Comments

According to WWF website: Humans are the greatest threat to many animals in Africa – not least of all birds and fish. As human populations expand, animals lose their habitat to settlements and agriculture. Human wars destroy animals and the lands they live in. Humans take birds and fish for food and for sport. The only way to conserve Africa’s wildlife – big or small – is to help humans find economic and social alternatives to habitat and wildlife destruction. AWF is working with local communities in the African Heartlands to study the impacts of human activities on key species and find ways to conserve these wildlife and their habitats. Extensive habitat conversion and unauthorised hunting, exacerbated by a proliferation of high-powered automatic weaponry in recent years, has hastened the long-term decline and disappearance of wildlife from many areas. As Tigerquoll states, loss of habitat is one of the biggest killers of wildlife. While illegal hunting (known in Africa as “poaching”) still runs rampant despite government crackdowns, the spread of logging and agriculture contributes even more to the decline of many species of large mammals. The number of people in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda has doubled over the past 20 years, and is set to double again in the next 30-40 years. The "bushmeat" alternative to agriculture is NOT sustainable and it is not humane to rob diminishing species members of their mob or family groups to support swelling human populations. For this reason I refuse to support World Vision any more. Until they learn the need to limit their growth, and it may seem cruel, but Nature must take its grim toll.

This is completely a whole lot of bullshit. The children will not be hurt. It will make more jobs and the community gets a lake out of it as well as concrete to make schools.

Many Africans already face food shortages and nutritional deficits, turning to bushmeat as a stop-gap measure. Protein alternatives must be developed and promoted now, before African wildlife has been totally depleted and its potential as an emergency food resource and sustainable economic alternative is gone. The problem of Africa is population growth and thus they are eating into wildlife resources. Human population has increased dramatically – 387% in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1950-1992. Anticipated 50-60% increase in food demand in developing countries by 2030. Unless something is done to stop the tide of population growth, all the Earth's resources will consumed and animals will continue to become extinct. Animals need to eat too! Animals should not be expected to justify their existence by producing an income! Not everything's value can be equated into $$$

You don't need much evidence or research or practical experience to know that if "conservation" is the object of shooting, then rabbits would be the more difficult target than elephants! Also, reducing the toll on rabbits would clearly be a conservation benefit, but targeting a diminishing (huge) species in their home habitat? There is nothing "conservation" about it! Also the means does NOT justify the ends! Feeding people and giving employment are short-term gains, but cutting down a bull elephant in it's prime robs this magnificent animal the rest of its long life! Such anthropocentic attitudes have done so much damage to our ecosystem and caused suffering and destruction to animals.

"There's a lot of mouths to be fed in this country" is the problem! Governments and "scientists" believe that there are "plagues" of kangaroos because the livestock industry has given them more opportunities for breeding! Historical evidence and the dwindling numbers are contrary to this! Indigenous people would have eaten kangaroos and other wildlife on a sustainable level, to feed themselves. However, kangaroos are killed by the millions for export AND our human population has exploded! The "mouths to feed" cannot be supported by our wildlife. Peter Singer recently said it took 120 kangaroos to equal one cattle! Leave our wildlife for tourism and ecological maintenance, not for food, jobs or profits. Bob

Hello Tigerquoll It's good your bringing health/hygiene issues out into the open about macropod harvesting, storage and chillers for Australians and exporting. I think Australia should definitely improve on this situation but not terminate the industry completely. There are lots of citizens with different views but I and the majority of my friends and relatives enjoy eating kangaroo meat and approve of Australians being employed in macropod harvesting and the industry completely. Overall mate there's lovers and haters of everything whether it's cattle, sheep,poultry, wild game or kangaroo for human consumption there's going to be a slaughter there's a lot of mouths to be fed in this country, like you said in your other article immigrants and Australian citizens. Just an opinion but and I'm sure plenty of people think alike. Despite your view on macropod harvesting I'm supportive of improving the health/hygiene of the industry and should hope to clear up the exporting relation with Russia. Keep harvesting Roos hygienically Pete

"Present these facts on CanDoBetter or with a source link to subtantiate your message, otherwise it's all hearsay and innuendo, which does not add to the debate."

If you want a copy of the minutes of the meeting, You can be my guest at chasing that one up. I dare say that minutes may not have even been taken. Anyhow, I simply made a diplomatic observation of the meeting's structure and intent. If you disagree that's fine with me.

As for your thoughts on shooting Australian wildlife , this is something I disagree with also. Sustainable use of wildlife is historically the most effective conservation tool in the world. The North American's for example can boast at how hunting injects US$200million a year into wildlife projects (through hunting excises and taxes) and how under the management of hunting organisations for each species has resulted in exponential increases of game animal populations. Remember that I'm referring to species which are NATIVE to the USA and HUNTED such as the Canada goose, whitetail deer, elk (wapiti), pronghorn antelope and wild turkey and in all cases have enjoyed population increases of incredible proportions from levels in the early 1900's. This information can be accessed by the way, through the US fish and Wildlife service website or simply google "Americas Un- endangered species" and pick a link. If you're not impressed then conservation is not one of your interests.

The above suggests that feral animal control is only one facet of the bill. The bill in it's entirety is a holistic approach to the management of Australian wildlife (native and indigenous) and while it may seem impalitable for some to digest in one hit, it's ideas are ALL scientifically based and it makes perfect sense to combine all issues at once.

Remember that the original concept of National Parks was invented by hunters (Roosevelt , Krueger etc.) as were the very foundation of the world's first conservation programs (Aldo Leopold). Hunters do not detach themselves from the natural world and conservation is seated at the very core of hunting ethos.
If you care to ask a specific question about something in the bill, once again - be my guest , I will certainly find you the related reference. However I do have a day job.

Outside of Australia, in fact outside of NSW "Conservation Hunting" has proven that it isn't such a Paradigm.

Jeff Borg

Rising populations and an increasing consumption of diminishing natural resources is not sustainable! This word "sustainable" has been used to justify use of limited resources when it means the opposite! It is an oxymoron. We are almost "peak" everything! There are people who believe that the ultimate resource is ourselves, the human race! Our species, being on top of the food chain and on top of the power pyramid, have had it good in the last few hundred years since the science explosion of knowledge and the industrial revolution. This cannot be assumed to go on infinitely. A time of reckoning will come, and sustainability will come, but it won't be pleasant for us! Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis the Gaia Hypothesis was named after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Gaia will eventually adjust itself like any organism that has a virus or infestation.

I accept that trying to get 'thrill killers' to empathise with animals is impossible; you may as well talk to a telegraph pole. We can only obtain comfort with the knowledge that as we progress further into the 21st century, these people, like the Neanderthal, will eventually die out and a more thinking, caring man will evolve; one who doesn't need to kill defenceless animals to make him feel better about himself.

