# Flying Fox Wars



## bunyip (6 March 2010)

Do any of you live in an area that's adversely affected by flying foxes, as I do?

Are you absolutely sick of these smelly, noisy, destructive, disgusting pests?

Are you sick of the pathetic people who have influenced the government to introduce laws making it illegal to cull flying foxes, or even move them on when they become a nuisance or a health risk?


----------



## nioka (6 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Do any of you live in an area that's adversely affected by flying foxes, as I do?
> 
> Are you absolutely sick of these smelly, noisy, destructive, disgusting pests?
> 
> Are you sick of the pathetic people who have influenced the government to introduce laws making it illegal to cull flying foxes, or even move them on when they become a nuisance or a health risk?



YES,   YES   and YES.

I blame noah... He should never have let them aboard the Ark. I'm a believer that you can change the enviroment without ruining the enviroment and flying foxes would be a good starting point.

Although,

It is not necessary to get rid of them. Just allow some culling and allow disturbing them when they are a nuisance and give them the message to move on.

This year is the worst I have seen them. They have completely destroyed all my fruit. 100 bananas (plants) despite the fruit being covered with bags. All the stone fruit,all the tropical fruit and even the citrus including lemons are gone. They never left a mango despite efforts to bag individual fruit, ther chew up the bags. They are so thick flying over at times they even foul the swimming pool. They carry the deadly Hendra virus too.

 AND there are people that actually like them. (I'll bet they dont live near them).


----------



## Julia (6 March 2010)

I also hate them.  Quite apart from their astonishing capacity to destroy fruit crops and drop their filthy excrement (which is very hard to remove) everywhere, they are carriers of disease.

There's a very expensively constructed children's playground in my local area which has been closed for the last six months because the flying foxes have decided to inhabit it.  There are 600,000 of them.  The flying fox fans won't hear of a cull and the Council meekly submit to this nonsensical insistence.


----------



## Calliope (6 March 2010)

It's hardly a war. *Fruit bats rule*. They should be classified as vermin, along with the do-gooders who nurture the injured ones.


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 March 2010)

Are fruit bats considered 'native species' under federal flora & fauna legislation?


----------



## Dowdy (6 March 2010)

they should get rid of duck hunting and replace it with bat hunting.

Have the rangers move the bats away from the city to a remote place where you  can kill them all


----------



## Buckfont (6 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> It's hardly a war. *Fruit bats rule*. They should be classified as vermin, along with the do-gooders who nurture the injured ones.




Too right! I see thousands of them each evening across the valley here at Nth Avoca, thousands and thousands. And Gosford council had the audacity to put a warm and fuzzy leaflet on them in the letterbox telling us they are protected. 
Lord help us!

I have heard of folk having to move out or shut up their houses because of the smell. Yes the do gooders would do well to camp out under a tree and see how long they`d last. 

I`d put pelicans, sea gulls, bush turkeys and possums in the same boat. They are all out of control.


----------



## Happy (6 March 2010)

It gets me upset too.

Flying foxes, all sort of parrots, sharks, crocodiles and the list is getting longer.
People try to live here too, and as far as I am concerned it doesn’t matter that they were first here.

Safety, protection of crops and health issues should have precedent.

Suppose one day there will be party that will promise to get rid of all overpopulations and I’ll definitely vote for them.
As to people I’ll vote to control numbers too, just give me a candidate!


----------



## Buckfont (6 March 2010)

Happy said:


> It gets me upset too.
> 
> Flying foxes, all sort of parrots, sharks, crocodiles and the list is getting longer.
> People try to live here too, and as far as I am concerned it doesn’t matter that they were first here.
> ...




I`m with you Happy the little mongrels.

How does the P.O.U.C.C.H. Party sound?

 Piss Off Unwanted Creatures Causing Havoc.

I try to live a simple life here growing veges, bananas, macadamias amongst others and I tell you its a battle. But the hard part is those farmers growing produce for a living, for your, mine and the stupid `lets protect every living creature` people that rely on those very farmers for their food source. 

And they wonder why the cost of production rises when the farmers are forced to  spend millions protecting their livelihood.

If supermarkets didn`t exist and we all had to rely on the land, well guess what, those that proffer the animal protectionism would soon learn to change their tune, because I`m yet to meet anyone who, in times of severe desperation would not use some sort of force to aid their continual survival.

 I just don`t understand why some have this deep need to protect every creature.

Life dies, new life gets discovered and things move on. and that`s the way it works. How simple is that?


----------



## Calliope (6 March 2010)

Buckfont said:


> I`d put pelicans, sea gulls, bush turkeys and possums in the same boat. They are all out of control.




The ones that annoy me most are those who have decided to take up residence in town because they get easy pickings.  These include crows, ibises and brush tailed possums. Forget all that crap about us taking over their habitat. We have no shortage of bush.

I've seen plenty of road kill on country roads and not a  carrion crow in sight. They are all in town hanging around McDonalds and the schools.

By the way, fruit bats are considered a delicacy in India. If we were smart we could set up a canned fruit bat export industry. I believe that in NZ (where introduced Australian possums are in plague proportions) they did at one time export canned possum to China under the name of "Kiwi Bear"'


----------



## IFocus (7 March 2010)

Happy said:


> As to people I’ll vote to control numbers too, just give me a candidate!




1st sensible comment in the whole thread 

If its so bad there come to Perth WA everyone else has, no fear of floods hasn't rained since November, searing heat............oh sorry all you princesses would not cope LOL

Why don't you go and join the WAWKEIEEFC   

"Whinge and Whine Kill Everything Its Everyone Else's Fault Club"


----------



## Bloveld (7 March 2010)

Not bothering me here in Perth.
So I say protect them.
They are only bothering a small unimportant part of the population.
You know, the hayseeds, rednecks, bumpkins and yokels.

And if you blockheads hadnt killed all the snakes an eagles, you wouldnt have a problem.


----------



## nioka (8 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> Not bothering me here in Perth.
> So I say protect them.
> They are only bothering a small unimportant part of the population.
> You know, the hayseeds, rednecks, bumpkins and yokels.
> ...




A blockhead statement if ever I have seen one. It makes me think that they are NOT bothering a small unimportant part of the population. Surely there are some in the west that are not that far behind the times.


----------



## moXJO (8 March 2010)

You think it's bad here....
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/swiss-vote-on-lawyers-for-animals/story-e6frfku0-1225837982273



> ALREADY boasting laws to protect goldfish from being flushed down the toilet and to guarantee companions for lonely animals, Switzerland held a vote on whether abused animals deserve lawyers.


----------



## Calliope (8 March 2010)

nioka said:


> A blockhead statement if ever I have seen one. It makes me think that they are NOT bothering a small unimportant part of the population. Surely there are some in the west that are not that far behind the times.




Yes these pests are not "bothering" animal rights nutters, who live in a dream world of their own. I notice that Bloveld apparently enjoys torturing fish.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Why don't you go and join the WAWKEIEEFC
> 
> "Whinge and Whine Kill Everything Its Everyone Else's Fault Club"




I believe everyone already has, it's called the WA Liberal Party.



Bloveld said:


> Not bothering me here in Perth.
> So I say protect them.
> They are only bothering a small unimportant part of the population.
> You know, the hayseeds, rednecks, bumpkins and yokels.
> ...




Exactly.

Animals will only thrive in an environment if you have let them. Culls wont do much unless you address the reason for them being a plague in the first place.

Personally, I enjoyed very much just standing in the pool, watching these bats swoop into backyards and scaring and annoying the absolute **** out of the neighbourhood dogs this wet season.


----------



## ChilliBlue (8 March 2010)

I don't know if this is of any interest, but father has a way of keeping them at bay at his winery.

He has rigged up some sensor lights (I am talking blinding lights) and that seems to have worked.

It took them a while to get used to them coming on and off with mum coming to my place for a few days - but as dad said, double advantage.


----------



## Bloveld (8 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes these pests are not "bothering" animal rights nutters, who live in a dream world of their own. I notice that Bloveld apparently enjoys torturing fish.




I dont enjoy torturing fish. I dont enjoy bashing them in the head. I even dont enjoy eating them.


Its all for scientific research.


----------



## bunyip (8 March 2010)

Buckfont said:


> I`m with you Happy the little mongrels.
> 
> How does the P.O.U.C.C.H. Party sound?
> 
> ...




Ahhh - but their apparent deep need to protect every creature is very superficial and is quickly forgotten when they themselves start getting troubled by pests.
These twits who say 'protect flying foxes' - there's not a single one of them who would tolerate pests invading their homes or threatening their livelihoods or their health. Flies, mozzies, fleas, mice, cockroaches, would all be reason enough for these people to bring out the poison baits or the insect spray or call a pest extermination company. 
What's so different then, about flying foxes that makes them worth protecting? They're vermin, just like cockroaches and mice are vermin. 
Nobody - not even the most dyed in the wool animal protectionist, would say we shouldn't control mice or cockroaches if they're in plague proportions. Yet when flying foxes reach plague proportions and start causing havoc by destroying crops, invading school yards in their hundreds of thousands, taking over public parks and kids playgrounds, and spreading disease, these animal libber types go all soft and fuzzy in the mind and apparently lose the ability to think rationally.

I like animals and nature - I have no wish to see the extermination of all flying foxes, crocs, dangerous sharks and snakes etc. But it's pure unadulterated stupidity to say that humans should never cull flying foxes that are in plague numbers and are destroying trees and crops, making recreation areas unusable, and posing serious health risks via the deadly Hendra virus.


----------



## Buckfont (8 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Ahhh - but their apparent deep need to protect every creature is very superficial and is quickly forgotten when they themselves start getting troubled by pests.
> These twits who say 'protect flying foxes' - there's not a single one of them who would tolerate pests invading their homes or threatening their livelihoods or their health. Flies, mozzies, fleas, mice, cockroaches, would all be reason enough for these people to bring out the poison baits or the insect spray or call a pest extermination company.
> What's so different then, about flying foxes that makes them worth protecting? They're vermin, just like cockroaches and mice are vermin.
> Nobody - not even the most dyed in the wool animal protectionist, would say we shouldn't control mice or cockroaches if they're in plague proportions. Yet when flying foxes reach plague proportions and start causing havoc by destroying crops, invading school yards in their hundreds of thousands, taking over public parks and kids playgrounds, and spreading disease, these animal libber types go all soft and fuzzy in the mind and apparently lose the ability to think rationally.
> ...




Thanks bunyip for reinforcing the sentiments that I hold about this subject that is fundamentally to do with ECONOMICS! not cuddly creatures.

You just have to go west of Sydney to see the extent of the netting farmers have to use to protect their livelihood from the marauding apple eaters.

And yes again I`d really like to know how those that purport animal liberation would go if, when push comes to shove, they have to grow their own leafy greens, fruit and vegetables for the wellbeing of themselves and their families, cause I`ll bet they would change their tune.

Primary producers are our life blood.

By the way the Asians seem not to have this attitude and see what they eat all sorts of things bats probably included.!


----------



## IFocus (8 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> Not bothering me here in Perth.
> So I say protect them.
> They are only bothering a small unimportant part of the population.
> You know, the hayseeds, rednecks, bumpkins and yokels.
> ...




Unfortunately Bloveld your post was to deep for the WAWKEIEEFC LOL 

Chops, agree about the Libs here in WA 

BTW where have you been?


----------



## bunyip (8 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> By the way, fruit bats are considered a delicacy in India. If we were smart we could set up a canned fruit bat export industry. I believe that in NZ (where introduced Australian possums are in plague proportions) they did at one time export canned possum to China under the name of "Kiwi Bear"'




Pity we can't can some of these silly damn animal libber types and export them as well.

In Papua New Guinea I've seen the natives stretch nets across rivers and gorges and catch flying foxes by the hundreds.
They're as much a delicacy to the PNG natives as honey ants and witchety grubs are to the aborigines of Central Australia.


----------



## IFocus (8 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Pity we can't can some of these silly damn animal libber types and export them as well.
> 
> In Papua New Guinea I've seen the natives stretch nets across rivers and gorges and catch flying foxes by the hundreds.
> They're as much a delicacy to the PNG natives as honey ants and witchety grubs are to the aborigines of Central Australia.




I can just see you with a bone through your nose.

You cannot export us lot from WA as we currently carry you lot of free loaders / paper shufflers on our backs as we power the Australian economy.

In fact export the WAWKEIEEFC but no one would have them............


----------



## Buckfont (8 March 2010)

Ifocus, I really appreciate what WA has done for our country as it has given us all a lot of hope for all our futures.

But may I add that your avatar is spot on.

You really are a  Galah


----------



## chops_a_must (8 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Chops, agree about the Libs here in WA
> 
> BTW where have you been?




Got bored of this place and had another forum to waste my time instead. I think some Israeli debate was the killer back then. Been a pretty tumultuous time family wise the last 18 months, so trading and things has been a pretty low priority, although I still have been.

Moved to Darwin in October last year, and just started my Masters. Working full time as a fire assayer and just back in Perth briefly for graduation and to move/ store my stuff. I'm taking my trading computer back with me so I'll be back on here again a little bit I'd say.

Was the AOE stuff this morning that got me back on here.


----------



## IFocus (8 March 2010)

chops_a_must said:


> Got bored of this place and had another forum to waste my time instead. I think some Israeli debate was the killer back then. Been a pretty tumultuous time family wise the last 18 months, so trading and things has been a pretty low priority, although I still have been.
> 
> Moved to Darwin in October last year, and just started my Masters. Working full time as a fire assayer and just back in Perth briefly for graduation and to move/ store my stuff. I'm taking my trading computer back with me so I'll be back on here again a little bit I'd say.
> 
> Was the AOE stuff this morning that got me back on here.




