>>An Australian state government wants to ban wildlife shelters from treating injured kangaroos, wombats, possums and cockatoos, claiming they’re “over-abundant” species.

The Victorian government has published a discussion paper outlining proposed changes to wildlife management regulations, and is seeking public comment on the review.

It also flags a crackdown on wildlife carers releasing rehabilitated kangaroos and wombats on to their properties in rural areas, claiming this can result in ” unnaturally high concentrations of released wildlife” with “significant impacts” for neighbours.

The discussion paper, prepared by the Victorian government’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, is canvassing public opinion on changes that could make it easier to issue Authority to Control Wildlife permits. These are basically permits to kill or “remove” wildlife such as kangaroos and wombats or to use nets and acoustic devices to scare birds.

More:
https://thehound2.wordpress.com/2018/05/03/government-flags-ban-on-wildlife-carers-treating-injured-orphaned-kangaroos/

More maligned madness.

I hope they define this properly in the actual legislation. There are endangered cockatoos, eg the gang gang. There are endangered possums… Leadbetter’s possum is on the brink.

dv said:

I hope they define this properly in the actual legislation. There are endangered cockatoos, eg the gang gang. There are endangered possums… Leadbetter’s possum is on the brink.

They are currently busily clear-felling the habitat of the Leadbetter’s Possum despite many protests. Why the logging industry seems to have the power to destroy so much for so little is beyond me.

PermeateFree said:

>>An Australian state government wants to ban wildlife shelters from treating injured kangaroos, wombats, possums and cockatoos, claiming they’re “over-abundant” species.

The Victorian government has published a discussion paper outlining proposed changes to wildlife management regulations, and is seeking public comment on the review.

It also flags a crackdown on wildlife carers releasing rehabilitated kangaroos and wombats on to their properties in rural areas, claiming this can result in ” unnaturally high concentrations of released wildlife” with “significant impacts” for neighbours.

The discussion paper, prepared by the Victorian government’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, is canvassing public opinion on changes that could make it easier to issue Authority to Control Wildlife permits. These are basically permits to kill or “remove” wildlife such as kangaroos and wombats or to use nets and acoustic devices to scare birds.

More:
https://thehound2.wordpress.com/2018/05/03/government-flags-ban-on-wildlife-carers-treating-injured-orphaned-kangaroos/

So feral cats, dogs and foxes are still considered OK to treat and release back into the wild?

After a bushfire every injured native animal has to be nursed back to health.

Come to think of it, in NSW there’s already a law that prevents people from treating sick kangaroos in national parks. Is there also a “don’t feed the ducks” law?

Doesn’t surprise me.

I do agree, though, that something needs to be done about location of release of these animals. Many carers find it necessary to soft-release from their homes, resulting not only in too many of a species in an area, but also in animals being released in areas they do not belong.

A friend’s neighbour is a macropod carer who releases kangaroos into nearby bushland where only swamp wallabies live.

A possum carer close to my home releases many ringtails, which I believe has inflated the number of powerful owls.

Speedy said:

Doesn’t surprise me.

I do agree, though, that something needs to be done about location of release of these animals. Many carers find it necessary to soft-release from their homes, resulting not only in too many of a species in an area, but also in animals being released in areas they do not belong.

A friend’s neighbour is a macropod carer who releases kangaroos into nearby bushland where only swamp wallabies live.

A possum carer close to my home releases many ringtails, which I believe has inflated the number of powerful owls.

> something needs to be done about location of release of these animals

Surely the best person to decide the release location is the carer, certainly not the state government.

mollwollfumble said:

Surely the best person to decide the release location is the carer, certainly not the state government.

I don’t agree.

Whilst wildlife carers have the desire to put the welfare of their patients first, they are not often experts on an animal’s future needs, nor experts on the flora and fauna of the release site.

mollwollfumble said:

Surely the best person to decide the release location is the carer, certainly not the state government.

I don’t agree.

