Bushwalk Australia

First horses, then cats, dogs and now it would seem bats. It seems the solution to the crisis is kill as many as we can to rebalance ecosystems. Or are we witnessing a symptom of a wider social malaise, a callous indifference to the pain and suffering of others? On the evidence, should such killing sprees proceed without further question or consideration?

Who in their right mind would think feral cats loose in the wild is a good thing??

EVERY single cat that is loose in the wild needs to be destroyed on sight IMO!

There's no pain or suffering from a 55gr pill at 3500fps!

Travis.

I don't need scientists to tell me what I've seen first hand but how can anyone question the notion that they all must be destroyed... "Scientists tells us that they are causing a new wave of extinction across the Top End; that they kill 75 million Australian animals every single day — more than 27 billion creatures in a year"

Dogs and cats are introduced domestic animals and should be kept at that, under supervision and control within a domestic setting. Since we can't shoot those irresponsible human beings who let free of their charge, so the cats and dogs will need to take the hit in the wild, to protect those that are legitimate. No question about it.

Travis
We already know that cats may do some damage, some good, or may be benign - it all depends on the circumstances. So should we consider the circumstances before we embark on a killing spree? Or can it all be justified with appeal to emotion? And what about those bats, too many bats? Cats eat bats.

GPS,
If wild dogs need to be controlled, ‘to protect those that are legitimate’, do you also see the need to cull dingos?

If 27billion creatures being killed by feral cats per year in Australia is what you call 'some damage' id hate to think what it would take for you to regard something being a real problem!

Travis.

Travis,
The 75 million animals a day, and 27 billion a year, is guesswork with no hard science to back it up. Even if we were to speculate that cats ate 75 million animals a day, many (if not most) of these animals are not native, and those that are native are (numerically) unlikely to belong to threatened species.

I am very interested to know your thoughts on bats though. Are they a real problem?

Dingos evolved over time, through nature, and was already part of the continent by the time Australia was colonised. Completely different category to the inappropriate introduction of cats, dogs, horses etc over the last 200 years.

GPS,

The all out offensive being launched by our Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, against wild dogs in regional and rural NSW includes the dingo amongst the targets. Humans brought the dingo here, as they brought the cat and the horse, and the dingo is as much a dog now as when it arrived (by boat). Xenophobia can distinguish between the two, science can’t.

Humans may have brought the dingo to Australia, but they have been identified as their own species separate from wild dogs and wolves and they're only found here in Australia.

maddog wrote:First horses, then cats, dogs and now it would seem bats.

I can't help but point out that bats are native animals with important ecological roles, unlike horses, cats and (arguably) dogs. For example, flying foxes are long-range pollinators, where they are particularly important in the eucalypt forests along the east-coast, and seed dispersers, particularly of rainforest species. The grey-headed flying fox, which is one of Australia’s four mainland flying fox species, is listed as vulnerable under the federal EPBC Act, and in NSW and Victoria. Monitoring of populations is currently underway to determine how populations are faring.

Despite this, there is nothing new about the fear and persecution of bats, particularly flying foxes, in Australia. The article from the daily telegraph posted above is typical of the fear mongering and hysteria of flying foxes by certain sections of the media. Generally articles such as these are sensationalist, full of knee-jerk opinion, with loaded language intended to appeal readers who have little care for facts or the importance of wildlife. There won't be any culling, though there is much noise and action to move flying fox camps all along eastern Australia. Indeed, the Centennial Park flying fox camp mentioned in the article is likely comprised of bats moved on from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.

maddog wrote:First horses, then cats, dogs and now it would seem bats.

I think horses, cats and dogs deserve their own grouping and that bats should be grouped with sharks instead. The horse, dog and cat debate is different to the bat and shark debate, in that it relates to introduced species and environmental conservation. The bat and shark discussion on the other hand relates to public safety.

In my mind there is no doubt that outside of the domestic environment, there is no place for cats, dogs and horses in Australia. Science has shown time and time again that these species disturb and degrade our ecosystems. Probably not much more to say here.

