I learned recently that in Victoria's Murray Sunset National Park the Victorian government is conducting feral goat control with the aid of professional sharp shooters. this is the type of shooting which should be welcomed in our precious national & conservation parks.
As well as goat control there is planting and direct seeding of native species to restore habitat which has been so severely compromised by goats.
The Victorian government is to be roundly commended for this wonderful approach to protecting & restoring native vegetation in Murray Sunset National Park.
I know up here at Sundown the ranger would spend his long hot summer shooting goats while the park was closed. It was a lot of hard work for not that many gains. Then they got onto chopper culling with marksmen, it's expansve like 10K for a couple days, but the success rate is massive. I can't recall the exact figures but I felt it was money well spent. They also got good numbers of deer and pigs along the way.
It would never get up, but to allow registered and trusted shooters into our parks in the low season makes sense to me. All the shooters I know, and it's not many, would cherrish the privilage to do so. Maybe the army is a possibility, they could train stalking twitch deer. But the army guys I know are more yahoo than any shooter I have met. Either way, it's a real shame when your out west and barely so, and the frst animal you see next to a river is a family of pigs.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
I hope there aren;t too many on this forum who support shooting in national parks. Experience all round the world has shown that guns are rarely a good solution for wildlife problems. In my area we have wild goats and pigs. They don't thrive but I think shooters are more likely to guarantee their continued presence rather than their eradication. Without pigs and goats they would have nothing to shoot.
Not sure what you are saying there Greg. The ranger got something like 30 goats in 1 week of camping out work, where as the chopper got something like 1800ish goat and other feral animals in a couple days. I have no knowledge of world issues, guns, and feral animal control, but if you are suggesting individual shooters somehow only shoot certain sex, or ageed animals to keep the activity alive; from the people I have met thay would not see it like that. A pig is a pig. Same with a gaot or deer, or rabit for that matter. If it can be taken out with a clean shot than that is what happens regardless of age, sex, or numbers.
I'd love to see biological controls more in use, but currently poisioning with 1080 seems the prefered method. After seeing 1080 laced carrots been dropped from the air to protect single species seedlings in Tasmania; then possims and wombats eat those carrots and die from the iside out, then the eagle who feeds on the wombat suffers the same fate; poisiing is not a great way of controling feral animals.
Out Simpson Desert way, farmers are know to drop a camel using a chopper, then poision it, so the wild dogs (possibily dingos) are taken out in large numbers. But again Raptors would fall foul of 1080 to a degree. It makes sense to me, to offer registered and trusted hunters a purchased permit to cull camels or any ferals during the low season of use. It helps the park pay it's bills, and helps reduce ferral animal numbers, and utalises the park for a user who is untimately out there enjoying nature as well. Obviously some parks it would never work, but others that are large, or not really used due to location, or Sate Forrest turned into NP status because of political dealings and no money to manage, then why not. Just my view though.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
If I understand you correctly, Greg, then I think you're making a good point. It's rather like the guy who set up a salt harvesting business to take advantage of increased soil salinity due to bush clearance. That chap now has a vested interest in maintaining soil salinity and probably bush clearance as well.
However, if the goal is to rid a national park of feral animals & the shooters are professionals & carefully monitored I can see no problem. Surely the benefit of feral animal eradication would far outweigh the cost of any disturbance by shooters, especially if the shooting is done from helicopters.
I prefer feral animals to shooters wandering around reserves. Jasons proposal is for registered recreational shooters as guardians of our national parks. That's an old chestnut that hunters use to try and weaken the reserves system. We should be strengthening protection for reserves, not weakening them. It is just a fact that governments will never pay for widespread feral animal eradication, it is always a piecemeal approach.
I am no shooter, don't even have a licence. I'm a bushwalker if anything. If one thinks the EPA are protectors of these great reserves against ferral animals and weeds, then they need to get out more. The battle has been lost already. Its not hard to find cows on top of the Main Range NP introducing weeds like a gold rush. Commercial fisherman permanently camped of Fraser Island using boats and cars to literally haul in truck loads of fish. The Great Barrier Reef on the verge of endangered, or crital or something. Its a myth they are protected for all.
You are perhaps using and old stereo type (or chest nut) all shooters shoot everything. Its a shame modern society runs with the minority somehow represent the majority, and patience, understanding, or forgiveness seems a thing of the past. Its sad when a current affair type shows sniff out some stupid shooters or act in general, because all of a sudden they are a creditable source of information against the majority.
