Recreational hunting in the NSW State Forests a report

[Nuts]

Vegans are rather bland, can I have bbq sauce on mine?

[Earthling]

Vegans are rather bland, can I have bbq sauce on mine?

What ever floates your boat....however, Im not sure if this is the place to discuss sauce fetishes...

[maddog]

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

Earthling,
I would have thought that removing habitat and water from pests, would have a significant impact on non-target species (including the rare and endangered), something that a well-targeted shooting / baiting program would not have. Also, my understanding is that the intensive horticultural activities (i.e. monocultures with the implicit addition of fertiliser, herbicides, and pesticides) that would be necessary if the human population of the world were to adopt a pure vegan diet is of far greater environmental impact (in terms of habitat destruction and exclusive use of land area) than grazing animals. Is this incorrect?

[Earthling]

Earthling,
I would have thought that removing habitat and water from pests, would have a significant impact on non-target species (including the rare and endangered), something that a well-targeted shooting / baiting program would not have. Also, my understanding is that the intensive horticultural activities (i.e. monocultures with the implicit addition of fertiliser, herbicides, and pesticides) that would be necessary if the human population of the world were to adopt a pure vegan diet is of far greater environmental impact (in terms of habitat destruction and exclusive use of land area) than grazing animals. Is this incorrect?

Removing water yes your correct, it will target non-target species. However, one of the reasons why we have more native kangaroos and dingoes in many marginal farming areas is because we have provided water for them. This works across much of Australia and has severe implications for many smaller animals. Animals that adapted to periods of drought and dry conditions where large predators such as dingoes with higher water needs could not live, now have dingoes to contend with as of farmers water points. This works with many species(not just kangaroos and dingoes) that now can move to areas eating local flora and fauna, thus impacting the local species, making more species become rare and endangered. Well targeted shooting and baiting whilst working in the short term, rarely works for any period of time and needs time and time again to be redone, not an effective use of funds. Controlling access to water points is costly at the start, but with the right system would need little maintenance apart from batteries every few years and chipping of all new stock.

Yes the common assumption that we would need more land to feed humans a vegan diet is false. Currently around a third to a half of cereals, legumes and vegetable protein produced globally is fed to animals (stats vary). From this humans get around 20% of that grain back as meat/protein. Converting cereals, legumes and vegetable protein to a meat protein with a 80% loss is far from efficient. Taking into consideration the main reason for the obesity epidemic throughout the westernised world is eating too much protein/meat, it could be assumed that humans could comfortable be fed enough protein from the 30-50% of grain humans currently consume. Thus around 30-50% of cropping land would no longer be needed to feed grains to animals...something to send a shiver down the spine of any grain farmer . This does not include all the land used for grass fed livestock, which would also be saved if humans globally ate a vegan diet. The remaining percentage of grains produced are used in manufacturing industries.

So yes, if you want to do the most to save the environment, go vegan.

Soybeans 39.6% protein
Beef 36% protein
Melon Seeds 33% protein
Lentils, pulses and peanuts 23.7% protein

The average adult needs around 50grams of protein per day.

http://www.healthaliciousness.com/artic ... rotein.php

[Son of a Beach]

Go vegan. Or go hunting. That way you still get your meat without modifying the environment much. And according to most of the reading in this topic (and others), and in my own experience, this ends up having little to no impact on the population of the animals being hunted. (Of course I'm sure that would change if everybody was out hunting their own meat).

[Dale]

[Thread drift.]

Taking into consideration the main reason for the obesity epidemic throughout the westernised world is eating too much protein/meat,

Keen to see the sources on this Earthling. I was under the impression the obesity epidemic was a result of sedentary lifestyle and excessive refined carbohydrates and sugar.

[/Thread Drift End]

[Pteropus]

it is fascinating to see how a discussion flows and changes, from a report on hunting in state forests to veganism!

Go vegan. Or go hunting. That way you still get your meat without modifying the environment much. And according to most of the reading in this topic (and others), and in my own experience, this ends up having little to no impact on the population of the animals being hunted. (Of course I'm sure that would change if everybody was out hunting their own meat).