In regards to bats and sharks, I don't think the government has put a lot of thought into their proposals on these issues. Let's face it, only three people have come into contact with bats with lyssavirus of late: one wildlife worker, one veterinarian and one other member of the public. That's not a lot. There shouldn't have been any issue with the wildlife worker and veterinarian either in my opinion as both should have been vaccinated against this disease - they are working in a high risk environment after all. For reference, no member of WIRES can handle a bat without being vaccinated for lyssavirus. Whats more, only three people have contracted the virus and died of lyssavirus, since the mid 1990s. To propose giving councils and farmers a five year right to kill any type of bats over this issue is just incomprehensible. Surely education would be a logical first step? I would argue more people would be at risk of contracting the disease from disposing of the shot bodies than the number that are at risk now.

As for the shark cull, 68 sharks were caught in that endeavor but none ended up being white sharks, the sharks responsible for the preceding spate of attacks. Not to mention, $1.3 million was wasted in the process. Of these, 63 were tiger sharks, and the last time a tiger shark killed someone in WA was back in the 1940s. Barbaric culls are a thing of the past and with the level of science that is available these days, there should be no excuses for not coming up with a more sustainable and rational/reasoned scientific plan in my opinion. People should learn to live with their environment - if you don't want to be involved in a shark attack, don't swim at risky beaches! We do have pools after all! Or if you want don't want to contract lyssavirus, don't go touching bats! To simply cull a species because it doesn't fit in with our way of life is extremely egocentric.

I have no experience with bats Maddog so I really cannot add anything of value to the debate. The few I've seen personally have been deep underground in a few old mines in the Vic high country so I wouldn't have thought their numbers to be such that controlling the numbers needed to be discussed..

I've seen hundreds of feral cats and shot a few in every corner of Australia, I've only seen maybe a dozen wild dogs in the high country and have no objection to destroying them. Real dingos in the outback, I'd leave them alone but there are a heck of a lot of wild dogs out there too.

Horses I wouldn't like to shoot but I have seen their numbers and damage caused first hand around the Snowy River in NSW and feel like they should be destroyed in this area and similar areas, but I'd never call for an outright kill on sight plan for them as I do with feral cats.

Have you seen this image going around recently; contents of one feral cats stomach shot in SA (I've personally never seen their numbers as high anywhere else in Australia as I have seen them myself in SA they are everywhere and they are fat!)

Pteropus, FootTrack and Travis,

That’s all well and good, but bats are unpopular and there seem to be quite a few of them. All animals can damage the environment if there are too many of them. To avoid such damage the usual response is to cull. If it is damage we wish to prevent, it is not clear why a separate standard should be applied according to country of origin.

At the moment the idea of culling unpopular species seems to be attractive to some policymakers, and many environmentalists who seem to be in the grip of a bazaar death cult. Not necessarily wishing to seriously consider either the need for, or the impact that such policies may actually have, they just want to eliminate a wide variety of critters by any means possible. Politically being tough on bats would be sure to be a winner, much more so than the culling of brumbies, dogs, and perhaps even cats. Only the rat is less popular.

As mentioned above, the Murdoch press is anti-bat, as is Alan Jones OAM, who told his many listeners:

“These things should be culled immediately. And I’d be culling them with what they deserve, an AK47.”

Now it would be tempting to quickly dismiss any view expressed by such a boorish oaf. But recently, the widely advertised, often repeated, shallow, sensational, misleading and emotive nonsense that has been promulgated by conservationists make the shrill Mr. Jones seem conservative in comparison. 75 native animals eaten by Australian feral cats every day they say…So again, why apply a double standard?

maddog wrote:That’s all well and good, but bats are unpopular and there seem to be quite a few of them. All animals can damage the environment if there are too many of them. To avoid such damage the usual response is to cull. If it is damage we wish to prevent, it is not clear why a separate standard should be applied according to country of origin.

75 native animals eaten by Australian feral cats every day they say…So again, why apply a double standard?

You'll find you are preaching to the converted. Most people on these forums (and I apologise to those who are not covered by this generalisation) support the cull (or relocation) of native species that have exceeded the carrying capacity of the area they are in. Most of the people here also support the complete feral eradication of non-native species where the rest of the fauna and flora has not yet adapted to. The issue with adaption is that it necessitates a re-balancing of the relative abundances of other species (and sometimes this balance is a population of zero; i.e extinction)

Bats, Koalas, crocodiles (and maybe some kangaroos and dingos) belong to the first group.

Foxes, rats, rabbits, cane toads, horses and feral dogs belong to the second group.

There is no double standard in the eyes of people who see it this way.

