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 Greybeard, Sep 10, 2018.
Barilaro has always been all over the shop so this latest backflip is not unexpected.
Maybe he’s a bit more receptive to “science” now. Apparently the death of his uncle and aunt in Italy from Covid in December really hit him hard.
Possibly wishful thinking derived from sad circumstances?
Deputy NSW leader Paul Toole has changed a lot since the fires, it really affected him.
Go super Barilaro Bruz!
At a guess Barilaro is running cover for the government not adopting all the recommendations of the latest koala protection report.
Don't believe everything you read in the media as to what a politician is said to be thinking. He may well have said '600' to the SMH reporter, he may well have not. Check his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/JohnBarilaroMP as to what he is saying to the brumby activists who are now attacking him as a sell out. Everyone knows the point of truth these days is Facebook or Twitter. It may be a case of you tell each different audience what they want to hear.
Those who want some factual details on the spring 2020 survey for feral horses in KNP can find a summary and the full report here: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/...management/tracking-the-wild-horse-population
Key point is this:
The spring 2020 survey report found the best estimate for the wild horse population in Kosciuszko National Park is 14,380.
The 95% confidence interval of the survey is 8798–22,555. This means that we can be very confident that the population is at least 8798 and could be up to 22,555 wild horses. Providing a 95% confidence interval is crucial to good evidence-based research and reflects the integrity of the survey results.
Which essentially means not a lot has changed much between the 2019 (pre fires) and 2020 (post fires)
So Honest John would agree we can knock off at least 2,978 immediately....
A good start.
It would be interesting to know how he has arrived at his position of what is a sustainable population or not??
'The numbers that I believe are sustainable in the Kosciuszko National Park have always been around the 3,000-4,000 mark. That has not changed.'
I expect that is based on the advice of an eminent Australian ecologist from Yaouk.
Bingo. And all 4000 will be within a days ride from Camp Cochran, sorry, I mean Old Snowy Camp, the biggest numpty circus in all the mountains.
Yep. Fenced fuel load. Have a look-see at the fire ‘damage’ photos of inside the plots.
If the valleys were as heavily grassed as the plots at least the regrowth timber would be cleared out.
Hmmmmm.... how did they get them horse numbers ?
Fires change the preferred grazing spots of all herbivores.
Where’s all the horse manure ? Should be pat’s everywhere.
Got them grey Kangaroos there ?
Hey city dude, heads up since your basic understanding of things beyond the 110km sign seems rather limited - cows drop pats, horses leave piles.
Just giving this a bump https://aboutregional.com.au/jindabyne-candidates-forum-drives-brumbies-debate-further/
Someone may actually be able to find the link to the video but it was clear Bari called for an immediate reduction by 50% and only 600 horse should remain in sensitive areas. Backflip Bari. "In never said anything about reducing to 600" It seems Andrew Cox has forgotten this as well.
Great photo here for the horse supporters who disagree with the new count. Look at the stream behind the lone horse. It has been trashed. The obvious intended implication of the photo is there are much fewer horses. Look, just one here. All I could say is if there is only one horse in that area then it is doing a lot more damage than we thought. Denying horses do ANY damage makes their argument to save the horses irrelevant and makes them irrelevant as well, regardless of how vocal they are. Reasonable people can see it clearly and will then find it hard to believe anything they say. The denial of damage does them no favours but to admit horses damage is to concede there is a need for effective control. Numbers are clearly out of hand and the only way to significantly reduce numbers is to shoot. That is not palatable for the horse supporters. A catch 22 situation for them. Deny any damage and support dwindles (more so the numbers for culling increase) but admit damage and culling has to happen. The tide is on the turn. Time for more pressure to be applied.
Ah, yes. The ‘name’ police.. .....and stalions leave real big piles of pats..
Yesterday I were out on me flat at the farm, tomorrow I will be visiting me flat in the city...
If you really had "me farm" (and why this faux yokel crap) you would use correct terminology without thinking about it.
Xplora, is that photo of a fire ‘damaged’ plain ?
Only the ‘educated’ may comment.
You aren't very bright. If you really had "me farm" you would not even think about it. It would be automatic.
Recent comments from horse supporters denouncing the new count as flawed and inaccurate but then in the same breath state the new count proves extensive losses due to bushfire. If you accept the count to be inaccurate then the number could in fact be more but these people want to accept as evidence the lessor number provided this time in comparison to the number provided on the previous 'flawed' count which they rejected as well. Does anyone else see the irony in this? Let's show photos of horses doing damage and then claim horses do no damage. Lets reject two counts but then rely on them to prove a point.
The writer also shows little knowledge of where horses can be. I have seen them in heavily timbered areas in large numbers. So thick was the forest I could not see the horses until they ran out in front of my car. Understandably they are not goats but they can still inhabit timbered and steep areas.
This I have seen South of Jindy, they really just go where they like, very mobile and able travellers.
Are you sure. They seem to have little use to explorers over long and treacherous journeys through history?
I'm far less travelled through the Alpine than many here, but I still find it telling that a couple of years ago (Mar '17) in the same day I saw several groups along the Snowy/Barry Way near the border, along the SM Highway and then Long Plain. And that's just along some major roads
He definitely said 600 a while back. The blokes a muppet puppet
Idiots are also free to comment, for without idiots there would be no educated.
Love that stupid comment- If there were 14000 of them you would be stumbling over them . Go for a walk from Cascades to Kiandra if you think its that small.
48 Hectares per horse.
Hmmm... well, I were wondering how the count were done. I’ve had occasion to do a stock take from the air and know it to be an ‘in-exact’ endeavour.