Just on hunting not modifying the environment much, one has to be cautious on this note. While recreational hunting doesn't necessarily have a negative impact on many target species, and as I and a few others have discussed, it can even have a positive impact, leading to increases in abundances, this will depend on the biology and ecology of any given species. There is the famous case of the passenger pigeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon) from North America, which was thought to be one of the most numerous bird species on that continent in the 19th century. By the early 20th century passenger populations crashed and extinction followed, due to hunting and landscape change (clearing for agriculture). All populations have some threshold at which below this point the population can crash.

Feeding increasing human population is a challenge in much of the world, and bush meat trade has the potential to cause catastrophic declines in many wild populations. However, in many places, this is one of the only sources of food, especially when traditional agriculture and natural areas are replaced by cash crops such as palms for palm oil. Our own intensive agricultural systems are the main causes of loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction. Every organism modifies its environment in some way, and we humans modify it more than any other organism. And our drastically modified environment is the price we pay for feeding ourselves AND I suppose our economic system.

mmm I wonder where this discussion will head to next!

[Earthling]

[Thread drift.]

Taking into consideration the main reason for the obesity epidemic throughout the westernised world is eating too much protein/meat,

Keen to see the sources on this Earthling. I was under the impression the obesity epidemic was a result of sedentary lifestyle and excessive refined carbohydrates and sugar.

[/Thread Drift End]

I am mistaken, its not the main reason, however meat does have a role to play and as you say sedentary lifestyle and excessive refined carbohydrates and sugar does as well.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n ... 0945a.html

http://www.lowdensitylifestyle.com/what ... ting-meat/

[maddog]

Earthling,
Looking out of my study window I can see a dairy cows grazing on river flats, and beyond them the Richmond River. This river would require many hundreds of kilometres of high quality fencing (similar to that of the rabbit proof fence on the NSW / Qld border) in order to keep pests away. Each time there was a flood (every 2-3 years) it would require extensive repairs or replacement, not just a few batteries.

The cattle coexist with well-spaced red gums (and other trees) providing the cows with shade, and habitat for native animals. Grasses do well with the cattle (as they do with fire), as the cattle tend to eliminate woody weeds before they can become established, leaving a landscape not dissimilar from that described by early settlers in many rural areas. This pattern is repeated on nearby beef cattle farms - healthy fat cows grazing on grass, well spaced trees on arable land, and forests at rivers, gullies, and on ridges.

I also understand that, thanks to modern farming techniques (fertiliser, machinery, etc), we are able to produce more food on less land - leaving more available for conservation purposes.

Thus, I find it difficult to reconcile your claims with the reality I can see from my window and indeed throughout rural NSW. I suspect that you have underestimated the cost and difficulties inherent in your scheme to deprive pests of habitat and water, and overestimated the impact of eating meat. It has however been demonstrated that a well targeted strategy of culling (shooting and poisoning) may have some beneficial impact on pests. It has also been demonstrated that eating a protein rich diet is good for the figure (e.g. the Atkins diet).

[Pteropus]

...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.

Earthling ...This river would require many hundreds of kilometres of high quality fencing (similar to that of the rabbit proof fence on the NSW / Qld border) in order to keep pests away. Each time there was a flood (every 2-3 years) it would require extensive repairs or replacement, not just a few batteries.

This system that Earthling has mentioned actually exists. I can’t recall the name but it is an automated livestock watering system that recognises cattle, but excludes other species from watering points. I have heard mixed reports on its effectiveness though. In many places, particularly arid and semi-arid regions, dams are already filled in, bores are capped and other watering points fenced, mainly to control roo numbers. As far as fencing goes, riparian zones are often fenced from livestock already. There are probably millions of km of barbed wire across our landscape and most farms are fenced, so what is a few more thousand kms of wire? However, that barbed wire is a menace to bats, birds and other wildlife, native and non-native alike...but that is another issue (which, the way this discussion has gone we could discuss these extra things till the cows come home )

...I also understand that, thanks to modern farming techniques (fertiliser, machinery, etc), we are able to produce more food on less land - leaving more available for conservation purposes.

I agree we are producing more food, but I don't agree we are using less land OR that more land is available for conservation purposes.
But livestock production is known to be detrimental to the environment (land clearing, soil compaction, methane production etc), but so does intensive cropping. We all need to eat, and there are more of us than ever. But not all land is arable for cropping, and water is not always available, so it is probably not sustainable to feed the Earths human population on fruit and vegetables alone at present.

