Sorry Deejay but your just looking for a fight and your full of it. You state above you are OK with shooting then go on to deride it. Get your argument straight and dont come on here insulting everyone. (oh gee as I am doing to you!) Your opinions are typical of those who cannot and will not compromise on policy and accordingly, often get left out of the final debate due to their strident no compromise approach.
So the station stallions and mares used to breed the horses sent to war would be? And any remaining offspring not sent to war would be?
I stated I was ok with ground shooting where possible and shooting of trapped horses not rehomed as opposed to being sent to slaughter. I do not believe aerial culling to be a feasible or humane option - if that makes me full of it then so be it. And your opinions are typical of those with only half the information and an over inflated sense of righteousness who refuse to compromise or entertain any idea not identical to your own.
No on both counts, the only way there would be a horse in Australia that was a descendant of a horse that went overseas with 1st AIF, would be if that horse had sired or gave birth to a foal before it went as only one horse came back from overseas. The station stallions and mares did not go, so what happens to any of their offspring that didn't go is irrelevant to any debate about supposed heritage values of what is by definition a feral animal and as pointed out none came back.
Hang on, so you're ok with shooting horses that are trapped but not rehomed (whatever that might mean and I wonder just how big a market that actually is, I suspect it is consistently overstated) while being against the idea of horses being humanely dispatched in a slaughterhouse. Either way end up with a dead horse and I have a fair idea which way is more humane (and it ain't shooting at the site of capture) and which will allow for some financial return. You're contradicting yourself...
welcome @Deejay . happy to entertain an alternate view. I assume from your comments that you haven't lurked very much in these forums and may not be familiar with either it's general tone nor the experiences, professions , interests or training of many of it's participants. The ISC article so readily dismissed is mainly based on Axford Dawson and Brown, which you seem to familiar with, http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/as...d-horse-ecology-and-environmental-impacts.pdf Curious as to what you see as the limitations of this work.. also public submissions 69 and 70 must be likewise deficient. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/609075/Submissions_61-70.pdf I recommend all the submissions made to the Vic Horse Mgmt plan as interesting and rewarding background reading.
and here is another poorly researched piece of propaganda from those psuedoscience ISC to provide some greater context http://invasives.org.au/files/2014/02/fs_invasivespeciesclimatechange.pdf
I believe 'rehomed' is self explanatory, and it's up to you if you believe the figures are overstated, but I'm sure NPWS could easily clear that up for you. Being humanely dispatched in a slaughterhouse involved trucking the horses to SA and as such usually causes more distress than shooting on site. There is no financial return for parks in having the horses slaughtered, the contractor paid to remove them is the one making the profit when he sells them for dog meat. No contradictions here.
Dawson and Brown data aside, the ISC article is beyond ludicrous when the authors attempt to convince the reader of a population as high as 80,000. The most recent count shows the maximum to be only a tenth of that amount. Should their information be relied upon? Not that I've found.
@Deejay I see that you are a new member here, that you have not posted in any other thread (than this one) and you are vehement opposed to the culling of brumbies. That makes you a troll of the highest order (from coalition of pro-brumby numpties). We have a few here (trolls) but they usually participate in a more constructive manner in some form or another. I can't see you doing so, so maybe it is time for you to get on your high horse (or is that hobby horse) and ride off into the sunset as you won't convince anyone here of you rabidly emotive position.
@Deejay so the base data used by the ISC isn't in dispute? Andrew Cox explains how the 80k figure is derived. What step in the process do you take exception to?
Hi Dejay welcome to the forum, can I introduce you to the 'Backcountry Brake' as they also fall in the category of 'useless foreign things not wanted or needed in KNP' and are in need of support. Thanks for the entertainment
Ok I need to reply specifically to this preliminary 2014 NSW figures here https://engage.environment.nsw.gov....inary-results-from-draft-aerial-survey-report so so lets run with 6000. estimated annual rates of increase These population increase figures i believe also account for the 2000+ trapped removals in that time. Victorian estimates (from http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/p...cts/victorian-alps-wild-horse-management-plan) are so lets run with 9500. 9500+ 6000 = 15500 which given that the ISC in their fact sheet were running with the best available figure of population increase over the whole of the Australain alps available at the time .. which also had the overt proviso of So the claim of the ISC that as of december 2013 looks pretty solid. The rate of population increase also carries the note as per Dawson's paper on horse ecology. Which has been borne out by the 2014 survey. so ignoring the relatively small observed population in Snowy plain , under current practices and reproduction rates that yields NSW populations of 9800 in 2020 and 29300 in 2030. assuming the reproduction rates and proportions are the equivalent for Victoria (big assumption) the 2020 figure would be 16300 and for 2030 48400! so that gives total projections for alps of >26K in 2020 and >77K for 2030 with business as usual. So even with using the more recent population growth estimates and assuming they are consistent throughout the alps, it shifts the curve to the right by only 10 years.! So i think it is more than fair to conclude that given the data available at the time the projections of the ISC were reasonable. The representations of that data were fair and the subsequent 2014 NSW count validates the estimates up to now. The new population estimates change the headline from 80K in 2020 to 80K in 2030. So either @Deejay you have misinterpreted the data, or choosing to misrepresent it.
The survey is worth doing folk.. some good questions that test how well you understand the current situation and issues. One for the animal behaviorists.. how "humane" is any sort of trapping, is there evidence that it isn't distressing for the animals concerned? How do we assess Chronic stressors versus Acute stressors?
In the context of eradication of a feral animal it is helpful for participants in the process to be committed to the process and to be taking it to the end target and not participating for some other reason and in the mean time deliberately allowing breeding stock to continue. Both shooters and trappers have spoken to me about letting breeding stock go or releasing them. Or not shooting or not keeping captured stock that was not up to par. For feral horses issues such as colour, poor condition and age for the targeted sale customer were noted as reasons not to keep a trapped horse. Rather than shoot them onsite or sell them to the pet food industry they are released.
also the assertion of only 1.5% increase p.a. runs contrary to the latest figures (which @Deejay was at pains to reference elsewhere) which as quoted above gives you a total KNP year on year increase of nearly 9% for 2015 rising to 12.7% in 2030 and continuing upwards from there.
Just added my two cents worth by taking the survey. Might just throw another spanner in the works, WEEDS
Just did the survey and made some comments. Folks, get in an do the survey and make comments in the current conversations.
Have you joined the wild horse conversation? Time is running out to have your say with just nine days left to have your say on the review of the Wild Horse Management Plan for Kosciuszko National Park. Have you joined more than 20,000 people who have visited the website, completed a survey, contributed a story, generated discussion or downloaded a discussion guide? There’s an All Parks Annual Pass worth $190 to be won – go in the draw by returning your Kitchen Table Discussion feedback form or lodge your feedback online. We need your input to help, along with advice from the Independent Technical Reference Group, develop a new draft Wild Horse Management Plan which will be placed on public exhibition for further consultation next year. The more input we receive now; the more informed our new draft. There is a raft of new discussions opening the final days of the online consultation. · You can now upload and share your stories, pictures and videos about wild horses and your experiences in Kosciuszko National Park online · Take part in a short survey · Download or complete online the Kitchen Table Discussion Guide,it’s a way to have a guided conversation about the Wild Horse Management Plan at home, in your office, in your community group or classroom and then provide this feedback to the review process. · Contribute to new discussions on whether we should keep horses out of particular parts of the park or what happens if we do nothing?And what do you think of brumby running and roping? · View the interactive infographic profiling the presence of wild horses in Kosciuszko National Park since the Man from Snowy River was published. · View photos of the recent 21st Century Townhall Meeting, an innovative consultation approach drawing together a large group of people including stakeholders and members of the general public to examine the Wild Horse Management Plan and provide input for the redraft. When does the online consultation close? On Friday 12 December at 5pm, the online consultation will close after five months. What does the online consultation examine? We have explored subjects like fertility control, trapping and removal, rehoming, establishing a sanctuary, fencing off environmentally sensitive areas, the objectives of the plan, environmental studies, population estimates, wild horse biology and reproduction, as well as the consultation process. CLICK HERE to join the conversation. You can comment anonymously by registering a username or screen name. Your registration details will not be disclosed and will be stored in line with government privacy protocols. Only your screen name will be displayed to other users.
Here is the latest draft plan of management. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/protectsnowies/knp-wild-horse-plan-draft-160271.pdf The key point is to reduce the number to 600 over 20yrs. Herds will still exist to the north and south areas of the park and be removed from the key central areas. It is indeed a highly emotive topic but it pays to include that 40000 horses are processed for meat products in Australia every year and that Australia is one of the largest horse meat exporting countries in the world. That is a lot of unwanted horses not being "rehomed" even before Brumbies are introduced into the mix. The Brumby numbers have greatly increased to numbers well above any historical levels and they need to be reduced to a manageable sustainable population once again and there are no easy answers to this issue. There have never before been 5000 iconic brumbies in history and there are not 5000 people putting up their hand to rehome them. Lots of people signing petitions and making facebook groups but nowhere to adopt this over population of brumbies.
About....... I remember once commenting on Facebook on a photo taken of brumbies near Kiandra...... for suggesting the shot would have been better if taken with a Ruger rather than a Nikon...... the amount of vitriol I copped.....
I really think they should just be rounded up and delivered to Jan Carter* so she can work out what to do with them....... two problems then solved. * President of Save the Brumbies
It is going to be entertaining viewing as this proceeds. The opening of the story on the ABC news on the weekend was the parade of the Australian stock horses at the Olympic Games opening (closing?) ceremony. What needs to be done is a few hundred acres of High Country needs to be fenced and isolated as a 'High Country Heritage Museum' with a few mountain cattlemen, a herd of herefords and a mob of brumbies so that people can visit and enjoy these icons of the high country.
IMHO people loose track of the plans intent to allow a herd of 600 Snowy Region Brumbies to exist for perpetuity. IMHO all things aside that is a pretty good outcome based purely on historical emotive themes. I like that there will still be Brumbies about and that they may regain some of their secretive mystery once again and be all that more elusive. IMHO the large and ever increasing numbers have take them from being Snowy Mountains Brumbies to the simple normality of "wild horses" spotted in some many areas.
Most people ("Most people") wouldn't see anything wrong with 5,000 of them either. Conservation be ****ed. There will be arguments: But they are horses! Love them! Rode one once! Stock icons! Genetic heritage! Light Brigade! Foxes! Pigs! Deer! Dogs! MFSR!
An outcome is required and IMHO a herd of 600 and none within the prime central part and high country of the park is an outcome the so called "Sustainable Brumby" groups should be celebrating.
Eh I see his point. We should of course be shooting the wild dogs, foxes and deer etc as well. Despite that rather biased and emotional SMH article, the poll and comments have come out on the side of culling.
He wants to save the brumbies whilst getting rid of the other ferals. We need a govt committed to a strategy of ALL feral control, professional culling not amateur blood sporter sporting
Fk me... Cull all the fin feral animals, it ain't an either /or, it is about the risk profile, in that area, right now. This is where not having herbivory by horses listed as a "threatening process " is an oversight. Deer, foxes, pigs, Rabbits all have some regulatory grunt. They all have a formal recognition of the ecological risk( and if a declared pest the economic) With climate change our alpine flora is going to be under significant and enduring stress, horses are one manageable stressor the alpine ecology can do without... Why is that so difficult for folk like Richard to come to grips with and accept. I agree with DWD this is a good plan, far better than I was expecting from the process..
