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?
Travis22 wrote:I'm also confused now Maddog are you for or against any of the mentioned 'culls' as per your original post?
Travis.
maddog wrote:Pteropus, FootTrack and Travis,
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests