First horses, then cats, dogs and now bats

[maddog]

G’day Whitefang,

The case that the dingo is a separate species has been put forward, but this does no more than provide a roadmap for debate. The idea remains controversial and is certainly not universally accepted. The Australian Museum, Wikipedia, the Smithsonian Institute, etc., continue to classify the dingo as a dog.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[FootTrack]

G’day Travis,

The culling of any animal at a particular location can be justified where it can be reliably demonstrated that a species is imposing serious environmental or economic costs. But it would be a mistake to believe that because an animal causes problems in one area it should be persecuted in another. Unfortunately the current societal debate seems preoccupied with the labels ‘feral’ and ‘native’, as if this is enough of a reason to slaughter harmless critters. If a ‘dingo’ is good whereas a ‘feral dog’ is bad that’s fine, just explain the difference.

In reality, and perhaps more often than not, ‘feral’ species are benign or may play a positive environmental role. The proposition that feral cats are causing extinctions in any but arid / semi-areas of the Australian mainland is tenuous at best. In those areas cull to be sure, but in other areas we are left clutching at straws to find justification. The consumption of a few penny lizards and several grasshoppers a day just doesn't cut it. We are being guided by xenophobic prejudice dressed up as science and not science itself. Environmentalism and nationalism are particularly objectionable when they take such a form.

Cheers,

Maddog.

Don't get me wrong, I would not get a "kick" out of culling these animals and it is certainly something I would prefer not to be doing...however, I think if some sort of action is not taken soon to reduce feral animal numbers, we are going to continue to lose species to extinction. I understand your point that in some areas feral species make a positive contribution to the environment, and of course, in an ideal world it would be nice to think that we could maintain the numbers of "positively" impacting animals whilst reducing the number of "negatively" impacting animals. In practice though, I think this is a largely unrealistic and unachievable goal. There are few if any barriers across Australia to prevent the spread of feral animals, so as soon as a population of "negatively" impacting animals are reduced, neighbouring "positively" impacting animals are immediately going to opportunistically move into this once-occupied area. Feral animals don't identify themselves as "positively" or "negatively" impacting nor are their actions directed around this. Their impacts are merely an off-shoot of the situation/environment they see themselves in. Therefore, when an area opens up next-door due to the selective culling you speak of, where they will be challenged less to survive, the "positively" impacting animals will move and as a consequence become "negatively" impacting animals. Given that the greater majority of feral animals in Australia cause environmental damage and with the aforementioned in mind, I think a total cull would be the only practical option.

In regards to dingos and wild dogs, they may play a similar environmental role but I would rather see wild dogs culled out over time. Whether you consider them a separate species or breed, the dingo is at risk of being lost due to genetic pollution from interbreeding with wild dogs. I would prefer for this not to happen (even if the effects on the wider environment are negligible). I would much rather stumble across a dingo out in the bush than a cross-bred of domestic origin. The dingo is as much to me as the koala, platypus or kangaroo; it is something I quickly identify with being Australian. To lose it would be to lose a part of our identity I would feel. Each to their own, this is just a change I could do without.

I definitely don't think you're having a go at me; I've had the same discussion you described and it frustrates me too. :/

I'd say carrying capacity is reached when the amount of animals is the cause for a large increase in suffering among that population; or putting other species at undue risk of extinction. Humans count little in this calculation.

In the case of the bats, I agree with you: carrying capacity has not been reached to such an extent as to cause suffering. The bat issue is an irrational knee-jerk reaction.

Carrying capacity has been reached in the koala population in Kangaroo island and some parts of the Otways.

This sounds like fair reasoning to me icefest, I think we are on the same page. It's funny you mention the koalas down at the Otways, I was just talking to a friend the other day who works down their with them, and he was saying how bad the situation had been. Hard to believe there could be that many of them; I've only ever seen one koala (and he was dead) in the area where I'm from. Apparently they used to be very common there too.

[whitefang]

I spent a few days in the Otways last year with uni and I was amazed at how many koalas I saw, both alive and dead. Driving in the bus it was easy to spot up to 5 in the same tree while driving past.

