Discussion in 'News Items' started by Smiley n Me, Aug 29, 2008.
Found this on another website
Aerial culling reforms for WA - 29/08/2008
It was in the West Australian earlier in the week. not nice but probably a neccasary evil. The blokes who do this are top marksmen and you can get far closer in a helicopter than you can on foot or motorbike, epecially due to the remoteness on the area. When their numbers become so many that they are detrimantal to the enviroment, themselves and other animals, in that the land can't support them, then unfortunatley somethings gotta give.
Although I didn't like the photo that was in the West I do believe that it is a necessary thing.
( To my understanding ) The article was based on the fact that there has been complaints about the horses being injured and not killed and then roaming around. Clean shot to heart or head cannot always been quaranteed in an aerial cull although yes, it's actually possible to get closer to wild horses by helicopter than by a motorvehicle. I don't support this method and I also think that a bit more could be done to prevent feral horse communities getting bigger. A lot of big properties have surplus they let loose once used. Amongst them there is mares who get in touch with the stallions already running wild and they multiply. And in some, although maybe in rare occasions, our "brumbies" arrive staright of the track of the northwest. And station surplus let loose. Dumped in the desert.
Sorry if I upset someone again. Not hunting for an argument here.
LCX you have made valid points and you have my agreeance on this.*
What I said is based on my own experiences and to what I have seen with my own eyes. I haven't obviously seen all of it and I do obviously know that feral horses cause lots of grief for the environment and also compete with resources with beef cattle, etc. hence the culling is needed, however I still believe in preventing the problem going further and further .... due to the factors mentioned in my post above ..
A clean heart/head shot can never be garenteed, from any position and given the remoteness of the area, other methods are far less successful or inaffective to control the population. According to the newspaper report, the horses are on aboriginal land and unfortunatley they need to be controled.
I think that's a different report to what I read. What I would suggest, is to prevent the population from growing, because of some people's thoughtless and selfish acts. I had a friend, or let's put it, that I knew someone, who had a mob of stockhorses left on a large northwest property. He did not bother managing his stock as was too busy doing other things and as the fences break and no one was there to check on the animals or fencing periodically, the brumbies got in and the stockhorses out etc. Needless to say there was a stallion amongst them and instead of a few horses he had left behind, there was over 40 when he finally returned to the property he only lived 100km from, many years later. Didn't bother dealing with the problem again and numbers grow ... why bother, they just come and cull them eventually he says. This is just one person, there is many others who act the same way. I have also seen some properties let old horses loose " bush" them once they used them and they get too old or are otherwise no good for working anymore. Amongst them again, there is mares and sometimes the odd colt and numbers grows again and then they need to cull. And then sometimes the racing industry surplus too ends up to the edge of desert. Don't ask me how I know, I don't wish to talk about it. My point is that culling would be a bit less needed if people did not contribute to the problem by their selfish acts.
Its a shame the RSPCA didn't put in the same effort to stop suffering of animals in backyard suburbia or the the little hobby farms, but that wouldn't make headlines
Off the track I know, but I used to work at Ingham's and they were always dealing with animal libbers etc. But do these do gooders realise that when they do things like cut off the water supply and contaminate te feeds, the animals are put into a worse situation than what they are trying to free them from.
Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I was just thinking that this morning funnily enough. We have a bordering property and they have a handful of sheep. There have been many occasions when their sheepies have died and because their owners don't go down on a daily basis to check on them they end up laying in the paddock for a day or two. Or until one of us calls them to let them know. We've never seen them be fed, I think for the most part they live on the hay scraps some of the agistees throw over the fence.
At skwl we had to do some work on the ariel culling
we had to choose sides we had done lots of expositions in the past this one most people were saying if they do have a problem why dont they cull from the ground? in the air they cant garantee a clean shoot from a moving platform on the ground they kind of can. my apinion is to put them down humanily like with the trankulisa guns or what eva they are called the ones that they use to put animals down.
Not so IMO twotonw. My O/H is an experienced shooter and there is no way you can get close enough to garentee a clean shot on foot or vehicle. The only shot that is likely to be presented, is the butt, hardley opportunity for a clean kill. there is also the added problem that these areas are not accessible by foot or vehicle.
These guys don't just go in with the helicopter. it's a team of a spotter plane, the helicopter and sometime, if possible a ground team.
The spotter plane locates a herd and radio the position to the helicopter, who goes in and makes the culls, the spotter plane and ground crew make sure all no wounded animals are left and no mis mothered foals remain, as best they can, given the territory they are in.
There have been some terrible examples at aerial culling, so you can't really blame the 'animal libbers' wanting some controls in place. An aerial cull can do a lot more damage in a short amount of time than could a ground cull. So if aerial culling is just a major shoot fest as it has been seen in the past it makes for much larger numbers of animals injured and suffering. I realise it's necessary but there does need to be some accountability on it too. Thus probably why the RSPCA have called for a few changes.
But the major problem and the reason for ariel culls is the innaccesability of the location.
Firstly they can't get close enough to make a clean kill, and secondly, locating injured animals is incredibly hard on foot as, even injured, some can move far quicker than a person on foot or motoerbike.
And this is'nt to do damage just for the hell of it, it is to control numbers as they are overpopulating themselves and thus dergding the land and affecting themselves and other animals. Would ppl really prefer to see them starve to death when feed becomes insifficient to suststain them?
I agree it's necessary, but I just think the RSPCA is making sure a repeat of the past isn't going to happen. Culling any animals is never a pleasant job but has to be done as you say to stop them all starving.
I think the shooters themselves need better training if they cannot get a clean shot but they are only human and if they wrongly shoot a horse it should quickly be distroyed and not left like they have in the past.
Also its an expensive practice but an important one and a lead bullet is the cheapest option. Atleast then they'd have more money to put into better training and gear to make it as painless and quick as possible for the horses.
IMO i hate killing horses full stop.....
It's neccessary in alot of situations Sarah for the well being of the horses. I was talking the other day to some one who used to be involved with aerial culling and even he said he didn't like the effectiveness of it.
Pm'd you Flicka