We don't need to have been to Africa to have an opinion regarding "management" of animals! We don't have to have been to the Poles to have an opinion re. melting ice caps, or need to need to be a fisherman to have an opinion of the callapse of fisheries either! "Exploding elephant populations"? The African elephant once ranged across most of the African continent from the Mediterranean coast to the southern tip. According to the WWF, less than 20% of elephant range is under formal protection. Today, it is estimated that between 470,000 and 690,000 elephants survive in Africa. African Elephant Conservation Act 1989 states that: (1) Elephant populations in Africa have declined at an alarming rate since the mid-1970's. (2) The large illegal trade in African elephant ivory is the major cause of this decline and threatens the continued existence of the African elephant. (3) The African elephant is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its continued existence will be further jeopardized if this decline is not reversed. Human populations are exploding. Also, a "game" warden's report? Could be slightly biased!

tinyurl.com/mvv8rk www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090826110118.htm Heat Forms Potentially Harmful Substance In High-fructose Corn Syrup, Bee Study Finds ScienceDaily (Aug. 27, 2009) ? Researchers have established the conditions that foster formation of potentially dangerous levels of a toxic substance in the high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that is often fed to honey bees. Their study, which appears in the current issue of ACS' bi-weekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, may also have implications for soft drinks and dozens of other human foods that contain HFCS. The substance, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), forms mainly from heating fructose. In the new study, Blaise LeBlanc and Gillian Eggleston and colleagues note HFCS's ubiquitous usage as a sweetener in beverages and processed foods. Some commercial beekeepers also feed it to bees to increase reproduction and honey production. When exposed to ***warm*** temperatures, HFCS can form HMF and kill honeybees. Some researchers believe that HMF may be a factor in Colony Collapse Disorder, a mysterious disease that has killed at least one-third of the honeybee population in the United States. The scientists measured levels of HMF in HFCS products from different manufacturers over a period of 35 days at different temperatures. As temperatures rose, levels of HMF increased steadily. Levels jumped dramatically at about 120 degrees Fahrenheit. "The data are important for commercial beekeepers, for manufacturers of HFCS, and for purposes of food storage. *****Because HFCS is incorporated as a sweetener in many processed foods, the data from this study are important for human health as well," the report states. It adds that studies have linked HMF to DNA damage in humans. In addition, HMF breaks down in the body to other substances potentially more harmful than HMF.***** Journal reference: LeBlanc et al. Formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural in Domestic High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Its Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009; 57 (16): 7369 DOI: 10.1021/jf9014526 Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

I'm not sure if it's been covered exactly already, but sometimes I heard these pirates and even the operators? Are involved with the police. The latter return stolen items and capture the perpetrators - making it look all sorry and ok. Meanwhile, the attacks continue.