[Tony]

[Thread drift.]

Taking into consideration the main reason for the obesity epidemic throughout the westernised world is eating too much protein/meat,

Keen to see the sources on this Earthling. I was under the impression the obesity epidemic was a result of sedentary lifestyle and excessive refined carbohydrates and sugar.

[/Thread Drift End]

Some latest published research Hunter gatherer clue to obesity, seems that obesity is mainly caused by processed foods high in sugar and fat and large portion sizes, a sedentary lifestyle appears to play a smaller role than thought.

Tony

[Dale]

+1

I find as I get older diet has a greater effect on weight than exercise, in my younger years I could eat more crap and get away with it providing I wasn't a couch potato.

This year I've upped my my intake of protein and vegetables focusing on fresh food sources and cut out refined foods. I've dropped a few kilos despite exercising less as I'm letting some long term injuries heal.

[maddog]

Pteropus,

On the viability of fencing water off from pests, you will need more than a little barbed wire to deprive pests of water (of which there are many sources). The Qld / NSW Rabbit proof fence is well maintained by a crew of permanent Qld Government employees who patrol from one end to the other repairing holes in a bid to keep rabbits in NSW. The thinking justifying the expenditure, is it allows baiting programs to be implemented by either Government, independent of the other.

As to land use, the long term trends in agricultural land use around the world are all good, though this is not the common perception. My claim has its origins in a book by Julius Simon et al called 'The State of Humanity' (in particular Chapter 36, 38 & 42). Simon's work inspired Bjorn Lomberg work ('The Skeptical Environmentalist'), and the famous bets with such notable doomsayers as Paul Ehrich ('The Population Bomb').

Due to rapidly increasing yields per acre, advanced economies around the world have been able to abandon marginal farmland growing more food on the same or less land. When the third world increases its productivity we can expect similar improvements. For recent global trends, showing the gradual movement to less land:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG. ... play=graph

And more from less:

http://data.worldbank.org/topic/agricul ... evelopment

So agriculture as a proportion of land use has thus been falling to residential and industrial estates, hobby farms, forestry (incl. carbon offset schemes), and land set aside for conservation purposes (and now in NSW hunting and perhaps recreational four wheel driving). I also believe that National Parks now cover over 10% of NSW's total land mass, an area which has been massively increased since the first such area set aside in Australia - The Royal National Park.

So there really is no crisis, or reason to be vegan.

Cheers

[Pteropus]

Yes, I was thinking more about large herbivores, but they do fence of dams and the like. Goats are becoming the flavour of the month (goat is apparently the most eaten meat on Earth) and some graziers are beginning to put in goat proof fences, to keep goats in. I have seen them...where there is a will, there is a way.

As far as long term trends in agricultural land use being ‘all good’, tell that to the Amazon rainforest. Global biomes still decline at rates of 0.5-1% pa (e.g. Balmford and Cowling, (2006) Fusion or Failure? The future of conservation biology.) and the main cause of this decline is habitat loss through the processes of landscape change, mainly for agriculture. I have yet to see anything to the contrary, but I see plenty of articles on habitat loss and fragmentation, which continues on a global scale. In fact, a quick search on Google shows that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) state that:
“At present some 11 percent (1.5 billion ha) of the globe's land surface (13.4 billion ha) is used in crop production (arable land and land under permanent crops). This area represents slightly over a third (36 percent) of the land estimated to be to some degree suitable for crop production. The fact that there remain some 2.7 billion ha with crop production potential suggests that there is still scope for further expansion of agricultural land.”

and that
“it is estimated that about 30 percent of the world's land surface, or 4.2 billion ha, is suitable for rainfed agriculture”

and
“In reality, expansion of land in agricultural use takes place all the time. It does so mainly in countries that combine growing needs for food and employment with limited access to technology packages that could increase intensification of cultivation on land already in agricultural use. The data show that expansion of arable land continues to be an important source of agricultural growth in sub-Saharan Africa, South America and East Asia, excluding China (Table 4.7).”
(from this link)

So agriculture expands and has the potential to expand.

Maybe some conservation areas in NSW are increasing, but is this trend happening globally? If this were the case you would think people would be breathing a big sigh of relief that biodiversity was being protected. Yet this is not the case....