Have you ever seen a creek bank or moss plain ripped apart by pigs. Its not just once a week, or once a month, its every night somwhere. It's easy to walk past and view it as a once off, as it doesnt really affect a human. An estimated 20 million feral cats exist in Australia. On average they eat 8 lizards, birds, mice, beatles, frogs, or part of some marsupial every day. That is a lot of Australian wildlife every day. Then to think registered and trustered shooters could be a problem is hard for me to understand.
My point is moot, and this discussion is useless. Its just my view. Associations in favour or minimal users, National Parks themselves, and political deals have the situation well under control. I'm sure our NP's will be here for many generations to enjoy, just dont walk off the track provided.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
I wish I shared your confidence in the continued existence of national parks, at least in their current form. They are continually under threat, as we have seen in Tasmania, not just from logging but development, hunting, 4x4s, farmers and many other sources. I don't think feral animals are nearly as dangerous as humans, especially humans with guns.
I agree, Greg. I would think worst of all would be the humans with development plans. However, I still see no problem with professional shooters who are an integral part of the effort to rid our parks of feral animals. They would be in direct opposition to hoon recreational shooters who, like developers, miners & loggers, can't wait to get their hands on national parks to get their rocks off. The latter should be kept as far away from national parks as possible.
I don't think you got my humour Greg, with NP's being safe and secure.
One one hand from most of the other posts in "General", I think its safe to say we are goners. Humans value themselves and money far more than any plant, animal, river or mountain. National Parks are an 11th hour fix on a bomb that went off with the industrial revoultion in 1901. The explosion of freedom and prosperity really took hold in the 1950's. And as China and India lust for our lifestyle, and we lust for their sales, even blind Fredie has to see the writing is on the wall. Unless we change our lives in a way we can't imagine, and then accept now, I think we are goners generally.
However there is hope, and locking up NP's for birdo's only as The National Parks Association will have it, is as staunch, stayed, and aged as most of its members. No horses even if they use poo catchers, and frequent only places used for many years. No mountain bikers, or 4x4s on old logging roads that still don't grow trees, many years after the bollocks have gone. Remote camp sites and foot tracks closed to bushwalkers due to the discovery of some plant, frog, or habitate. Though all these findings survived bushwalking's hey days of the 50's. Is a sure way to create more ignorance and disrespect, but if you stay on the track provided all is well.
I'm not sure if Birdo's realise yet they will eventually be subject being locked out. Once something is discovered near a popular viewing area than access will most likely be stopped.
I'm not saying heavier use activities get right of way, but when NP's lock out these activities onto private lands, two things happen. Less revenue (or potential revenue) for the Government, and in shooters case, yes the land owner is happy to see ferals breed. Mountain bikers don't have track volunteering days to keep the tracks in great condition. Yes they dont like erosion either and if it's privat why bother. I'm confident in a horse clubs case, they dont want to camp surrounded by weeds. So with encouragements a weeds control day would not be hard to organise. Same a litter clean up day, track maintance, fire ring removal event with 4x4 clubs. All these heaviier use activities could attract a higher use fee, or be part of an access agreement in a clubs case. In the day and age of cheap infa red cameras, and number plate darta base, vehicle usage could be monitored and billed far easier than present. Also controling numbers, and finding and fining bad behaviour much easier. Bikes, horses, and so on could use a fob of sorts.
I think the government's approach to giving land back to Aboriginal people so they can make money to fund themselves is a good idea. In Cape York's case they have recently handed back ownership to several places I'd like to go. Previously locked by National Parks, and accessable to staff and Aboriginals only. If I'm happy to pay, and for a limited number, than am I going to wreck it. I'm not sure if it's going to work like that, but I'm happy to pay if it does. Again it could be similar for shooters, or any user.
Ultimately one day some idiot will do damage, but as I said befor one does not represent all. And Nature is extremely good at healing itself if given the chance. Better access MUST come with better education. Respect comes from better education, not fear of abuse locking out most users.
I find it intereting various lower impact groups think they love Parks more than others. And that they care and protect more so 'they" should get access whereas others should not. Especially when the governing body is struggling to have any real control, no money, and bettering for most, not just a few.
Mining and commercial interst are a different thing all together.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
Impact is the key term you use. I would rather give up my own access than allow high impact recreational use such as you desire. The bush isn't there for my benefit, it is an intrinsic benefit that we get just by it being there. I own a small patch of forest but I consider myself to be a preserver rather than an exploiter of the natural resources.