Missed you Chops hope the family stuff sorts its self out with no major scaring good luck on the Masters not that I think you need it.


----------



## IFocus (8 March 2010)

Buckfont said:


> Ifocus, I really appreciate what WA has done for our country as it has given us all a lot of hope for all our futures.
> 
> But may I add that your avatar is spot on.
> 
> You really are a  Galah




Thanks Buckfront appreciate being called a real Australian


----------



## chops_a_must (8 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Missed you Chops hope the family stuff sorts its self out with no major scaring good luck on the Masters not that I think you need it.




It has already.

I think I'll hang around a bit again. Someone has to stand up for the lefties, bleeding hearts and enviros and wind up these "high flyers" somehow. :


----------



## Whiskers (8 March 2010)

It seems like many of the problem and large colonies have moved into urban areas where there are no natural preditors of any consequence and plenty of unnatural as in highly productive farms and food supplies.

I know in Bundaberg a big population lives in the mangroves and trees on an island in the Burnett River which runs through the city. I believe it's a similar situation in Harvey Bay. 

From the Qld dept of Environment website...



> *Predators*
> By living in large numbers, flying-foxes are little affected by predators like pythons, owls and sea-eagles that only take a few individuals and leave the rest of the camp intact.




... surely a little logical deduction would suggest that they colonise in these places because of the lack of preditors that are also reducing in number like the Sea Eagle and Owl, and Pythons like any snake that is seen and caught in urban areas, is removed way out into the country. 

I wonder how many of the leftist greenies would leave a Python, or other large deadly snake capable of eating a young bat, such as Brown, Black or Tipan, roam urban areas including their own back yard and fruit trees to act naturally as preditors of any bats that frequent their neighbourhood or backyard. I reckon none... they would remove them as quick as a flash. 

So much for their so called 'natural' enviornment!

I say start a campaign to make the leftist greenie conversavionists literally practice what they preach and insist on putting some snakes back into these bat populations and their back yard food sources like in 'nature/natural'.

As to the depleted habitat arguement, BULLSH!T... it's not about habitat near as much as it's about easy food source. I remember when we used to shoot a few ocassionally they tended to stay away from UNNATURAL food sources. 

It's only natural and obvious as like mice and locust plagues when environmental conditions favor, most frequently from UNNATURAL crops that they multiply expontentionally if not controlled early.

And can you beliece this...



> *Guideline: Euthanasia of flying foxes trapped in orchard nets*
> A guideline has been developed describing how flying foxes may be euthanised in certain circumstances. These circumstances are limited and specific. *A form is also provided that must be completed and retained following each incident of a flying fox being euthanised*.
> 
> http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-ecosystems/wildlife/living_with_wildlife/flyingfoxes/


----------



## chops_a_must (8 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> As to the depleted habitat arguement, BULLSH!T... it's not about habitat near as much as it's about easy food source. I remember when we used to shoot a few ocassionally they tended to stay away from UNNATURAL food sources.




Whiskers, with animals as with plants who have an ability to transmigrate easily, when you have ecosystem pathway disruption, species will tend to conglomerate in areas. It's the same with trees in national parks. I would bet that these areas that the fruit bats are in plague proportions are in areas that have been largely disrupted.

If you have areas that are high in food, but an intact system of habitats, I doubt you'd get the same problems.

And by in large the predators of fruit bats appear to be animals that would not generally stay in areas close to human habitation. Unfortunately, humans have to accept that there are consequences for creating sprawl and disrupting the ecosystems - this is just one. There is a simple solution to this though, stop developing on massive lots with isolated woods.

I'm also not sure why sharks and crocodiles get thrown into this debate? Had a 2m croc about 20m away from where we were eating a few weeks back. Didn't bother us greatly. Just kept eating and keeping an eye on it. But maybe I don't fit everyone's pigeon hole, hey whiskers? And sharks and crocs are nowhere near being in plague proportions.


----------



## Whiskers (8 March 2010)

chops_a_must said:


> Whiskers, with animals as with plants who have an ability to transmigrate easily, when you have ecosystem pathway disruption, species will tend to conglomerate in areas. It's the same with trees in national parks. I would bet that these areas that the fruit bats are in plague proportions are in areas that have been largely disrupted.
> 
> If you have areas that are high in food, but an intact system of habitats, I doubt you'd get the same problems.
> 
> And by in large the predators of fruit bats appear to be animals that would not generally stay in areas close to human habitation.




Yes, that's true Chops, but I believe the main offender in this area at least is the Black Flying Fox. It's natural habitat is tee tree and mangrove swamp where they feed off nectar and small berry size tree fruits. That habitat has been largely uninterrupted as it's too wet and not suitable for farming. There are large areas of tee tree (paperbark) swamp  in natural parks in the region, but I'm not aware of any substantial colonies there anymore.

Over the last thirty years or so the greater Bundaberg area has shifted from mainly sugar cane to become a substantial tropical and sub-tropical fruit growing areas along the coast. Many local people believe the population has grown with the fruit and vegetable industry, a much easier and more abundant food source... which leads me to this article re bats in the Brisbane Times.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...k-rises-as-bats-move-south-20090817-ennb.html

One has to wonder whether the Black Flying Fox is even endangered at all.

Also, given the seriousness of the disease consequences, surely that common sense says keep the population manageable and away from populated areas. I believe the extremists have even blocked plans to use various devices to scare them away from roosting in urban areas into more remote locations.


----------



## Ageo (9 March 2010)

How could you kill a small little cuddly wuddly creature like that??? they have feelings you know...... you all are a bunch of cruel rednecks!












On a serious note a 12g with no.4 shot should do the trick


----------



## bunyip (9 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> On a serious note a 12g with no.4 shot should do the trick




I remember one particularly bad year for flying foxes when I was a lad. Each afternoon just before dark they'd fly over our place in the millions. My Dad used to cut loose with his Browning semi automatic shotgun, killed hundreds of them but made no impression on their numbers. We were on a farm with no neighbours near us - not that they'd have cared anyway since everyone hated the cursed flying foxes. And it was back in the days before so many brain-dead morons started lobbying for flying foxes to be given a free rein, even if it meant putting up with them spreading disease and destroying farmers crops and closing down kids playgrounds and public recreation areas.

It's interesting that not one person who supports protecting flying foxes, not a single one, has come out with any intelligent reasons why they should not be culled or at least moved on when they gather in their hundreds of thousands and create havoc for humans.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> It's interesting that not one person who supports protecting flying foxes, not a single one, has come out with any intelligent reasons why they should not be culled or at least moved on when they gather in their hundreds of thousands and create havoc for humans.




Because they'll just end up back there?


----------



## sinner (9 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> It's interesting that not one person who supports protecting flying foxes, not a single one, has come out with any intelligent reasons why they should not be culled or at least moved on when they gather in their hundreds of thousands and create havoc for humans.




Provided by the Royal Botanical Gardens Sydney (just a bunch of scientists, what would they know):

*Flying-foxes are important pollinators of the eucalypt forests and woodlands of eastern and northern Australia. Their main food source is the protein-rich pollen produced by Eucalyptus flowers. Eucalyptus trees need pollen from other trees of their species (out-crossing) to produce fertile seed, and the largely nomadic flying-foxes are very good at providing this transport service. While feeding on nectar and pollen in flowers, pollen grains stick to the fur of the flying-foxes. Some pollen is eaten during grooming, but some is carried on the fur to other flowers to fertilise the ovules which then develop into seeds. This pollen may be carried for very long distances (up to 100 km in one night) and across cleared land, which provides an essential genetic link between fragmented patches of native vegetation. Other pollinators, such as birds, bees (including native stingless bees), moths, butterflies, wasps, flies, beetles, other small mammals such as gliders and the wind, operate over much smaller areas.

Through pollination and seed dispersal, flying-foxes help to provide habitat for other flora and fauna species and also help to sustain Australia’s hardwood timber, honey and native plant industries. But to be effective in this role, flying-foxes need to be in large numbers.*

(I tried highlighting the important bits, but it ended up being the whole thing).


----------



## Sdajii (9 March 2010)

sinner said:


> Provided by the Royal Botanical Gardens Sydney (just a bunch of scientists, what would they know):
> 
> *Flying-foxes are important pollinators of the eucalypt forests and woodlands of eastern and northern Australia. Their main food source is the protein-rich pollen produced by Eucalyptus flowers. Eucalyptus trees need pollen from other trees of their species (out-crossing) to produce fertile seed, and the largely nomadic flying-foxes are very good at providing this transport service. While feeding on nectar and pollen in flowers, pollen grains stick to the fur of the flying-foxes. Some pollen is eaten during grooming, but some is carried on the fur to other flowers to fertilise the ovules which then develop into seeds. This pollen may be carried for very long distances (up to 100 km in one night) and across cleared land, which provides an essential genetic link between fragmented patches of native vegetation. Other pollinators, such as birds, bees (including native stingless bees), moths, butterflies, wasps, flies, beetles, other small mammals such as gliders and the wind, operate over much smaller areas.
> 
> ...




That's lovely, but we don't need millions of them to do that job. A very small number can move a bit of pollen around. A massive number of them just moves around causing devastation.

I'm an animal lover, my background is biology, I've worked in bio labs, on conservation projects, with animals in the field in a scientific context, etc. Most of the scientists are reasonably rational (there are some bleeding hearts among us though). 

The most painful ones are the bleeding hearts who don't understand anything more than "It's cuddly, you must not hurt it". You can not argue with these people you can not reason with these people. It is like religion. If someone arrives at an opinion through emotion you can not change it with a rational point, no matter how clear you make things. They will spend all their money and time nursing an injured or orphaned kangaroo until it can be released into the wild, even though it will never be fully healthy again, will certainly die fairly soon after release due to humanisation, etc, and they do this despite the fact that kangaroos are shot as vermin, so adding one more means one more must be shot. Many of them will even nurse rats and other exotics! Ugh. If you have much to do with these people it very quickly becomes obvious that they are not doing it for conservation or even for the animals, they are doing it for themselves, generally for narcissistic reasons, but conservation and/or animal welfare is a convenient excuse.

They use arguments like "It might not make a difference, but it makes a difference to that individual" or "All you need to do to understand my point of view is to look into a joey's eyes". You just can't argue with blind ignorance or denial which in most eyes holds the high moral ground. It's a little similar to the whaling issue. With emotion people are happy to claim/believe that many species of whales are endangered as a justification to oppose their harvest. They also manage to put up a ridiculous claim that whales don't eat massive amounts of seafood which could otherwise be eaten by people or eaten by fish which could be eaten by people. I'm sure some of the people complaining about the breeding heart flying fox lovers are firmly against whaling (although there are additional issues with whaling, yes, I realise that).

I actually love flying foxes, I think they're lovely little creatures. They're cute and I just like them. But I do understand that they're a serious problem and need to be controlled, and it's insane that nothing can legally be done. If we as a nation had any collective sense we would export them to whoever wanted to buy them, along with possums, parrots and other cute vermin. If possum and parrot meat was available at Safeway I would eat it every week. I'd be a little wary about flying fox due to disease concerns, but canned would be safe.

Unfortunately, while they're comfortable, most people just can't be talked out of an emotional belief, so our fruit farms are going to continue feeding the flying foxes.


----------



## sinner (9 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Unfortunately, while they're comfortable, most people just can't be talked out of an emotional belief, so our fruit farms are going to continue feeding the flying foxes.




Funny that a valid non-emtional reason was requested and provided, and your response was to somehow pin it all on emotional cuddly lovers or some crap instead of providing a rational counterpoint. Which one would expect of someone with a "biology background"...unless your counterpoint was essentially that the statement provided above by RBGS is factually incorrect or misleading.

Here are some actual facts:

In an overview of control methods performed by DPI QLD, shooting was rated as the least effective "Crop losses are often still extensive with shooting, especially when there is a scarcity of native food.". Geeeeeee...I wonder where all that native food went.

In an independant panel commissioned by the NSW govt, shooting of flying foxes (endangered Grey headed flying foxes no less) was deemed be unethical and inhumane.

These devastating "diseased" animals...well wait a minute let's actually look at those diseases:
Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABL)
Catching diseases from bats is extremely unlikely. Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABL) can only be caught from untreated bites or scratches from infected bats. One person has died from lyssavirus from a flying-fox (there has also been a lyssavirus death from a micro-bat). 
Hendra virus

Flying-foxes are also hosts for Hendra virus. It appears that occasionally, Hendra virus spills over from the flying fox population into horses where it causes an infection that often results in the death of the horse. The rarity of infections indicates that these transmissions may only occur under very specific conditions.

Wow...devastating...

Meanwhile, check out the background to this story
http://austrop.org.au/ArchiveOldSite/fox_threats.html

Lovely. Burning, gassing, explosives, "Fyre Fox System"...what a smart bunch we are, we sure showed those flying foxes who's boss.

Here is what a bunch of "cuddly lovers" have to say about why you would save a flying fox...they sound *so irrational*...

"Fruit bats play a vital role in the ecology of the rain forests where they live. Old world fruit bats eat the fruit, nectar or flowers of more than 300 plant species, and these plants rely on the bats for seed dispersal and pollination. Unlike birds, bats disperse seeds far away from the parent tree by eating them and depositing the seeds in their droppings. In fact, Seeds dropped by bats can account for up to 95 percent of forest regrowth on cleared land. Performing this essential role puts these bats among the most important seed-dispersing animals of both the Old and New World."

Here is what DSE VIC has to say about flying foxes

"
Flying-foxes are nomadic animals; their movement patterns and local distribution are determined by variations in climate and the flowering and fruiting patterns of their preferred food plants.