G’day icefest,

I would be very surprised if you would find much support for the culling of koalas in these pages or indeed within the broader community. How did the last koala cull proposal go?

Also, you seem to have included the dingo in your first group and the wild-dog in your second. On what basis are you distinguishing between the two? Country of origin, colour, or a different ecological role? Please explain.

Many thanks,

Maddog.

I was a little confused by the double std comment as I don't think I'm applying a double std?

I'm also confused now Maddog are you for or against any of the mentioned 'culls' as per your original post?

Travis.

Yeah that bat thing needs to be thought as a different problem than introduced pest. The article is describing a drama that shouldn't have happened if that person had been better educated : when you enter in contact with bats, and get scratched, bitten, etc... a rabbies shot should be the first thing on your mind. Rabbies takes a while to incubate, so you have time to get the vaccine before you get sick. It's a death that should have been avoided.

Regarding maddog's views, well he hasn't changed a bit... Just stating preposterous theories, and claiming all numbers scientists get out are wrong, with no argument whatsoever, and yet asking everyone else here to detail their claims point by point. Lovely...

Hey maddog,

I feel a bit like Quixote; but I'll joust.

I put roos and Koalas in brackets as they are the more contentious animals, you'll also notice that I also mentioned relocate in the first category. Did you intentionally ignore this?

I'm happy to debate the Koala issue (including the suggestions by the Australian Koala Foundation that chlamydia infection is a viable reduction strategy) but you'll need to make a new thread for it.

Feral dogs vs dingos is another hot topic. The differentiation is a matter of personal opinion; and one that is hard to standardize. I'd probably go via looks (i.e. if it clearly a doberman, it's not a dingo).

What environmental animal management strategies do you support maddog?

Travis22 wrote:I'm also confused now Maddog are you for or against any of the mentioned 'culls' as per your original post?

Travis.

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.

maddog wrote:Pteropus, FootTrack and Travis,

maddog,

I'm not setting double standards at all. As I made clear in my first point, the reason the government is proposing to cull bats and sharks is due to human health and safety concerns. The reason a call is being made to cull wild dogs, cats and horses on the other hand, is due to their impact on Australia's environment. These are two completely different matters. So in the case of bats, I don't believe the culling is directed at "(environmental) damage we wish to prevent". If I were to say that feral cats should be culled while feral dogs should be left alone, this would be setting double standards in my opinion.

I don't see politicians or environmentalists alike, trying to "cull unpopular species" with a "death cult" motive. I think that culling is simply a proposed means to an end for two different issues. Whether these views are seen as right and simultaneously agreed upon by the general public is of course another thing.

I agree with you that Mr. Jones' statement was an interesting one. Can't say I've heard too many comparable comments of a "shallow, sensational, misleading and emotive" nature made by conservationists though...would you be able to point me in the right direction?

Not sure if my reply here makes a lot of sense. I found it a bit difficult to understand where you were coming from. What is your opinion of the proposed culling of these different animals anyhow? Are you against the culling of all these species? Do my views make more sense to you now?

icefest wrote: Most people on these forums (and I apologise to those who are not covered by this generalisation) support the cull (or relocation) of native species that have exceeded the carrying capacity of the area they are in.

Is this a question of carrying capacity though? It appears to me a cull has been proposed based on a perceived increased risk of contracting lyssavirus. This is one of the issues I have with a cull of this sort - eliminating this population of bats will not reduce people's susceptibility to infection, like a vaccination would, and given bats have wings a population is likely to reestablish in the future. It's a short term solution. I would rather see better education and vaccination if you are in a high risk area or are worried about getting the disease. Let's not forget for most of the population, the risk of getting lyssavirus is quite low.

Also, who determines "carrying capacity"? Is this just a function of human wants/desires? Bats like the fruit bat live in large colonies so while a population in a small area like Centennial Park may seem huge, there may be no other colonies for miles. A cull in this case could have a significant impact on the broader population. As Hallu eluded to there are also a number of threatened species of bats, which is one of the reasons I am hesitant about a "kill any bat" type of cull. This could have a devastating impact on ecosystems given the niche role bats have. One could also ask the question, whose carrying capacity is being exceeded here? Is this a problem stemming from bats or one stemming from people? I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been around 200 years ago. The bats have to live somewhere...

