At 17:22 23/03/1999 +1200, wrote:
>To pose this question is to answer it
Really? I think not. To pose the question is surely merely to acknowledge
that a problem exists. If we could "solve" all problems by simply asking
the question the world would be a far more peaceful globe. It isn't, in
spite of all the questions.
>- is it at all uncontroversial that habitat destruction is >overwhelmingly
the greater threat? If that is so, the more people who >support the
preservation and reclaimation of wetlands (a particularly >threatened and
degraded habitat type in Australia) the better.
The point is surely WHY do they do this? For the ultimate benefit of
wildlife? Call me cynical but I have this sneaky suspicion that their
motives lie elsewhere. I can only suggest you re-read the posting from
>That will give economic and political muscle on the side of habitat
>conservation and against those who would chop it down and/or drain it.
Only for as long as that particular tac supports their ulterior motives.
Should they ever come into a position of greater power (eg a Pauline Hanson
dominated Senate... or, God forbid, a Hansonite Government) I think we (the
genuine supporters of wildlife) would all find both barrels of a shotgun
strategically inserted into uncomfortable orifaces.
<But there are 10s of thousands of Austrlaians who want to,
And no doubt there are a similar number of Australians who would like to see
their mothers-in-law conveniently eliminated or "waste" their noisome
neigbours or see Aboriginal (Maori) land right claims dismantled overnight
or who would enjoy the benefits of sudden riches by robbing the local "you
know which bank". The point surely is that we expect CIVILASATION to be
above this. I want, therefore I will have, hardly fits the bill.
>will support economically and politically conservation measures if they are
>allowed to hunt, and not otherwise.
My point exactly. I will do the morally correct thing ONLY if there is an
ultimate reward in it for me. Otherwise sod the wildlife!
>conservation in general, needs every dollar and every vote it can get;
So lets lobby the underworld drug syndicates. A fix a day will keep avian
extermination away. Yes, I can see a lot of promise in that. No doubt
other aus-birders could dream up even more original slogans to suit the
>Conservation issues are on thing; animal rights issues another.
Could you run that one by me one more time, only this time in the Big Book
version. I think I must have turned two pages at the same time.
To conserve the habitat to the extermination of the animals that use the
habitat is your ideal solution to the vexing question of wildfowl shooters
who accidently take out a Freckled Duck or Black Swan? I've obviously
misunderstood, or is it that I just don't understand Kiwi logic? Perhaps
you should re-read Penny's contribution.
Queensland Ornithological Society
12 Florence Street
Kippa-Ring Q. 4021 Australia
Tel: +61 7 3283 4921
Fax: +61 7 3889 4272
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the quotes)