Flying-fox numbers and distribution in Australia have changed markedly since European settlement. Loss of natural habitat and food supply in New South Wales and Queensland due to land clearing and human culling in the past has rapidly reduced numbers of some species in eastern Australia. Grey-headed Flying-fox and Spectacled Flying-fox numbers have decreased to such an extent that they are both listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

This loss of habitat and the creation of new habitat and year round food supply in suburban areas over the last 30 years, has meant changes have occurred in Flying-fox distribution. For example, the range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox has contracted in the northern area (southern Queensland and northern New South Wales) and expanded southwards into Victoria.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox has adapted its behaviour to take advantage of new habitat and reliable food supplies. Permanent camp sites have been established close to or in suburban areas of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne where planting and watering of trees has produced a year-round food supply of native nectar, blossom, fruit and leaves."

As well as

Conservation Status
"Of the four species of Flying-foxes in Australia, both the Grey-headed Flying-fox and the Spectacled Flying-fox are listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. They are considered "vulnerable" due to a significant decline in numbers as a result of loss of their prime feeding habitat and secluded camp sites.

Both species are potentially at risk of extinction. This is due to a slow reproductive rate (one young per year), the relatively long time for males to become sexually mature (in the wild the average age for sexual maturity is 30 months, the average life span is 4 years) and the high rate of infant mortality.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox is also listed as a threatened species under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

Ecological Importance
Flying-foxes play a major role in the regeneration of native hardwood forests and rainforests by pollinating as they feed and dispersing seeds as they move throughout the forest. It is estimated that a single Flying-fox can dispense up-to 60,000 seeds in one night."

Yeah...1988...sounds like real influential pressure on the Govt by these neo hippy bastards...never seen a bat so devious and audacious as to move into *our* habitat after we destroyed theirs. How dare they!


----------



## bunyip (9 March 2010)

sinner said:


> Provided by the Royal Botanical Gardens Sydney (just a bunch of scientists, what would they know):
> 
> *Flying-foxes are important pollinators of the eucalypt forests and woodlands of eastern and northern Australia. Their main food source is the protein-rich pollen produced by Eucalyptus flowers. Eucalyptus trees need pollen from other trees of their species (out-crossing) to produce fertile seed, and the largely nomadic flying-foxes are very good at providing this transport service. While feeding on nectar and pollen in flowers, pollen grains stick to the fur of the flying-foxes. Some pollen is eaten during grooming, but some is carried on the fur to other flowers to fertilise the ovules which then develop into seeds. This pollen may be carried for very long distances (up to 100 km in one night) and across cleared land, which provides an essential genetic link between fragmented patches of native vegetation. Other pollinators, such as birds, bees (including native stingless bees), moths, butterflies, wasps, flies, beetles, other small mammals such as gliders and the wind, operate over much smaller areas.
> 
> ...




Thanks Sinner, for the first intelligent post on this thread in support of flying foxes.
I completely agree with the researchers - flying foxes do indeed play an important role in nature, as do just about every other living creature. That's why I made it clear in an earlier post that I had no wish to see the extermination of every flying fox, shark, snake etc - they all have their role to play in balancing our ecosystems.

But this debate is not about whether flying foxes play any useful role - it's about whether their numbers should be reduced when they start causing havoc to agricultural crops, destroying public recreation areas, invading kids playgrounds and forcing the kids out, and posing serious health risks.

So I'll stick with my earlier statement that it's pure unadulterated stupidity to say that humans should never cull flying foxes that are in plague numbers and are destroying trees and crops, making recreation areas unusable, and posing serious health risks via the deadly Hendra virus.


----------



## sinner (9 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> So I'll stick with my earlier statement that it's pure unadulterated stupidity to say that humans should never cull flying foxes that are in plague numbers and are destroying trees and crops, making recreation areas unusable, and posing serious health risks via the deadly Hendra virus.




Flying fox permanent colonies are the fault of humans. Flying foxes have been completely nomadic for literally millenia.

Do you get it? They *like* to travel. They are only stuck where they are because you wanted your quarter acre with landscaped native garden and water feature and a nice view of the "naturescape" or whatever BS it is real estate agents are using these days.

Plague is rubbish. These animals are listed as vulnerable to extinction. 

"MYTH: 
Flying-foxes are in “plague” numbers. Because ﬂying-foxes are colonial animals – living together in roosts and ﬂying out together at dusk for feeding – they give the impression of existing in very large numbers. But two species are listed as threatened because their numbers have declined so much. Flying-foxes need high rates of survival to maintain their populations. They cannot breed up quickly, as a female can only have one young a year. This is the exact opposite of what is implied
by ‘plague’."

As for the Hendra virus, I already posted 1 point on that and here is what the EPA has to say about Hendra+bats:



> Environmental Protection Agency spokesman Craig Walker says there are no easy solutions.
> 
> "We can move them away from a location but we can't guarantee the location to which we move them is not going to be worse than where they are now," he said.
> 
> Mr Walker says the species has been know to carry the Hendra virus, but the risk is extremely low.


----------



## Sdajii (9 March 2010)

Sinner: As I said, I like the foxes, I wouldn't want them wiped out. That doesn't mean I see any reason for them to have unnaturally high population levels which exist by feeding on crops. We aren't doing natural forests any favours by spreading the seeds of crop fruits around, are we now?

If you play the endangered card with flying foxes it's difficult to take you seriously.

I didn't say "Oh my god, the flying foxes are coming, we're all going to die of horrible diseases", but there does remain some health risk if flying foxes are defecating on our crops, swimming pools, playgrounds, etc. If a sick flying fox is wandering around on the ground where children play, they are likely to go over, pat it, etc, it's likely to bite and scratch, and while it's not going to cause an ebola outbreak, I'd rather not have kids exposed to them like that.

You've thrown in some other red herrings. I didn't say anything about the best methods to use in moving or culling, so I don't need a lecture about particular methods which don't work. I won't address your whole post, I see little point. There's clearly a lot of emotion in your tone, and you seem unlikely to respond to reason, so, if you want to entirely leave them all alone, play down their risks, ignore their economic damage and pretend that the only management option is to completely wipe them out (which presumably you think if you're lecturing me about their ecological role), I can't talk you out of it.


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> I won't address your whole post, I see little point. There's clearly a lot of emotion in your tone, .




Come on Sdajii Sinner stated a lot of facts


----------



## Sdajii (9 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Come on Sdajii Sinner stated a lot of facts




If by "stated" you mean "cut and pasted" and by "facts" you mean "a mixture of fact and misinformation, much of which was irrelevant", then yes, yes he did.

If making one post obliges me to respond to every single point of every single response, no matter how numerous or irrelevant, I suppose you'll have to sue me.


----------



## roland (9 March 2010)

Seems like for everything someone doesn't like, there is one that does:



> The Grey-headed Flying-fox is listed as a threatened (vulnerable to extinction) species at State, Federal, and International levels.
> 
> Numbers are declining - from many millions in the 1930's to less than 450,000 in 2004, with an estimated 30% decline in population between 1990 and 2000. A recent population study (Divljam 2008) suggests the Grey-headed Flying-fox will be extinct in the wild in around 80-85 years.






> Who is the Ku-ring-gai Bat Conservation Society?
> 
> * KBCS Inc. is a non profit community organization working for the conservation of all bat species especially the Grey-headed Flying-fox
> * The continued work of KBCS Inc. is reliant on receiving government grants and public donations




Lots of Bat stuff on their website: http://www.sydneybats.org.au/cms/


Last time I was in the Sydney Botanic gardens, that bats had decimated quite a large number of important historic trees.

Basically rats with wings ....


----------



## IFocus (9 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> If by "stated" you mean "cut and pasted" and by "facts" you mean "a mixture of fact and misinformation, much of which was irrelevant", then yes, yes he did.




Think you are been a little harsh many turn up with opinions but Sinner and Chops came with valid information on cause and effect.


----------



## bunyip (9 March 2010)

sinner said:


> Flying fox permanent colonies are the fault of humans. Flying foxes have been completely nomadic for literally millenia.
> 
> Do you get it? They *like* to travel. They are only stuck where they are because you wanted your quarter acre with landscaped native garden and water feature and a nice view of the "naturescape" or whatever BS it is real estate agents are using these days.
> 
> ...




Flying foxes are very mobile creatures and can cover large distances, so to say they're 'stuck' in one area is hardly accurate.
I've come across flying foxes in many areas of coastal and semi coastal Queensland - they've been free to travel and they do, but they'll set up camp in one place for weeks or months while a food source lasts, before moving on somewhere else. The more permanent the food source, the more permanent are their camps.

I don't have a quarter acre, I have many acres and flying foxes are no problem to me personally. A few of them turn up in my garden every spring to feed on the blossoms on my eucalypts, and I actually enjoy watching them arriving at dusk, and chattering and arguing among themselves while we sit on the deck at night.
But the farmers in my area don't enjoy having their crops destroyed. And the local council isn't too pleased that the flying foxes started killing some of the magnificent trees in the beautiful Japanese Gardens that have been developed at enormous expense for the enjoyment of the general public.

They're vulnerable to extinction??......sure they are!!! LOL  Tell that to the farmers whose crops are invaded by millions of the damn things. There's always some research body claiming that something in great abundance is close to extinction. When I lived in Central QLD it was a particular variety of wallaby that was said to be almost extinct. In actual fact there were thousands of the damn things, we used to shoot them for dog meat. Yet the government never spoke to any landholders or did surveys on our properties to find out the numbers, what they did instead was listened to the conservationists, and then spent millions of dollars buying up grazing properties to be used exclusively as a retreat for these 'endangered' wallabies which were actually not endangered at all.

Very few people are saying that all flying foxes should be exterminated. Thinking people are simply saying that farmers should have the right to protect their crops against these marauders, just the same as you and I have the right to protect our homes from termites and mice and cockroaches and spiders.
What kind of protection the farmers use should be decided by them, not by some idiot sitting in a government office and being advised by conservationists with their notoriously tenuous grasp of reality. 
School playgrounds should not have to be closed because of flying foxes. Public recreation areas should not be taken over by flying foxes to the extent that people can no longer enjoy them. Farmers should not have to be forced into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to net their crops.

Sustained pressure on flying foxes can move them on without the necessity of killing enormous numbers and threatening them with extinction. Yes, they may well return sooner or later, but valuable crops can be saved in the meantime.

There's increasing evidence that the Hendra virus can be picked up from contact with the excrement of flying foxes - this is of particular concern when the foxes move into public areas like parks and playgrounds.

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with some rational argument as to why it should be illegal to take whatever steps are necessary to move flying foxes away from crops and public facilities.


----------



## Calliope (9 March 2010)

roland said:


> Basically rats with wings ....




Rats are much more cuddly that fruit bats and are not nearly as big a pest, but nobody loves them. Judging by the inputs on this thread the bats out of hell have assumed a cult status.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 March 2010)

stuff the whales 

save a fruitbat


----------



## Ato (10 March 2010)

Geez, I wonder if we'll see a flying version of the Andy Gil sometime soon...


----------



## Sdajii (10 March 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> stuff the whales
> 
> save a fruitbat




Next it will be save the rabbits, foxes, rats and cane toads. I can just about see it happening, heck, some introduced animals which cause environmental damage are already protected!

There are some conservation issues which really do need to be taken seriously, so it's a shame that the tree huggers themselves take focus away from those important issues and make false claims trying to save things which aren't important or don't need saving (save the eastern grey kangaroo comes to mind as one of the most insane examples). Generally it is the passionate, well-intentioned but ill-informed and emotionally-blinded do gooders behind the push for protecting things which shouldn't be protected. Unfortunately, they outnumber the scientists who know what's going on many fold, and sadly, there are some bleeding heart scientists around too. When something important comes up, it just looks like another "Save the ferral bunny rabbit/kangaroo/fruit bat" campaign.


----------



## Calliope (10 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Next it will be save the rabbits, foxes, rats and cane toads. I can just about see it happening, heck, some introduced animals which cause environmental damage are already protected!




Many introduced species are wreaking havoc. I am referring to feral horses, donkeys and camels. The do-gooders are up in arms whenever there is talk of culling these pests, apparently because they are large critters, and very visible (like the whale) and they won't fit into a rat trap.

I don't know whether feral pigs have a support base, but not much is being done to eradicate them.


----------



## Trembling Hand (10 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> Many introduced species are wreaking havoc. I am referring to feral horses, donkeys and camels. The do-gooders are up in arms whenever there is talk of culling these pests, apparently because they are large critters, and very visible (like the whale) and they won't fit into a rat trap.




In the Victorian Alpine national park horses are just about in plague conditions. Look at the BS that the governments that are meant to "manage" the problem are faced with doing,

http://www.australianalps.environme...s/research-reports/feral-horses-workshop.html



> Feral horse management across the Alps has a long history and often a very high profile within the community both locally, nationally and sometimes internationally. The *interest and passion that the topic attracts *has often hampered efforts to protect the environment from increasing evidence of environmental impacts. Past attempts to manage horses have been faced with tremendous scrutiny and adverse publicity. In 1987 ACT Parks destroyed a small number of horses in Namadgi National Park, which resulted in a huge public out cry. A similar public outcry followed the destruction of feral horses in Guy Fawkes National Park in November 2000 and also resulted in a moratorium on aerial shooting of horses within protected areas in NSW.
> 
> Over recent years, however, across the Australian Alps National Parks (AANP) and in other areas of Australia, there have been significant breakthroughs in feral horse management. *The most humane and cost effective methods of control are not always the most popular with the community and conservation agencies are often forced to use more expensive and time consuming live trapping methods to control ever increasing populations. *
> 
> In recognition of the community's views on feral horse management, agency staff across the alps have started to work with the community to develop strategies for *sustainable management *and in some cases total eradication of horses from an area. There have been major advancements in technique for trapping, mustering, transporting and handling wild horses as well as development in impact monitoring and population surveys.