Whilst wildlife carers have the desire to put the welfare of their patients first, they are not often experts on an animal’s future needs, nor experts on the flora and fauna of the release site.

Speedy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Surely the best person to decide the release location is the carer, certainly not the state government.

I don’t agree.

Whilst wildlife carers have the desire to put the welfare of their patients first, they are not often experts on an animal’s future needs, nor experts on the flora and fauna of the release site.

My parents had a wildlife shelter and, except for a Petaurus breviceps that was hand-raised from infancy and couldn’t fend for itself (and so couldn’t be released), always returned the surviving animals to the area they came from. This was an attitude thay advocated to all the other carers they interacted with.

btm said:

Speedy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Surely the best person to decide the release location is the carer, certainly not the state government.

I don’t agree.

Whilst wildlife carers have the desire to put the welfare of their patients first, they are not often experts on an animal’s future needs, nor experts on the flora and fauna of the release site.

My parents had a wildlife shelter and, except for a Petaurus breviceps that was hand-raised from infancy and couldn’t fend for itself (and so couldn’t be released), always returned the surviving animals to the area they came from. This was an attitude thay advocated to all the other carers they interacted with.

That’s the way to do it. All vets in our area ask for the address/site an animal is found when admitting it. I guess this information is not always passed on or made available to wildlife carers, but simply soft-releasing everything at the back of a carer’s home can’t be ideal.

There is also the issue of animals being injured, often by cars, due to habitat loss.

Do we simply release these animals back to where they came from? Or do we release them to another site considered more suitable?

What would their release to another suitable site do to the existing balance of flora and fauna?

Given the issues, should these animals be rehabilitated at all?

Speedy said:

There is also the issue of animals being injured, often by cars, due to habitat loss.

Do we simply release these animals back to where they came from? Or do we release them to another site considered more suitable?

What would their release to another suitable site do to the existing balance of flora and fauna?

Given the issues, should these animals be rehabilitated at all?

OMG. Yes. Yes. Nothing bad. Yes.

The alternative is … I’m trying to phrase this without swear words. …

mollwollfumble said:

Speedy said:

There is also the issue of animals being injured, often by cars, due to habitat loss.

Do we simply release these animals back to where they came from? Or do we release them to another site considered more suitable?

What would their release to another suitable site do to the existing balance of flora and fauna?

Given the issues, should these animals be rehabilitated at all?

OMG. Yes. Yes. Nothing bad. Yes.

The alternative is … I’m trying to phrase this without swear words. …

What I’d prefer to see is a similar stance taken to those who care for humans and their ultimate release back into the wilds.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Speedy said:

There is also the issue of animals being injured, often by cars, due to habitat loss.

Do we simply release these animals back to where they came from? Or do we release them to another site considered more suitable?

What would their release to another suitable site do to the existing balance of flora and fauna?

Given the issues, should these animals be rehabilitated at all?

OMG. Yes. Yes. Nothing bad. Yes.

The alternative is … I’m trying to phrase this without swear words. …

What I’d prefer to see is a similar stance taken to those who care for humans and their ultimate release back into the wilds.

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

OMG. Yes. Yes. Nothing bad. Yes.

The alternative is … I’m trying to phrase this without swear words. …

What I’d prefer to see is a similar stance taken to those who care for humans and their ultimate release back into the wilds.

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

That was my point. Yes.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

OMG. Yes. Yes. Nothing bad. Yes.

The alternative is … I’m trying to phrase this without swear words. …

What I’d prefer to see is a similar stance taken to those who care for humans and their ultimate release back into the wilds.

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

Choosing not to rehabilitate an animal is quite different from simply disposing of it. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that good outcomes will be achieved if all animals that can be rehabilitated are rehabilitated and released to:

a. the area they came from to suffer a repeat of their original trauma
b. another, more suitable area of similar environment to disturb the balance/biodiversity of that environment
c. at the back of a carer’s home to disturb the balance of that environment or become a nuisance animal (as per OP)

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

What I’d prefer to see is a similar stance taken to those who care for humans and their ultimate release back into the wilds.