I don't desire anthing, just trying to cope with reality. They belong to people of low or high impact, they are a public asset, and should be managed for all to enjoy.
So am I right in thinking "you" would be happy they are locked away from all, and feel happy that they are just there. The weeds and feral animals are ok as well, and let nature sort out all that humans have done? Just as long as no shooters or heavier useres are allowed.
Have you never killed a weed, removed a introduced tree, or evicted a ferral animal from your bush block? You view makes sence but is not reality, nor should be.
Dont get me wrong Greg, I'm not attacking you. I actually appreciate you reply and I understand passion; but get saddened by single mindedness regardless of direction. I was once this way myself, and after seeing how small and individual minded hard core green groups are I stood back for a bit and had a look around.
Tell me, if I was king for a day and barcoded all our custodians of the State with a satelite tracking band that's very very hard to remove. Make them acutely aware of the 2 and 6 rule. Then buy back farm lands adjoining National Parks, and from that strong point rejuvenate the land outwards with a target of doubling or tripling park size. Also use this labour to clean out waterways and revegitate them, and pick up litter from bushlands, remove weeds, and so on. Would you find this too intrusive?
To me this would equal a national project like the Snowy Mountain Scheme, and utilise huge amounts of labour we are already paying for. Plus create supporting businesses, skills, awareness, and passion. And maybe, just maybe, all those in-mates who worked on such a project might get some self and social respect and rehabilitate. This is not only Nation building, its a great example to the world, probably meet some target we said we would. But most of all say to Australia, our natural back yard is important, very important.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
We really don't have much to argue, our positions are so far apart. I don't believe these assets belong to people, they are our responsibility but not out possessions. I prefer to think in geological time, a thousand years is but a short space of time. We have to protect as much of the natural world as we can for the future, once lost these ecosystems are very hard to restore. Unfortunately your attitude is pretty typical of current thinking, so it doesn't give me much hope for the future. I don't believe I am a hardcore conservationist, I just try to take a rational view of long term environmental factors.
Yes I think we will have to agree to disagree, as you are typical as well. Perhaps live in a house, wear cotton, have leather shous, drive a car, enjoy electricity, and probably had kids. But none of that has anything to do with you.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
I do all those things and keep pets, grow exotic plants and have lots of feral animals on my farm. I don't see what that has to do with preserving natural environments for future generations. I don't believe humans have the right to despoil the whole planet, surely we can reserve parts of the planet for all the other species.
Ain't that the huge problem we face? We have to fight tooth & nail to preserve areas which have little human interference, direct or indirect. With extremist, anti- environment governments in charge wilderness areas are seen to be places to exploit. For them no open space must go without a building or giant hole. No wilderness must be left undisturbed. I can see nothing at all wrong with having wilderness areas where the only human impact is to manage feral weeds & animals. Given that humans are spreading their tentacles everywhere is that too much to ask?
Not at all woko, but this is the problem. The other side see you as an extremest as well. As you too are saying no human access if I'm reading that correct. Both sides want all.
I'm saying both sides need to be more realistic. We the people also need a Government that escalates nature as a real sourse of sustainability for our existance. For nature, our pleasure, and paying the bill. Whats the point of having areas tucked away so no one can use them, but expect them to pay to try and keep them weed and feral free. Like wise whats the point of clearing it all for a few commercial interest. Humans are not going to esculate nature unless they can touch and feel it. Only allowing a few select to do so, and not others is a sure way to fail as I see it. These are user groups I'm talking about, not commercial.
Here is litte example,
I can read all the dope I want on the internet, saying this, saying that about the extinction of the white rhinno is iminant; as there are only 5 left in the world. A similar fate is on the way with the last 400 Asia tigers. Yes its sad, very sad actually, but means little to me sitting in my nice house with a cup of coffee reading the net. It doesnt affect me really, as its not my world even though it is.
Just happens I take a road trip to Dubbo zoo. Amazing hows zoo's roles have changed from bragging business with all their captured species, to breading safe havens for threatened species. Though I'd imagine some still dont see it that way. None the less, the kids got to see and learn just how fragile these animals future has become. They could almost touch these beauties, can smell, hear, and observe how they move. BUT they got information, they got education, something that fitted to the animal staring back at them in the same space and time. We now have a different view on Palm Oil in shampoo. The kids have become aware of poaching and how serious it is, and have a better understanding of peoples domination of animal interaction. Happy to say there were hundreds of kids there.