[ethoen]

Feral Cats demand human cull to prevent spread of Ebola



Increasingly concerned at the impending threat of the Ebola virus, cat community leaders have called for the introduction of a human culling programme.

“We’re proposing an initial pilot programme,” Furry Rita told us yesterday, “by having marksmen to shoot the pilots of the planes that seem to be bringing in the virus into the country. The pilots may not have Ebola themselves, but they are obviously carriers so need to be eliminated for the good of everyone else.”

“Of course we’ve no idea how much humans spread Ebola,” continued Rita, the co-leader of the Harold Woods cat colony, “but vaccinations are too much hassle, so it’s much easier to shoot some as an experiment and then we can see what effect this has on the rest of the population.”

Fellow cat leader Manky Kevin warned that further slaughter may be necessary, but on the plus side he stressed that it would be scientific and humane.

“Moving on, we’re proposing a broader cull but can assure people that it will be conducted scientifically,” he said, stereotypically wisely. “So we suggest that the cull is restricted to a geographical region around the airport, let’s say Pascoe Vale to start with. Once we’ve wiped out a couple of million, we can take stock.”

“The cull will have no real significant impact on human population numbers as there are millions of them out there. In the long run I’m sure they’ll thank us.”

[icefest]

Feral Cats demand human cull to prevent spread of Ebola

Decent edit. I'm honestly impressed. 10/10

[ethoen]

Feral Cats demand human cull to prevent spread of Ebola

Decent edit. I'm honestly impressed. 10/10

haha couldn't resist when i read it and remembered this thread. A* for the google detective work

[Hallu]

Whitefang,

Both the wild dog and dingo are the same species (C. lupis). As evidence their ability to interbreed and produce fertile young. What is important is the role this species plays. Wild dogs are all about culture, not genetic purity, and if they act like dingos they are dingos.

Hallu,

But they do Hallu. Take for example this interesting study conducted in the Australian rangelands close to Roxby Downs (probably the one referred to in the documentary introduced earlier by Travis). From the Abstract:

An increase in mesopredators caused by the removal of top-order predators can have significant implications for threatened wildlife. Recent evidence suggests that Australia’s top-order predator, the dingo, may suppress the introduced cat and red fox. We tested this relationship by reintroducing 7 foxes and 6 feral cats into a 37 km2 fenced paddock in arid South Australia inhabited by a male and female dingo. GPS datalogger collars recorded locations of all experimental animals every 2 hours. Interactions between species, mortality rates, and postmortems were used to determine the mechanisms of any suppression. Dingoes killed all 7 foxes within 17 days of their introduction and no pre-death interactions were recorded. All 6 feral cats died between 20 and 103 days after release and dingoes were implicated in the deaths of at least 3 cats.

Cheers,

Maddog.

That study only proves that in a closed environment, dingoes will kill cats. It doesn't say anything about European wild dogs, and the worst thing is, they had to use a small fenced area. I'd expect foxes and cats would have simply run away had they been put in a larger area. More to the point, even if dogs did kill cats and foxes, they would then move on to small mammals, native or not. In the long run there is no way feral dogs would prove more beneficial than harmful to our native species.

[maddog]

FootTrack,

To keep the dingo breed pure you are going to be killing quite a few dogs on the east coast, with almost all being half, quadroon, octoroon, etc. Stephens put the estimate of pure dingoes at 1-4% of the wild-dog population, with purely domestic dogs making up less than 1% (which suggests they have trouble surviving in the wild). Feral dogs become dingoes once they are integrated into that society and those that do not integrate die.

Once we begin to accept that wild dogs and dingoes are the same thing, it is time to consider the role these animals play rather than judge them according to their 'nativeness'. On the subject, Adrian Franklin (the author of Animal Nation), argues a hatred of feral cats hides a sinister truth.

Hallu,

It is common when considering the ecological role and impacts of the dingo to use the term to include all manner of hybrids. If dingoes are good (or bad), so are wild-dogs. It is likely that the reduction in mesopredator numbers is due (at least in part) to direct attack.

Maddog.