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

Choosing not to rehabilitate an animal is quite different from simply disposing of it. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that good outcomes will be achieved if all animals that can be rehabilitated are rehabilitated and released to:

a. the area they came from to suffer a repeat of their original trauma
b. another, more suitable area of similar environment to disturb the balance/biodiversity of that environment
c. at the back of a carer’s home to disturb the balance of that environment or become a nuisance animal (as per OP)

a. Obviously a dangerous habitat would not be suitable, but what constitutes one? Animals are often injured despite being in good habitat.
b. Releasing a few native animals into a reasonably intact ecosystem, would I very much doubt upset the balance/biodiversity. Such a well balance system would encompass a considerable sized area, therefore a few extra animals would make little difference.
c. I suppose it would depend on the size of the animal compared to the size of the backyard. Obviously animals too large or in quantities that could not be supported by environment, would not be suitable.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

What I’d prefer to see is a similar stance taken to those who care for humans and their ultimate release back into the wilds.

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

Choosing not to rehabilitate an animal is quite different from simply disposing of it. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that good outcomes will be achieved if all animals that can be rehabilitated are rehabilitated and released to:

a. the area they came from to suffer a repeat of their original trauma
b. another, more suitable area of similar environment to disturb the balance/biodiversity of that environment
c. at the back of a carer’s home to disturb the balance of that environment or become a nuisance animal (as per OP)

Disagree on all three counts. Denying release is just a pale excuse for cruelty. As I said above – the ONLY person who will know exactly when and where it is safe and prudent to do the release is the carer.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

Choosing not to rehabilitate an animal is quite different from simply disposing of it. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that good outcomes will be achieved if all animals that can be rehabilitated are rehabilitated and released to:

a. the area they came from to suffer a repeat of their original trauma
b. another, more suitable area of similar environment to disturb the balance/biodiversity of that environment
c. at the back of a carer’s home to disturb the balance of that environment or become a nuisance animal (as per OP)

a. Obviously a dangerous habitat would not be suitable, but what constitutes one? Animals are often injured despite being in good habitat.
b. Releasing a few native animals into a reasonably intact ecosystem, would I very much doubt upset the balance/biodiversity. Such a well balance system would encompass a considerable sized area, therefore a few extra animals would make little difference.
c. I suppose it would depend on the size of the animal compared to the size of the backyard. Obviously animals too large or in quantities that could not be supported by environment, would not be suitable.

a. They can indeed be injured in good habitat, but good habitat is not what I was referring to. Whether an area is still suitable for an animal to live in would depend on the events leading up to its trauma/injury. Likelihood of this recurring would need to be assessed prior to release.
b. Yes, I agree with this statement. However, animals of a different species from those native to the area/site should not be released there.
c. The article talks about release on rural properties and suggests that these animals become a nuisance to neighbours, resulting in the need to issue more Authority to Control Wildlife Permits than would otherwise be necessary.

I’m not suggesting that the proposal is the right way to go about it (ban on rehab of abundant species), but simply that wildlife carers do not always make the best decisions when deciding where to release.

mollwollfumble said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

I think we need to change our attitude to animals as unfeeling objects to be disposed of as we see fit.

Choosing not to rehabilitate an animal is quite different from simply disposing of it. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that good outcomes will be achieved if all animals that can be rehabilitated are rehabilitated and released to:

a. the area they came from to suffer a repeat of their original trauma
b. another, more suitable area of similar environment to disturb the balance/biodiversity of that environment
c. at the back of a carer’s home to disturb the balance of that environment or become a nuisance animal (as per OP)

Denying release is just a pale excuse for cruelty.

