Separate names with a comma.
We have a vibrant community here conversing about all sorts of non-snow topics such as music, sport, politics and technology. Simply register to reveal all our Après topics.
NOTE: This notice may be closed.
Discussion in 'Backcountry' started by Untele-whippet, Aug 12, 2014.
Scroll down a bit https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=9028794@N03&q=horse
or look at these sets
Politics and money.
I like seeing these horses up there but Its pretty plain to see that along with pigs they do some damage but then again so does a dam and a ski resort and a town etc we could go on. Its to late to turn the clock back now ferals are here to stay but we can try and manage them but no point worrying about it to much.
Essentially you are advocating just standing by to watch the natural worlds inevitable decline.
Serious money needs to go towards feral removal of all kinds, cats, pigs dogs etc.
If was not for the neighbours (failure to control and poor fences) there would be areas of SA Parks in the Flinders that would be goat free as a result of Parks long term Bounce Back program.
Horses are bigger, it should be a pretty similar exercise.
After which it is an issue of controlling deliberate re-introduction.
Devil release discussion moved to its own thread
Whilst I realise the brumbies in the park do damage I do wonder why the park is concentrating on them. From what I understand there are about three times more feral deer than there are brumbies and yet the NPWS a seems to put them in the too hard box. I understand that approx 300 deer were released in January 2003 during the bushfires and they are now thought to number approximately 20,000. Surely it is more important to concentrate on eradicating a pest that is multiplying exponentially instead of the brumbies.
It's their job to look at both.
The politics of deer eradication are less tricky that feral horse eradication.
I think the reason for the publicity on horses vice deer is that as can be seen many people have an emotional attachment to them, hence the whole community engagement process. Deer are just mobile venison.
Deer activity is already defined as a threatening process under the TSA, parks have to develop a POM as a response regardless.
By the time a decision is made on what to do with the brumbies I'll be dead and the horses will have multiplied.
Online consultation has been extended until 12 December. Opportunity to have your say and contribute via surveys and 'kitchen table discussion' process as well.
Need some rational contribution from rational people. No point just having your say here.
I take it from your comment you've worked with wild horses before and found them amazingly hard to break and domesticate?? If not, I'd love to hear how you come to such a conclusion?
I wonder how many possums lost their homes as a result of the Ski resorts you love so much? I'd wager it'd be in the thousands, but hey, as long as humans are seeing a personal benefit, anything goes.
Completely incorrect. If you're going to perpetuate exaggerated figures, at least make sure they can't be refuted by the information provided from NPWS themselves.
@Deejay. I guess you are an apologist for horses and other ferals that inhabit places they shouldn't be. That is nice, but do something constructive rather than get all misty eyed and round them up and take them home. Otherwise they (the ferals) should be eradicated and if that means a (humane as possible) cull, then so be it.
"Stuff all" is actually equal to keeping the population increase at only 1.5% per year. As for it being inherent that a breeding population is left at the end of each season - the very suggestion is ridiculous given that there is no way for NPWS to control how many horses enter the traps, let alone a particular sex.
And your "something constructive" is to aerial cull thousands of horses and leave their carcasses to not only feed the many pigs, foxes, wild dogs and cats, but to decay for weeks in a water catchment area servicing three states with absolutely zero chance of avoiding water contamination? Genius.
It is completely illegal to remove the brumbies from NP's in NSW, in fact there are hefty fines for doing so.
For real?! The supposed "good well researched read" you refer to is outstanding in the amount of errors it contains, which are only outshone by the ludicrous 'estimates' of potential numbers; all of which is disproved by the most recent 'count' this year. The tripe should not be published, let alone referenced as credible!
Surely, no one is that naive?? In order for your explanation as to why they're not descendants of horses used in the war to be correct, they would have had to send the entirety of our country's horses o/s, and I'm sure even the most naive of people realise that's a ridiculous notion.
So Deejay, tell us your solution for stopping the damage caused by wild horses?
