why so hazy? If they are so abundant, why not more hard data? Why is there still no solution to the problems they cause? Is it money? Is it time? What is it?
And also, shouldn't rabbit populations that devastate their surroundings either have to migrate to other places or die out?

[gayet]

Something may not be right in your feelings for any number of reasons - a lack of appreciation of the difference in flora between Europe and Australia and hence the differences possible in responses to feral herbivores, the relatively short time period between rabbit number reduction following myxomatosis introduction and the remaining population returning to large numbers which prevented any acceptable research being undertaken on native regeneration and repopulation, the clear visual evidence - yes anecdotal, but evident to all at the time - of the destruction wrought by rabbits across a range of habitats in Aus.

And also, shouldn't rabbit populations that devastate their surroundings either have to migrate to other places or die out?

They most certainly did migrate, hence the appearance of rabbits across the nation in a very short space of time after release.

While no doubt you are simply looking for a discussion, the challenges to information provided that doesn't meet your "requirements" suggests you are not open to conflicting views.

As for racoons, Italian feral dogs etc, I do not know what the impacts were or were not. In relation to the Australian wild dog (dingo), there is little information available as to its impact at the time of introduction - a number of theories, involving mainland thylacines etc, but more conjecture on scientific grounds than any evidence that may suit you. Human settlement has altered the landscape in flora and fauna terms, both Aboriginal and white settlement. No doubt about that, and the changes cannot be reversed but we can try to limit further impacts. If that means attempting to limit the damage caused to the native habitats by rabbits, cane toads, feral cats, foxes, deer .... and the list goes on, I don't see that as a bad thing.

But back to the original topic, recreational hunting is unlikely to have a significant or sustainable impact in reducing feral numbers over the long term, over the entire nation.

[corvus]

curwalker,
Have you ever considered writing a book about Australian wild dogs and introduced Fauna because your tenacity on this subject is becoming a tad obsessive

The Rabbit as a native of Europe is not a problem per say over there however with a lack of real predators and ideal conditions just like in its original home Spain, it was really conducive to an explosive reproductive birth rate when it encountered the same benign and warmer environment in Australia .
We indeed needed to spend buckets of money just recently to eradicate Rabbits from a remote uninhabited Island down here in Tasmania to ensure our Native Birds would survive, the sting in the tail was that the previously eradicated Feral Cat on that Island was the outcome of Rabbit increase

[forest]

While no doubt you are simply looking for a discussion, the challenges to information provided that doesn't meet your "requirements" suggests you are not open to conflicting views.

^^^ Yep, What she said ^^^. Seems a little hard to please.
Must be an Aussie thing but I feel that if someone will not listen to what we are saying (And documentation / historical data has been provided) that sometimes we just shut off and stop listening.... (insert grey noise )

[Son of a Beach]

@Son of a Beach
What sort of example would you want? Something in general or specifically from Australia?

I am perfectly capable of acknowledging their danger and based on the presented information this seems to be the case. However, I still have this nagging feeling that something is not right there because of the problems I mentioned. Why so hazy? If they are so abundant, why not more hard data? Why is there still no solution to the problems they cause? Is it money? Is it time? What is it?
And also, shouldn't rabbit populations that devastate their surroundings either have to migrate to other places or die out?

I'm not really taking sides on this particular part of the debate. I was merely commenting on your style of the debate from the side lines, I suppose, in the hope of progressing it a bit better from both sides. A vain hope I suppose.

However, you have repeatedly asked people for scientific data, and hard facts, but have not really provided much on the opposing point of view. So to answer the question you directed to me... Something more concrete than a "hazy feeling" would be a good start. But to take my tongue out of my cheek, simply supply what it is that you are asking others to supply.

You are asking people to show hard facts, or scientific data, or some such, that ferral animals have really caused the damage that people say they have. I'm suggesting that you should supply hard data to show that they haven't caused such damage. Many people have supplied links which you say are not good enough.

Where is your hard data about the lack of damage by ferral animals? (I'm willing to admit I may have missed it - this group of related topics has a lot in it, and I have skimmed some.)

If neither side of that particular part of the debate is willing to supply such hard data, then the whole thing is just opinion on both sides, and your word against the majority, and it just isn't going to be very convincing, when the majority has already made up their mind.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit off track and was just commenting on the debate itself, rather than participating in it. I should probably butt out.

[walkinTas]

And I know you meant well walkinTas, but all of what you showed me is already known to me.

I only took a quick look at the "rabbit" question in Australia and did not intend to, or attempt to, extrapolate to other species or other countries. However, on rabbits alone, nothing you've said so far would lead me to believe you know or understand the arguments presented in those papers or websites.

So what if something similar is going on in Australia? The ecosystem that results due to rabbits is not the one without them, no arguing in that, but is there any actual clue how it looked without the impacts caused by European activity?

There is no way one can argue we are better off because we have rabbits. One of the sites listed above explains that rabbits have several effects on native herbivores. Rabbits compete for available food in vast numbers, denuding the landscape and making life very difficult for other herbivores, and completely stopping some native plants from regenerating. They are also responsible for maintaining artificially high populations of the main predators (all introduced species themselves, esp. fox and cat) which further threatens native species. All up, the impact is totally negative. Rabbits are suspected of being "the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia". I suspect that should be qualified as "after humans and land clearing, rabbits are suspected....", but I don't know for sure if my suspicions are true.

...Why always this hazy talk?

Even those few paper and sites contain very specific statements about the disaster caused by rabbits and the enormous cost to Australia. There are plenty more out there for you to read.

I suspect you might just be digging your heals in for the sake of an argument so I think I will leave you in peace to do your own googling.

[Nuts]

The 'do nothing' approach is always an option. I'd say in this case it's more relevant from an economic basis than anything environmentally driven. Unfortunately, being seen to do something (while doing nothing) is jam on the toast for politicians. We all know that feral management has nothing to do with these regulation changes, it's public information, the fact has been discussed on here yet seems easy to ignore?

No doubt the environment would find a balance curwalker, I have little doubt it would look similar to what it will anyway. All we have really done with rabbits is to slow progress through the introduction of what would be considered a successful introduction of devastating disease. Dramatic, drastic means, even so a stop-gap. Obviously judged economically viable at the time of release.

[Earthling]

Being a snake relocator I always tell people a snake needs three main things to live on your property:
1. Water source close by
2. Food such as rats, mice etc
3. Nice hides (wood, iron sheets, left over building materials, long grass etc)
Unless one of these things is removed we can certainly remove the snake however, another one will come in and take its place. Exactly the same logic can be used with feral animals.
The easiest to control on large properties in marginal sheep/cattle regions is water. Using an electronic device and tagging stock which then opens and shuts a vermin proof gate at a water source will stop ferals and other ‘pests’ (roos, dingoes…) having access to one of the main reasons why they live there – man-made water points. Also filling all dams on properties that have gone from livestock to solely grain production would also be of assistance.

For all those hunters and killers who are soooo concerned about the environment that they are putting their own precious time and money into hunting and killing animals, there are actually much bigger things you can do that will greatly assist the environment than the 1% per annum feral reduction. Something that will cost you less both in time and money. Something that will reduce your Greenhouse methane gas emissions by 28+%. Will allow less land to be needed for agriculture destroying practices, hence helping the environment even more and be healthier for you. Go vegan


http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/anima ... 1zr6t.html