[Hallu]

No you can't draw conclusions from Dingo studies and apply them to european wild dogs. Dingos have been here for centuries, adapted, and are now part of the ecosystem. Wild dogs from other countries have evolved around cats and foxes, some were hunters, others domesticated. and most used to temperate climates. Dingos are mostly arid country dogs, while feral dogs also inhabit temperate forests or coastal areas. So the fact that the dingo limits red foxes populations in arid areas doesn't help us for red foxes populations in temperate areas.

[icefest]

I'll bite again.

To keep the dingo breed pure you are going to be killing quite a few dogs on the east coast, with almost all being half, quadroon, octoroon, etc. Stephens put the estimate of pure dingoes at 1-4% of the wild-dog population, with purely domestic dogs making up less than 1% (which suggests they have trouble surviving in the wild). Feral dogs become dingoes once they are integrated into that society and those that do not integrate die.

Once we begin to accept that wild dogs and dingoes are the same thing, it is time to consider the role these animals play rather than judge them according to their 'nativeness'

You can't cite one source about the genetic differences between the two and then say they are the same thing. The same source also states that it may be possible that they have the same ecosystem functions, but that there is no evidence thereof.

Stephens says that hybrid dingoes may not perform the same ecosystem functions as pure Australian dingoes. Unless they do perform an exactly identical function there will have to be some ecosystem adaption, with possible extinctions. Many are not comfortable with that risk. This is not the same as saying "wild dogs and dingoes are the same thing", it's not even saying they have the same function.


The article about nativeness has this to say about the dingo: "Those marsupials that could not stand the dingo predation have long since disappeared, so we should enjoy the animal as an attractive wild creature."
This means that in this case the damage has been done and we should appreciate the dingo, but not let it mutate into another role, where it could cause further extinction. Cats, cane toads etc have not yet fully damaged the ecosystem - we can prevent further harm. I think we have a moral obligation to do so.


Stephens says that Dingos and humans probably caused the extinction of at least three species. As many here have been saying; ecosystem adaption to an alien species necessitates a re-balancing of the relative abundances of other species and in this case caused the extinction of some.

It's a pity Stephens hasn't been peer reviewed or published in a journal.

On the subject, Adrian Franklin (the author of Animal Nation), argues a hatred of feral cats hides a sinister truth.

This is an awful example of pseudo-scientific literature. Once you weave through the thick coat of emotional appeals you come across many scientific falsehoods.

Why are we so against the feral cat when other countries are not?


US has cat problems, NZ has cat problems, some Caribbean islands have eradicated them already, feral cats are a worldwide issue.
Some, like the UK, have had all native susceptible creatures die out already, so cat's have little extra effect.



the scientists' agreement that there is no evidence linking feral cats to any native extinctions (apart from a few very exceptional island sites).


These islands are places where native fauna evolved without any cat-like predators. Like Australia. Australia is a very exceptional island state, that's why there's an entire list* of Australian native animals that have already become extinct due to feral cats. How many more should follow?

*The list:
Pig-footed bandicoot, desert bandicoot, lesser bilby, desert bettong, Nullarbor dwarf bettong, desert rat-kangaroo, broad-faced potoroo, kuluwarri (central hare-wallaby), crescent nailtail wallaby, white-footed rabbit-rat, Capricorn rabbit-rat, lesser stick-nest rat, short-tailed hopping-mouse, long-tailed hopping-mouse, large-eared hopping-mouse, Darling Downs hopping-mouse, broad-cheeked hopping-mouse, long-eared mouse, blue-grey mouse and Gould's mouse.



the absence of any statement reinstating feral cats as harmless animals and removing them from their current status as a ''serious pest'';


How is this a valid reason for letting feral cats roam free?



the absence of any statement suggesting they be naturalised since eradication is not possible anyway


One more, pure conjecture. Eradication is not impossible, difficult, maybe.



I have studied attitudes in Britain, which has a far denser population of feral cats than Australia


Great study. Cat's have been there for over 2000 years and the damage has been done. We can prevent further damage here, as there are still animals that cats haven't hunted to extinction.