Below are excerpts taken from chapters 7 and 8 of Mark O'Connor's 1998 book This Tired Brown Land. In these chapters, O'Connor exposes the fallacious economic arguments used to justify high immigration and reveals the real economic costs of immigration. On the claim that immigration "stimulates" the economy: The immigration lobby argues that since migrants create a 'demand' for goods and services, they benefit the economy. As one commentator remarked, if things were as simple as that, we could do the economy a power of good by burning down our suburbs at regular intervals. Unfortunately, much of the 'demand' created has been of the sort that sucks in imports rather than generates export industries. The years of high immigration in the late 1980s were plagued by current account problems. The battle between nations today is to create exports, or import-replacements, not to stimulate internal demand. In a sense we are locked in a friendly but fierce trade war in which our assets are the things we can export (or can do without, or can produce at home) and our liabilities are the imports our population demands. After years of boosterism by the [former] BIR, the BIR's Lyn Williams finally summed up its research and conceded that the economic advantages of immigration were at best minimal or possibly neutral. Hardly the sort of economic bonanza you'd risk ruining your country for! *** ... boomers often justify high immigration on the grounds that it 'stimulates' the economy. The Sydney Institute, for instance, is a privately funded 'think tank' which is strongly immigrationist. In one guest article in The Canberra Times Anne Henderson, Deputy Director of the Institute, suggested that those who can't see the benefits of higher immigration are irrational Hansonists. By contrast, she tells you, "The rational mind know [that] added numbers of people in a country create jobs in the housing and retail markets, and so on. ... Australia's state premiers (Bob Carr is an exception) are on to this. ...They want immigrant numbers based on population needs (read economic needs) not ad hoc political decisions (read populist prejudice). ...The tide could be turning. Growth in Australia needs people. Industry leaders such as Tony Berg, at Boral, agree. ...National interest in the benefits of immigration in Australia could be making a comeback." Henderson spends half her article 'poisoning the wells' by talking about 'racism'. Replying, in a letter to the editor, the Canberra environmentalist Colin Samundsett remarked "Anne Henderson rides a Trojan Horse constructed out of race to assail her target of having our immigration increased. While wearing the cloak of scholarship woven by the Sydney Institute, in this instance she is attired more like Lady Govina. ...This latest text seems to be a political handout rather than a seriously assembled critique for Australia." Anne Henderson is only one of many who confuse an increase in 'demand' or in GDP with a better quality of life. In fact, unless a per capita growth in GDP (or better, in real quality of living) can be demonstrated, most individual Australians do not benefit at all financially. In other words, whether we are talking jobs or pay or wealth, few us of benefit from a slightly bigger cake if there are far more people than before to divide the cake up among. This fundamental truth, pointed out repeatedly in the [former] Coalition government's own Mortimer Report, Going for Growth, has been hidden from the Australian people in a propaganda effort supported by sections of the media and by both the major political parties. On the costs of immigration: According to Swinburne University's Katherine Betts, the likely negative effects of immigration include: * Adverse effects on the balance of payments. * The diversification of resources to infrastructure. * Diseconomies of scale in the cities that have passed their optimal size (considered to be around 500,000 people). * Waste of human resources by the neglect of local training. * Pressures toward capital widening at the expense of capital deepening. (We can ill afford to be a nation that invests mainly in real estate.) The last point is most important. On average, in all big and small businesses in Australia in 1995, it took about $117,000 of capital to provide one job. This means that billions of dollars of additional capital will be required to get our unemployed into the workforce. As we have no surplus savings in Australia, the capital for new jobs will have to be borrowed from overseas, thus further worsening our balance of payments. In 1989 Stephen Joske, an economist with the Parliamentary Research Library, estimated that immigration had produced a $7-$8 billion shortfall in investment capital (at then-current immigration levels) for public infrastructure. In other words, the amount of money, which might otherwise have been used to improve existing infrastructure (e.g. schools, public transport) had gone instead into providing basic infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewerage) for immigrants. Joske calculated that the necessary capital investment was some $80,000 (in 1989 dollars) per immigrant. Some of this money the migrants bring with them, but most of it must come either from within Australia or from overseas borrowings. Either way this increases Australia's foreign debt and foreign liabilities. This also puts pressure on interest rates by causing Australia to be seen as a less attractive or riskier borrower, and thus impacts negatively on many sections of the economy. Properly controlled experiments are rare in economics; but Colin Teese, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade, has pointed out that First World countries over the past forty years have in effect carried out one: a control experiment on the effects of population growth on per capita wealth. The four countries that deliberately sought to increase their populations through immigration - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S. - all slipped backward badly relative to the rest. A likely reason, Teese suggests, is that too much of these countries' investment has gone into housing, services, and speculative real estate buying (because immigration produces continually rising real estate prices) rather than into capital-intensive production to produce exports and replace imports. *** In 1996 Oliver Howes revealed in the Canberra Times that the BIR had published, but had failed to publicise the crucial conclusions of two 1992 books which itemised the costs of immigration to federal and state budgets. Despite the expense of these major studies, the BIR (which had never been accused of lack of diligence in publicising research that could justify high immigration) failed to add up the costs itemised in these books and thus show the total average cost per migrant - a figure one might have thought of some interest to taxpayers and government. In particular, the BIR failed to adequately publicise the implications of the study Immigration and State Budgets by Professor Russell Mathews, which painstakingly calculated and disaggregated the various immigration costs to the taxpayer in the average migrant's first five years. When his itemised per capita costs are added up they come to around $16,762 per migrant at state level. When one adds to this the figure of $8,962 at federal level (provided by the other BIR study), the result would seem to be a total cost of $25,724 per immigrant at State and Federal levels combined. Costs at local government (never properly established) may be relatively minor, but an overall cost of $26,000 per immigrant can be considered conservative. The BIR failed to publicise either the total state costs figure or the combined state plus federal figure. It was only some years later that Oliver Howes did this calculation and published the results in the Canberra Times. The situation then turned out to be even worse. The BIR had failed to ensure the two studies were compatible. In counting all the monies that migrants contribute to state government budgets, Professor Matthews had meticulously included a per capita share of Commonwealth Funding Grants to the States. (These are essentially a return to the states of a share of the income tax which the federal government collects.) But the authors of the study of costs and benefits at federal level had failed to count these payments as a deduction from the federal budget. When adjustment is made for this inconsistency, the per capita cost per migrant turns out to be $34,500. *** The former BIR conceded that there might be long-term environmental and economic costs (especially with balance of payments) caused by immigration-fed population growth, but it denied that state or federal governments could reap budgetary benefits by cutting immigration. This seems to be completely wrong. Mathews' figures (available to the BIR since 1992, yet oddly neglected by them) leave no doubt that reducing immigration would provide large savings in both the short and medium term to both state and federal budgets. His figures also leave little doubt that to use immigration as, in effect, a form of 'industry subsidy' cannot be defended as being in the public interest. On the alleged economic benefits of a larger population: Some have claimed that a larger population is better for the economy. In an 'Occasional Monograph' (May 1993) titled Ten of the Most Dangerous Myths in Australia Phil Ruthven, chairman of Ibis Business Information, commented: "Rubbish! Twelve of the Top 20 standard of living countries have lower population levels than Australia; and Australia once had the world's highest standing of living with four million people." On immigration, wages and jobs: Despite the prevalence at its public conferences of people claiming that "immigrants create jobs", even the Bureau of Immigration Research did not normally claim this. Its formal papers usually argued simply that the economy would adjust to an increased workforce. Wages would fall (an assumption that was tactfully not emphasised) and this would enable employers to put on more staff. The BIR's final word was in an in-house publication by Lyn Williams, already referred to. After turning the evidence this way and that she concluded the effects of immigration upon the economy and unemployment are close to neutral (or, as the pseudo-medical jargon of economists puts it, "benign"). Even the distinctly slanted fact-sheets provided by the Department of Immigration merely claim that "Research over recent years shows that immigration does not have an adverse effect on the overall unemployment rate" and "The consistent result of research is that immigration does not adversely impact on thhe aggregate unemployment rate." The last claim, as we shall shortly see, is untrue. It seems unwise for the present Department of Immigration to lean so heavily on the authority of the former BIR, an organisation which awkwardly combined public relations and research functions. As sociologist and immigration expert Katherine Betts puts it, the BIR commonly assumed that adding to the labour force, even in a time of unemployment, would produce a fall in wages that would lead to more jobs being created and thus to no long-term increase in the percentage of the population unemployed. This logic, she points out, ignored both the long-term disappearance of demand for manual labour (important because so many immigrants seek manual work) and the 'stickiness' of wages which (because of factors like unions and wage agreements) do not automatically fall according to the law of supply and demand. *** It is claimed that more people (whether immigrants or native-born babies) create 'demand'. But do they create a job's worth of demand each? Perhaps only if their demands become more 'frivolous'. Otherwise economies of scale will mean there is less work to be done. Consider, for instance, how much work it would be in an isolated community of just 1,000 people to provide shoes, boots, sandshoes, sandals and slippers in all the styles and sizes that different men, women and children would require. No wonder that craftnames like Shoemaker, Carpenter, and Taylor were numerous in early communities. A significant proportion of the population would have to be in the footwear trades alone, even with modern technology. But if we scale that population up to 100 million, then only a small proportion of it would need to make shoes. Increasing the population does not necessarily increase jobs at the same rate. The econometrician Matthew W. Peter has disproved the boomer's claim that for every job an immigrant takes another job is created for the existing population. He showed that this was based on a mis-use of the Orani computer model of the economy. When more fact-based assumptions were fed in, for instance that wages are 'sticky', the same Orani model gave the opposite conclusions: that bringing in immigrants does cause unemployment, as well as problems with balance of payments, and a string of other undesirable effects. Unfortunately, disinterested academics like Mathew Peter did not have the public relations expertise of the BIR, and the BIR's unreliable claims continue to be repeated as gospel by some defenders of existing levels of immigration, and in the media. A further problem is that many of the jobs migrants do create are unproductive. We pay a fortune for consultants and teachers to ameliorate the linguistic and other problems of immigrants; but only from the perspective of those so employed are these problems a boon. For the taxpayer they are a drain and an expense.* The Melbourne pyschologist and author Valery Yule has commented: "The jobs immigrants create are mainly ones which are profitable to builders and developers: raising the price of land, requiring more housing, resulting in more medium-density housing replacing our world-famous 'quarter-acre-blocks' and wrecking in Melbourne all hope of a Garden City. Requiring more schools, hospitals etc. is not a bonus because they have to paid for from the public purse. Immigration as a source of job creation is a non-ending job creator - it has to keep running to keep creating, and it puts more pressure on our resources. The way things are today, the more immigrants we take, the more imports we tend to buy, and the greater our foreign debt." *** Apart from failing to recognise that wages are 'sticky', the BIR's calculations also ignored the fact that the unemployment problems created by immigration are not spread evenly across the spectrum of occupations (which would make them easier to solve). For instance, immigrants help provide a great surplus of skills in areas like engineering and sewing. This does not only lead to massive and expensive unemployment (and disillusion) among recent immigrants, it also threatens the employment and salary prospects of anyone currently employed in these professions. (For some years in the 1980s we were actually importing more engineers than we were graduating.) *** William Mitchell, Head of Economics at the University of Newcastle, has recently raised a more technical objection. He points out that the claim made by many immigration lobbyists that immigration doesn't cause unemployment "completely ignores the question of whether the growth needed to absorb the higher population is sustainable, given the problems Australia has with external debt." Indeed, he points out that the claim is based on logically incompatible premises: "Unemployment is affected by two factors: increases in the productivity of labour and increases in its supply. Both of these factors could, in principle, be offset by strong economic growth. But, if the economy grows fast enough to accommodate both productivity gains and the addition of migrants to the labour force, it will draw in more imports and the balance of payments will deteriorate. Economic growth of around 2% per annum may be all that we can sustain without increasing our foreign debt. This level of economic growth is not enough to reduce unemployment in the face of any net immigration (or any growth in labour productivity)." On immigration and socio-economic inequality: ...unemployment is not the only way in which population growth penalises those most vulnerable. As the Sydney University economist Frank Stilwell points out "Economic inequality is fuelled by urban growth, because the inflation in the urban property market benefits existing wealth holders at the expense of new entrants. It also intensifies the fiscal crisis of the state because of the costs of infrastructure - providing the water and sewerage systems, the energy supply networks and so forth. The costs of such infrastructure tend to rise more rapidly than the capacity to fund them through taxation or user charges." Thus as population grows, whether by immigration or by natural increase, the poor cop it in a variety of ways. Stagnant wages, higher home costs and mortages, less certainty of keeping their jobs (and less chance of changing or choosing where they work). And as government budgets collapse, the social security net is ripped, or unravels. * Economist Stephen Rimmer noted in 1992, "The lack of English language skills in the workplace imposes substantial economic costs in the form of lost productivity and reduced international competitiveness. For example, in 1989 the OMA estimated the poor English language skills cost Australia A$3.2 billion each year in additional communication time needed in the workplace. This estimate was used to justify more government spending on English language training. In addition, it was claimed in a report published by the Federal government-funded Bureau of Immigration Research that lost output owing to unemployment caused by lack of English language skills could be as high as A$1.6 billion per year. ...In all, the lack of English language skills in the workplace could cost Australia over A$5.4 billion per year - equal to 1.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)." Source: Rimmer, S., "The Cost of Multiculturalism", The Social Contract, Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 1992).