Choosing an often lengthy rehab and release, then likely a. re-trauma, b. impact on a balanced environment, or, c. being “controlled” as a nuisance animal afterward is preferable? I guess what’s crueler is a matter of opinion.

mollwollfumble said:

…the ONLY person who will know exactly when and where it is safe and prudent to do the release is the carer

Again, whilst wildlife carers have the desire to put the welfare of their patients first, they are not often experts on an animal’s future needs, nor experts on the flora and fauna of the release site. Also, they may not be aware of the events leading up to the animal’s trauma, for example, habitat loss due to development a distance away from where the animal was retrieved.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

Choosing not to rehabilitate an animal is quite different from simply disposing of it. Unfortunately, it’s not likely that good outcomes will be achieved if all animals that can be rehabilitated are rehabilitated and released to:

a. the area they came from to suffer a repeat of their original trauma
b. another, more suitable area of similar environment to disturb the balance/biodiversity of that environment
c. at the back of a carer’s home to disturb the balance of that environment or become a nuisance animal (as per OP)

a. Obviously a dangerous habitat would not be suitable, but what constitutes one? Animals are often injured despite being in good habitat.
b. Releasing a few native animals into a reasonably intact ecosystem, would I very much doubt upset the balance/biodiversity. Such a well balance system would encompass a considerable sized area, therefore a few extra animals would make little difference.
c. I suppose it would depend on the size of the animal compared to the size of the backyard. Obviously animals too large or in quantities that could not be supported by environment, would not be suitable.

a. They can indeed be injured in good habitat, but good habitat is not what I was referring to. Whether an area is still suitable for an animal to live in would depend on the events leading up to its trauma/injury. Likelihood of this recurring would need to be assessed prior to release.
b. Yes, I agree with this statement. However, animals of a different species from those native to the area/site should not be released there.
c. The article talks about release on rural properties and suggests that these animals become a nuisance to neighbours, resulting in the need to issue more Authority to Control Wildlife Permits than would otherwise be necessary.

I’m not suggesting that the proposal is the right way to go about it (ban on rehab of abundant species), but simply that wildlife carers do not always make the best decisions when deciding where to release.

a. Well that leaves the door wide open as to what the decider considers appropriate. I have encountered a number of these so called experts who in fact have very little knowledge and virtually no experience to make sensible judgements.
b. Well of course you would not introduce non-indigenous animals to a new area. However, presuming the animals would be released in the general area from where they originated and the habitat was suitable, there should not be a problem.
c. If the animal requires a larger area than what is on offer then sure they should not be released. However many of these animals are regarded as pets and tend to interact around the property. If they have what they need, there should be little need for them to explore further afield. So I would think it is all relative to circumstances with some very good habitat for the animals being overlooked due to bureaucratic judgements..

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

a. Obviously a dangerous habitat would not be suitable, but what constitutes one? Animals are often injured despite being in good habitat.
b. Releasing a few native animals into a reasonably intact ecosystem, would I very much doubt upset the balance/biodiversity. Such a well balance system would encompass a considerable sized area, therefore a few extra animals would make little difference.
c. I suppose it would depend on the size of the animal compared to the size of the backyard. Obviously animals too large or in quantities that could not be supported by environment, would not be suitable.

a. They can indeed be injured in good habitat, but good habitat is not what I was referring to. Whether an area is still suitable for an animal to live in would depend on the events leading up to its trauma/injury. Likelihood of this recurring would need to be assessed prior to release.
b. Yes, I agree with this statement. However, animals of a different species from those native to the area/site should not be released there.
c. The article talks about release on rural properties and suggests that these animals become a nuisance to neighbours, resulting in the need to issue more Authority to Control Wildlife Permits than would otherwise be necessary.