The feral cat looks perilously like a metaphor for the universal unwanted asylum seeker and migrant


Honestly? Asylum seekers and migrants don't go around causing extinctions of native fauna. Can we stick to facts and leave the plea to humanity alone?

It is common when considering the ecological role and impacts of the dingo to use the term to include all manner of hybrids. If dingoes are good (or bad), so are wild-dogs. It is likely that the reduction in mesopredator numbers is due (at least in part) to direct attack.

It's hardly that common, if the journal article you cite to say that the term dingo includes all manner of hybrids, does not mention dog, hybrid, canis lupus familiaris. I hope it was a mistake because even Rickety Tickety Tin knew that lying was a sin.

Your own source acknowledges that dingo and feral dogs are not the same thing, stop saying they are.

Lastly, Johnson et al are nowhere near as definitive as your rephrasing would suggest: "We cannot be certain of the mechanism producing the negative correlation of abundance of these two predators. Direct limitation of foxes by wild dogs would appear to be a strong possibility, given that studies of other mammal predators show that direct attacks by the larger predator can have major demographic effects on the smaller (Palomares & Caro 1999)."
They also suggestion that they might just out-compete each other for food (among a slew of other possibilities).

[icefest]

If you don't have access to the journal articles you referenced, I'm happy to send you a copy of the ones I have access to.

[maddog]

G’day icefest,

Re: journals. Thanks for the kind offer, but I have access to most journals of interest.

Re: Stephens. A PhD thesis is good enough for Bushwalk.com.

Re: Franklin. He is an anthropologist commenting on our social norms. Anthropologists help us to understand ourselves. Phillip Adams interviews him here:

Re: Letnic’s paper. Right you are. The correct paper is Letnic, et al. (2012): Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. According to Letnic and others:

The status of the dingo is also clouded by the issue of hybridization between it and domestic dogs Canis lupis familiaris and the fact that “pure-bred” dingos are now rare in some regions such as the south-eastern portion of the continent…In evidence of this, wild canids in Australia are referred to euphemistically as ‘wild-dogs’ rather than dingoes in most legislation and policy documents concerning management strategies that aim to reduce wild canid numbers.

They go on to say:

However, confusion exists over how to discriminate dingoes and their hybrids because there is no holotype specimen against which the identities of putative hybrid and pure dingoes can be assessed…The lack of adequate species description hampers efforts to identify and conserve populations of dingoes and prevents development of clear policies for their management…

Another complexity posed by the existence of hybrids is that dingoes / wild-dogs appear to have positive effects on the conservation of native animals. Here lies a quandary for wildlife managers. How should they prioritise their management of dingoes? Should they strive to conserve pure dingoes or maintain the ecological function of the dingo even if the animals are not pure bred? …we argue that the primary focus on dingo management should be to maintain their ecological function…maintaining the genetic integrity of dingo populations should be a secondary priority…

While Benjamin Allen has been somewhat sceptical of the evidence supporting the importance of the dingo to conservation aims, he has he has this to say about the dingo / wild-dog dichotomy:

Like all domesticated dogs, dingoes are derivative of the grey wolf Canis lupis…and discussions on the ecological roles of dingoes are clouded by nomenclature. The taxonomic name applied to the same group of dingoes could be either Canis lupus dingo, Canis lupis familiaris, Canis familiaris dingo, Canis dingo, or feral/wild individuals of Canis familiaris – each term being common and current usage. Each of these taxonomic names essentially describes the same type of animal, and claiming that Canis lupus dingo is functionally any different from Canis lupis familiaris is largely impossible at present… Until such time as a definitive technique…is able to reliably distinguish between them in the field…followed by the demonstration of a functional difference between them, all wild living canids in Australia could be collectively labeled and managed as “wild-dogs’…Thus, wild dogs are either conserved or killed in many places, and their current management largely depends on where they live and what they’re doing, not what their genetics are or what they look like…

Cheers,

Maddog.

[maddog]

What could go wrong with a $25 million campaign to rid this windswept rock in the Southern Ocean of introduced species? Many things, as it happens...

[north-north-west]

What could go wrong with a $25 million campaign to rid this windswept rock in the Southern Ocean of introduced species? Many things, as it happens...