Hi Sheila, First let me thank you for your article in the online newspaper. Let's hope it starts moving things down here. All these politicians are hard bones but I think we will be able to defeat them. This is very hard and difficult to us down here because we are practically under attack all over the country by municipalities and the veterinarian corporation. Both animals' public enemies. Iris Gallegos from Bright Eyes Society has been to Argentina and knows how we love our strays and the way animal advocates work all over the country and she has depicted us very well. You can read something here but this is not the article I am talking about http://www.ethicalsolutions.eu/index.php?lang=es Yes, we are a 'no-kill city; and there are more and more and this has been possible thanks to citizens' pressure. In many cities in Argentina gas chambers were dismantled a long time ago but there are some still working but we think this will change in a short time. There are two kinds of shelters in Argentina, the ones run by animal advocates and the ones run by municipalities. All the despicable pictures you saw belong to municipal shelters and they are all run by municipal veterinarians and as you can see their minds are so twisted that after having studied many years to be able to save precious lives they end up being sadistic individuals perfect Hitler's followers. The shelters run by municipalities (vets) have one thing in mind, clear the streets - so animals are trapped and piled up in those places and since they cannot be killed because of our legislation. Out of revenge they starve them to death or if the poor animals are trapped sick they are left unattended, with no medical treatment until they die. This is not our imagination. We have gone with court orders and taken dogs out of our municipal shelter here and exposed them. Because of this some of them have lost their jobs and that's why we are hated among local authorities and vets as well. The thing is that not many groups or animal advocates are strong enough to face the pressure and the threats. They remain silent and under a lot of stress because all the suffering they have to carry in their hearts. That's why many years ago the Argentine Network of No-Kill Associations was created. We are fighters. For example we flood politicians, majors or whoever email boxes not with nice and polite letters, we call them murderers, corrupt and sick. We circulate pictures depicting them for the monsters they are. This is the only way they can be stopped. Newspapers then use these pictures to expose them and the pressure is so big that they are shamed into behaving. For example some years ago, another mayor signed a decree in which euthanasia was reinstated here in my city. We raised such hell that he was not able to leave the town hall facility. He had started receiving phone calls telling him that the minute he stepped out of the building he would be gassed. He called a press conference and said that everything had been a misunderstanding. Two years ago a council woman tried to pass an ordinance in which strays were going to be captured and if they couldn't get homes for them they would be handed over to labs for experimentation. God, when he heard about her macabre plan it was like a declaration of war. We raised such a hell that next day we were on the front page of the main newspaper. We had said we would offer her for experimentation. She had to leave the city overnight and we got our bill passed. Now it is different because this mayor seems to have a severe drinking problem and his wife, who happens to be the secretary of the cabinet, strikes us as heartless and she has been dishonest in her dealings with us. Above all she seems to hate us. In our city you cannot kill animals anymore and it's been this way since 1993. The idea was that animals could not be killed, but massive and free of charge spay/neuter programs had to be carried out instead. Unfortunately, the veterinarian corporation said that if the spay /neuter procedures were free of charge they would lose money. How would strays pay for themselves to be neutered or the owners of pets from low income families? Ridiculous! So the vets have been lobbying against this policy being carried out. They have boycotted these programs all over the country. Since the municipal shelters all over the country are run by vets with mean attitudes, we have this terrible overpopulation of strays. And if we come across any vet who choose to help animals or doesn't charge people for their services, their licence is taken away. We know cases where this has happened to some of these good hearted and excellent vets. What's more, when we got our bill passed two years ago, there was an attempt to put a veto on it. Fortunately our pressure was stronger and the councilmen had to pass it. They never thought that we would find out about their new secret and macabre plan in time to raise an outcry. Because we have they are very upset. When the media tried to help us, the town hall threatened to suspend their advertising accounts with newspapers that gave us coverage. So the sympathetic media withdrew. Worse, other media outlets have accused us of making our complaints up. Today, however, one important political magazine which is absolutely opposed to the town hall, met with us. We have given them all the information and evidence, and they have said they will publish everything this Thursday. In the meantime, we are doing something that the people who mean harm to animals cannot prevent us from doing. We are making people aware of the atrocity-in-the-making and we have turned on the fan so the shit is flying everywhere. Today we were also contacted by a group of people who are trying to bring the town hall to justice because of a number of horrible things they are doing in this city. We have been invited us to be a part of this movement. It will be a sort of collective action against the town hall. Well, I do hope this is more or less clear enough, if you have any kind of doubts please do not hesitate and contact me right away. Best wishes, Coqui Canadian Voice for Animals - Argentina www.canadianvoiceforanimals.org/argentinabranch_index.html Sitio Matriz en Canadá: www.cvfaf.org

Minister of Environment, Victoria, recently announced that an "additional 400 hectares of Brown Mountain (is) to be protected". However, he is misleading the public as this area was already protected and he actually gave approval for the logging of Brown Mountain old growth forest to proceed. It has been confirmed that there are numerous trees over 600 years old that sprouted at the birth of the Renaissance. Short-sighted greed and vandalism will eradicate these sentinels of Time, these ancient relics of Australia's pristine past. There is no commitment to threatened or vulnerable native species - they are clearly just "collateral damage" in the quest for commercial profits. According to DSE's discretion, they "may" protect endangered species, unless there are profits to be made by VicForests! Victoria's natural heritage, a birthright and a buffer against climate change, is to be chopped up and sold for a few transient jobs and a miserable few dollars worth of woodchips per tonne.