"*sustainable management*" !!!What the hell for?? they are feral!! And they are getting really bad up there. On one open plane in the Victorian Alps at 1700m, I counted 200 odd of these feral things just lazing around munching on probably the most fragile grass lands in Oz and shagging till they couldn't be bothered getting out of my way. Crazy.


----------



## bunyip (10 March 2010)

Yes Sdajii, I well remember the 'save the kangaroo' campaign that was mounted by the greenies years ago. 
Even graziers had to get a permit to shoot a roo for dog meat, despite thousands of them roaming their properties. Not that the graziers ever took any notice of the stupid laws.
The roos were in great abundance at the time, and still are. The greenies flew around in planes and 'counted' the roos, LOL, to get an idea of their numbers!!
I've flown over properties in a helicopter - properties that contain thousands of roos, but you don't see many from the air. Yet these clowns convinced themselves and the government that they could estimate reasonably accurate numbers by flying around in a plane at 200 km per hour!
At no time did the conservationists ever come to us graziers and ask if we could show them around our properties so they could get an idea of roo numbers. Had they done so, we would have been more than happy to oblige.

Then the greenies attempted another of their scare campaigns when the Brigalow Scheme was being implemented in Central Queensland. 
For those who don't know, Brigalow is a leguminous tree that grows in very fertile country across central and southern QLD. It forms dense scrub where nothing else grows, not even grass, because the trees take all the moisture. But once the scrub is cleared, the fertile Brigalow soil is transformed into top class cattle country when pasture grasses like Buffel, Green Panic and Rhodes grass are planted. 
The government recognised the untapped potential of  the Brigalow country, so they resumed millions of acres of leasehold Brigalow country from large properties, subdivided it into chunks of roughly ten thousand to thirty thousand acres, and opened it up for ballot. Those who were successful in winning a ballot block had to comply with certain development conditions to clear the Brigalow scrub and convert it into productive cattle country.

The greenies opposed the Brigalow Scheme on the basis that it would decimate wildlife numbers by destroying the habitat of animals like roos and emus and bandicoots.
If they'd done their research properly they'd have known that roos and emus prefer open grassland with patches of scrub here and there for shade and shelter.
And that's just what was created by clearing the Brigalow country. Graziers are no fools when it comes to environmentally responsible development - they cleared the scrub but they also left plenty of shade areas and windbreaks that benefited both cattle and wildlife.
The newly created open grasslands created a perfect environment for roos and emus and many other wildlife species, and their number increased accordingly. Sure, some creatures were adversely affected too, but overall the Brigalow scheme had the opposite effect to what the greenies predicted.

Too many greenies lack the ability to be rational. They get emotionally attached to cute creatures like roos and wallabies and koalas and flying foxes, and they'll go to enormous lengths to protect them, even if it means inventing lies and circulating misinformation. 
But if the creatures are not cute and cuddly, greenies are not interested. I have never, for example, seen a greenie launch a campaign against controlling flies or termites or locusts, yet they're wild native creatures just as flying foxes and koalas and roos are.

I am not anti-wildlife. On the contrary, I love nature and animal and trees and birds, that's why I've chosen to live on acreage surrounded by nature rather than live in towns and cities like most of you do. 
But as an intelligent and rational person who is blessed with a fair measure of common sense, I realise the need for balanced thinking when it comes to wildlife.
To say we should never clear any scrub or knock down a tree is blatant stupidity. To allow open slather development that destroys nature and the environment is also blatant stupidity.
It's blatant stupidity to say we should never control flying foxes and other wildlife like crocs and sharks when they reach troublesome numbers and start posing a threat to our livelihoods and our safety and our enjoyment of life.
It's also blatant stupidity to say that every shark or croc or flying fox should be exterminated because sometimes they adversely affect us.

When wildlife and people live in the same areas, there needs to be balance - balance in thinking and balance in planning strategies to deal with any problems that might arise. 
Some conservationists exhibit this balance in their thinking. Unfortunately there are many who do not.


----------



## bunyip (10 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> Many introduced species are wreaking havoc. I am referring to feral horses, donkeys and camels. The do-gooders are up in arms whenever there is talk of culling these pests, apparently because they are large critters, and very visible (like the whale) and they won't fit into a rat trap.
> 
> I don't know whether feral pigs have a support base, but not much is being done to eradicate them.




Ah yes, an excellent example of the emotional immaturity and irrational thinking of your average animal-loving do gooder!
If the animal is appealing (as horses are to most people) they whinge like hell if anyone moves to control them when populations reach troublesome numbers.
If the animal is not appealing, they don't do or say anything to try and protect it.

Over the years there have been a number of government-run campaigns to control wild pig numbers. Mostly they've involved shooting the pigs from helicopters (which incidentally is tremendous sport - I've done it myself many times). The Landline program on ABC TV ran a story on this, complete with footage taken from the chopper of pigs being shot.
I don't recall any complaints from the animal protectionists about the inhumanity of eradicating pigs in this manner. But when it's horses or deer or some animal more appealing than pigs, the bleeding heart do gooders rise up in protest, just like they do with flying foxes.


----------



## Sdajii (10 March 2010)

Clearing the brigalow was actually quite an environmental problem. Some species were severely harmed by it, things like snakes etc, which most people don't care about. The kangaroos and emus love cleared land, I'm not sure if the greenies were too stupid to understand that, or if it was a deliberate ploy to gain popularity (if you say "save the rare snakes" people will say "Oh yeah? Destroy the lot", but if you say "save the plagues or cute kangaroos and emus" people might say "oh my god don't let those cute things die").

Whether or not clearing the brigalow was worth the environmental damage for the sake of the economic benefit is arguable. Protecting horses, deer, and other vermin is just insane.

Take a look at Kangaroo Island where the unique trees are being destroyed by feral koalas. The local trees evolved without koalas, making them different from anything anywhere else, and very vulnerable to koalas. Some bright spark introduced koalas to the island, and bang, you have an environmental disaster. But try to cull koalas and see how the greenies react! Instead of culling (which could be done cheaply, effectively and humanely) the greenies have demanded an absurd and extremely expensive sterilisation program, where koalas are captured and neutered (much more painful and stressful than a quick kill) then put back out there, while enough fertile koalas remain to continue breeding. The founding koalas of this population were sourced from the south, where koalas are common and in some cases need culling for their own good, but since some populations (mainly in the north) are in trouble, the greenies play the 'endangered' card again.

The masses understand emotion but not science.


----------



## awg (10 March 2010)

The humble moggy is an unimaginable plague on Australias native animals.

Cats are supremely good hunters, and kill every living thing in their range, before moving on to do the same in a new patch, if they can assert territorial rights over other cats.


----------



## bunyip (10 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Clearing the brigalow was actually quite an environmental problem. Some species were severely harmed by it, things like snakes etc, which most people don't care about. The kangaroos and emus love cleared land, I'm not sure if the greenies were too stupid to understand that, or if it was a deliberate ploy to gain popularity (if you say "save the rare snakes" people will say "Oh yeah? Destroy the lot", but if you say "save the plagues or cute kangaroos and emus" people might say "oh my god don't let those cute things die").
> 
> Whether or not clearing the brigalow was worth the environmental damage for the sake of the economic benefit is arguable. Protecting horses, deer, and other vermin is just insane.
> 
> ...





The thing is, no development of our country would be possible without clearing. Probably 98% of our cities and towns and houses are built on land that had to be cleared of timber first. Any interference with nature is going to have some negative environmental impact. That always has to be weighed against the economic benefits.
There's no objective measurement of the economic benefits of the Brigalow scheme vs the environmental benefits of leaving the land in its natural state. My personal opinion is that the tremendous financial revenue generated by the farming and grazing industries in the brigalow country far outweigh the environmental damage.

Snakes? Were they really harmed overall by the development of the brigalow country? I lived right in the heart of the brigalow belt for many years, and I can tell you we had no shortage of snakes...red bellied blacks, browns, carpet snakes, black-headed pythons, death adders, whip snakes, green tree snakes. I could name you several other varieties that we had as well, but you get the picture - snakes are common in brigalow country. I'd suggest that a grassy environment provides ideal cover and food sources for a wide variety of creeping, crawling animals that are not suited to living in standing scrub country.
I'll happily walk through scrub country in a pair of shorts, with little chance of snakebite. But I'll never walk through grass country without wearing long pants and sturdy boots.

Vast tracts of Queensland's brigalow country have now been taken over by the coal mining industry. Now that really _*is*_ environmental damage. 
Clearing the brigalow for grazing purposes created a favourable environment for many animal species, with a corresponding increase in their numbers. Different story with coal mining - no positive effects on the environment at all, and totally devastating for the wildlife that lives there, or used to before the mines showed up.

But here again the question arises - are the economic benefits of mining sufficient to outweigh the negative impact on the environment? Clearly our government thinks so.

For the benefit of you flying fox lovers, some areas of the brigalow belt have gradually changed over from cattle to farming of grain and horticultural crops, including mangoes, grapes, avocadoes, lychees. The flying foxes are loving it!


----------



## Sdajii (10 March 2010)

bunyip: Obviously you can't build a shopping center or housing estate without destroying habitat. I understand that, and as I said, I'm not sure whether or not clearing the brigalow was a good thing.

Yes, some of the common species of snakes you list thrive in modified habitat, but for that reason they are all common and widespread. Specialist species are the ones you'll wipe out when you destroy or modify special habitat such as the brigalow belt. Unfortunately, these are the ones which are rare and have restricted distributions. Things like Red-bellied Blacks, Browns, Carpet Pythons and Whip Snakes are not in any risk in southern QLD, and even a snake lover like me is content to see them locally wiped out in the name of progress. Brigalow Woma Pythons as an example, are all but extinct, as they can't live in modified habitat.

I think this is the main conservation issue which is lost due to a lack of understanding. The do gooders desperately try to campaign to save a population of common kangaroos, or worse still, brumbies or other vermin, and act as though losing one brush-tailed possum is as bad as losing a whole species. Sometimes losing a million animals doesn't matter, but losing a small few is tragic.


----------



## IFocus (10 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> *Next it will be save the rabbits, foxes, rats and cane toads. I can just about see it happening, heck, some introduced animals which cause environmental damage are already protected*!
> 
> There are some conservation issues which really do need to be taken seriously, so it's a shame that the tree huggers themselves take focus away from those important issues and make false claims trying to save things which aren't important or don't need saving (save the eastern grey kangaroo comes to mind as one of the most insane examples). Generally it is the passionate, well-intentioned but ill-informed and emotionally-blinded do gooders behind the push for protecting things which shouldn't be protected. Unfortunately, they outnumber the scientists who know what's going on many fold, and sadly, there are some bleeding heart scientists around too. When something important comes up, it just looks like another "Save the ferral bunny rabbit/kangaroo/fruit bat" campaign.




If you have evidence of these claims post them, I refer you to my previous post about opinions..........sigh


----------



## IFocus (10 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> In the Victorian Alpine national park horses are just about in plague conditions. Look at the BS that the governments that are meant to "manage" the problem are faced with doing,
> 
> http://www.australianalps.environme...s/research-reports/feral-horses-workshop.html
> 
> ...




TH this is not green types upset its communities


----------



## IFocus (10 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Yes Sdajii, I well remember the 'save the kangaroo' campaign that was mounted by the greenies years ago.
> Even graziers had to get a permit to shoot a roo for dog meat, despite thousands of them roaming their properties. Not that the graziers ever took any notice of the stupid laws.
> The roos were in great abundance at the time, and still are. The greenies flew around in planes and 'counted' the roos, LOL, to get an idea of their numbers!!
> I've flown over properties in a helicopter - properties that contain thousands of roos, but you don't see many from the air. Yet these clowns convinced themselves and the government that they could estimate reasonably accurate numbers by flying around in a plane at 200 km per hour!
> ...




You want talk land clearing being good check out WA one big salt lake as a result of.


http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/salinity/pubs/national/salinity_wa.html


----------



## Sdajii (10 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> If you have evidence of these claims post them, I refer you to my previous post about opinions..........sigh




What do you want evidence of? Damaging vermin being protected? Horses have already been discussed at length here, and several species of deer are protected in Australia (we don't have any native deer, or any hooved animals, and hooved animals are very damaging to Australian soils, not to mention the grazing pressure). We also have exotic fish such as trout which are protected, despite the fact that they wipe out native fish such as Galaxias.

I assume you weren't asking for evidence of my personal (mostly facetious) speculations about cane toads and rabbits being protected in the future.


----------



## nioka (10 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to come up with some rational argument as to why it should be illegal to take whatever steps are necessary to move flying foxes away from crops and public facilities.




Don't hold your breath. It may be a long wait. I doubt there is a RATIONAL argument.


----------



## IFocus (10 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> What do you want evidence of? Damaging vermin being protected? Horses have already been discussed at length here, and several species of deer are protected in Australia (we don't have any native deer, or any hooved animals, and hooved animals are very damaging to Australian soils, not to mention the grazing pressure). We also have exotic fish such as trout which are protected, despite the fact that they wipe out native fish such as Galaxias.
> 
> I assume you weren't asking for evidence of my personal (mostly facetious) speculations about cane toads and rabbits being protected in the future.





None of this is conservation so whats your point.


