Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Sure, they're over populated, but so is China, you don't see them killing every second born child... I don't see why animals should be treated any differently to humans...

Thats because China has laws against having more than 1 child per family, Kangaroos on the other hand are popping out fetuses once a year and reach breeding age fairly young

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3889671
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure, they're over populated, but so is China, you don't see them killing every second born child... I don't see why animals should be treated any differently to humans...

Actually yes you do. The fact that they have a one child rule means that loads of first born females are dumped in the trash. You cant keep a family legacy going without a son.

On topic. Roo's are Roo's, they know the deal. The fact that they are getting the needle of death is probably a bit dissapointing for them, Its just flat out un-roo like to die any other way than by bullet or bonnet.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3894992
Share on other sites

Actually yes you do. The fact that they have a one child rule means that loads of first born females are dumped in the trash. You cant keep a family legacy going without a son.

Thats the family's choice to dump them. the majority of second born children are put up for adoption, but not exterminated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3895132
Share on other sites

ok well firstly, I am the biggest animal lover ever... and the thought of any animal in pain or suffering or being killed always gets me upset... but when you realise all the facts about the cull, it really is necessary and the best way to curb the problem.

My dad is an environmental planner and has been involved in doing a report on the roo's, so here are some cold hard facts for you all, that might not get brought up in certain "media" reports.

Sorry it's a bit of a long read.....

These are probably the key points:

1. Translocation of wild animals has a lot of practical difficulties as well as cost and is usually only undertaken for small populations of endangered or critically endangered species (ie ones in a desperate situation where the risks in leaving them where they are outweigh the risks in moving them).

2. The Eastern Grey Kangaroos at Belconnen are not an endangered species (about 3000 are culled on rural leases in the ACT each year, about 1000 killed on the roads, their densities in parts of Namadgi National Park are 450 to 500 per sqkm - the highest recorded in Australia).

3. A trial translocation would have taken years and would have involved only some of the population, in which time the remaining population would have grown even more (after the loss of many to starvation this winter at Belconnen). The ground cover would have been eaten out completely so destroying the habitat for other grassland species - some of which are endangered.

4. From limited translocations elsewhere (small numbers), knowledge of kangaroo biology etc, the difficulties with translocation are:

- kangaroos are long limbed animals which are easily damaged being moved under sedation, where they begin to come out of the anesthetic too early and when released. The process is potentially very stressful for the animal, hence the current ACT ban on such translocation on animal welfare (as opposed to animal rights) grounds

- a vet would have assess the ability of each individual to be moved (many would have to be put down)

- they could only be moved in small numbers and in padded type containers so they were not injured

- they would have to be released via a staging facility constructed so that they did not harm themselves. This would have to be staffed by professionals to supervise the recovery. Some animals would injure themselves here and would need to be put down.

-if kangaroos were to be released on properties in NSW where there are not already kangaroos filling the ecological niche (ie grazing the available pasture), one would have to ask 'what is the ecological or other factor limiting that population?' (there are only a few answers to this. They are: predation by wild dogs/dingos, unsuitable pastures or pastures heavily grazed by livestock limiting the kangaroo population capacity, or an existing rural culling program as occurs in NSW where kangaroo densities are commonly as low as 10 per sqkm (0.1 per hectare)

- kangaroos are known to suffer from a stress condition called capture myopathy ie numbers will die for some time after the event. Precise percentages and times are still uncertain on this but it has been documented. Ideally a sample of animals should be radio collared to enable data to be gathered on survival rates.

5. From this you can see that the task would require a high level of professional expertise, appropriate and expensive equipment, properties below their kangaroo population capacity, inter-state approvals (wildlife management is a state/territory responsibility) and a significant proportion of the animals are likely to die in the process or after release.

Many ACT native grassland where kangaroos occur are not just 'grass' they are critically endangered remnants of original native grasslands that contain endangered plants and animal species such as the wonderful little Grassland Earless Dragon.

Without predators, kangaroo populations have what is called a 'herbivore eruption' where due to their ability to rapidly reproduce, their populations climb rapidly and exponentially to levels where they eat out their food supply and then a significant proportion (eg semi-independent young) starve to death. this occurs commonly in the ACT during winter. A number of people at work are at the cull each day helping, no one likes having to do it and it could have been avoided if Defence had done smaller culls years ago.

By the way there is an immuno-contraceptive experiment underway at Belconnen which may one day provide the means to control enclosed populations like that. Again the people from work are heavily involved in that. They never get a mention in the press for all the work, out all night surveying kangaroos etc.

While there is all this attention to the second most common kangaroo or wallaby in Australia, there are tens of others endangered or almost extinct. Some of the animal rights groups oppose culling programs for feral goats, for example, which are one of the contributors to the decline of the beautiful Yellow Footed Rock Wallabies in South Australia.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3896944
Share on other sites

Thanks Shell. It was obvious from the start, there was a lot of logic being used in the cull, rather than just taking the easiest route, though I think I would rather be shot in the head, than go through being tranquilised, then put down.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3897105
Share on other sites

Thanks Shell. It was obvious from the start, there was a lot of logic being used in the cull, rather than just taking the easiest route, though I think I would rather be shot in the head, than go through being tranquilised, then put down.

We'll keep that in mind :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3898568
Share on other sites

Have to be the tranq'ed option, a head shot would be ineffective, a projectile has to hit something solid to be able to expand and do damage.

Have you shot a roo in the head? Its a messy thing, but it is extremely effective. I meant if I was a Roo. :P

We'll keep that in mind wink.gif

Thanks, thats so kind of you. :laugh::blink:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3900493
Share on other sites

Have you shot a roo in the head? Its a messy thing, but it is extremely effective. I meant if I was a Roo. :blink:

Ha ha I was just being a [email protected] .25-06>>will cull!!! Zero hold over at 275 metres, good for skins.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220156-roo-cull/page/3/#findComment-3900612
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...