I have no desire to stop eating meat, but there is no doubt that our food production systems, both grazing livestock and crop production, has a negative impact on biodiversity. We just need to eat less meat....who needs a plate sized steak anyhow (and i have seen them!)

[maddog]

Pteropus,

The potential to increase area under agriculture is undoubted, the reality is that it is not happening - the World Bank figures make this clear. The net area required for agriculture around the world will not increase, because there is no need (as we now get more from less and will continue to do so into the future). I agree that the main land management problem is in the Third World, but this will change as they improve their practices and their living standards rise (it has everywhere else).

As for trends in global populations of threatened species, these things are difficult to reliably measure, and subject to political manipulation and misrepresentation. but it should be remembered that most extinctions have Darwinian causes not anthropogenic ones (threatened species are not amongst the fittest). So preserve them when we can, but we too will all be dead in the long run.

Cheers

[Pteropus]

Pteropus,

The potential to increase area under agriculture is undoubted, the reality is that it is not happening - the World Bank figures make this clear. The net area required for agriculture around the world will not increase, because there is no need (as we now get more from less and will continue to do so into the future). I agree that the main land management problem is in the Third World, but this will change as they improve their practices and their living standards rise (it has everywhere else).

As for trends in global populations of threatened species, these things are difficult to reliably measure, and subject to political manipulation and misrepresentation. but it should be remembered that most extinctions have Darwinian causes not anthropogenic ones (threatened species are not amongst the fittest). So preserve them when we can, but we too will all be dead in the long run.

Cheers

Yes, I just looked at the latest data from the FAO and found that indeed that there has been a slight decrease in area under agriculture. So I will give you that.

Area of global land under agriculture between 1961 and 2010

Yet this doesn't change the fact that new areas are still being cleared for cultivation (food production and cash crops). So yes, perhaps there is more crop being produced for a slightly less area, but habitat is still destroyed, much of it for more agriculture. (http://www.iucn.org/iyb/about/biodiversity_crisis/)

That most species extinctions have 'Darwinian causes and not anthropogenic' is an interesting thing to say. Competition is an evolutionary process, AND species are going extinct through competition for resources and habitat with humans. So it is both Darwinian and Antrhopogenic causes that are causing species extinctions. There is a lot of literature on habitat loss being the primary driver of species' extinctions (e.g. Fahrig, 2001; Pereira et al., 2004; Smith & Zollner, 2005). Habitat loss has contributed to the extinction of 784 known species in the past 500 years, and is the main threat to 86% of threatened birds, 86% of threatened mammals and 88% of threatened amphibians (Baillie et al., 2004). And what is the main cause of habitat loss? Humans clearing habitat for agriculture. So humans ARE the major cause of extinctions, at least in the last several hundred years.

As to threatened species not being the fittest, that could be argued too, depending on the definition of fitness...and we could go on and on, but I think this topic has gone way off track here....

Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S.N. (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Asseeement. IUCN Publications Services Unit, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Fahrig, L. (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation, 100, 65-74
Pereira, H.M., Daily, G.C. & Roughgarden, J. (2004) A framework for assessing the relative vulnerability of species to land-use change. Ecological Applications, 14, 730-742
Smith, W.P. & Zollner, P.A. (2005) Sustainable management of wildlife habitat and risk of extinction. Biological Conservation, 125, 287

[Earthling]

However, one of the reasons why we have more native kangaroos and dingoes in many marginal farming areas is because we have provided water for them. This works across much of Australia and has severe implications for many smaller animals. Animals that adapted to periods of drought and dry conditions where large predators such as dingoes with higher water needs could not live, now have dingoes to contend with as of farmers water points.

Maddog, as can be seen I didnt mention anything about fencing rivers, lakes etc, just water provided by farmers. Also I did not mention all of Australia, but much of Australia, meaning marginal land as thats the areas I was talking about.

[maddog]

Maddog, as can be seen I didnt mention anything about fencing rivers, lakes etc, just water provided by farmers. Also I did not mention all of Australia, but much of Australia, meaning marginal land as thats the areas I was talking about.

Earthling,

If by marginal you mean arid, then you have slightly reduced the magnitude of the endeavour. However, marginal land (in the typical use of the term) also includes steep, swampy (e.g. wetlands), poor soil (e.g. low in available nutrients, volatile clays, acid sulphate, sand, etc), rocky terrain, etc. In my region, where there are plenty of watering points available for pests (natural and constructed), most marginal land is used to grow trees or as conservation reserves. Land out west that is considered marginal for sheep or cattle (excepting dairy), would not generally be considered suitable for cropping, unless it were arid land that could be irrigated (thus introducing water into an area).

