This is an example of a straight forward story....but can you "see" what the real story is??
The real story is people seeking money.
ie if you had buffalo running on your land and you wanted them off (for whatever reason)......who should pay (for helicopters/mustering/yards/transport etc)
1)the taxpayer?
2) or you?
cheers Bilbo
PS The total costs of "removing" them exceeds their value
dabbler said
04:23 PM Sep 30, 2020
Wild animals don't recognise property boundaries and are found on private, leasehold and crown lands. They were and probably still are carriers of Brucellosis and Blue Tongue Disease. As such they represent a significant biological threat to other animals both domesticated and feral. I'm a bit surprised this aspect didn't warrant a mention. In the case of Brucellosis, a zoonosis, feral buffalo also represent real threat to humans. Brucellosis is considered eradicated in Australia's domestic herds, Blue Tongue is not but closely monitored by nationally funded programs. It won't stay in northern Aust without some check on feral bovine populations. In the past, state and Fed govt agencies undertook culling right across the north of Australia trying to protect the cattle industry in the area as well as animal industries in the rest of Australia. A friend still suffers from debilitating bouts of Brucellosis he contracted when assisting these programs 40+ years ago. The damage to lands is somewhat immediate, the damage our animal industries may take longer. Both can be mitigated through govt actions like culls.
WindyHill said
07:15 AM Oct 1, 2020
dabbler wrote:
Wild animals don't recognise property boundaries and are found on private, leasehold and crown lands. They were and probably still are carriers of Brucellosis and Blue Tongue Disease. As such they represent a significant biological threat to other animals both domesticated and feral. I'm a bit surprised this aspect didn't warrant a mention. In the case of Brucellosis, a zoonosis, feral buffalo also represent real threat to humans. Brucellosis is considered eradicated in Australia's domestic herds, Blue Tongue is not but closely monitored by nationally funded programs. It won't stay in northern Aust without some check on feral bovine populations. In the past, state and Fed govt agencies undertook culling right across the north of Australia trying to protect the cattle industry in the area as well as animal industries in the rest of Australia. A friend still suffers from debilitating bouts of Brucellosis he contracted when assisting these programs 40+ years ago. The damage to lands is somewhat immediate, the damage our animal industries may take longer. Both can be mitigated through govt actions like culls.
So right, and also dont forget TB. Feral pigs, buffalo and cattle in the north would still be carrying TB, 40 odd years after Australia was declared free of TB. It was claimed that pigs and buffs were eradicated in the North but of course, that was never the case.
dorian said
09:15 AM Oct 1, 2020
dabbler wrote:
Wild animals don't recognise property boundaries and are found on private, leasehold and crown lands. They were and probably still are carriers of Brucellosis and Blue Tongue Disease. As such they represent a significant biological threat to other animals both domesticated and feral. I'm a bit surprised this aspect didn't warrant a mention.
Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation (BAC) sought approval from the NLC in February 2018 to muster buffalo and sell them for pet meat processing.
A commercial mustering operation on Aboriginal-owned land requires a Section 19 Land Use Agreement under the Land Rights Act, and NLC must consult traditional owners prior to approval.
But more than two years after the initial application was lodged NLC has not done any consultations or made any decision on the land use agreement, according to BAC.
"It's [become] unclean country ... you see water change, mud change if you eat animal from that place you get sick."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-09-30/wild-buffalo-destroying-arnhem-land-floodplains-hunting-ground/12713966
This is an example of a straight forward story....but can you "see" what the real story is??
The real story is people seeking money.
ie if you had buffalo running on your land and you wanted them off (for whatever reason)......who should pay (for helicopters/mustering/yards/transport etc)
1)the taxpayer?
2) or you?
cheers Bilbo
PS The total costs of "removing" them exceeds their value
So right, and also dont forget TB. Feral pigs, buffalo and cattle in the north would still be carrying TB, 40 odd years after Australia was declared free of TB. It was claimed that pigs and buffs were eradicated in the North but of course, that was never the case.
Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation (BAC) sought approval from the NLC in February 2018 to muster buffalo and sell them for pet meat processing.
A commercial mustering operation on Aboriginal-owned land requires a Section 19 Land Use Agreement under the Land Rights Act, and NLC must consult traditional owners prior to approval.
But more than two years after the initial application was lodged NLC has not done any consultations or made any decision on the land use agreement, according to BAC.
"It's [become] unclean country ... you see water change, mud change if you eat animal from that place you get sick."