Sound management consisting of a combination of approaches and founded on science not innuendo or assumptions. There are obvious issues relating to their impact, it is merely the scope that remains undefined. Exclusion fencing, passive trapping, increased community involvement and better options for individuals to adopt or rehome the horses as opposed to limiting it to those able to take a truck load of 15 at once, fertility control trials on smaller populations, ground shooting where necessary and in the interest of the horses welfare only, on site euthanasia of trapped horses.
I love the snowy's, I love the park and I love the horses and what I believe they represent, but I won't abide an unmitigated slaughter of defenceless animals simply because it's the cheapest or easiest option. Aside from that, aerial culling is not suitable for KNP as defined by the SOP on the practice itself, the discussion is moot.
That being the case, deer numbers should be far less because eradication is easier, yet they're not. Why?
Be careful who you're calling naive, because obviously you failed primary school comprehension. To be the DESCENDENTS of horses that WENT TO WAR means that there would need to be horses returned from overseas. As pointed out only one horse came back to Australia, therefore none of the feral horses are descendents of horses that went overseas with the first AIF. There may be feral horses that through some weak , and unprovable, connection are related to horses that went overseas but that is not a reason to keep something causing so much damage in KNP.
Sorry, but I believe it is you who is failing to comprehend. In order to be the DESCENDANTS of the horses sent to war, they merely need to be of the same stock, not part of the 160,000 sent over to die for our reasons. The horses used in the war were obtained from various stations throughout Australia, varying breeds for a multitude of purposes. Hence why we now see consistent traits in specific areas. Your analogy is akin to saying that those Australians proud of their ancestors war efforts have no right to be, and I'm sure you know that's not the case. We did not have one specific gene pool of countrymen who fought, nor did we have one 'herd' or supply of the horses used.
I think you are.
So wrong it's bizarre.
Enlighten me on how wrong I am, please!
I am a descendent of a war veteran (well, a few), because they came back and had kids who had more kids who had me. I am not a descendent of anyone who died in the war before having kids. It's a basic definitional issue.
a person, plant, or animal that is descended from a particular ancestor.
I can' be a descendent of someone I'm not related to via direct lineage.
You are my new favourite poster.
See my later posts.
Yes, I am comfortable with aerial culling and leaving carcasses.
I do understand that many folks are not, it's an interesting social issue.
So therefore, I am correct in saying that the stock used to breed the horses sent to war, having remained here to continue breeding, are indeed the ancestors of the horses used and therefore any remaining populations from the same stock not sent to war are the descendants.
That's nice, I like being the favourite
Hi Deejay, I have worked extensively over the past with horses, some "wild".
We have a "tamed" Guyra brumby on the property adjacent to ours, her owner can attest to the very lengthy, painstaking time winning over her trust.
And as with everything there is always the exception. I own two brumbies myself, and can personally attest to their nature and ability to be trained. It is not because mine were particularly easy or unique, both had their issues, but the inherent traits remain the same - if these horses are trapped and initial handling is relatively stress free, they are remarkably easy to work with. The various associations focused on their rehoming would attest to that, as would the many who adopt from them - a number that is increasing each year. They have been tainted by ignorance and prejudice for a very long time, however that does not mean we need continue to perpetuate it when there is plentiful evidence to the contrary.
Did you actually pass primary school level english? To be the descendent of someone/thing means that there will be a traceable bloodline back to an individual, not a nebulous connection to being part of the same "stock". If someone is a descendant of someone who went to war then, they are a child, grandchild, etc of someone who went. It is impossible to prove any of the feral horses are descendants of horses that went overseas, as none of the horses came back. The best that could be said is that there is the slim potential that some feral horses may have descended from a small number of the horses that went overseas. Cannot definitively state that any feral horse is a dscendant of a horse that was exported.
Why are you comfortable with the notion of creating a massive environmental hazard in order to protect a fragile environment? Are you aware of the reasons many people are not?