So thats the problem isn't it - there is plenty of water other than that provided by farmers. If your scheme is to work, all of it would need to be fenced. So it is fair comment that well-targeted culling programs based on shooting and baiting are (in reality) far more practical and cost effective as short to medium term pest control measures (which is why they are used).

[Earthling]

Maddog marginal land by Wiki definition is: "In farming, poor-quality land that is likely to yield a poor return. It is the last land to be brought into production and the first land to be abandoned. Examples are desert fringes in Africa and mountain areas in the UK."

For my example I was looking at much of Australia that is either arid or semi-arid. The Arid and semi-arid zone constitutes over 70% of Australia's land area (James, Landsberg & Morton, 1995)
Source: James, C. D., Landsberg, J. & Morton, S. R. (1995) Ecological functioning in arid Australia and research to assist conservation of biodiversity. Pacific Conservation Biology. Vol. 2:126-42

When I was out western Queensland for waaay to long I had heard one farmer had tried my suggested method and it had worked to some degree (farmers out there describe their land as marginal to semimarginal - few average to good years, then a few very bad years). The degree it did not work is that kangaroos and dingoes will move from a neighbouring property onto the property with fenced man-made water sources. So the failure was the area on trial was not bigger than the target animals range. Remember I am not wanting to totally eradicate all kangaroos or dingoes as you are infering with the fence everything interpretation. This would eradicate emus, wallabies, numbats etc...not exactly an ideal in my book.

[maddog]

The degree it did not work is that kangaroos and dingoes will move from a neighbouring property onto the property with fenced man-made water sources. So the failure was the area on trial was not bigger than the target animals range. Remember I am not wanting to totally eradicate all kangaroos or dingoes as you are infering with the fence everything interpretation. This would eradicate emus, wallabies, numbats etc...not exactly an ideal in my book.

Earthling,

That is the problem - pests that are non-sessile (mobile) will only be controlled by your method if there is extensive habitat or water removal, which would necessarily have significant adverse effects on non-target species (which a well designed shooting or baiting program should not have). I concede that it is possible your idea may work as part of an integrated pest management approach, but by itself is unlikely to be effective unless implemented at anything less than a grand scale.

As to inferring that you wanted to eradicate all kangaroos or dingos, this is incorrect. I was thinking that you did not want to eradicate anything, and see your water / habitat deprival strategy as a humane method of pest control (relocation), consistent with your vegan ethic.

[Earthling]

I concede that it is possible your idea may work as part of an integrated pest management approach, but by itself is unlikely to be effective unless implemented at anything less than a grand scale.
As to inferring that you wanted to eradicate all kangaroos or dingos, this is incorrect. I was thinking that you did not want to eradicate anything, and see your water / habitat deprival strategy as a humane method of pest control (relocation), consistent with your vegan ethic.

We agree on something! Time to break out the party poppers on that one
I too feel the only way it would work would be on a large scale, just as 'professional' shooting and 1080 baiting is done on a grand scale.

[colinm]

There are no vegetarians - just selective anorexics.

[maddog]

I too feel the only way it would work would be on a large scale, just as 'professional' shooting and 1080 baiting is done on a grand scale.

Earthling,

If you believe your scheme is worthy of a grand scale, perhaps you could share your ideas on how to mitigate the effect of widespread water deprivation and habitat destruction on non-target species, that is implicit in your scheme?

[Earthling]

There are no vegetarians - just selective anorexics.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/tags/mma

I think you may need to review that outdated belief

[Earthling]

Earthling, If you believe your scheme is worthy of a grand scale, perhaps you could share your ideas on how to mitigate the effect of widespread water deprivation and habitat destruction on non-target species, that is implicit in your scheme?

Could you add some depth to your percieved problems?...your not giving much at all to work on...

[Nuts]

This is all getting pretty vague in relation to hunting..