I’m not suggesting that the proposal is the right way to go about it (ban on rehab of abundant species), but simply that wildlife carers do not always make the best decisions when deciding where to release.

a. Well that leaves the door wide open as to what the decider considers appropriate. I have encountered a number of these so called experts who in fact have very little knowledge and virtually no experience to make sensible judgements.
b. Well of course you would not introduce non-indigenous animals to a new area. However, presuming the animals would be released in the general area from where they originated and the habitat was suitable, there should not be a problem.
c. If the animal requires a larger area than what is on offer then sure they should not be released. However many of these animals are regarded as pets and tend to interact around the property. If they have what they need, there should be little need for them to explore further afield. So I would think it is all relative to circumstances with some very good habitat for the animals being overlooked due to bureaucratic judgements..

a. Who said the decider needed to be an “expert”? All I was suggesting is that the site where an animal was found is not always suitable for release. Sometimes this is not known by carers but by their wildlife rescue organisation, for example.
b. I’ve seen it happen and by the best of carers.
c. As it becomes more independent, an animal is likely to roam to neighbouring properties and can become a nuisance. If a carer cannot guarantee that the animal will be confined to their own property by fencing, these soft-releases will continue to cause problems. These problems, of course, provide an excuse for this type of proposal to be considered. In all seriousness, there would be a public outcry if carers were prevented from rehabbing our most loved (and abundant) species. It is a timely reminder to carers though, to carefully consider (or re-consider) their release sites.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

a. They can indeed be injured in good habitat, but good habitat is not what I was referring to. Whether an area is still suitable for an animal to live in would depend on the events leading up to its trauma/injury. Likelihood of this recurring would need to be assessed prior to release.
b. Yes, I agree with this statement. However, animals of a different species from those native to the area/site should not be released there.
c. The article talks about release on rural properties and suggests that these animals become a nuisance to neighbours, resulting in the need to issue more Authority to Control Wildlife Permits than would otherwise be necessary.

I’m not suggesting that the proposal is the right way to go about it (ban on rehab of abundant species), but simply that wildlife carers do not always make the best decisions when deciding where to release.

a. Well that leaves the door wide open as to what the decider considers appropriate. I have encountered a number of these so called experts who in fact have very little knowledge and virtually no experience to make sensible judgements.
b. Well of course you would not introduce non-indigenous animals to a new area. However, presuming the animals would be released in the general area from where they originated and the habitat was suitable, there should not be a problem.
c. If the animal requires a larger area than what is on offer then sure they should not be released. However many of these animals are regarded as pets and tend to interact around the property. If they have what they need, there should be little need for them to explore further afield. So I would think it is all relative to circumstances with some very good habitat for the animals being overlooked due to bureaucratic judgements..

a. Who said the decider needed to be an “expert”? All I was suggesting is that the site where an animal was found is not always suitable for release. Sometimes this is not known by carers but by their wildlife rescue organisation, for example.
b. I’ve seen it happen and by the best of carers.
c. As it becomes more independent, an animal is likely to roam to neighbouring properties and can become a nuisance. If a carer cannot guarantee that the animal will be confined to their own property by fencing, these soft-releases will continue to cause problems. These problems, of course, provide an excuse for this type of proposal to be considered. In all seriousness, there would be a public outcry if carers were prevented from rehabbing our most loved (and abundant) species. It is a timely reminder to carers though, to carefully consider (or re-consider) their release sites.

Ecologists, Botanists and Biologists are generally highly paid individuals and I cannot see the government department responsible for these regulations employing any to check a suitable habitats. It is usually left to a lowly paid person (often female) with the bare minimum of qualifications (if any), being the one making the judgement. I made a complaint to the Dept of Ag about illegal clearing of native vegetation on the neighboring property. The young lady who came knew next to nothing about indigenous vegetation or habit differences. Being in mind this was what she was employed to investigate.