I'm not meaning to have a go at you here and I understand you didn't state this as being your opinion before, but I've heard this view from numerous people and I find it a frustrating viewpoint.

Thanks for the reply Maddog, I don't **think** I disagree with your views or the general direction your coming from so far in this thread however I'm happy to admit some comments go over my head which I like as it certainly gives me a chance to learn more.



The political stuff well that doesn't interest me at all and the media lol, we'll what can I say... An AK47 to take out bats!! Says it all, they really don't have a clue what they are on about.

The cats I've seen in the high country and outback alike certainly appear to me to be doing quite well for themselves, I don't think they are getting by on grasshoppers and such.

I really enjoyed this doco on the dingo. http://youtu.be/KbbtziC2wW4

It showed the physical differences to the cross breeds quite well.

Travis.

FootTrack wrote:Is this a question of carrying capacity though? It appears to me a cull has been proposed based on a perceived increased risk of contracting lyssavirus. This is one of the issues I have with a cull of this sort - eliminating this population of bats will not reduce people's susceptibility to infection, like a vaccination would, and given bats have wings a population is likely to reestablish in the future. It's a short term solution. I would rather see better education and vaccination if you are in a high risk area or are worried about getting the disease. Let's not forget for most of the population, the risk of getting lyssavirus is quite low.

Also, who determines "carrying capacity"? Is this just a function of human wants/desires? Bats like the fruit bat live in large colonies so while a population in a small area like Centennial Park may seem huge, there may be no other colonies for miles. A cull in this case could have a significant impact on the broader population. As Hallu eluded to there are also a number of threatened species of bats, which is one of the reasons I am hesitant about a "kill any bat" type of cull. This could have a devastating impact on ecosystems given the niche role bats have. One could also ask the question, whose carrying capacity is being exceeded here? Is this a problem stemming from bats or one stemming from people? I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been around 200 years ago. The bats have to live somewhere...

I'm not meaning to have a go at you here and I understand you didn't state this as being your opinion before, but I've heard this view from numerous people and I find it a frustrating viewpoint.

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.

On flying foxes and culls: I think there needs to be a bit of perspecitve here.

The flying fox populations in any individual camp will fluctuate seasonally with resource availability and so carrying capacity would traditionally be determined by what was flowering and fruiting in the vicinity of a camp. Up until approximately 30 years ago this made flying fox camp populations highly transient because of the seasonal nature of food resources. However, in urban areas we have planted many native and non-native plant species that flower and fruit year round and as a consequence flying foxes have permanent sources of food in many urban areas. Furthermore, flying-fox habitat in many regional areas has been reduced. These are the key factors why we see apparent increasing flying fox populations in urban areas, and so people have this belief that their numbers are increasing and also leads to increasing bat-human conflict. Despite this, population declines in two species of flying fox, the grey-headed ff and the spectacled ff have led to their vulnerable listing, as I stated in my post above. The grey-headed flying fox, which has a biogeographic range from the central Queensland coast to Victoria was estimated to number in millions by Francis Ratcliffe in the 1930, but the current number is approximately around 400,000 individuals.

These declines have been caused by broad-scale habitat loss, and also persecution has been another major cause in declines. For example, in north-Queensland, approximately 18,000 spectacled flying foxes were killed by electric grids in 2000-2001 in orchids. These deaths represented 20% of the entire spectacled flying fox population. While these electric grids were banned, orchardists can and do shoot flying foxes. Unfortunately flying foxes have a low birth-rate, where breeding females generally raise one pup a year, and so recruitment into the population is slow.

Culling of wildlife suggests that some scientific advice has been sought and a number to cull has been scientifically determined. For this reason culling is never going to be a serious option with flying foxes, because their populations are not as large as they appear. Furthermore, they have important roles of pollination and seed dispersal. As FootTrack points out, culls can have a significant impact on the broader population. For example, any individual grey-headed flying fox can travel through its entire biogeographical distribution, and so the bats you see in a camp today might not be the same bats there tomorrow. In short, a localised cull would not work because other individuals from the greater population could take the place of culled animals, and you would be culling until the entire population was wiped out. So unless the entire species was killed off, then you will always have a flying fox camp somewhere. And therefore no scientist would agree to culling. Only populist MPs and an uneducated public would consider such a thing.