A retired physicist, writing for Quadrant, about ecological issues. Yes, that's expert commentary, alright . . .

[icefest]

What could go wrong with a $25 million campaign to rid this windswept rock in the Southern Ocean of introduced species? Many things, as it happens...

A retired physicist, writing for Quadrant, about ecological issues. Yes, that's expert commentary, alright . . .

mhm, It's pity that the eradication process was such a success.
All that really says is that we should eradicate feral predators and prey at the same time.
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/ ... -pest-free

[climberman]

note in Letnic's paper:

(1) Taxonomic status
Molecular studies indicate that the dingo (body mass 15–25 kg) is a primitive form of the domestic dog descended from the Asian wolf (Canis lupus chanco; Savolainen et al., 2002; Savolainen et al., 2004; vonHoldt et al., 2010). Although the dingo was first described on the basis of a description given by the first Governor of Australia in his journal (Meyer, 1793), and has since been subject to various reclassifications and changes in nomenclature, no type specimen of the dingo has ever been lodged (ABRS, 2009). The absence of a definitive type specimen compounds taxonomic confusion regarding the identity of the dingo.

I think they also have a different oestrus to common doggies - only one cycle per year. Don't bark either. Weird dogs if you ask me.

[maddog]

What could go wrong with a $25 million campaign to rid this windswept rock in the Southern Ocean of introduced species? Many things, as it happens...

mhm, It's pity that the eradication process was such a success.
All that really says is that we should eradicate feral predators and prey at the same time.
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/ ... -pest-free

That sounds like a reasonable conclusion icefest. That is just what they did after they created a problem by eradicating the cats in the first place. The results were not all good.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[maddog]

The flying-fox camp management policy consultation draft has been released. Alan Jones is not happy

[Hallu]

What could go wrong with a $25 million campaign to rid this windswept rock in the Southern Ocean of introduced species? Many things, as it happens...

Maddog you seem to love agreeing with fringe scientists who go against the general opinion, no matter how preposterous their opinions might be. It seems like almost an addiction to you. You don't need to be a physicist to say "uh ? they didn't think the rabbits would explode in numbers ?" or "tons of poison could damage the soils and the flora". Unfortunately returning any ecosystem to its original state is trial and error. The point is this retired physicist only draws conclusions from a 50 min ABC documentary... Obviously the scientists involved in the projects had more to say that what was shown in the 50 min, and yet he doesn't bother looking for that, or doesn't restrain his opinions based on the fact that he doesn't know the full story. So please take it as it is : a reactionnary blog article, nothing else.

[Pteropus]

The flying-fox camp management policy consultation draft has been released. Alan Jones is not happy

The Flying Fox Camp Management policy consultation draft clearly recognises the important ecological role of flying foxes, and tries to find some way to balance the issues of flying fox/human conflict. This is always going to be a tough task, especially since in recent times the method that councils attempt to manage the camps is to move flying foxes along, either by cutting down the trees in the camp or dispersal by noise and smoke (and in some cases helicopters and paintball guns have been used). Then it becomes a case of not in my backyard (NIMBYism), since the flying foxes will inevitably look for another suitable patch of vegetation close to abundant food resources, which is probably someone else’s backyard…

But it is not surprising for anyone familiar with extremist radio shock jock Alan Jones that his highly opinionated comments are vitriolic and disregard facts and attempt to inflame the issue, which when put into perspective is an issue which only impacts a small number of people (and oddly Jones even calls federal environment minister Greg Hunt a “nice little lefty” less than one minute into that recording). I’m not sure why you even mention Jones maddog. Perhaps he is he a mate of yours?

Also, flying fox/bat issues are different to horses, cats and dogs, and perhaps should be discussed separately. After all, and as I pointed out, flying foxes are native species that have important ecological roles, and the issues with them are predominantly wildlife-human conflict issues.

[maddog]

Hello Hallu,

Though Dr. John Reid criticized the ABC, he did not base his conclusions on the ABC’s documentary. His argument, that it can be better to leave cats (and other creatures) alone if they are not causing real problems, was drawn from personal observations gained from his long association with the island, then witnessing first hand the devastation that followed the cull. Reid did not just rely on personal anecdotes, he also cited a paper by Bergstrom et al., published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, which he used to substantiate his views. Given that you fail to understand this simple point, I shall make things easy for you.