Like Australia, Canada's insane immigration levels (>250K/year) are driven by the warm body needs of the construction and development lobby. 'Environmental' groups like the David Suzuki Foundation have been bribed into silence on the population issue by the donations of banks (RBC, BMO Financial), which want immigration rates DOUBLED. The mostly unemployed 'guest workers' in Europe are also merely human filler, to justify the construction of those sprawling, crime-ridden suburbs. I'm not sure about your Country, but mass immigration has brought a lot of 'diversity' to our crime scene, too. Ethnic gangs are shooting up our streets (in my hometown, it's the aptly-named Fresh Off the Boat and FOB-Killers, in a vicious gang war). Sikh (Babbar Khalsa), Tamil (LTTE) and Muslim terrorists are active here. South Asians have brought doda abuse and East Africans peddle khat. Now, 'honour killings' are getting more and more common, as our Muslim population swells. We need to start making overpopulation and immigration issues again, in the environmental movement. Additionally, immigration is a major driver of violent crime.

Have people seen this? The link is to a booklet put out by the Vic Govt about "transforming Australian cities"- to pack 'em in of course. I have been waking up in a panic about it since seeing that they want to have more than twice the number of people living in Stonington. (my area) -after doing a "capacity audit". It's terrible to think we pay these people for these atrocities.

Oh come on! The ETU seem to be afflicted with the concreting cult as well! "The $18 billion infrastructure spending is a great initiative. However, we do not need to sell profitable government assets to fund it. Saying that we do is akin to selling your house, but keeping the land, and then using the money from the sale to put in a bigger driveway," Mr Simpson said." The whole privatisation and construction thing is inexcusable, and it is driven by that infrastructure expenditure. The ETU is in a position to influence industrial relations and laws to wind down production so that people can work less, share work, and only do necessary work. But it shows here that it is from the same dinosaur stock as Brontosaurus Bligh. We don't want more malignant growth and state sanctioned sprawl. Help us to get a life, ETU. Stop being part of the problem.