Iv'e worked on a few riparian fencing/reveg projects. Like the concept of 'integrated pest management' i'd list the motivations in this order:

Political
Social
Economic


Altruistic Conservation

I can drive past (publicly funded) fenced re-vegetated sites that were reverted to lambing paddocks as soon as we left, gates put in, reveg not followed up, trees left to die over the summer. (For those in Tassie take a look at the 'green *& gold' landcare model site 000's of trees were planted there!) A little unfair perhaps as there are a lot of unscrupulous characters on the chain before farmers, just a practical measurable example. For all the investment the money actually spent on the ground was petty once filtered through various players.


Some of the concept of these projects undertaken on 'grand scale' may be noble but the reality & process certainly isn't.

[maddog]

Earthling, If you believe your scheme is worthy of a grand scale, perhaps you could share your ideas on how to mitigate the effect of widespread water deprivation and habitat destruction on non-target species, that is implicit in your scheme?

Could you add some depth to your percieved problems?...your not giving much at all to work on...

Earthling,

Plenty for you to work on, but first the water access issue:

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...

Removing water yes your correct, it will target non-target species...

The degree it did not work is that kangaroos and dingoes will move from a neighbouring property onto the property with fenced man-made water sources. So the failure was the area on trial was not bigger than the target animals range

Given that you have recognised that your grand scheme is not viable unless all potential water sources are to be secured with expensive fence networks covering large tracts of land, how do you fence water off from animals that you deem to be pests and wish to deprive of water, and not the animals that you view as desirable and wish to allow access to water. Ear-tags and gates for bandicoots as well as cattle?

[maddog]

I can drive past (publicly funded) fenced re-vegetated sites that were reverted to lambing paddocks as soon as we left, gates put in, reveg not followed up, trees left to die over the summer. (For those in Tassie take a look at the 'green *& gold' landcare model site ( the creek leading back from the midlands highway to the Jericho village) as an example..000's of trees were planted there!)...Some of the concept of these projects undertaken on 'grand scale' may be noble but the reality & process certainly isn't.

Nuts,

That type of problem must be fairly widespread, and has been recognised in a recent review of native vegetation legislation in NSW . The (draft) Native Vegetation Regulation 2012, assuming it becomes law, will prevent the clearing of vegetation that has been planted for a range of environmental purposes where grant money has been used, as the clearing will no longer be considered a routine activity (via s46(2)).

Cheers

[Earthling]

Given that you have recognised that your grand scheme is not viable unless all potential water sources are to be secured with expensive fence networks covering large tracts of land, how do you fence water off from animals that you deem to be pests and wish to deprive of water, and not the animals that you view as desirable and wish to allow access to water. Ear-tags and gates for bandicoots as well as cattle?

I guess you missed this post below:

However, one of the reasons why we have more native kangaroos and dingoes in many marginal farming areas is because we have provided water for them. This works across much of Australia and has severe implications for many smaller animals. Animals that adapted to periods of drought and dry conditions where large predators such as dingoes with higher water needs could not live, now have dingoes to contend with as of farmers water points.

Maddog, as can be seen I didnt mention anything about fencing rivers, lakes etc, just water provided by farmers. Also I did not mention all of Australia, but much of Australia, meaning marginal land as thats the areas I was talking about.

Which I find strange as you did quote it later...

[Nuts]

(m'dog) I understand there were a few really keen farmers involved then their mates that had to be talked into signing up. Wouldn't take much more regulation for them to choose not to be involved...
These guys didn't water the trees never mind cut them down.

It was just one example. Iv'e worked for a few large institutions/government agencies, these sorts of projects and they are always the same. The pollies and press turn up when they hear each other will be there but the projects were very much manipulated for political gain.. just like hunting and feral management has been and will be, moreso while ever they keep being mentioned in the same sentence.


Assuming we don't get stuck in a la nina event the numbers will stabilise. As ferals become a problem looking for feed and water there will be calls for culling and liberationists calling for an end to it preferring animals die a natural death in roadside drains. In the meantime pollies and lobbyists will make the most of the situation.

Sounds a bit cynical perhaps but meaningful long term conservation outcomes are rare. The sorts of change needed on any grand scale would make pollies cringe.

I'm thinking that if current park users really want to promote preservation of true 'wilderness' areas a good place to start would be a category of land with No access .. traded for reserves where hunting is allowed (or as a basis to argue against hunting).. Locking up land may not make much conservation sense either but then (to me) not much of this is about conservation..