Following the elimination of cats, the explosion of rat and rabbit populations and the subsequent degradation of the landscape, it became necessary to bait them, killing large numbers of birds in the process. It is very difficult to ignore that, in their obsessive haste to rid the island of a few cats, those involved made a real mess of things - they failed to comprehend the important ecological role of the cat on the island. A road to hell paved with good intentions.

G’day Pteropus,

I have never met Alan Jones but I found his anti-bat tirade amusing – he really worked himself up into quite a lather. As this thread is a discussion of recent culling proposals, and the wisdom thereof, it is appropriate to include the widespread calls for the culling of bats. Whatever their function may be, they are very unpopular critters.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[icefest]

The point about the trophic cascade that you mentioned sounds reasonable.

Would you agree that the island is better off without both cats and rabbits, than with both?

[maddog]

G’day icefest,

It may have been better if cats, rats and rabbits had never got to the island, but the Garden of Eden was lost once they arrived. According to Reid:

When I was there, the island appeared to be in a relatively stable state. Fur seals were coming back and their numbers were steadily building. Dove prions nesting in burrows were a worry because rabbits competed for burrows and cats took the chicks. There was concern that rabbits and cats were a problem for such native birds. What no-one seemed to notice was that the rabbits and cats had been at it for nearly two centuries. Any species threatened with extinction would already have disappeared. The island had arrived at a new and stable ecology, albeit one involving introduced species.

So it is difficult to see how the island could be better off the way it was left after the various pest control efforts, obtained at such a great cost, than it was before the madness started. Leaving the death of thousands of birds as collateral damage to a baiting campaign to one side, consider the state of the vegetation on the island before (2001) and after (2007) the cat cull (from Bergstrom et al.).

Cheers,

Maddog.

[Hallu]

It's only in 2014 that the island has been declared pest-free, and yet you keep quoting out of date articles and showing us 7 year old photos... A before/after with 2001 and 2014 photos is what we'd be interested in. As Icefest said, better to have the island without any pest at all. It's more commendable to want to restore an ecosystem to its original state than to let our past mistakes become part of the environment... I also despise your condecending comments made earlier about making things "easy for me" as if I were stupid, especially from someone spreading such over-the-top anti-culling theories with which no one here agrees.

[icefest]

I've said that I agree with your point about the cat cull causing the tropic cascade that resulted in the burst of rabbit numbers and a decreased in vegetation.

I would like to post a couple of images that suggest the situation is not as dire as you said it was. The birds that were killed in the baiting process are, as far as I know, less than the unchecked roaming cats would have killed since they were eradicated.





Incidentally, it was only with eradication of cats that grey petrels started breeding on the island again.

The evaluation report on the eradication program is probably a better resource than a talk-show host: http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=31160

[Pteropus]

...I have never met Alan Jones but I found his anti-bat tirade amusing – he really worked himself up into quite a lather. As this thread is a discussion of recent culling proposals, and the wisdom thereof, it is appropriate to include the widespread calls for the culling of bats. Whatever their function may be, they are very unpopular critters.

Instead of Jones' anti-bat diatribes, a more sensible discussion on flying fox management by ecological consultant Phil Shaw can be found here. The dislike of flying foxes with certain parts of the community, plus the futility and risks of flying fox culls is part of that discussion.

Not everyone is anti-bat and there are dedicated wildlife rescue and education organisations to help with bat conservation.
Bat Conservation & Rescue Qld.Inc
Ku-ring-gai Bat Conservation Society Inc.
Tolga Bat Hospital

[vicrev]

Horses,Cats,Dogs,Bats.....what about camp Bogan eradication ........

[Travis22]

Horses,Cats,Dogs,Bats.....what about camp Bogan eradication ........

Perhaps fee's in the Vic national parks will do this for us

Travis.

[north-north-west]

Bogans, by definition, will not book and pay for bush campsites.