----------



## IFocus (10 March 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> stuff the whales
> 
> save a fruitbat




LOL


----------



## Ageo (10 March 2010)

nioka said:


> Don't hold your breath. It may be a long wait. I doubt there is a RATIONAL argument.




Especially from a greeny, all you get is their personal agenda rammed down your throat.


----------



## Ageo (10 March 2010)

sinner;539034
In an independant panel commissioned by the NSW govt said:
			
		

> be unethical and inhumane.[/B]




Is this the same commission that think 1080 poison is humane??

sinner i respect your comments but this 1 is basically 100% horse manure.


----------



## bunyip (11 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> bunyip: Obviously you can't build a shopping center or housing estate without destroying habitat. I understand that, and as I said, I'm not sure whether or not clearing the brigalow was a good thing.
> 
> Yes, some of the common species of snakes you list thrive in modified habitat, but for that reason they are all common and widespread. Specialist species are the ones you'll wipe out when you destroy or modify special habitat such as the brigalow belt. Unfortunately, these are the ones which are rare and have restricted distributions. Things like Red-bellied Blacks, Browns, Carpet Pythons and Whip Snakes are not in any risk in southern QLD, and even a snake lover like me is content to see them locally wiped out in the name of progress. Brigalow Woma Pythons as an example, are all but extinct, as they can't live in modified habitat.
> 
> I think this is the main conservation issue which is lost due to a lack of understanding. The do gooders desperately try to campaign to save a population of common kangaroos, or worse still, brumbies or other vermin, and act as though losing one brush-tailed possum is as bad as losing a whole species. Sometimes losing a million animals doesn't matter, but losing a small few is tragic.





Can't say I've ever seen a brigalow Woma python, or even heard of them. Point taken - some negative impact on the environment is the price of progress.

I'll look up the Woma python on the net and see what I can find out. I'm a bit of a snake lover myself, well not a lover exactly, but they interest me.
I once caught an eight foot black headed python that was half way down a rabbit warren. I put him in a bag and took him home to show my wife, then took him back to the rabbit warren and released him.
As I tossed the empty bag back into the ute I realised there was something still in it. I looked in and saw four baby rabbits that the python had regurgitated.

All you snake haters, take note, snakes play an important role in the environment, even the venomous ones. Don't run over the next snake you see on the road - he's no threat to you and he's doing a good job controlling mice and other pests.


----------



## Trembling Hand (11 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> TH this is not green types upset its communities




Huh? Not following what you are trying to say here?


----------



## chops_a_must (11 March 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Huh? Not following what you are trying to say here?




Often with horses, it's not "Greenies" that are the problem but local communities.

For instance, in Kakadu there are quite a few brumbies and they would have been ridded a long time ago, but the local tribes don't want them gone.


----------



## bunyip (11 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> You want talk land clearing being good check out WA one big salt lake as a result of.




No doubt you'll be doing your bit  to control salinity then, by demolishing your house and embarking on a mass tree planting program to restore your land to what it was before you or some developer before you came in and cleared the trees off it!

Over-clearing of land certainly can lead to many problems such as salinity and erosion. 
As I stated earlier, there needs to be balanced thinking and balanced strategies when it comes to environmental issues.

Clearing land to the extent that it gets ruined by salinity is obviously a mistake. Not clearing any land at all, thereby stifling economic progress and development, is equally a mistake.

Mass extermination of flying foxes to the extent of threatening them with extinction would clearly be a mistake. Equally, it's a mistake to have no control measures at all on flying foxes when they destroy agricultural crops and start fouling up school playgrounds and public recreation areas.

Whether it's land clearing, native animal control or any other environmental issue, there always needs to be a balance.

I very much respect Sadjii for the intelligence and common sense he's shown on this thread. He's clearly a conservationist, yet at the same time he shows balance in his thinking by being in favour of responsible development where necessary and controlling native animals when they become troublesome.


----------



## Happy (11 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> ...
> Mass extermination of flying foxes to the extent of threatening them with extinction would clearly be a mistake. Equally, it's a mistake to have no control measures at all on flying foxes when they destroy agricultural crops and start fouling up school playgrounds and public recreation areas.
> 
> ...






Probably alternative approach could be used to wipe them out, just feed them like crazy so their population explodes even more (like human population), then stop feeding them.

Starvation should take care of most.

Probably one problem if feeding wild animals is considered there illegal.


----------



## Trembling Hand (11 March 2010)

chops_a_must said:


> Often with horses, it's not "Greenies" that are the problem but local communities.




Yeah I know that. I didn't think I inferred that it was any group other than the broad brush of "dogooders".


----------



## Sdajii (11 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> None of this is conservation so whats your point.




Don't ask me what the point is, you're the one who asked for the information!


----------



## bunyip (11 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> You want talk land clearing being good check out WA one big salt lake as a result of.
> 
> 
> http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/salinity/pubs/national/salinity_wa.html




And while we're on the subject of salinity, IFocus, let me correct your views which are ill-considered and show the typical narrow-minded thinking of a true greenie.

Western Australia is _*not*_ 'one big salt lake' as a result of land clearing. 
WA is mostly either desert or semi-arid country verging on desert. Only a very small percentage of it is arable land suited to the kind of agricultural pursuits that require land to be cleared of timber. 
Most of WA is arid land used primarily for pastoral industry, i.e. grazing of sheep and cattle. Most of the sheep and cattle country in WA has never been cleared of timber and is still in its natural state, with no salinity problems.
Certainly, salinity is a serious problem in some areas that have been cleared of timber and intensively farmed. These areas constitute only a small percentage of WA.


In most of your posts on this thread your comments have been flippant or ill-informed or both. You've shown a distinct inability to make intelligent comments or give accurate information or to make a useful contribution to this discussion. 
You'd be well advised to activate your brain before you activate your mouth, otherwise you're going to continue making yourself look foolish.

Ageo summed it up nicely by saying that all you get from a greenie is their personal agenda rammed down your throat.


----------



## IFocus (11 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> And while we're on the subject of salinity, IFocus, let me correct your views which are ill-considered and show the typical narrow-minded thinking of a true greenie.
> 
> Western Australia is _*not*_ 'one big salt lake' as a result of land clearing.
> WA is mostly either desert or semi-arid country verging on desert. Only a very small percentage of it is arable land suited to the kind of agricultural pursuits that require land to be cleared of timber.
> ...




Once you get to personal attacks you no longer have an argument.

Fact is I come from a farming family worked and lived in most parts of WA you want to lecture me on my own back yard?

Your comments are pretty much incorrect / assumptions and again not fact.

Land clearing in the WA wheat belt has led to massive problems with salinity fact. 

This has led to significant loss of production in cereal crops in the state fact

This is where the big money is fact

Your other assumptions are rubbish, timber in arid areas your joking surely you make it sound like we have vast forests, have you any idea what scrub looks like, when I visit friends in the pastoral areas again I will pass on your advice hilarious



> Most of WA is arid land used primarily for pastoral industry, i.e. grazing of sheep and cattle. Most of the sheep and cattle country in WA has never been cleared of timber and is still in its natural state, with no salinity problems.




Natural state  you are joking  what   don't you know goats in times of drought which over here run for ten years or more (in your pastoral areas) are one of the main incomes, any idea what goats do.........you call me narrow minded 

Please tell / lecture me more about WA and intelligence.


----------



## IFocus (11 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Don't ask me what the point is, you're the one who asked for the information!





Its a simple question


----------



## IFocus (11 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> No doubt you'll be doing your bit  to control salinity then, by demolishing your house and embarking on a mass tree planting program to restore your land to what it was before you or some developer before you came in and cleared the trees off it!
> 
> Over-clearing of land certainly can lead to many problems such as salinity and erosion.
> As I stated earlier, there needs to be balanced thinking and balanced strategies when it comes to environmental issues.
> ...





There is one problem as evidence here in the west there is no balance

I adhere to one underlining principle

Don't know about you but I have kids

The environment this generation hands over to the next must not be worse. 

The numbers are clear it wont happen

To do so with all the knowledge at our finger tips is the ultimate betrayal.

To do other wise is.............you fill in the dots.


----------



## Bloveld (12 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Do any of you live in an area that's adversely affected by flying foxes, as I do?
> 
> Are you absolutely sick of these smelly, noisy, destructive, disgusting pests?
> 
> Are you sick of the pathetic people who have influenced the government to introduce laws making it illegal to cull flying foxes, or even move them on when they become a nuisance or a health risk?





First post and he starts out calling people who have a different opinion to himself, pathetic.
Great way to start a rational discussion.


----------



## Sdajii (12 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Its a simple question




Indeed, but you need to ask yourself, not me!

It's a simple concept. You ask me for some information, I give it to you. If you want to know what the point is, you need to ask yourself, because you are the one who knows why it was requested (unless you are just requesting things at random, or are strange enough to ask me what your own motives/desires are, in which case I am sorry but I can't help you).


----------



## Dunger (12 March 2010)

I was at footy training at Marrickville on Monday night. We were standing in the middle of the field listening to the coach when out of nowhere a bat crashed into the ground meters from where we were standing with an almighty thud. 

He was obviously unwell to crash and even more unwell as a result of the crash. Has anyone ever experienced anything similar? 

I live in Sydneys Eastern Suburbs and there's a lot of fig trees and other trees for the bats to feed on. There's that many of them that they ate all the fruit and what not of the trees in the local area in one night and made a hell of a mess in the process. Branches and leaves and guano everywhere.

They should be culled to protect the trees for other wildlife and people to live off. There's enough bats hanging off the branches that they can snap the branch off. That's a LOT of bats. 

They'll kill all the trees and move to another area and kill the trees there.

I don't blame the farmers for protecting their crop if they can do the damage they did in one night.


----------



## Julia (12 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> First post and he starts out calling people who have a different opinion to himself, pathetic.
> Great way to start a rational discussion.



Huh?  First post?  I don't think so.
Do you have something to contribute to the topic?


----------



## IFocus (12 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Indeed, but you need to ask yourself, not me!
> 
> It's a simple concept. You ask me for some information, I give it to you. If you want to know what the point is, you need to ask yourself, because you are the one who knows why it was requested (unless you are just requesting things at random, or are strange enough to ask me what your own motives/desires are, in which case I am sorry but I can't help you).





Sorry I was being obscure
I don't know or heard of any conservation group that call for the protection of feral or introduced species or as you keep labeling tree huggers, greenies, blah blah


----------



## Whiskers (12 March 2010)

This is the location of the colony in Bundaberg, blue circle near the bridge in the middle of town. 

There is no 'natural' food source in the local vicinity. On the wider span map you can see the concentration of cultivated farm land 20 to 30 km around Bundaberg and smaller amount aroung Childers and Gin Gin where sugar cane, small crops and orchards are grown.

BUT, look at the amount of State forests and Natural Parks further out. The only logical reason why flying foxes have concentrated in the river in the centre of town is because of the lack of natural preditors and protection from shooting and proximity to 'unatural' food sources.

If conservation of the species is the issue, they aught to be located in 'natural' habitat and 'natural' food source, otherwise we will have a similar problem to Fraser Island dingoes that were allowed to mingle with campers and their food scraps, ie a whole lot of 'unatural' behaviour.

Bats are not stupid. They are quite intelligent with good smell, eyesight and hearing. That's why they will stay where they are and multiply at an increasing rate because they know they can roost here without fear of preditors and scout backyards and farms for food and move on the the forests as a last resort.

A classic example of a colony that aught to be moved out or at least allow orchardists etc to shoot a small number. The idea of only needing to shoot a small number is because once they see and or hear one on their own killed they learn to stay clear for some time.

Someone made a comment earlier that the disease they spread is hardly deadly based on the low number of reported deaths. *That's a gross misrepresentation.* The disease is extremely deadly because there is no cure and little early symptoms. Plenty of animals but few humans have died because of the strict quarantine proceedures put in place AND WHAT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL COST OF THE QUARANTINE AND LOSS OF INCOME OF PROPERTIES AFFECTED.

It's interesting that the gov will order the shooting of a Fraser Island Dingo if it attacked or even looked like attacking a human, and surely the dingo is more threatened than the Black Flying Fox that is the problem here as referred to in my earlier post.

But further, anyone who accidently kills a Flying Fox caught in protective netting or similar has to fill in a form and report it to the gov (link previous post). That's just plain rediculous.


----------



## Sdajii (12 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Sorry I was being obscure
> I don't know or heard of any conservation group that call for the protection of feral or introduced species or as you keep labeling tree huggers, greenies, blah blah




I already gave you three examples of exotic (non native) species which cause damage to our ecosystems and _already_ have legal protection: Deer, trout and horses.


----------



## Ageo (13 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> I already gave you three examples of exotic (non native) species which cause damage to our ecosystems and _already_ have legal protection: Deer, trout and horses.




Sdajii which deer are you referring to? Fallow, Red, Hog (axis) and chital all have seasons but are allowed to be harvested. Sambar and Rusa have no season which means can be hunted all yr. Sry for the off topic but just wanted some clarification. 

P.S i agree with you thow that deer do damage our eco system.


----------



## Sdajii (13 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Sdajii which deer are you referring to? Fallow, Red, Hog (axis) and chital all have seasons but are allowed to be harvested. Sambar and Rusa have no season which means can be hunted all yr. Sry for the off topic but just wanted some clarification.
> 
> P.S i agree with you thow that deer do damage our eco system.




*YOU* have just given *ME* three examples! Why do you want to get into nitty gritty particulars which are beyond the information relevant to the thread? Surely you have more than enough of the 'evidence' that you requested about there being exotic species which cause environmental damage and have protection if you are giving it to me. Fallow, Red and Hog Deer all have closed seasons on hunting, which are there to *protect* the species so that they can *maintain their populations* which means they will *continue to cause environmental damage*. You yourself *agree* with all these points yet *continue to ask for more information*. Forgive me if I ignore any or all of your posts from here on.