Sorry, "trap-neuter-release" programmes are NOT effective everywhere. They are a failure. Last July, I wrote the following to the head of a Wildlife Rescue Centre, who had expressed frustration at the damage cats--both feral AND domesticated, were doing to wildlife, especially birds: "E", I am quite interested in your remarks about cats. I seem to recall that on your TV interview, you said that cats cause 50% of the injuries to birds and other creatures who are treated at your facility. Could you elaborate on that? I have been made aware that domestic cats in Canada kill some 18 million birds EVERY YEAR. That is over 4 birds on average per year. In my island community, a campaign has been underway for some months to capture and neuter feral cats. But when I have suggested that cats with human custodians kill and maim wildlife, cat owners and advocates either do not acknowledge the problem or will not offer a solution to it. I believe that cats, like dogs, should not be allowed to roam free beyond their owner’s properties unless under control. The idea that only dogs should be subject to this requirement is a double standard of unacceptable hypocrisy, in my opinion. In response, cat lovers say that their animals are natural hunters, and that it is unreasonable, unrealistic and impractical to demand they be confined within their owner’s property. Fine, I reply. Then why not at least give their victims a fighting chance? Why not “bell” your cats. Cat lovers object to that too, and I am not sure why. If it endangers cats, so what? Are cat lovers telling me that cats are an endangered species whose protection and welfare trumps wild creatures? There 400 million cats in the world, for goodness sakes. 4 million in Canada alone. But in BC, on the other hand, there are over 500 endangered wild species. I used to enjoy watching a variety of birds land on my sundeck railing and surrounding trees. Stellars jays, red winged blackbirds, hummingbirds and several eagles as a matter of fact. But two neighbours and their wandering feline pets have put an end to much of that. One of these neighbours has had over a dozen cats and their calling card is a mangled bird here and there. They do most of their hunting at night I think, judging by the yowling I hear. This is an issue that needs publicity. You have made an important step in that direction. She replied, I have always said that as bad as the financial situation is with the Wildlife Hospital I run it will be the cat caught animals that will do me in. This is because it is so disheartening to have almost 80-90 % of the admissions that come in through our doors be the result of cat inflicted injuries. It doesn't end there either because sometimes it is a female that is lactating or a mother bird which means that somewhere out there are babies slowly starving to death. You are right, cat owners do not like to hear the statistics. I run into this all the time. They say it is nature. Nature is when an animal is caught for food but when it is a well fed cat that plays with the animal and then leaves it , it has to be for entertainment. A very one sided source of fun! Often these animals come in covered with maggots after being in the hot sun, It is very sad. Just to make it clear, I am not a cat-hater and have actually rescued many cats in my time. I just wish cats were not allowed to cause so much misery. I am running into a problem similar to yours. We moved to this area (now I have a huge mortgage) so I could do a soft release where the animal can be released on site and come back if they needed security or food. However, I have had to send off some of our releases because there are cats roaming around. Regards, E. At that point, I sent an email to researcher Sherril Guthrie, whom I discovered wrote an article for BC Nature magazine on this very issue. This was her reply. The actual article appears afterward. Please note the link for the video on the failure of TNR: Tim, I thought you'd be interested in this new film by the American Bird Conservancy. It connects with a number of issues related to my research and recent article in BC Nature. (You'll also note that this issue is getting more legitimate attention by reputable journalists and newspapers - a very good thing.) It's going to be VERY important that Conservationists do not fully endorse Trap/Neuter/Release as a stop-gap measure for controlling the feral cat crisis. This approach is one-sided and is not sustainable. It is my firm belief, based on months of researching this topic, that the conservation community in Canada (as it has in the U.S.) must speak up (in a non-activist manner) on this issue and insist on a solution that protects our native species (small mammals and birds). This means changing the 'R' in TNR from release to REMOVE. Could you please ensure that this highly credible film gets the proper attention it deserves? Best regards and many thanks, SG http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2009/06/feral_cat_bi... Cat Licensing – A Conservation Strategy that Can Work By Sherril Guthrie In September 2008, Nature Canada's newsroom alerted us that the State of the World's Birds publication was available for review. The report highlights population declines of more than 50% over the past 40 years for 20 of North America's most common bird species. For migratory species including the Chimney Swift, Bobolink, and Canada Warbler, the decline is 57%. The report also identifies the 12 main threats or causes of these troubling declines. Topping the list is habitat destruction and degradation due to agriculture and logging, with invasive species next in line. Surprisingly, the data indicates that invasive species represent a more severe threat to our birds than climate change, pollution, residential and commercial development, or even hunting and trapping. And, yes, Felis catus or the domestic cat, ranks high on the list—second only to rats. The Problem BirdLife International, the official IUCN Red List Authority for birds, has identified cats as the second most invasive predator currently threatening our bird populations. Sadly, cats have also made The World Conservation Union's list of 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species. Analysis of data held in BirdLife's World Bird Database(2008) demonstrates that cat predation has negatively affected over 170 of our globally threatened bird species, and the situation is getting worse. According to Environment Canada, in a statement on their website: "The impact of invasive alien species on native ecosystems, habitats and species is severe and often irreversible, and can cost billions of dollars each year." Cat Predation Studies According to the American Bird Conservancy, extensive studies of the predation habits of free-roaming domestic cats have been conducted over the last 55 years in Europe, North America, Australia, Africa and on many islands. From this data we know that roughly 60-70% of the wildlife cats kill are small mammals, 20-30% are birds, and the remainder are amphibians, reptiles and insects. Some free-roaming domestic cats kill more than 100 prey each year; rural and feral cats take more prey than urban cats; and birds that nest or feed on the ground are most susceptible, as are nestlings and fledglings of many other bird species. In their report, Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife, the American Bird Conservancy states, "Scientists estimate that nationwide, cats kill hundreds of millions of birds, and more than a billion small mammals, each year." Thanks to studies such as The Mammal Society's, Look what the cat's brought in!(1998) study in England, we also have a realistic snapshot of the devastation caused by free-roaming cats. In five months, 964 cats killed more than 14,000 animals, with birds representing 24% of their prey. This study also confirmed that the mean kill rates for belled cats was higher than for cats without bells. Scope of the Problem The American Bird Conservancy estimates that there are over 77 million pet cats in the United States and based on results from a 1997 nationwide poll, only 35% are kept exclusively indoors. In Canada, estimates from a 2007 nationwide survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid and Members of the Canadian Animal Health Institute found there are approximately 7.9 million cats and 5.9 million dogs in Canada. According to experience-based estimates provided by Humane Society administrators and staff, less than 30% of cats are kept exclusively indoors. Conservatively, this means that Canada's birds are currently being threatened by over 5.5 million free-roaming cats that are killing over 165 million birds each year. This calculation does not take into account the impact of our growing feral cat population, where the kill rates are higher. To Make Matters Worse The feral cat population in Canada is a growing concern. From the Comox/Courtney Valley and Creston, BC to Lake Erie, Ontario and many points in-between, the feral cat population is a troubling example of an invasive species wreaking havoc on our natural environment. Feral cat colonies always start with a small number of unspayed and unneutered strays, then quickly grow. According to similar data from the Cat Advocacy Society in Comox and the Port Colborne Feral Cat Initiative in Ontario, each mature female cat can produce 2-3 litters per year, with 4.5 kittens per litter. Within 8 months, the first litter of kittens will have their first litters. In real terms, as one funding proposal for 2006 stated, "Spaying 215 mature cats (at a cost of $12,000) will prevent the births of 3900 to 4900 kittens within one year." Well-meaning cat advocacy groups are trying to get approval for funds to support this approach, referred to as a trap/neuter/release or TNR program. Given all that we know about the environmental impact of free-roaming cats on birds and small mammals, however, this is clearly a one-sided approach that is simply not sustainable. Desperately needed is a more reasoned approach that balances the needs of our birds and wildlife, with the human pleasures of owning a cat. In Calgary they have a name for this approach. It's Responsible Pet Ownership and, thankfully, the program is working. The Solution: Responsible Pet Ownership Bill Bruce, the City of Calgary's Director of Animal and Bylaw Services, is the visionary behind Calgary's Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw—a rare and logical program that benefits just about everyone and nature itself. Calgary's animal services program, in partnership with the Calgary Humane Society has successfully introduced cat licensing and other cities and municipalities have worn a path to their door. Why? Because the cat overpopulation problem is widespread, growing at an alarming rate, and far too many cats are being abandoned and abused . . . all due to irresponsible cat ownership. How successful is Calgary's program? To appreciate Calgary's success, it's worth noting that for decades cat licensing has been a contentious issue that many cities and individuals, especially politicians, have avoided like the plague. Fearful of entering an emotional debate and losing support, far too many stakeholders have set aside credible data from respected sources that told them, repeatedly, we have a growing array of problems due to the overpopulation of domestic and feral cats. Bill Bruce knew this in 1997 when he first attempted cat licensing. At the time, the issue had its critics and demonstrators, and support was hard to find. Fast forward to 2009 and much has changed. Calgary's Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw came in to effect on March 20, 2006 and cat licensing became mandatory on January 1, 2007. Since then 50% of the city's domestic cats, conservatively estimated at 108,000, and over 90% of its dogs, estimated at 110,000, have been licensed. Of the 9000 stray or abandoned cats taken in by Calgary's Humane Society in 2005, only 17% had identification and could be returned to their owner. Compare this to an 88% return rate for dogs in the same year because of established licensing practices, and you see one of the key benefits of licensing cats. Like dogs, cats in Calgary must now be confined to their owner's property—a change made in response to the many citizens concerned about cats prowling, yowling, killing birds and wildlife, scattering garbage, digging, defecating and spraying on their private property. As Bill asked me, "What do you suppose would happen if dog owners let their dog out every night before they went to bed?" I conjured an image of the chaos, and we agreed it wouldn't wash. As a result, Animal Service's public education program strongly recommends that cats be kept indoors, not simply to prevent them from nuisance behaviours, but to ensure their own safety and health. The result: fewer complaints and disagreements among neighbours, and fewer cats killed by cars, coyotes, poisoning or random abuse, and fewer unwanted kittens. As cat licensing matures and compliance rates continue to rise due to incentives, education and bylaw enforcement, it can also be predicted that the feral cat population will decline. In April 2009, Animal Services, with funds directly from the cat licensing program, opened it's first low-cost spay and neuter facility. According to Bruce, without funds from cat licensing, this service couldn't be offered. Combine all this, and Calgary not only has a successful animal services program, but a grassroots conservation strategy that, over time, can work. Fewer free-roaming cats means fewer small mammals and birds will die. Fewer feral cats and colonies means less impact on wildlife and the environment. It's about simple mathematics that can add up to big savings for wildlife, the environment and for cats. It's also about seeking balance, fairness, and demonstrating concern for more than one species. It's not at all about activism or winning and losing. That's dated and passé. It's about everyone parking their anger and egos at the door and entering a new collaborative phase that works for nature. Our combined energies and creativity can accomplish some wondrous things, and the Calgary program is proof of that. Why the Program Works 1) The right approach – To build support for a cat licensing program, Bill and his team connected with all stakeholders, including local rescue groups. Their goal was to identify all the issues and find common ground. Everyone agreed that cats were not the problem, rather the unwilling victims. No one wanted more homeless cats or strays and no one wanted so many cats hurt, sick or euthanized because of irresponsible owners. 2) The right focus – Calgary built its entire program on a foundation of Responsible Pet Ownership that treats cat and dog owners equitably. As Bill said, "Virtually every animal that winds up in a shelter is the result of a failed human relationship." By focusing on pet owners, the program is able to access the root cause of stray and unwanted pets. A license means, "This is your pet and you're responsible." The four principles of responsible pet ownership: license and provide permanent identification, spay/neuter, provide training, care and proper medical attention, and don't allow your pet to become a nuisance or threat. Every aspect of Calgary's program is geared to instilling these behaviours. 3) Communicate the benefits – The program stresses the benefits of Responsible Pet Ownership. In addition, cat licensing in Calgary has produced an all-important revenue stream for the safe return of cats to owners, as well as low-cost spaying and neutering, in particular for low income families. All of the funds taken in from cat licensing are used to provide these and other services for cats. 4) Make it easy to comply – Cat owners were given six months to get their first license and easy options for doing so were made very clear. Change takes time and a transition phase was anticipated. Once the first cat license is purchased, a renewal notice is automatically sent out, as it is for dogs. As well, further incentives were created to target cat owners who are slow or reluctant to comply, as it is with dog owners slow to comply. Calgary's goal is to have cat licensing on par with dog licensing within 2-3 years, and they seem to be on track. And with Calgary's success, the landscape for issues such as cat licensing has changed forever. As of January 2009, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, and Mississauga, to name only a few, all have cat licensing programs in various stages of development. The city of Toronto is also developing a strategy to confront its overpopulation of cats, including ferals. As Eletta Purdy, manager of Toronto Animal Services said at the Toronto Feral Cat Conference in North York, Nov. 2008, "Once Toronto had a problem with too many dogs. Now shelters are almost looking for dogs for adoption. That's where we want to get with cats." The cities with cat licensing on the books that have not enjoyed the same level of success as Calgary, appear to be those cities who have not taken the four pillars approach. In other words, cat licensing programs without public education, easy access and bylaw enforcement, typically only achieve limited results. To protect and restore our bird and small mammal populations, as well as return cats to their rightful place as valued pet and companion, let's do it and let's do it right. We need to listen to each other and find that common ground where we can all stand together. There is a solution, a way. They've proven that in Calgary. So isn't it time we got started in BC? To weigh in on this issue, email [email protected] and offer your view: Would you support cat licensing in your city or municipality? Would you like to be a part of the collaboration process to develop a program that works in BC?