The welfare of native animals does not rate very highly with politicians, probably because they can’t vote for them. Therefore due to the low priority of this proposal there is going to be a great deal of downside, all of which the animals must bear.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

a. Well that leaves the door wide open as to what the decider considers appropriate. I have encountered a number of these so called experts who in fact have very little knowledge and virtually no experience to make sensible judgements.
b. Well of course you would not introduce non-indigenous animals to a new area. However, presuming the animals would be released in the general area from where they originated and the habitat was suitable, there should not be a problem.
c. If the animal requires a larger area than what is on offer then sure they should not be released. However many of these animals are regarded as pets and tend to interact around the property. If they have what they need, there should be little need for them to explore further afield. So I would think it is all relative to circumstances with some very good habitat for the animals being overlooked due to bureaucratic judgements..

a. Who said the decider needed to be an “expert”? All I was suggesting is that the site where an animal was found is not always suitable for release. Sometimes this is not known by carers but by their wildlife rescue organisation, for example.
b. I’ve seen it happen and by the best of carers.
c. As it becomes more independent, an animal is likely to roam to neighbouring properties and can become a nuisance. If a carer cannot guarantee that the animal will be confined to their own property by fencing, these soft-releases will continue to cause problems. These problems, of course, provide an excuse for this type of proposal to be considered. In all seriousness, there would be a public outcry if carers were prevented from rehabbing our most loved (and abundant) species. It is a timely reminder to carers though, to carefully consider (or re-consider) their release sites.

Ecologists, Botanists and Biologists are generally highly paid individuals and I cannot see the government department responsible for these regulations employing any to check a suitable habitats. It is usually left to a lowly paid person (often female) with the bare minimum of qualifications (if any), being the one making the judgement. I made a complaint to the Dept of Ag about illegal clearing of native vegetation on the neighboring property. The young lady who came knew next to nothing about indigenous vegetation or habit differences. Being in mind this was what she was employed to investigate.

The welfare of native animals does not rate very highly with politicians, probably because they can’t vote for them. Therefore due to the low priority of this proposal there is going to be a great deal of downside, all of which the animals must bear.

These proposed regulations supposedly for the welfare of the animals is really for the benefit of property owners with the ear of politicians who object to a few blades of their grass being eaten by native animals. I had a property in Victoria, the neighbor felled a handful of mature trees that were providing shade for his animals, just so with the extra grass he could feed an extra sheep.

I think the carers have considerably more interest for the welfare of animals in their care compared to ignorant and generally uncaring politicians and most property owners. The carers know how and experience is being deliberately underrated, as It does not take too much intelligence to determine whether a habitat is suitable for Wombats or Kangaroos. If they were so concerned about the lack of carers abilities they should offer advice, not regulation.

PermeateFree said:

If they were so concerned about the lack of carers abilities they should offer advice, not regulation.

I don’t recall the article mentioning any doubt as to carers’ abilities. It specifically talked about release of “over-abundant” species in rural settings, resulting in nuisance animals in the local area. If the release of these rehabbed over-abundant animals is stopped, fewer permits to “control” them would need to be issued. Honestly, it’s such a ridiculous and simplistic theory that it makes me suspect that it’s a distractionary tool. Same interest group. Logging at Mount Baw B… Look! Squirrel!

Only my points c referred to this proposal.

The others (a and b) were my own observations on selection of release sites by carers. I have no reason to be concerned about the ability of carers to make decisions about rehabbing an animal, nor that they have every intention of ensuring an ideal release site is selected for it. Why wouldn’t they? They are almost always volunteers doing this work altruistically. Despite this intention though, and based on my own observations, I’m still certain that selection of less-than-ideal release sites regularly leads to poor long-term outcomes.

Up – Dug the Talking Dog – Squirrel!

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

If they were so concerned about the lack of carers abilities they should offer advice, not regulation.

I don’t recall the article mentioning any doubt as to carers’ abilities. It specifically talked about release of “over-abundant” species in rural settings, resulting in nuisance animals in the local area. If the release of these rehabbed over-abundant animals is stopped, fewer permits to “control” them would need to be issued. Honestly, it’s such a ridiculous and simplistic theory that it makes me suspect that it’s a distractionary tool. Same interest group. Logging at Mount Baw B… Look! Squirrel!

Only my points c referred to this proposal.

