It was recently brought to our attention here down under that a recent decision to go ahead with large-scale culling of feral camels in outback regions had drawn some negative press from america. In particular this:
Now before I share my own view and give way to the usual temptation that is extreme bias, please discuss your views in regards to animal culling - is it right? is it wrong?
Post by Chronopolice on Aug 5, 2009 11:09:14 GMT -5
She is entitled to her opinions but I reckon she and the rest of the news crew didn't do research on why did Australia cull the feral camels.
I wonder why she didn't say the same thing when US forces did a blue on blue on a British unit in Afghanistan or when a US airstrike kills too many civilians on the field in the same country.
But that is a good point. People don't go around slaughtering entire populations of animals without a good reason, unless they're a psychopath. Considering that camels aren't native to Australia, I'm betting that a large population of wild camels in the outback is playing havoc with the environment. Unfortunately that is sometime necessary. We live in a world where people have transported all manner of creatures from all parts of the world where they were never intended to live. They escape into the wild and breed. With no natural predators, their populations boom to the point where they damage their new environment. Unfortunately we then must do something to curb their growth before they push out native life and use up valuable resources. It's sad, but it must be done. So I don't object to what the Australian government it doing. Although leaving the camels to rot seems rather wasteful. There's a lot of meat on a camel, I say it should be put to some use.
While I think that it is acceptable to control animal populations by killing, I think that the animals have to be spared unnecessary suffering. I wouldn't object if they calculated the number of camels that are too many, selected "the right" specimen to kill (ok, there is no fair "right", but old animals and so on would be candidates), and made the kills short and painless.
The article doesn't give much information on the details, but I don't think that an air strike qualifies as a method that meets my personal criteria. I don't think they take the time to sniper the animals and make sure that they are really dead. I also don't think that they'll drop a nuke or something similar, so that the camels would evaporate and have a fast death.
And what about the collateral damage to other species?
On the one hand I think Australia is using the wrong means, but on the other hand the outback is vast and an air strike might be the only way to cover the area. I don't like it either way.
Does anybody know the reason for the culling? I'm just hoping that it isn't just some spontaneous political or lobby idea.
As for the meat: I couldn't care less unless it comes to eutrophication of the outback or diseases. There are scavengers that take care of it, and I haven't been interested in buying or eating carcasses for quite some time .
The article doesn't give much information on the details, but I don't think that an air strike qualifies as a method that meets my personal criteria. I don't think they take the time to sniper the animals and make sure that they are really dead. I also don't think that they'll drop a nuke or something similar, so that the camels would evaporate and have a fast death.
And what about the collateral damage to other species?
;D
Isn't it amazing just how powerful the media can be when it comes to reporting on something that isn't common knowledge?
Ok, I'm now going to link a couple more articles from Australia in regards to this that have a bit more information. Have a look a see if they manage to change your opinion....
Ok, I'm now going to link a couple more articles from Australia in regards to this that have a bit more information. Have a look a see if they manage to change your opinion....
Wow, I'm impressed! Although these new links didn't change my opinion about animal culling in general, it seems that Australia has jumped into the future, read my post and has addressed the issue in an adequate way.
At first, the first three paragraphs of the second link made me think about humans, but then I realized that they are referring to camels .
I don't think the US journalist has done a good job. But then again, it's not her job to inform people, it is her job to make people watch the advertisements of the channel.
That second article sheds a lot of light on their plans. It seems that their coming at the problem from a variety of angles which is the right way to go about it.
Further elaborating on my comment about camel meat, yes there are plenty of scavengers that would enjoy a fallen camel. That's the way nature works and that's what happens to those wild camels when they die naturally. The problem with culling though is that it's not a few scattered camels here and there, it's a concerted effort to decrease the population. That means a lot of bodies. A lot of bodies means a lot of food for scavengers. A lot of food for scavengers means a lot of scavengers. Simply killing the camels and leaving could give way to a similar overpopulation of scavenger animals and would necessitate a culling of one or more of those species. I think they could butcher a large percentage of the camels and leave some for the local wildlife. The camel population is reduced, the scavenger animals are fed, someone somewhere gets meat on the table, and somebody else somewhere else makes some money. Everybody wins. Except maybe the camels, but they've had their time in the sun.
Of course that statement is all rather moot as I'm not Australian and the private sector, government, and Aborigines in Australia are already way ahead of me according to "No Country for Old Camels."
Post by Quast-Javert on Oct 11, 2009 4:43:39 GMT -5
As has been stated earlier in this topic, she is entitled to her own opinion... I personally believe that the culling of animals is acceptable WITHIN REASON