Fortunately the sister-city program that Broome had with Taiji has been suspended until they stop the dolphin massacre. They have bowed to pressure to cut these ties. Why not promise that we in Australia will suspend, permanently, our massacre of kangaroos? About 4 million are "harvested" each year and another unknown number are killed with permits or unlawfully. Sometimes hypocrisy is forced onto us due to government policies.

Agreed Rees is Repco's pimp - he has to go!!!!!!!

I through the articles in this site.found them of great quality, very informative and factual.I have bookmarked it on my browser and will also recommend my friends to take a visit.just wanted to wish you all the best

Peru has many fascinating and alluring aspects to make it a sought after tourist destination. There are three geographical and distinct regions: the Amazon rainforests with pirhanas and pink dolphins (being lost now due to human interference), the Andes (snow is disappearing due to climate change) and the coast (over-fishing has diminished the once abundant species and industry) where Incas and other ancient civilisations lived. However, Spanish Conquistadors destroyed and conquered the indigenous peoples and their culture with their brutality and crimes against Nature and humanity. Simon Bolivar "liberated" Peru and other South American countries from Spanish dominance, but still the Colonial mentality of Peru being a resource to squander, dominate, destroy and take exists today. Lawlessness is rife, and so is corruption - from the leaders down to the peasants! The Incas had fine architecture, agriculture, law and order and exquisite crafts. However, the gold was plundered and the Inquisition was part of the dominating process. Colonial churches and cathedrals can be visited today, and crypts with piles of bones can be viewed, showing the legacy of torture and deaths. There are good reasons to visit Peru, a country of breath-taking scenery, historical cultures and natural wonders. However, this Eden has long lost pristine innocence!

It used to be said that Australia rode on the sheep's back. But those days are long gone. Our farms are struggling under a range of pressures and the government's own agricultural forecaster ABARE warned that growth in farm productivity was slowing down. There's a lack of water in the nation's food bowl - the Murray Darling Basin - from prolonged drought and climate change. Large tracts of farmland are being swallowed up by urban development and forestry. See report about Australia’s food security: Australia's food security under a cloud Australia is predicted to have up to 43 million people by 2056, and already our environment is under stress! Population growth has been the elephant in the room for too long. Governments, and businesses, see population growth as “progress” or a “boom” due to more charges and taxes to collect, and more voters. Businesses support governments that ensure an ever-increasing number of new customers. Oslo’s Centre for International Climate Change and Environment Research calculated that we need a 95% cut by 2050 for high-polluting nations such as Australia. With the warnings of Prof Garnaut being ignored, there is little individuals can do to address climate change while any effort is being negated by more people. Even Garnaut failed to recommend a population plan for Australia, thus he was happy to limit our green house gas emissions to a mere 5% by 2020 due to a “projected” (socially engineered) population growth in our White Paper on Climate Change. We are heading towards being unsustainable due to Governments’ short-sighted vision and greed. Prof James Hansen of NASA stated that climate change will “exterminate a large fraction of species on the planet”. Even short heat-waves and bushfire can cause massive suffering, deaths and local extinctions of wildlife. Increasing numbers of people and livestock means that wildlife are becoming “pests” and they are losing habitat. We can't go to Copenhagen climate change conference with our poor carbon emissions targets, highest population growth rate since the 1950s and while we are the world's biggest coal exporter! Surely we should pass the planet, and our country, on to future generations intact and not over-populated and destroyed?

I would like to know if the Possum repatriation comment is serious. Ive rarely heard anything so foolish and ignorant.

Quite the contrary! The population growth in Africa is explosive, and they are causing their own hunger by out-growing their resources, and corruption of their leaders doesn't help the equitable distribution of food. However, money, or meat, does not justify the end! Drugs, slavery, unsustainable crops such as palm oil, destroying native species, theft, child labour all "help" the economy and short-term needs, but the means does not justify the end. African elephants are under threat from loss of habitat and an expanding human population. According to WWF, the influence elephants have over many plant and animal species means they are often referred to as keystone species that are vital to the long-term survival of the ecosystems in which they live. Elephants are highly intelligent and social, and will care for each other if one is wounded, and they will even care for their companion's bones! The real problem is too many humans, and their aggression, weapons, greed, and not enough elephants and reserves! Killing one (of a diminishing species) to advantage another species (humans) cannot, and never will, be justified no matter how much fun, or how convincing and warped the argument is! Hypocrisy is a trait that only humans are capable of!

Poaching? Supporting a dictator? Australia's Sarah Palin??? If your going to spout out rubbish at least know what your talking about. Elephant hunting is legal, humane, makes ALOT of money for starving locals and does a hell of a lot more good than whinging greenies do.

" I wonder if Borsak just stepped out of the 4WD, walked up to this inherently shortsighted elephant downwind; the elephant stationary and unsure of what was going on; then Borsak shot it in the head at close range"

You havent even read the whole article, your making a stupid statement to fan flames and get your opinion out there. the hunt consisted of hiking for days, through harsh environment, camping out in the bush, and very skilled tracking and stalking. way too much physical effort for you to do im sure. just another talking head with a keyboard trying to get noticed.

The killing of just ONE elephant feeds 100s of locals, they hike for miles around with nothing but plastic bags to put the meat in and rags on their backs. they hear the shot and they come running. the crowds get so out of hand police come to keep the peace and distribute the food accordingly and fairly. this is what the hunter gives directly to the people, starving struggling people whose farms are destroyed by overpopulated elephant herds. they cant shoot them because they will be arrested, so they sit back and pray for hunters to come so they can even eat, let alone make a decent living.

if fools like you can get over the image of how sad it is to kill sweet little Dumbo, youll realise that it does lots of good for the people of Zimbabwe, and the money does not go to mugabe, it goes to the local communities and businesses. if hunting (not poaching as u call it, u dont even know the meaning of the word) was outlawed, the country would plummet back into the dark ages. So would you rather have one elephant die to save 100 humans, or have 100 humans die to save one elephant?

people like you need to stop complaining about things you know nothing about, sitting safe and snug in your house sipping your chai tea while watching Bambi and crying. what Borsak does is a small price for amazing pay off for the people. people like you are the ones who cry 'racist'!, 'homophobe!' and 'discrimination!', yet you do the same to someone who does things you dont understand or even try too. HYPOCRITE

oh and he doesnt have the tusks on his wall, you cant bring elephant related materials (skins, bones, ivory) into Australia. the thrill of the hunt is more important than the things sticking out of its mouth.