The others (a and b) were my own observations on selection of release sites by carers. I have no reason to be concerned about the ability of carers to make decisions about rehabbing an animal, nor that they have every intention of ensuring an ideal release site is selected for it. Why wouldn’t they? They are almost always volunteers doing this work altruistically. Despite this intention though, and based on my own observations, I’m still certain that selection of less-than-ideal release sites regularly leads to poor long-term outcomes.

Is was not quite what you said and inferred in your initial a-c list to which I was replying. It goes without saying that animals should not be released into unsuitable locations, the question is, who decides if an area is suitable or not under this proposed legislation.

30 years ago there were no wallabies in this area. Hayden Kemp said he saw one once and everyone laughed at him. There were possums everywhere.

I live in an area that is zoned environmental protection, backed onto a conservation area and national park. Two people in my vicinity are looking after orphaned roos and wallabies. We now have roos that in previous times were only found in the midlands. Wallabies are now in plague proportions and you hardly see a possum at all. The forest floor is opened up lots. Lots of the little herbaceous plants have disappeared.

There is a foxglove problem. Wallabies don’t eat them. They eat everything else. The introduced bumble bee does the 100% pollination. The wallabies track around the seed.

sarahs mum said:

30 years ago there were no wallabies in this area. Hayden Kemp said he saw one once and everyone laughed at him. There were possums everywhere.

I live in an area that is zoned environmental protection, backed onto a conservation area and national park. Two people in my vicinity are looking after orphaned roos and wallabies. We now have roos that in previous times were only found in the midlands. Wallabies are now in plague proportions and you hardly see a possum at all. The forest floor is opened up lots. Lots of the little herbaceous plants have disappeared.

There is a foxglove problem. Wallabies don’t eat them. They eat everything else. The introduced bumble bee does the 100% pollination. The wallabies track around the seed.

Sounds it is anyone’s guess as the what caused the problem, but many I would suggest. I think you need to be very circumspect when you say certain common species were not found in certain locations when they are widespread throughout the island..

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

30 years ago there were no wallabies in this area. Hayden Kemp said he saw one once and everyone laughed at him. There were possums everywhere.

I live in an area that is zoned environmental protection, backed onto a conservation area and national park. Two people in my vicinity are looking after orphaned roos and wallabies. We now have roos that in previous times were only found in the midlands. Wallabies are now in plague proportions and you hardly see a possum at all. The forest floor is opened up lots. Lots of the little herbaceous plants have disappeared.

There is a foxglove problem. Wallabies don’t eat them. They eat everything else. The introduced bumble bee does the 100% pollination. The wallabies track around the seed.

Sounds it is anyone’s guess as the what caused the problem, but many I would suggest. I think you need to be very circumspect when you say certain common species were not found in certain locations when they are widespread throughout the island..

Lots of factors. I put some up there. The 1992 fire locally made a difference too It made a whole of new territory available to pademelons especially. I wonder whether gun control has also got a little to do with it.

In regard to species.. we now have Foresters. They should be in the midlands not in the wet southern forests.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

30 years ago there were no wallabies in this area. Hayden Kemp said he saw one once and everyone laughed at him. There were possums everywhere.

I live in an area that is zoned environmental protection, backed onto a conservation area and national park. Two people in my vicinity are looking after orphaned roos and wallabies. We now have roos that in previous times were only found in the midlands. Wallabies are now in plague proportions and you hardly see a possum at all. The forest floor is opened up lots. Lots of the little herbaceous plants have disappeared.

There is a foxglove problem. Wallabies don’t eat them. They eat everything else. The introduced bumble bee does the 100% pollination. The wallabies track around the seed.

Sounds it is anyone’s guess as the what caused the problem, but many I would suggest. I think you need to be very circumspect when you say certain common species were not found in certain locations when they are widespread throughout the island..

Lots of factors. I put some up there. The 1992 fire locally made a difference too It made a whole of new territory available to pademelons especially. I wonder whether gun control has also got a little to do with it.

In regard to species.. we now have Foresters. They should be in the midlands not in the wet southern forests.