Now my point is, why cant this commercial model be rolled into National Parks. I'm currently sitting in a National Parks owned cabin in Mount Kaputar NP. We are here to get some cold miles on the kids for a planned NZ walk next year. One that is costing me $400 to do in one of their NPs. We are also here for the wildlife and serenity.
But in this cabin, which I presume goes into paying for this park, there is not a sceric of information on the state of the envitonment. Not a note on any of the endangured animals in Australia, or how damaging feral plants and animals are. Before I mentioned commercialism MUST come with education. There are another two kids next door, they will lean what ever their parents can pass down, but if they were locked out full stop they would lean less. How can things get better without access. I have to admit I'm cautious of comercial intetest prefering State owned infrastructure. But I'm will to pay, which is another hurdle for many.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
I guess what I'm saying, jason is that humans see themselves as above nature rather than a part of it. So humans want to exploit every piece of nature they can lay their hands on. So all intrusive are humans that I see nothing extremist at all in advocating that in this day & age there is full justification for wilderness areas being completely untouched by humans. The trouble is there are few if any areas that don't have a human imprint on them either directly through bushwalking, trail biking, canoeing (let alone mining, tourist lodges and logging) or indirectly through feral plant and animal invasion. Therefore, I would argue, there ought to be areas where the only human involvement is to rid the areas of these feral pests. This would add to the diversity of natural areas whereas to continue on our current path is to ensure the compromising of all natural areas.
To argue that this is an extremist position fall into the trap of opening up what little left of Earth's undisturbed natural wonders so that all of nature is compromised. Rather, those who argue that no natural area should be undisturbed are adopting the extremist position.
To argue that the no interference position is unrealistic are, in my view, adopting a short-term position because humans will surely suffer in the long run if natural areas are compromised out of existence. As well, the words "realistic" and "unrealistic" are often used by those who adopt the extremist position of advocating for human involvement everywhere. Only their position is "realistic" & all others are "unrealistic".
The cost of preserving natural areas can easily be borne by the tax payer. We never ask how much it costs to go to war. We simply go. So why can't the same position be adopted in preserving what little exists of our natural environment?
Woko, you forgot birdo's in the users infraltrating NP's. This will probably come out wrong as the written word has already been taken in the wrong tone.
But I think if we are honest with ourselves, most advocates for nature, land care groups, or any bush defender probably got their roots and love for nature from National Parks. I think its unfair, wrong, and almost anti human to say to our children your parents, grand parents, and forefathers ballsed it up; so sorry you have no access. I think if it takes a war time effort to fix the problem, then that is what us the people, the ones who have contributed to the problem, need to call for and then do.
I do wonder if my hero, and perhaps natures greatest hero David Attenborough, in his hope to expand minds for the wonder of nature, has expanded human interest in a negative way into the great untouched. From what I know the Antartic is the last great untouched, and that is a stretch on the truth. But perhaps it is his documentries on the Antarctic that have encouraged a new tourism fad.
Rock climbers go where the climbing is good, birdo's go where the birding good, and so on. Very few or perhaps none of us pitch ourselves as equal to nature and leave it alone.
I think this thread is done. Extreme, passionate, moderate doesn't matter, we are getting nowhere.
But one thing for sure. I have just enjoyed a sunset walk around Dawson Springs camp ground. Its desinged for people in wheel chairs. The kangaroos are here, some caterpillars too, Currawongs and Blue Wrens as well; but it wasn't long before I spied a patch of ripped up moss saok from our friends the pigs. The Rangers are down here shooting. The baits are out, and life goes on. Well untill the politicians can no longer deni humanity is doomed because we have no habitate, or perhaps even less awareness of it.
its been a good debate, thanks greg, thanks Woko. Over and out on this one.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
The irony of the push to develop national parks for recreational use is that the reason they are so attractive is because of the protection they have been given in the past. Places like freycinet and fraser island are so beautiful because development was restricted in the past, the same is true of all the best national parks. By allowing development now we are unavoidably degrading the worth of these places for future generations, you only get the use of these places once, then the pristine beauty is lost for future generations. Freycinet was a beautiful place because no development was allowed, now there is an "eco-resort" (oh the humanity of such a bastardised term) and the inevitable despoilation has started. Future generations will never know an unspoiled freycinet, you only get one bite of the cherry then it is gone.