----------



## Sdajii (13 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Sdajii which deer are you referring to? Fallow, Red, Hog (axis) and chital all have seasons but are allowed to be harvested. Sambar and Rusa have no season which means can be hunted all yr. Sry for the off topic but just wanted some clarification.
> 
> P.S i agree with you thow that deer do damage our eco system.




*YOU* have just given *ME* examples! Why do you want to get into nitty gritty particulars which are beyond the information relevant to the thread? Surely you have more than enough of the 'evidence' that you requested about there being exotic species which cause environmental damage and have protection if you are giving it to me. The deer you list have closed seasons on hunting, which are there to *protect* the species so that they can *maintain their populations* which means they will *continue to cause environmental damage*. It surely stands to reason that if there are *limitations on hunting* there is no plan to *wipe them out* but rather *protect* them so they are ensured to *continue to exist* under the protection and management of the environmental authorities. You yourself *agree* with all these points yet *continue to ask for more information*. Forgive me if I stop bothering to answer your questions.


----------



## Ageo (14 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> *YOU* have just given *ME* examples! Why do you want to get into nitty gritty particulars which are beyond the information relevant to the thread? Surely you have more than enough of the 'evidence' that you requested about there being exotic species which cause environmental damage and have protection if you are giving it to me. The deer you list have closed seasons on hunting, which are there to *protect* the species so that they can *maintain their populations* which means they will *continue to cause environmental damage*. It surely stands to reason that if there are *limitations on hunting* there is no plan to *wipe them out* but rather *protect* them so they are ensured to *continue to exist* under the protection and management of the environmental authorities. You yourself *agree* with all these points yet *continue to ask for more information*. Forgive me if I stop bothering to answer your questions.




Sdajii relax mate, im not arguing against you. I hunt deer all the time along with other game and im fully aware of the damage feral & non feral animals do to our eco systems. But remember even roos and other native animals cause damage to our environments/farming etc... it doesnt mean we wipe them all out, but rather manage. Just like flying foxes and any other out of control animal.


----------



## Sdajii (15 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Sdajii relax mate, im not arguing against you. I hunt deer all the time along with other game and im fully aware of the damage feral & non feral animals do to our eco systems. But remember even roos and other native animals cause damage to our environments/farming etc... it doesnt mean we wipe them all out, but rather manage. Just like flying foxes and any other out of control animal.




Well, it makes sense to manage native animals like kangaroos when they are out of control due to human influence (land clearing and improvement of water availability = kangaroo plague). It makes sense because kangaroos are indigenous to Australia and if we wipe them out they are extinct, which most would agree is a shame. Deer on the other hand are not native to Australia, have no conservation value, and simply cause harm. The two are not comparable. Flying foxes fit into (or should fit into) the 'native animal to be controlled' category like kangaroos, whereas the deer have no good reason to be protected, yet still are.

Sorry for my dismissive response to your post, I didn't check and thought it had been submitted by the galah, which of course changes the context.


----------



## Happy (15 March 2010)

We seem to be sorry for everything we do.

We might just live our lives and adopt surroundings to our requirements, same as we did for first 60,000 years or so of our homosapienness.

After all if we are on a brink of reviving Tasmanian Tiger and possibly even Mammoth, why worry about accidentally wiping out Flying Foxes or Kangaroos, (if the worst happens, we can always import some from China, like we import everything else, including garlic).

Alternatively all we need is freeze some sperm and we can surely find some matching womb should the disaster happen and we wipe out one too many.

All is in a state of flux and species died and were established without our interference too.

As I said, we just seem to be too sorry that we exist (another bout of political correctness!)


----------



## Ageo (15 March 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Well, it makes sense to manage native animals like kangaroos when they are out of control due to human influence (land clearing and improvement of water availability = kangaroo plague). It makes sense because kangaroos are indigenous to Australia and if we wipe them out they are extinct, which most would agree is a shame. Deer on the other hand are not native to Australia, have no conservation value, and simply cause harm. The two are not comparable. Flying foxes fit into (or should fit into) the 'native animal to be controlled' category like kangaroos, whereas the deer have no good reason to be protected, yet still are.
> 
> Sorry for my dismissive response to your post, I didn't check and thought it had been submitted by the galah, which of course changes the context.





Sdajii thats ok. As for wiping out feral animals well that will probably never happen as they are too deep in some parts of Australia for us to get to. 1080 does kill but it also kills natives and give animals a not as humane death such as a bullet to the brain.

But back to topic, the fruit bats like any animal in large proportions should be managed. Saying they all fly together is a bit strange as many people around Australia say there is large populations of them roaming.

There was a similar project that happened recently in the illawarra area on controlling deer near universites and other populated areas which deer had been damaging for yrs. Basically accredited conservation hunters (which are at basically no cost to taxpayers) took care of the problem with minimal fuss. Of course you had the usual "omg they could have shot us, how dangerous blah blah" but in the end it worked out much better than any other solution. 

Something like that should be looked at with fruit bats which doesnt cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## nioka (15 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Something like that should be looked at with fruit bats which doesnt cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars.




Actually it is happening in reverse.

It is costing taxpayers a fortune by not allowing the culling of the pest.  It would cost the taxpayers nothing to cull them. People troubled with them would gladly join in the cull at no cost to everyone else. 

The cost of the damage that the foxes are doing to crops is staggering. They can wipe out whole crops in one night. While that cost is carried in the first instance by the grower it is passed on to the consumer sooner or later. Actually I know of cases wher a taxpayer actually became a non tax payer because of the loss incurred after being attacked by these vermin.

The pests don't need wholesale slaughter. They just need a "hurry up" every now and then.


----------



## Sdajii (15 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Sdajii thats ok. As for wiping out feral animals well that will probably never happen as they are too deep in some parts of Australia for us to get to. 1080 does kill but it also kills natives and give animals a not as humane death such as a bullet to the brain.
> 
> But back to topic, the fruit bats like any animal in large proportions should be managed. Saying they all fly together is a bit strange as many people around Australia say there is large populations of them roaming.
> 
> ...




I'm not necessarily saying we need to launch a zillion dollar deer eradication project; there are better things to be spending conservation dollars on. But it is insane to be actively protecting a pest animal like deer.


----------



## bunyip (19 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Once you get to personal attacks you no longer have an argument.
> 
> Fact is I come from a farming family worked and lived in most parts of WA you want to lecture me on my own back yard?
> 
> ...




I'm well aware that land clearing has led to salinity problems in the WA wheat belt - I'm not disputing that at all.
What I'm disputing is your original wildly exaggerated claim that WA is one big salt lake as a result of land clearing. 
The absurdity of this statement is highlighted by the fact that most of WA is arid desert or semi desert, sparsely timbered or in some cases no timber at all. This land has never been cleared of timber and probably never will be, due to the fact that its low rainfall, poor soils and harsh climate make it unsuited to the type of agriculture that requires the removal of every tree.
The fact is that the area of salinity in WA, though significant, represents only a tiny percentage of the state. 
WA is _*not*_, as you claimed, one big salt lake as a result of land clearing.

No, I don't make it sound like you have vast forests in WA. As I stated in a previous post, most of WA is in the arid zone, i.e desert and semi-desert. Most people of normal intelligence associate desert country with sparse timber coverage. However, for those who are behind the pack, the mention of deserts may well conjure up images of vast forests.

Do I know what goats do? Yes actually, I'm very familiar with goats, having run a commercial flock on my own property for fleece production and noxious weed control, as well as a couple of thousand feral goats.

There's two types of goats. 
The two-legged variety can be found on internet forums making wildly exaggerated claims that they can't substantiate.

The four legged variety are much like flying foxes - they play a useful and important role in nature when they're in moderate numbers, but become troublesome and destructive if their numbers become excessive.


----------



## bunyip (19 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> There is one problem as evidence here in the west there is no balance
> 
> I adhere to one underlining principle
> 
> ...





I'm impressed by your noble aspirations in wanting to hand over a better environment to your kids. 
I aspire to the same ideals myself.
However, I do hope your children grow up being more open-minded, realistic and balanced than their father is in relation to environmental and conservation issues.
I hope they'll learn that wildly exaggerated claims do nothing to advance the cause of conservation and environmental protection.

Like you, I'm a conservationist - but I'm not the fanatical variety who says we must let troublesome wildlife destroy our livelihoods and ruin our lives. 
I try to get some balance into my thinking on environmental and conservation issues. 

Flying foxes play a useful role in nature, as do termites and grasshoppers and flies and spiders and just about every other creature you could name.
However, they should be controlled by the most expedient means available when they invade our crops and homes and school playgrounds and public recreation areas.

If you and I have a right to eliminate termites when they attack our homes, then farmers certainly have the right to eliminate flying foxes that attack their crops.
That doesn't mean we embark on a mission of exterminating every termite or flying fox - the idea is to control them without threatening the species.
It can be done - but the task is not made easier by radical, small-minded greenies or the silly governments who listen to them.


----------



## bunyip (19 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> First post and he starts out calling people who have a different opinion to himself, pathetic.
> Great way to start a rational discussion.




If a rational discussion is what you're looking for, then I suggest you lead by example.
Perhaps you could start by giving a rational explanation as to why we should allow flying foxes to destroy agricultural crops, school playgrounds, and public recreation areas like parks and gardens. 

Have you considered asking IFocus if you can borrow his avatar?


----------



## IFocus (19 March 2010)

> There's two types of goats.
> The two-legged variety can be found on internet forums making wildly exaggerated claims that they can't substantiate.




Once you get to personal attacks you no longer have an argument


----------



## Buckfont (19 March 2010)

I am with you bunyip. 

You have gone out of your way to express your views more than enough and I have to concur with your views, and also your tenacity to keep plugging away to the solid fundamentals of your arguement.

I have always been in agreement, posts #7,9,20,24,and I do find it hard that people cant see the point. 

And again it all comes down to who survives.

Being top of the food chain......   we`ll see when things become desparate.

Onya bunyip


----------



## bunyip (20 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Once you get to personal attacks you no longer have an argument




Not only do I have an argument, but unlike you, I've backed up my arguments with solid reasoning that you have been completely unable to refute.


----------



## WaveSurfer (20 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> No doubt you'll be doing your bit  to control salinity then, by demolishing your house and embarking on a mass tree planting program to restore your land to what it was before you or some developer before you came in and cleared the trees off it!




LOL. Great call.



nunthewiser said:


> stuff the whales
> 
> save a fruitbat








Sdajii said:


> Next it will be save the rabbits, foxes, rats and *cane toads*.




It already is 
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1342441.htm 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r-cane-toad-golf/story-e6freoof-1111113699939

I practice my golf swing every night (and will continue to do so)  

Anyone notice the amount of fruit bats on the sunshine coast - Bruce Hwy between Caloundra and Gympie?

Astonishing. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions). Don't believe me? Drive up/down there and look for yourself...

Plague proportions? Naaaaaa


----------



## bunyip (20 March 2010)

The record rains in the Red Centre over the last few weeks have caused a plague of grasshoppers to hatch out.
Next thing the animal libbers will be up in arms about Central Australian horticulturists spraying the hoppers to prevent them from destroying crops. 

I mean, if it's wrong to deal with flying foxes that are destroying crops, then why would it be any different with grasshoppers - aren't they wildlife too?

But wait a minute - hoppers are not the same cute little creatures that flying foxes are, and therefore they don't cause the same twisted, emotional response among greenies that flying foxes cause. Ditto for termites - they too are not the cute little creatures that flying foxes are, so the animal libbers are not interested in them, even though grasshoppers, termites and flying foxes all share the characteristic of being destructive pests. 

It just goes to show that the views of your average greenie and animal libber are based primarily on emotion, rather than on common sense and solid reasoning.
Greenies and animal libbers who show some balance in their thinking are about as rare as flying foxes that don't eat fruit!


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> Not only do I have an argument, but unlike you, I've backed up my arguments with solid reasoning that you have been completely unable to refute.




I have enjoyed your posts bunyip and have admired the skill with which you have demolished the eco-nuts

It is ironic that IFocus should complain about personal attacks. Not so long back he had this to say in response to a post of yours;



> I can just see you with a bone through your nose.
> 
> You cannot export us lot from WA as we currently carry you lot of free loaders / paper shufflers on our backs as we power the Australian economy.


----------



## IFocus (20 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> I have enjoyed your posts bunyip and have admired the skill with which you have demolished the eco-nuts
> 
> It is ironic that IFocus should complain about personal attacks. Not so long back he had this to say in response to a post of yours;




I liked the bit about being a conservationist then talking about running a couple of thousand feral goats.

More of your extreme greenie / eco-nut types  saving cuddly animals here for you to collectively slag off

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/19/2851284.htm


----------



## IFocus (20 March 2010)

> Originally Posted by bunyip  View Post
> No doubt you'll be doing your bit to control salinity then, by demolishing your house and embarking on a mass tree planting program to restore your land to what it was before you or some developer before you came in and cleared the trees off it!





> LOL. Great call.




Not really live on a acreage try to plant 50 to 100 trees a year but hey don't let that stop you joining the queue.


----------



## WaveSurfer (20 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Not really live on a acreage try to plant 50 to 100 trees a year but hey don't let that stop you joining the queue.




Dude, re-read your post. Unless you live in a tree, you too are part of the problem.

Errrr ahhhh _hypocrisy_ ehem ehem...


----------



## IFocus (20 March 2010)

WaveSurfer said:


> Dude, re-read your post. Unless you live in a tree, you too are part of the problem.