More lies: Quote: " 4) The fire on Mt Riddle is an interesting case. This fire was ignited by a lightning strike and has burnt the northern slope. At the beginning of last year, the DSE/Parks Victoria lit a large control burn on this slope, of which it even scorched the crowns of the eucs. This control burn has not prevented the ignition and spread of this fire into Healesville and surrounding forest." Wrong. Yes a fire did start on Mt Riddle, but this was to the East of the controlled burn from the previous year. As the fire burnt West into the controlled burn, the intensity dropped and the fire died out. It was the area to the East & North that burnt fiercely, areas that had no controlled burning done. I know this for a fact as I live at the base of Mt Riddle & nearly lost my house. So in fact the controlled burn DID stop the spread of fire West into Healesville! No denying the fact, I live there & saw it all unfold. Quote: " 6) Large fire breaks had been cut through Mt Disappointment bounding the Wallaby Creek water catchment. It could be argued that this is 'active management' by the logging industry, given that the breaks were cut by the contractors. Yet they were useless in preventing the fire from spreading from the state forest into the protected Wallaby Creek catchment. " Fire breaks are not constructed on the premise that they will stop an out of control wildfire. This has never been stated anywhere! They are built primarily as an aid to fire suppression by creating a break for backburning & assisting with suppression of small scale wildfires, not fires like we saw on Feb 7.

Embezzlement of public property punishable by law! And I think that this is a very great crime!

Most people are not against hunting! That's why there is a politcal party to represent them. Hunting is a sensible and sustainable way to put food on the table.

There is no such thing as "best practice" conservation hunting. This is greenwashing on the part of the Shooters Party. Conservation hunting is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron! Feral animals are a human-caused phenomenon and needs to be "managed" by more regulations about fencing and responsible management of introduced species. If they were all microchipped, by law, the owners could be found and the animals returned. Parks need to be scrutinised by rangers to prevent breeding and the problem spreading. As for "management" of wildlife, our ecosystem is perfectly designed for their presence. Wildlife do not drive cars, wreck and bulldoze vegetation, concrete over rainforest and bushland areas or produce greenhouse gases. They have had millions of years of evolution and selective breeding to be able live with an extremely low carbon footprint and have a positive role on their habitats. They do not over-breed! This is the talent that human species have. Our planet is in meltdown mode, and our wildlife are diminishing world wide. We do not need "management" of wildlife in national parks. Safari hunting and trophy collection of animal parts should be part of the ignorance and callousness of the 19th century. Our wildlife should be protected in national parks, some of the few places in Australia where they are still relatively safe from loss of habitat, pollution and human interference. It should stay that way. Non-lethal ways of pest control should be for introduced species, not killings!

The very first large chunk of Royal Park that was developed, was for housing. The area on the east of Gatehouse St, is full of period homes that many of the Friends of Royal Park live in. Funny, that you never mention this part of the park being lost.

Perhaps Garry Connelly,should again resign from rallycorp or now REPCO, as he did in 2007. This time realizing families with children are very close to the rally route, with some homes less than 2 meters from the race cars as they pass, a road barely drivable safely at at max 60 kph let alone 120 kph to 200 kph, also massive dust causing asthma and risk of cars spiraling airbourne into homes is a real danger. People will not be able to attend work, others unable to shop, care for animals or have the freedom to leave their homes. Others not free to seek medical support- their compensation =$22 AUD each free ticket, just to be locked into a designated spectators area. That is the mega money making rally juggernaut that will bring in mega dollars for NSW? 22 dollars for each of the 400 residents affected? What jobs? what business and tourism income? Surely Mr Conelly, a financial consultant and expert, could see this is a pitiful compensation to residents! and the taxpayers of NSW! But oh so cheeky to get NSW taxpayers to pay millions for this event.

Garry Connelly says people against the rally are causing panic? when 87% out of 400 homes on the route seem to approve the rally)end quote: Well Garry what can we do? Remember, your Repco cohorts have ran CRYING to FAI in France to pressure Rees to approve it,Yet NO RESIDENTS have been consulted,no enviromental impact statement or D.A is or has been required ! or residents asked or even listened to BEFORE this rally went ahead!Our rights, our kinship to this area, has been shafted! If this was a greenpeace ship in N.Z, France FAI/CAMS and Repco would have bombed us for our protest and enviromental concerns, such is the disreguard to our rIghts and concerns..It is grossly un- Australian un- democratic. We have HAD no choice, If a V8 racing group came to your house in the suburbs and said " This is going ahead past your home no matter what you want" what would you do? when even the NSW Govt has made your rate payments mean nothing, if you do not pay them you lose your house! Out of protest, I will not pay Kyogle council rates because they do not fix our roads, they do not listen to our concerns. They disreguard wildlife and the meaning of kyogle "Gateway to the rainforests" Is now the biggest scam motto ever adopted by a council supporting this rally (not that they could voice our concerns or stop it). so I will be forced to give up and sell my farm to repay outstanding rates (Which I waited 35 years to get) and end up living in a caravan park or on the street. But I will not go quietly, Repco will pay dearly for destroying my dream of life in a pristine enviroment, where I have replanted and regenerated rainforest "the big scrub" Treasured wildlife, koalas and rare platypus nesting areas, here in the creek- rally route. Lived quietly with no social contact for 5 years. I ask what past rally routes anywhere in the world but here have 400 homes with children close to the rally race route? what rare wildlife is affected by a car rally such as this anywhere else in the world? Places like Dakar are desert other areas are dead plantation pine forests, why destroy our lives and wildlife for using our dirt roads? Small one lane roads that we pay hundreds of dollars a year to use and only repaired every 2 years that lasts 6 months, while our cars are wrecked using them. No, you do not have support you do not live here, and you are scamming real people for an egocentric car race for money,power and greed ! rot in hell if you put cars and reviing heads above the enviroment! You just turn up and tell us this is going ahead (like it or not) and now dare say 87% support it -GET REAL ! Repco stores will have the bodies of dead wildlife and other affects of this race dumped on their store counters and conciousness as long as this goes ahead against human and animal rights! Repco French FAI and CAMS are not Australian and sell out fellow Australians for greed!

After the Black Friday bushfires the result of the enquiry found that barriers of fire retardant species were needed to protect communities. NOTHING HAPPENED IN THE INTERVENING 28 YEARS!!!! THE Victorian Government are ON trial here. They are guilty on all counts of doing NOTHING. And 28yrs later they will still be condemned for doing nothing. Victoria is drying out and dying out. The continuing resistance to replant fire retardant plants and continue to allow Eucalpts and other fire resistant plants to regrow and plant MEANS only one thing. The next BIG fire holocaust will take out the whole state. And where will Brumby and his cronies be then???

It turns out that "he" is actually a female! SHE was a mascot for the plight of Victorian animals.

so who knows how i can go about organising a hunting safari like the one young rob went on to nail those elephants like i love killing animals and all but seing you guys whinge about it makes me wanna go shooting more often