Seems to me which ever way yer want the count to be, the ones that have been done is a furphy..
Not a bad grazing area for them nags.
Driving around some of the near city blocky areas I see 48 horses per Hectare...
Obviously the word irony is not one yer arr familya with.
But a higher case of pig rooting no doubt.
The Australian megafauna equivalent of a big pig:
“...Zygomaturus probably ate reeds and sedges by shovelling them up in clumps with its lower incisor teeth. However, in analysis of remains from Cuddie Springs, the carbon isotope ratios suggests that it consumed both C3 and C4 plants, with a dental microwear texture indicative of browsing...”
Are you saying all the educated are idiots ?
I’m still wondering about that photo ?
It is quite interesting reading the snippets given away by people arguing to protect a feral pest. There are those people who simply believe no animal should be harmed. Well they got into bed with people who eat steak with their lamb chops and make comments like 'eating a vegan is the closest thing to grass fed'. An interesting alliance particularly when you consider the far right views held by many of the red meat munchers. For these people, saving the horses has nothing to do with the horses. It is about stopping a perceived left wing agenda to destroy nationalism and their right wing culture which apparently the feral horse represents in the minds of all us communists. Of course you would have to take most of this rhetoric with a grain of salt. I do however see how the feral horse is a symbol to them of a culture which is fading. I can understand also that in a country which asks people to be culturally tolerant in every aspect, it seems this culture is being left behind and that can be a bitter pill to swallow. Fortunately I have read many comments from other horse owners who are speaking out about protecting a very small part of the country. When the pro-horse people start citing agendas then it is difficult for them to understand the agenda of horse lovers and owners who want the horses out.
Via the book Losing Ground...
Pg, 10. “...That they should have to modify their activities for the Snowy scheme was one thing, but was it right to force wool and meat producers out of the mountains so that city people could ski.....”
Check your timelines.
This is where I am in agreement with @Telemark Phat - enviro grounds are a stupid argument platform. People love brumbies because they love them. Heritage, beauty, experience, wonder, commercial interests. These are valid things to note and support. I don’t think they outweigh the negatives, but at least it’s worth discussion.
40 years ago NPWS didn’t like huts. Now they are an intrinsic part of the NPWS estate in NSW. Variably managed and supported, but intrinsic nonetheless. Bicycles the same. Ski resorts.... sort of. Truthfully acknowledging a management approach is probably a better way.
As a hypocrite and entirely inconsistent human, I really like snowy region trout fishing - it’s lovely, different, difficult, exciting, a catalyst for a lot of other positive things (walks, commerce, etc); but I have to acknowledge that ecologically they are terrible. I can see there’ll be removal or reduction programs for specific catchments in the next generation or so, probably. This will induce similar angst for some and utilise many similar argument to the ‘save brumbies’ arguments.
I agree entirely and have sought to look deeper into motives and agenda on both sides. My thoughts regarding science have been made to Reclaim Kosci and the Invasive Species council. Also my thoughts on them using trout streams as a weapon. I also love fly fishing for trout but the are an invasive species. I am not sure if stocking continues in NSW. Maybe in dams. If you can peel away the layers which front the arguments and get to the real reasons then you will have a better chance of putting together a management plan which both sides can work with. There are just so many people who cannot be honest enough with themselves to state the real agenda and yet it is so obvious. I think the animal rights people are honest enough as they believe in the right of all animals to live. All the other argument though, the iconic horse, heritage of our pioneer days, war heros that built a nation are all just smoke screens.
But how to reconcile the animal deaths caused by other animals?
So pigs, deer, goats & horses all cause habitat loss that impacts directly such very rare animals like Corrobboree Frogs.
And trout are much more direct, they eat (kill) the native fish out to extinction.
It's all how it works in the real world so using the right of animal to live is really a hypocritical argument with one living but killing another.
So it boils down to a choice, let feral animals live at the expense of unique endemic species that live pretty much no where else in the world.
The argument is more about humans not killing animals. That is how it is rationalised but I have seen the same hypocrisy as you. Humans put these feral pests there so they are not natural and therefore the death of other animals as a result can in fact be blamed on humans. I believe the animal rights people would prefer the horses to be removed and not killed. The horse lovers believe horses are just such a special animal and argue among themselves about re-homing vs leaving populations alone and the right wing nationalists want to punish the government for taking away their 'rights' and are only using horses as a weapon. The same people 150 years ago would have been running them down because they were pests. This type is the one I find the most hypocritical and disingenuous.
It's just as direct having feral animals sending species to extinction (they are killed outright never to be around again) as to shoot to kill feral animals. It's not rational to say "Oh we did not directly kill an animal" but then allow those animals to kill other animals. It's a completely irresponsible and a cop out argument.
Sure capture and re-home the feral animals, after providing adequate funding and resources. If not go for the solution that can be resourced and funded. Not that there are not issues around capture and relocate that are possibly just as stressful (particularly on the required scale) as the shoot to kill solution.
It's still boiling down to a choice, live feral animals OR ultimately extinction unique endemic species that live pretty much no where else in the world. People need to understand their choice, make it, live with it, explain it to their children and their grandchildren.
The grazing leases where rescinded a few years after the Pleistocene Epoch just as the Skierstocene Iconic was kicking off.
I totally agree. Just putting forward the other perspective. It has to do with how we (as humans) perceive the rights of other sentient beings. Some take the sentient thing too far but are also hypocritical with that. They rationalise the riding of horses with some kind of bond and delude themselves their horses actually love it. A true animal rights activist would never ride a horse.
“A true animal rights activist” does not exist.
Background reality checked.