Uncontrolled dogs would have moved all the wallabies out of the area very effectively.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

If they were so concerned about the lack of carers abilities they should offer advice, not regulation.

I don’t recall the article mentioning any doubt as to carers’ abilities. It specifically talked about release of “over-abundant” species in rural settings, resulting in nuisance animals in the local area. If the release of these rehabbed over-abundant animals is stopped, fewer permits to “control” them would need to be issued. Honestly, it’s such a ridiculous and simplistic theory that it makes me suspect that it’s a distractionary tool. Same interest group. Logging at Mount Baw B… Look! Squirrel!

Only my points c referred to this proposal.

The others (a and b) were my own observations on selection of release sites by carers. I have no reason to be concerned about the ability of carers to make decisions about rehabbing an animal, nor that they have every intention of ensuring an ideal release site is selected for it. Why wouldn’t they? They are almost always volunteers doing this work altruistically. Despite this intention though, and based on my own observations, I’m still certain that selection of less-than-ideal release sites regularly leads to poor long-term outcomes.

Is was not quite what you said and inferred in your initial a-c list to which I was replying. It goes without saying that animals should not be released into unsuitable locations, the question is, who decides if an area is suitable or not under this proposed legislation.

The point of the new legislation would be to stop release.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

I don’t recall the article mentioning any doubt as to carers’ abilities. It specifically talked about release of “over-abundant” species in rural settings, resulting in nuisance animals in the local area. If the release of these rehabbed over-abundant animals is stopped, fewer permits to “control” them would need to be issued. Honestly, it’s such a ridiculous and simplistic theory that it makes me suspect that it’s a distractionary tool. Same interest group. Logging at Mount Baw B… Look! Squirrel!

Only my points c referred to this proposal.

The others (a and b) were my own observations on selection of release sites by carers. I have no reason to be concerned about the ability of carers to make decisions about rehabbing an animal, nor that they have every intention of ensuring an ideal release site is selected for it. Why wouldn’t they? They are almost always volunteers doing this work altruistically. Despite this intention though, and based on my own observations, I’m still certain that selection of less-than-ideal release sites regularly leads to poor long-term outcomes.

Is was not quite what you said and inferred in your initial a-c list to which I was replying. It goes without saying that animals should not be released into unsuitable locations, the question is, who decides if an area is suitable or not under this proposed legislation.

The point of the new legislation would be to stop release.

So what happens to all the animals? Do the carers start their own private zoo, assuming they have the resources? This is no way to treat our heritage. Shame!

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Is was not quite what you said and inferred in your initial a-c list to which I was replying. It goes without saying that animals should not be released into unsuitable locations, the question is, who decides if an area is suitable or not under this proposed legislation.

The point of the new legislation would be to stop release.

So what happens to all the animals? Do the carers start their own private zoo, assuming they have the resources? This is no way to treat our heritage. Shame!

They are not allowed to be rehabbed, which means they would likely be euthanased when found.

The discussion paper mentions that these restrictions are already in place in the ACT for Eastern Greys, which might explain the trouble I had finding a wildlife carer to come out to help one when I found it, alert but immobile, at the side of the road. The best I could arrange was for a ranger to euth it at the side of the road.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

The point of the new legislation would be to stop release.

So what happens to all the animals? Do the carers start their own private zoo, assuming they have the resources? This is no way to treat our heritage. Shame!

They are not allowed to be rehabbed, which means they would likely be euthanased when found.

The discussion paper mentions that these restrictions are already in place in the ACT for Eastern Greys, which might explain the trouble I had finding a wildlife carer to come out to help one when I found it, alert but immobile, at the side of the road. The best I could arrange was for a ranger to euth it at the side of the road.

The old saying, if it moves shoot it, if it dosen’t paint it. So there will be no hope for injured or displaced native animals? With all our intelligence and capabilities, we are still a greedy and heartless species. We deserve everything that is coming to us.