Yes agree about being part of the problem, I would say I and my family have cut down more trees, cleared more land than all the red necks together that line up to here on ASF to have a sling at me hence I don't take it personally.

Besides I was a bigger red neck than all them put together difference is these days my head isn't buried in the sand or stuck up my ar$e.

When we were doing all this stuff we knew better, had a balanced view, governments backed us etc. 

As for the control salinity over here farmers these days do work pretty hard to halt its progress and there is a lot of research money being thrown at it but once the damage is done its pretty serve.  

Its a problem affecting an area bigger than twice the size of Tassie (no not the whole state) and the most serve Australia wide.


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> More of your extreme greenie / eco-nut types  saving cuddly animals here for you to collectively slag off
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/19/2851284.htm




 Another red herring. Nowhere on these pages have I seen any evidence of anyone "slaging off" about the protection of endangered species. 



> is these days my head isn't buried in the sand or stuck up my ar$e.




Yes it is


----------



## bunyip (20 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> I liked the bit about being a conservationist then talking about running a couple of thousand feral goats.
> 
> More of your extreme greenie / eco-nut types  saving cuddly animals here for you to collectively slag off
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/19/2851284.htm




The couple of thousand feral goats were the nomadic variety that came and went as they pleased. Their numbers fluctuated anywhere between a few hundred to an estimated two or three thousand. We'd drastically reduce their numbers by shooting and/or harvesting them, then a bit further down the track we'd be invaded by the next wave.
We didn't choose to have them - we put a concerted and ongoing effort into getting rid of them. We failed, but for the most part we managed to control their numbers.


----------



## bunyip (20 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> More of your extreme greenie / eco-nut types  saving cuddly animals here for you to collectively slag off
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/19/2851284.htm




We're not being critical of efforts to save endangered native wildlife species, cuddly or otherwise. 
On the contrary, I think most of us applaud such efforts - I know I certainly do.

What we're critical of is tunnel-visioned people who protect animals that are in plague proportions and are destroying crops and public recreation facilities.
And we're criticising the inconsistency and hypocrisy of people who think they have the right to protect their homes against wildlife like termites and spiders, but farmers don't have the right to protect their crops against flying foxes.


----------



## Happy (20 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> ...
> efforts to save endangered native wildlife species, cuddly or otherwise.
> ....





(Sorry for taking out of context)

Once OUR survival will be in balance, we will gradually stop worrying about everything else.

Same will happen progressively with all those who need assistance, once number of people needing assistance will outstrip the maximum available support.


----------



## IFocus (21 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> The couple of thousand feral goats were the nomadic variety that came and went as they pleased. Their numbers fluctuated anywhere between a few hundred to an estimated two or three thousand. We'd drastically reduce their numbers by shooting and/or harvesting them, then a bit further down the track we'd be invaded by the next wave.
> We didn't choose to have them - we put a concerted and ongoing effort into getting rid of them. We failed, but for the most part we managed to control their numbers.




Fair enough, apologize for the comment


----------



## WaveSurfer (21 March 2010)

bunyip said:


> We're not being critical of efforts to save endangered native wildlife species, cuddly or otherwise.
> On the contrary, I think most of us applaud such efforts - I know I certainly do.
> 
> What we're critical of is tunnel-visioned people who protect animals that are in plague proportions and are destroying crops and public recreation facilities.
> And we're criticising the inconsistency and hypocrisy of people who think they have the right to protect their homes against wildlife like termites and spiders, but farmers don't have the right to protect their crops against flying foxes.




Well said.


----------



## bunyip (21 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> I have enjoyed your posts bunyip and have admired the skill with which you have demolished the eco-nuts
> 
> It is ironic that IFocus should complain about personal attacks. Not so long back he had this to say in response to a post of yours;




Yeh Calliope - I know - IFocus shows the double standards and hypocrisy that are the hallmark of eco nuts. 
Posts 11, 21 & 23 from IFocus were dripping with sarcasm, with one of them aimed specifically at me.
But when I return the favour by giving him a dose of his own medicine, the poor little feller gets all upset and accuses me of a personal attack.

IFocus needs to learn that you reap what you sow - if you dish it out, don't be surprised when you cop some of the same in return.


----------



## bunyip (21 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Fair enough, apologize for the comment




Thank you IFocus - it takes character to apologise.

And if I ever say anything to you that's ill-considered or that I can't back up with logic and solid reasoning, then I too will apologise.

Mate, whether you realise it or not, I'm pretty much on your side. There's no way in the world that I want to see our land degraded by salinity or over-clearing. That's why I spent many years as a member of a land care group - so we could protect our land by formulating strategies to help us avoid the mistakes of the past that have led to land degradation.
There's no way in the world that I want to see uncontrolled land clearing that will lead to problems further down the track. I own a patch of rainforest in far North Queensland that will never be cleared as long as I own it.
No way in the world do I want to see Australian native wildlife wiped out, with entire species becoming extinct. I love trees and land and wildlife and nature - yes, I even like flying foxes!
But all of us, you and me included, must have balance in our thinking when it comes to conservation. We don't further the cause of conservation by being blind and silly and tunnel-visioned about it.

Sure we should protect our native wildlife - entire species become extinct if we don't.  
But if a rogue crocodile starts eating people at a local swimming hole, should we relocate the croc, or shoot him if we can't catch him? Of course we should  - it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. We don't want to wipe out crocs en-masse - just deal with the trouble maker.

If flying foxes attack our crops and destroy our parks and kids playgrounds, should we get rid of them? Of course we should - it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. The aim is not to wipe out the entire species - just deal with the troublemakers.

If termites attack your home, does it make sense to exterminate them? Of course it does - to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. The aim is not to exterminate the entire species - just deal with the troublemakers.

If plague locusts attack farmers crops, should farmers be allowed to kill them? Of course they should - it's blatant foolishness to suggest otherwise. The aim is to deal with the troublemakers, not wipe out the entire species.

You said you have kids. If thousands of flying foxes set up camp in the playground at your kids school, making the playground unusable and exposing your kids to the risk of contracting the deadly Hendra virus, would you be upset? Would you be in favour of removing the pests by any means possible? I think you and I both know the answer.

If tens of thousands of flying foxes set up camp in the trees in your own house yard, making the place smell to high heaven, putting you and your family at risk of disease, and generally stuffing up your quality of life, would you be upset about it and want to take action to get rid of the pests? I think you and I both know the answer.

If you were a farmer with a three hundred thousand dollar lychee crop ready for harvest, and next thing your crop is being destroyed by flying foxes, would you be upset about it? And would you consider it your right to take whatever action was needed to deal with the problem? Again, I'm sure both you and I know the answer.

You have a think about it!


----------



## Ageo (23 March 2010)

Sustainable harvesting/culling.

I hunt and cull animals all year round but in no means would i ever have the intention on wiping them all out as i love nature itself. The problem with greenies thow is that its either their way or the highway as they dont like to compromise.


----------



## Whiskers (23 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> *Sustainable* harvesting/culling.




Exactly.

I've been involved with LandCare for about 20 years and 'Sustainability' is the key word and phylosophy to adopt.

Extremist greenies do have a presence in Landcare, but for the most part it is controlled by local farmers, graziers and other landholders with a vested interest in maintaining a long term, sustainable and commercially viable ecosystem. 

I know the extremist greenies cringe at the words 'commercially viable' but at the end of the day it has to be to sustain the human race.

Also contrary to belief by the extremist greenies, farmers and graziers for the most part love the land and the natural enviornment apart from the fact that these days they understand a lot more about the role of many plants, animals, insects, bacteria, fungi etc and their role in many things from preventing salinity and erosion, to which preditory insects to import/breed and are best suited for particular pests, to forage and cover crops for low cost soil nutrition, to importing/growing natural bacteria and fungi for better crop production.

In my experience some of the loudest extremist greenies are dependent on welfare, live in or close to cities depend on and use copious amounts of all the benifits of modern civilisation... and have little or no knowledge of what really goes on in a real farming enviornment, but jump up and down in a fit when they see someone culling a roo, flying fox and even introduced ferral camels, horses etc that play havic on the natural enviornment. 

The irony is, apart from their (Greenies) own sudsistance, when native animals get to plague proportions often from feeding on 'commercial' operations, they do similar damage to ferral animals ie, displace some other less populous native species and or otherwise degrade the 'natural' enviornment that they purport to protect.


----------



## Ageo (23 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I've been involved with LandCare for about 20 years and 'Sustainability' is the key word and phylosophy to adopt.
> 
> ...





Good post


----------



## bunyip (23 March 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I've been involved with LandCare for about 20 years and 'Sustainability' is the key word and phylosophy to adopt.
> 
> ...




An absolutely excellent post in every sense of the word!

Flying foxes are a good example of how native animals in plague proportions can degrade the environment and force out other native animals.

In some areas of Queensland flying foxes are in such numbers that they're killing the trees they roost in. I could name at least a dozen native animals that live in the same areas that flying foxes like to frequent. I can't imagine sugar gliders, for example, being able to live in the same trees that flying foxes camp in. If the foxes move in, the gliders would have no choice but to move out. And they wouldn't return if their trees had been killed by the foxes.


----------



## bunyip (29 March 2010)

*I'M PLEASED TO BE A FLYING FOX* (by Bunyip)


I'm pleased to be a flying fox
It's just the life for me
I plunder orchards all night long
And sleep by day in trees
My greenie friends protect me well
No harm to me will come
The bad old days are in the past
When farmers used their guns
They're not allowed to shoot us
They'd cop a hefty fine
They have to leave us bats alone
As on their crops we dine

We camp in groves of shady trees
In places of our choosing
We favour parks and playgrounds
And find it quite amusing
When people curse but let us stay
'Cos laws give us protection
Even though we're carriers
Of dangerous infections
If Hendra kills a child or two
It's no concern to us
Just like greenies - we don't care
We couldn't give a stuff

Our raids are sending farmers broke
We couldn't give a bugger
Nor could humans who don't think
The radical tree-huggers
They're friends to all us humble bats
They find us most appealing
Despite the damage that we cause
Our odour, noise and squealing

I'd hate to be a termite
Or mozzie, fly or mouse
Be squashed or sprayed or swatted when
I came near someone's house
The greenies wouldn't love me
I wouldn't appeal enough
Unless you're cute and cuddly
They couldn't give a stuff

I'm happy as a flying fox
Enjoy it while I can
I'll dine upon a smorgasbord
Each night - supplied by man
I'll camp in prime locations
In places most appealing
And if those humans rant and rave
I'll just ignore their squealing
I'm safe while greenies love me
They'll keep me free from harm
So I can foul up public parks
And keep on raiding farms


----------



## Sdajii (29 March 2010)

Wow! Nice work, Bunyip!


----------



## nioka (29 March 2010)

My daughter is currently working in the outback of the outback Northern Territory. She spends days off touring around from her base which is 350km south west of Darwin. That is the outback. Saturday she went to an area supposedly pristine national park and on the tourist guide as a must visit. All she found was what she described as millions of flying foxes and a stench that was unbelievable. She said there was a lot of traffic coming and going but no body stayed for more than a few minutes after a two hour drive to get there. She emailed a photo where the trees and bats look like a scene from a horror movie. 

I'm trying a new weapon for this war. I have been told that if you hang plastic bottles with a few holes drilled in the sides and with an inch of napthalene in the bottom near your fruit that it helps keep them away. (and its legal). Apparently something as stinking as a bat is odour sensitive.


----------



## bunyip (29 March 2010)

nioka said:


> My daughter is currently working in the outback of the outback Northern Territory. She spends days off touring around from her base which is 350km south west of Darwin. That is the outback. Saturday she went to an area supposedly pristine national park and on the tourist guide as a must visit. All she found was what she described as millions of flying foxes and a stench that was unbelievable. She said there was a lot of traffic coming and going but no body stayed for more than a few minutes after a two hour drive to get there. She emailed a photo where the trees and bats look like a scene from a horror movie.
> 
> I'm trying a new weapon for this war. I have been told that if you hang plastic bottles with a few holes drilled in the sides and with an inch of napthalene in the bottom near your fruit that it helps keep them away. (and its legal). Apparently something as stinking as a bat is odour sensitive.




Millions of flying foxes in a remote outback area, Nioka? Surely not!
Flying foxes are vulnerable to extinction....just ask any greenie!

Sinner told us in Post 39..... 
_They are only stuck where they are because you wanted your quarter acre with landscaped native garden and water feature and a nice view of the "naturescape" or whatever BS it is real estate agents are using these days.

Plague is rubbish. These animals are listed as vulnerable to extinction. _

And Chops told us in Post 30...
_I would bet that these areas that the fruit bats are in plague proportions are in areas that have been largely disrupted.

If you have areas that are high in food, but an intact system of habitats, I doubt you'd get the same problems._

Not that I particularly object to flying foxes living in national parks and wilderness areas. I mean, they play a useful role in nature and they have to live somewhere.
I'd much prefer to see them living out in the real bush, rather than in suburban areas where they pose a health hazard to humans, and foul up our parks and kid's playgrounds, and destroy fruit crops grown by farmers and backyard orchardists.


----------



## Iwashere (1 May 2010)

Hi Everyone,

I was just alerted to your forum and this topic in particular.  Haven't had time to read more than half the posts, but it is good to see so many people up in arms about the way the Government protect these disease carrying flying vermin.  

I thought I would bring to your attention a newly published website (2 weeks ago) which is just starting to expose the Queensland Governments overwhelming desire to keep Hendra virus Qld's best kept secret.   I think you will find some rather interesting reading on hendraawareness.com

Whilst I haven't read everyones post in here and there may not be many horse owners, everyone that shares the concerns of these flying vermin should read that website.  I would suggest you all support the petition and spread the word about it, the more signatures we can gather to express concern of the Govt treating this deadly virus with complete contempt for human life the better for everyone.    