Wow. Yes, there has been DNA testing to definitively prove the connection between horses left behind and those used in war. Hence the traceable bloodline. To put it in the most basic form possible just for you, let's say there were horses bred on a station that were used for war with a population of say 500. They send 250 away to war, meaning half remain. Still with me? Ok, so we have 250 horses of the same lineage who continue to be bred and the war ends. Multiply this by the many remount stations across the country and you're left with the resultant population of horses descended from them, of the same bloodline. Please tell me you get it now?
I think the long term positives outweight the short term negatives. I also don't think it would create a 'massive environmental hazard'. Fukushima is a massive enviro hazard. Some thousands of dead animals over many thousands of square kms over a number of months or years would be unfortunate but as I have noted, I can live with it. I understand it's confronting.
What happens to feral horses that die in the here and now?
This means that the horses that went to war, and the ones that didn't are related. But it doesn't mean that the horses that are here are descended fr the ones that went to war. Related and descended are not typically (or ever, in my experience) considered interchangeable terms. I'm related to my uncle, but not descended from him.
Please tell me you get it now?
Hey Deejay, you would have noticed I started this thread in "Backcountry", cos I was keen to get people to comment on NPWS POM who actually go out into the NP away from the resorts and have seen the impact of the horses on the environment themselves. People who post here aren't just interested in resort based recreation, they tend to greatly care for the minuscule area of Australia that is alpine
I just want to know what the war has to do with culling feral horses in the NP ?
Except it wouldn't be thousands over thousands of square kms, density tends to be concentrated in certain areas and sporadic or minimal in others, odds are we'd see the impact of aerial culling being concentrated to a small area, therefore causing at the very least an environmental risk if not a hazard. What then of the population increase of the carnivores feeding off them? Are we to create another larger issue in our efforts to contain a threat we are currently managing?
The feral horses dying in the here and now do not contain lead from bullets used to cull them, nor are there thousands dying simultaneously, hence the impact of their carcasses is negligible.
Aerial culling is not merely "confronting" it is incredibly cruel and highly inaccurate. Follow up of wounded horses would be almost impossible in many areas of KNP, leaving horses to bleed out for days before dying - as evidenced in previous culls in NSW and across the country. Are we to discard all humanity in our efforts to protect an environment that has sustained an introduced animal for over 170 years with minimal impacts?
"The war" itself has little to do with culling the horses, however their link to our heritage does. Personally I believe we owe them more than to be treated as vermin and shot from the air. I find it incredibly ironic that within the Namadgi NP in the ACT we have a trap yard with a heritage listing due to its connection to an era long past and our folklore, and yet the horses themselves carry no heritage value whatsoever. Go figure.
I'm sorry, I don't see your point? Other than to infer I do not care for the minuscule Alpine area and if that's the case, you would be incorrect.
tenuous "war heritage" link is exceptionally tenuous to be really just a romantic notion.
"Brumbies" are feral noxious pests just like pigs, goats, deer, rabbits, foxes and the very worst feral species of all, the cat.
If a horse is not in its paddock, a dog in its yard, a cat in its cage, a deer on its farm or a pig in its pen, its a feral.
Now you're just being pedantic.
I think you'll find the "very worst feral species of all" is humans. As a species we've been responsible for the annihilation of more native flora and fauna than any introduced pest you can name. Foxes, pigs, goats, deer, rabbits, and feral cats and dogs are in plague proportions and causing in some instances, the severe reduction or extinction of our native fauna, but the same cannot be said for the brumbies.
Almost as interesting as your "descendants" and "heritage" arguments, comparing brumbies to humans.
You should think of the frogs and the fishes and all the wee creatures that live in the bogs and marshes of the high country more and not be so "one species" specific.
I don't like the idea of an aerial cull so perhaps they can get a foot cull together and shoot some of the other ferals along the way.
Shoot and burn, just not in bushfire season. There are not enough people to "rehome" the brumbies so another plan must be put in place.
Yes I do get it, I get that you don't know the difference between descended from and related to. My children are related to an East Timor veteran, my cousin, they (my children and my cousin's children) are desecended from a WW2 Royal Navy veteran, my grandfather. Just as my children are desceded fom an RAN serviceman (me) but my cousin's children aren't.