There are disease issues that do need to be considered and taken seriously, and as Hallu pointed out they need not be a worry, with vaccination for anyone who handles flying foxes (I am vaccinated and have handled them without any fear), and anyone who is unfortunately bitten or scratched can get post-bite vaccinations. It is not a major drama. Bottom line though, if you don’t need to handle bats (micro- and mega-bats), don’t do it. Simple.

In conclusion, there is no need for scare mongering of the type in the article in the original post in this thread, which is where most of the sensationalising, misleading and emotive nonsense is found…

In relation to those Centennial Park (Sydney) bats in the report, that colony increased its numbers dramatically when a big colony was driven out of Sydney's Botanical Gardens and a good portion migrated there. Not heard of any complaints until this one. Yet again, being "Daily Terror" quality with qualifier like "The details are sketchy, but the facts are clear...", why should anyone even bother to read their material? Just trash journalism.

maddog wrote:

Travis22 wrote:I'm also confused now Maddog are you for or against any of the mentioned 'culls' as per your original post?

Travis.

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.

Cats don't survive on just a few lizards and grasshopers... Scientists roughly know how many native mammals or birds there are in an area, so once they evaluate how many cats there are, they can extrapolate to how many of those native animals the cats kill, after looking at their stomach content to identify whether they target birds, mammals or both. It's not the vague and "unproven" numbers you think it is and falsely pretend they don't demonstrate anything... Not a single of the introduced species we mentionned has a native predator (unless crocs eat feral pigs or feral donkeys in NT), and that's why they're so damaging and need to be culled, there's nothing to keep their numbers in check, they'll simply stop growing in numbers once the (native) food runs out...

Travis,

Excellent video. You may also be interested in this

G'day Pteropus,

The bottom line is that bats are unpopular and not just because they spread disease. Bats also stand accused of, amongst other things: polluting waterways; stench; noise pollution; damaging vegetation; repelling tourists and scaring children. Radcliff himself observed:

Psychological factors play a far from negligible part in determining the general attitude towards the flying fox… It is a bat, and an unnaturally large one into the bargain. It is nocturnal, noisy, smelly, and unusually infested with parasites. During this investigation it was quite astonishing the number of individuals who prefaced their information regarding flying foxes with a statement that they were "stinking, lousy brutes."

On the subject of the millions you talk of, Radcilff’s colleague Dr John Neilson (who knew him personally), has said "I spoke to him about that and he said 'No it wasn't millions. In retrospect, I shouldn't have written that,'" Nelson says. "He said there were so many of them that's what you would just say. But he never counted them."

However wildlife ecologist Dr Chris Tidemann, believes there are millions now:

Over the last few years, there's been a steady increase in the presence of grey-headed flying foxes all over the place. Animals are not just camping [in new places] but dropping young [there]. And that's been happening all over the place and that's a sign of an expanding population.

Though initially supporting the protection of bats, Dr Tidemann has since had doubts. He points to the last two government-funded population studies of the Grey-Headed Flying Fox, which showed their numbers doubling to 670,000 in the four years after they were listed.

Whatever else they may be, the bats do not appear threatened, and their preference to reside in urban areas does not appear to be driven by habitat loss.

Hallu,

Wild dogs kill the fox, the rabbit and probably the cat. Many consider the dingo native. Time for a good lie down.

Kind Regards,

Maddog.

Maddog, as I mentioned above the dingo has been classified as its own species and is only found in Australia. It may have been introduced thousands of years ago, but we don't hear stories of them degrading ecosystems like the pests brought in by europeans only a few hundred years ago. Wild dogs are not the same as dingoes. There may be interbreeding between the two and differentiation may be hard, but they are two different species.

No Maddog, the dogs don't hunt cats and they don't hunt foxes. They hunt rabbits yes, and marsupials, and rodents. Those are much easier preys than foxes and cats. At best they scare away cats but that's all... It just means the cats will travel further and kill elsewhere...

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.

While originally classified as C. Lupis Dingo they have only recently been classified as their own species C. dingo. See: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20140704-25361.html. Species from the genus Canis - except the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal - are all able to interbreed and have fertile offspring because they diverged relatively recently, around 3 to 4 million years ago and all have 78 chromosomes arranged into 39 pairs.

I understand why you would think that they would be the same species, because I was always taught in school that different species could never interbreed and have fertile offspring. However, it looks like there is an exception to this rule.