Likewise if anyone knows of any petitions or action that has been started by the farming sector, please let me know I would be more than happy to spread the word and support them.  The more people up in arms and show of numbers then sooner or later the Govt will have to stop cow toeing to the Green vote and start taking action.   People power people!

Happy Reading  

www .    hendraawareness  .  com  
(without the spaces as I can't post the link and don't want to bog down threads with 5 pointless posts to do so)


----------



## bunyip (20 May 2010)

Another case of Hendra virus has been confirmed today on Queenslands Sunshine Coast. 
Since flying foxes are in huge numbers in that region, and are known carriers of the disease, it's reasonable to suspect the foxes of being linked to this latest Hendra outbreak.


----------



## bunyip (24 May 2010)

The latest town to be plagued by flying foxes is Gatton in Queensland.
Gatton is in the Lockyer Valley, about an hour west of Brisbane. The Lockyer Valley is known as 'the salad bowl' of QLD due to the extensive areas of vegetables and fruit grown there.
Hundreds of thousands of flying foxes are camped close to a residential area, and are getting closer all the time, according to residents who are understandably upset about having to live with the stench and noise of the pests.
A large Lucerne paddock is right beside the bats camping area. Lucerne is made into hay and chaff for horse feed - the equine industry is concerned about the prospect of further outbreaks of deadly Hendra virus on account of the bats polluting the Lucerne with their excrement.
Meanwhile, thanks to the ridiculous laws imposed by a government who bowed to the extreme views of a handful of brain-dead greenies, the foxes can't be culled or moved on. The locals just have to put up with the noise and smell and health risk, and farmers have to put up with having their crops raided.

It beggars belief that anyone could be so downright stupid as to give full protection to flying foxes.


----------



## Whiskers (25 May 2010)

Yeah, these latest outbreaks are a worry... worth remembering that the death rate from infection is running at higher than 50%... I think it's about 7 deaths from 13 infections.

I get a couple on my fruit trees when fruit is getting ripe. It's enough to put me off fruit, knowing those dams things have been chewing and probably piddling all over the fruit and surrounding tree and ground.


----------



## Happy (25 May 2010)

It all boils down to one thing: need for radical Government.

As common sense and political correctness don't seem to be able to coexist.


----------



## bunyip (25 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, these latest outbreaks are a worry... worth remembering that the death rate from infection is running at higher than 50%... I think it's about 7 deaths from 13 infections.
> 
> I get a couple on my fruit trees when fruit is getting ripe. It's enough to put me off fruit, knowing those dams things have been chewing and probably piddling all over the fruit and surrounding tree and ground.




I wouldn't be eating the fruit either, if flying foxes had been anywhere near my trees.

I get a few dozen of them in my garden in November when my Eucalyptus trees are in flower. The bats chatter and squabble all night long as they feed on the nectar in the blossoms. There's not enough of them to make a smell or trouble me with their noise. But they do concern me enough to make me avoid walking under the trees during the day, in case the bats have dropped any excrement from the night before.

Sooner or later there's bound to be a major outbreak of Hendra virus that kills quite a few people, rather than just the isolated outbreaks we've seen so far that kill an odd person here and there.
Maybe then the greenies and the government will wake up to themselves and start adopting a more responsible attitude towards the flying fox problem.


----------



## IFocus (25 May 2010)

Transmission

While Hendra virus does not appear to be very contagious, humans and horses are susceptible to the disease. All human infections have occurred following direct exposure to tissues and secretions from infected or dead horses. There is no evidence of human to human transmission.


http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid...s/ViralInfections/hendraVirusInfection_fs.asp


----------



## Whiskers (25 May 2010)

IFocus said:


> Transmission
> 
> While Hendra virus does not appear to be very contagious, humans and horses are susceptible to the disease. All human infections have occurred following direct exposure to tissues and secretions from infected or dead horses. There is no evidence of human to human transmission.
> 
> ...




I'm wondering whether it may be possible for humans to get the virus from saliva or excrement on fruit that bats have been on.

I haven't been able to find any definitive answer on that so far. There doesn't seem to be any conclusive research and I'm thinking that it's possible, given Qld Healths performance, that cases of flu and similar symptoms, without direct horse contact, may have been misdiagonised, even by a GP.

This from Australian Biosecurity also seems inconclusive and of concern that they say 1/4 of bats have the virus.



> ...it appears that direct contact between flying foxes
> and people is not a significant risk for human infection with the Hendra virus.
> 
> http://www1.abcrc.org.au/uploads/dc...62cbf7a055/docs/HotTopicHendraVirus260606.pdf


----------



## bunyip (25 May 2010)

In my area everyone lives on acreage, everyone has a horse or two, everyone has trees that are attractive to flying foxes, and the foxes are increasing in numbers every year.
The risk of contracting Hendra virus may not be high, but it's very real.


----------



## bunyip (27 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> I'm wondering whether it may be possible for humans to get the virus from saliva or excrement on fruit that bats have been on.




I'm wondering the same thing myself. I certainly wouldn't be eating any fruit from trees that I've seen flying foxes in. 

I was told yesterday that in NSW you can get a permit to shoot flying foxes, but you're only allowed to shoot six. I don't know if that's correct, but if it is, what a damn stupid law. I can just imagine some poor farmer copping hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to his crops, and only being allowed to shoot six foxes in an effort to move them on.

Pests like flying foxes and birds can be moved on if you keep sustained pressure on them. In Central Queensland we'd get mobs of five or six thousand brolgas eating our wheat crops and stomping them flat on the ground. It was illegal to shoot them but we shot hundreds of them anyway. We made no impression on their numbers, but after a week or so of getting the hell shot out of them and seeing their dead mates lying around the paddock, they usually went somewhere else.


----------



## bunyip (7 June 2010)

I was watching Landline on ABC TV yesterday. An farmer from Stanthorpe in QLD said he'd been forced out of fruit growing and into vegetable growing because fruit farming was no longer viable. He listed various reasons, one of them being that flying foxes had destroyed an estimated 55% of his last fruit crop.


----------



## Ageo (8 June 2010)

bunyip said:


> I was watching Landline on ABC TV yesterday. An farmer from Stanthorpe in QLD said he'd been forced out of fruit growing and into vegetable growing because fruit farming was no longer viable. He listed various reasons, one of them being that flying foxes had destroyed an estimated 55% of his last fruit crop.




But its a precious animal and didnt you hear they are on the verge of extinction??? How could you kill something so cute? there lives are just as important as ours.

 (greeny sarcasm voice switched off)


----------



## nioka (9 August 2010)

Which party at the next election will declare war on flying foxes.

I must remember to get one going for the next election. May just find enough people sich enough of these vermin to get a senate seat for the "Ban flying foxes" party to hold the balance of power.

The little 'Bs" are devastating my whole fruit crop despite efforts " on the brink of being illegal" to correct the problem. Lemons and limes are no problem to them. The sheer weight of numbers wreck the trees. I have never seen them this bad.


----------



## nioka (25 October 2010)

I have taken the next step in the battle to beat the vermin. There are a whole new range of dwarf fruit trees available now. I have planted dwarf peaches, nectarines, mango, avocardo, custard apple, persimmon, citrus and fig. These will be covered at fruiting time so that the little Bs will starve to death, looking in but not getting a feed.


----------



## nioka (27 July 2011)

With the news that a dog has now contracted the Hendra virus it is time to gather the troops and regain control over these rodents.

For anyone that wants to try out a remedy that appears to work. Try spraying napthalene around potential bat invasion sites. I have been using napthalene flakes in bottles (coke bottles with a few holes drilled in the sides) around the fruit trees. It seems to work to a degree. Worth a try.


----------



## Julia (27 July 2011)

That worked well for me with bats/birds/possums getting into my unripe passionfruit.

Bats around here are a huge problem when various neighbouring huge mango trees are fruiting.  Just nothing we can do about putting napthalene into these trees unfortunately.  
Campbell Newman is saying the bats should be moved away by whatever means works.
Go, Campbell.  Plenty of votes in this.


----------



## Sdajii (27 July 2011)

Maybe Bob Brown's puppet Julia can fund a breeding program to produce more fruit bats for release into the wild to repopulate the supposedly dwindling endangered population. All that fruit can be commandeered from our food production industry. Not like exporting it for sale was going to help the farmers or the economy, right?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 July 2011)

There is no simple answer to all this.

QVet are spooked about the results from the dog.

Bats assist pollination/flowering.

They are a pain in the ass.

Time to be guided by science, and let our neanderthal fears simmer.

gg


----------



## chrislp (28 July 2011)

Are you people serious about animals being problems?  






































The common philosophy doesn't seem too different from the guy from Norway.


----------



## Sdajii (28 July 2011)

Chris: Are you trying to make a statement along the lines of "Pollution is such a big problem, so why worry about an animal-related problem?"

If so, we can just say that any problem is too small to worry about as long as we can find a larger one. Crime? Pff, why worry about that when pollution is a problem? Stop wasting money on police. Diseases? Pff, stop wasting money on healthcare, pollution is a bigger problem. Let's just stop worrying about any issue at all until the pollution problem is solved.

It's a strangely common argument to say an issue isn't a problem if a larger problem can be found, but it makes no sense. Multiple priorities often need to be addressed.


----------



## nioka (28 July 2011)

chrislp said:


> Are you people serious about animals being problems?




Two wrongs dont make a right so I dont see the point you are trying to make. A dog bites someone it gets put down. Foxes are an imported pest, they get 1080. What makes a flying fox sacred. They are in plague proportions, they are not the only pollinator of native flora. Imported honey bees have taken over that roll and are productive to boot. War on flying foxes. Attack is the best method of defence.

Julia, Spraying a solution of napthalene will deter the beasts from mangos. Of course it only sends them somewhere else.


----------



## chrislp (28 July 2011)

My main point I guess is that these creatures are considered to be in plague proportions yet the images I posted show that the flying foxes are a small problem in comparison.

You both make fair points & my post wasn't entirely necessary.


----------



## Julia (28 July 2011)

chrislp said:


> My main point I guess is that these creatures are considered to be in plague proportions yet the images I posted show that the flying foxes are a small problem in comparison.
> 
> You both make fair points & my post wasn't entirely necessary.




Goodness, how unusual for anyone to actually concede such a thing.
Good for you, chrislp.  I wish more of us had the maturity to reconsider.

Nioka, I've obviously failed to convey the size of the mango trees and the fact that they are absolutely inaccessible to me.  They are very old and huge and every summer have massive crops of inedible, stringy mangoes which lie rotting everywhere and provide a nightlong feast for the screeching flying foxes every night for months.  I need a much more potent solution to the foxes.


----------



## macca (29 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Goodness, how unusual for anyone to actually concede such a thing.
> Good for you, chrislp.  I wish more of us had the maturity to reconsider.
> 
> Nioka, I've obviously failed to convey the size of the mango trees and the fact that they are absolutely inaccessible to me.  They are very old and huge and every summer have massive crops of inedible, stringy mangoes which lie rotting everywhere and provide a nightlong feast for the screeching flying foxes every night for months.  I need a much more potent solution to the foxes.




Hi Julia,

Perhaps a severe pruning of the tree might help it grow less quantity but more quality fruit. It may also lessen the number of bats per night if there are less fruit to fight over.


----------



## Julia (29 July 2011)

macca said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> Perhaps a severe pruning of the tree might help it grow less quantity but more quality fruit. It may also lessen the number of bats per night if there are less fruit to fight over.



 Well, perhaps it would, macca.  But - as I've already made (I thought) totally clear - they're not my trees to prune!  If they were mine, they'd have been totally removed a long time ago.


----------



## bunyip (26 June 2012)

Thanks goodness the new Queensland government has a more intelligent and responsible attitude towards problem wildlife than Bligh’s Labor government had. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-04/queensland-puts-flying-fox-cull-back-in-farmers-hands/3932598


----------



## Julia (3 September 2012)

Your opportunity to participate in a government survey on how the population feels about flying foxes.
http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/4790_22042.htm


----------



## bunyip (3 January 2013)

Yesterday I spoke to a couple whose house went completely under water during the Queensland floods two years ago. 

Now they have a new problem just as they’re starting to get back on their feet – namely that an estimated one million flying foxes have set up camp along the creek right beside their house. 
These people don’t have town water, only rain water collected from their roof, also bore water that’s unsuitable for drinking due to high mineral and salt content. They can no longer drink their rain water because their roof is showered daily by the excrement of the flying foxes. 
They haven’t yet rebuilt their sheds and carport that were washed away. Their car sits outside and the paint work has been destroyed by the excrement of the foxes, which is extremely corrosive to paint work. 

They can't sleep after 3am when the foxes return from their feeding grounds and spend the next 16 hours squealing and squabbling so loudly that sleep is impossible for anyone in close proximity.
The smell is appalling, and the risk of contracting a deadly infection from the bats is ever-present.

The bats are in such numbers that they're slowing destroying the trees along the creek by overloading the branches and snapping them off.

All in all it’s a bad situation that would have been even worse if the ALP government was still in power in QLD, with their ridiculous laws giving full protection to flying foxes, to the extent that people affected could not even take steps to move them on through noise or smoky fires lit under their trees.

The greenies who insist that flying foxes have more rights than people affected by them ought to try living under the conditions described above. Maybe then they’d come to their senses and realize that under certain conditions, measures need to be taken to deal with flying foxes and other problem wildlife.


----------

