I agree, this issue needs to be talked with calmer heads. But I fail to see
If I'm following you correctly, it seems that your comment is pro-shooting
because you think that shooters will keep the numbers down of species that
are currently out control?
Shooters are shooters for one reason, to shoot and kill wildlife. They
aren't out to manage wildlife or to manage habitats. And letting shooters
loose in National Parks is a poor way to manage either.
If shooter want to shoot feral animals, fine, but not native animals, and
not in National Parks and other such reserves.
On Behalf Of Chris Brandis
Sent: Friday, 12 June 2009 7:50 PM
Subject: Shooting in NPs
Been reading the comments so adding my 2 bobs worth.
NPs are at best a large zoo where the animals live within a fenced area. In
good times they can breed up and when the times go bad have no where to go.
Before white man the animals were hunted by man and beast and when one area
was over utilised they could migrate to another, but they can not do that
now. All the best areas are now under cultivation.
So they eat out their limited environment and start to starve because we
have altered the natural way things should work. If the animals were in a
city zoo and starving there would be an out cry so why not if, because of us
they are starving out there should some remedial action be taken by us to
protect their environment.
There were areas in Canberra during the drought where roos were denuding the
reserves and there were no natural predators such as dingos to keep the
balance with much damage to the whole eco system, including birds. The
proposed culls were fought strongly with the result that many areas were
left barren moon scapes and not a Hooded Robin in sight.
We mucked it up so we are responsible to manage it for the best whole result
but when ever does reason over come emotion.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)