Unrealistic Proposals for Farmers to Receive Culling Permits


72
80 shares, 72 points

Extreme greens, or as they like to refer to themselves these days, environmentalists are stamping their feet, demanding the Victorian Government require landholders to prove they have tried all nonlethal control methods before being granted permits to cull kangaroos, ducks, and other wildlife.

The call from the extremist lobby groups has forwarded more than 1000 submissions to the panel reviewing the Victorian Wildlife Act. The submissions are taken to “improve” the current Authority to Control Wildlife permit system or ATCW.

The Weekly Times reported, In summarising submissions the expert panel said participants “provided the following options to improve the current Authority to Control Wildlife permit system:

REQUIRElandholders to provide proof of damage caused by wildlife

DEMANDlandholders prove they have tried nonlethal methods (scare guns, fencing or netting).

CONSULTconsultation with third parties or the general community on applications for lethal control and inform neighbours.

MAKEmanagement plans a condition of approving an ATCW application.

INTRODUCEan independent body to assess ATCW applications (currently approved by Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning staff).

INTRODUCEan independent committee to handle complaints and conducts audits

ISSUEon-the-spot fines for noncompliance with ATCW conditions.

REPORTand publish ATCW outcomes, including the number of permits issued, animals affected and the type of control (lethal, disturbance etc.), the number of noncompliance fines issued and the number of successful prosecutions.

Farmers want the opposite, they want to be able to protect their crops and properties without an absurd amount of redtape that would render any cull useless as the damage would have already been done.

The following are examples of the submissions received. The majority aginst farmers and control of any sort.

Wildlife Act Review Submission Comment 59: Contributor: Individual Primary interests: • Other: member of the public extremely concerned with the future of our wildlife and their habitats

Comment: With daily evidence of human induced climate change and other damage that we have chosen to inflict on our world, we need to change urgently. Currently: We give permits to kill wildlife because they are “ pests’. Who was here first? We promote the killing of kangaroos for money We accept roadkill as normal We poison/trap/net targeted “pest” animals that also kills native wildlife ( pretend this doesn’t happen) We kill Dingoes, our apex predator. We allow duck shooting We have a response system that does not allow for the rescue of wildlife in emergencies We allow farmers to kill wildlife based on scientifically unproven opinions such as reduced profits, with no accountability.

We allow forestry/farmers to destroy habitat and kill off any wildlife in the way We do not use accurate or scientific data to estimate wildlife numbers Our regulators often have a conflict of interest.

Wildlife Act Review Submission Comment 79: Contributor: Individual Primary interests: • Protection and conservation of wildlife and habitat • Rehabilitation of sick, injured and orphaned wildlife • Protections for marine mammals

Comment I am concerned that duck hunting is still allowed despite the destruction of habitat due to bushfires. I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitats from logging and development which is greatly diminishing the chance of their revival and future survival Provided June 2/2021

Submission Comment 172: Contributor: Individual – Christopher Scicluna Primary interests: • Hunting of wildlife • Wildlife welfare • Management and control of wildlife causing problems or damage

Comment I think the time has come to take management of introduced wildlife whether plant or animal seriously. I see feral rabbits, hares, foxes, pigs, deer, and goats roam local National Parks, close to my home, without concern as they wallow and eat their way through whatever habitat they please. Then once a year to be advised that at the cost of the tax-payers there will be a cull.

In my mind this is not management but simply a quick knee-jerk type reaction which seems to not raise to much attention and therefore assists the relevant department in the case there is public outcry. Also, bemusing is the fact that for some of the introduced non-indigenous species, the government sees fit to allow a closed season. It does not make any sense.

Why can’t the relevant departments ballot out the rights for licensed hunters to harvest for personal use or cull some of these species. Why does it always come at massive costs to tax payers with the animals left to rot and become food for the growing feral dog population. Why is it, in Victoria, that we as recreational hunters need to obtain, at a cost, a separate license to hunt an introduced species such as deer. It astounds me that our governments are happy to pay helicopter pilots and shooters to shoot deer in our High Country, with no proof of 100% clean kills.

With regard to our indigenous species. The Brush Tailed possum population seems to be out of control wherever I am and with whom I discuss this with. I live in a rural area. There has always been a number of ring tailed possums in our area but in recent years as the brush tails seem to have taken over, the ring tails have all but disappeared. Understandibly, loss of habitat due to the urban sprawl may have caused numbers to moved into close contact with each other and therefore push out the weaker species. In my opinion, this species needs management. Also we need to except advice from indigenous traditional landowners. Thankyou for the opportunity to submit Provided June 22/2021


Like it? Share with your friends!

72
80 shares, 72 points

What's Your Reaction?

super super
16
super
fail fail
10
fail
fun fun
8
fun
bad bad
6
bad
hate hate
4
hate
lol lol
2
lol
love love
20
love
omg omg
16
omg

0 Comments

Send this to a friend