Flying Fox Wars

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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;

Click to expand...

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

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!

Click to expand...

LOL. Great call.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Errrr ahhhh hypocrisy ehem ehem...

WaveSurfer said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Yes it is

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

bunyip said:

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

Click to expand...

(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.

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.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, apologize for the comment

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.

Click to expand...

Well said.

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;

Click to expand...

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.

IFocus said:

Fair enough, apologize for the comment

Click to expand...

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!

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.

Ageo said:

Sustainable harvesting/culling.

Click to expand...

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.

Whiskers said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good post

Whiskers said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Wow! Nice work, Bunyip!