Battle against wild dogs (dingoes) how appalling?!

You're right, there is nothing fair about a dingo hunting cattle, and since WE domesticated them, maybe WE as humans should take more care that they don't get hunted - killing more animals to protect the ones we plan on slaughtering later on to eat is not the answer.

All farmers care about is making money, it's the end of the story. The cheapest way for them to keep their cattle safe is to cull dingos, when you could probably look at more long term ways of keeping them safe like, I don't know. Building fences which will actually keep them out. (oh no but that would cost money!)

Cattle are not an animal which should be on our land, they destroy our creek beds, and our land, maybe the long term solution would be to remove them from Australia?

Oh no, but then we'd have to pay more for our meat either way!

Solution: don't eat meat.

Apart from picking on spelling typos and grammar mistakes, is there anything else to it?



Sometimes I wish humans had the same mentality about their own species as they do about their animals, lets just start culling off disabled people, old people, people who can't produce offspring, people who are a menace to society..... (the list goes on)

Good for you, as most people should be. But may I ask why you advocate the welfare of some animals and not others? Why care about Australian wildlife and then go eat a cow?
Do you believe fur is wrong but see nothing bad about leather? They're really not so different, and if you think that the majority of leather comes from the carasses of meat cows, you're living a fantasy.
Okay, this much I can understand. Although I would say that the "no reason apart from blood thirsty violence" is more that it is in their instincts to kill, and kill, and kill. Your statement makes it sound pre-meditated and done for pleasure. It humanizes the situation. These aren't human beings that we are talking about here, and there are other methods of control than killing. Desexing is one, albeit an expensive one. As is relocation, which, while not optimal, is preferrable to culling. Of course I am only one human being, I am only 17 years old and I am by far not the person best suited to the formulation of such solutions.
[/quote]
Woops, probably should have split this better. Answe to that one is above.
Do you believe the culling of cane toads is necessary? Other than the fact that cane toads don't kill livestock, the scenario is somewhat similar.
I can imagine that would be a horrible sight, and it is rather tragic. I understand also that it is upsetting to the farmer, but I find it extremely difficult to understand WHY the farmer would have no problem slaughtering the animal himself, yet would be upset if this was done by a wild dog.
Of course the dogs are not the victims here. The victims, as is so often the case, are the livestock. However I simply believe that culling creatures is very, VERY rarely necessary.

See, here's my case: In this particular situation, the only rights being considered are that of the farmer. The WELFARE of the livestock is also being considered, but not really their rights as living beings.
I am young, not as well informed as I would like to be, and certainly no expert on wild dogs. I cannot summon perfect answers: all I can do is fight with, yes, an awful lot of passion, for those equipped to make intelligent decisions to make their decisions as compassionate as they are effective.

I'll also add that I prefer debating with you than "sporading", who seems less concerned with the subject at hand and more with attempting to be superior and somewhat of a- forgive the childish term, but childish behaviour warrants childish terminology- bully.

Word. This is so true.

I'm somewhat curious as to what background / interests our two new members have in relation to this issue.  

Based on the article it seems that the main driver for culling these animals is purely to protect the economic interests of farmers.  To suggest compassion as a reason to cull these animals is quite absurd - the best way to ensure sheep / calves aren't being eaten by wild animals is to not have them somewhere that they don't belong in the first place.

The minimum criteria for culling in my opinion would be:
 - if the animal was introduced, and
 - if no other suitable alternative is viable (relocation, de-sexing), and
 - if appropriate consideration was given to the method of culling to ensure it was humane, and
 - either it was disrupting the native ecosystem, or culling the species will prevent future suffering of the animals (eg they would otherwise starve or resort to cannibilism)

I don't see this as having been met in this instance

I pity these trolls, what boring lives they must have if they seem to find it fun to come on Unleashed, a site for people who love Animals, and cause arguements and pick on people.

Well it is only quaint when the person admitting to a mistake doesn't allow someone else to make a mistake. For example:

While we are at it VU, why dont you point out all the punctuation errors besides my lack of using the apostrophe? Or arent you able to back up your accusation?

It would appear mistakes are below me as is humour for you. It takes more muscles to frown than smile..

How can you be so sure? What if a rare species of animal was threatened during the construction of the power plant. By using the electricity generated I would be supporting the trauma that the threatened species was undergoing. HOW CAN YOU BE SURE? Its upsetting to even think of that.

Just on top of R there is F on the QWERTY keyboard.. Perhaps a more general knowledge of english would have helped there at assuming something else. Oh well. Seeing as now mistakes are not below me, you could also try some humour?

"If you'll excuse a moment for being.." Oh dear.. the quaintness has returned.

Not at all. I implied that seeing as youre not perfect then perhaps you should not be too concerned with highlighting the imperfections of others who are not here to defend themselves.. Thats just graciousness and courteousness.

I can do what I want to as you are. You are passing judgement so by that action, you imply that the passing of judgement is allowable or do you have different rules for different people?

You live in a society, as we all do, that greatly impacts on the environment and all creatures, human or not. No matter what you do, however little or big, you still contribute and create demand for the stress that human society places on the environment and its resources.

You can justify you daily attempts at learning more and doing more but the simple fact and challenge remains.. if you cared so much about animal welfare, why are you a part of a society that causes stress on them. All the energy, food, and habitation you utilise has somehow been acquired with some level of imposition on the environment and its surrounding ecosystems.

Science backs that up. How exactly are you the opposite of a farmer? Because you are on a forum deriding people? Because you buy food which is packaged with organic labels and certified this or that?

Haha. If you expect people to not "..assume everyone is doing the best they can..", then take a page out of your own manual. You live in a capitalistic society.. unless you barter with goods and services, the money you use comes at the cost of contributing to the aforementioned society.

Strengthen your point? Is your point about grammar? Umm...

Well I am glad that you notice my attempt to appear the less ignorant as I naively thought coming down to your level would assist you in your quest for knowledge, however, all that can be deduced is that you have a problem with animals being killed.

No matter what the science dictates, when it comes to an animal being killed your fundamentalist approach is limiting. Life is not black and white, because of humans and the things we do. You patronise people because you dont believe in their actions and are in fact worse of for it, because you deny yourself the opportunity to learn from other peoples mistakes and provide them with an alternative.

With rights come responsibilities, though perhaps no adult that surrounds you has taught you that concept and basic social normality. So to mention rights, without responsibility, automatically reduces its seriousness because its not in balance. No animals has "rights" without it accepting its "responsibilities".

Welfare on the other hand is a complex science that factors in a variety of inputs. Science lacks emotion, though the people that carry out science can provide some emotion.

As the saying goes, those who dont laugh at themselves let other people do it for them, and VU theyre all laughing because in the real world, "wild" dogs get killed and instead of the topic coming to a greater light to encourage the dogs to be killed in an efficient matter, because of your ranting it gets pushed behind "closed doors", where those type of people you mention, who dont give a "f**k", get the job of doing the killing. Do you think theyll ever enter into a conversation like I am?

Remeber VU, the devil you know is far better then the devil you dont. Just remember that over the next 10 years when life experience increases your awareness.

these things never go anywhere.
I'd much rather keep the message simple.

The problem is we often stick up for bees but not other insects culled for plant production, we often ignore pest control for plant production but condemn pest control for animal agriculture, we often ignore the huge environmental damage caused by international "pure vegan" products while condemning local non vegan products which cause less enviro harm.

Keeping a chicken in a filthy shoebox sized cage is clearly indefensible. That's the type of thing i like to focus on.

Complex problems always bring complex considerations and solutions.

Well said Aaron, noone can disagree with that insight. Very poetic. Its achievable because its simple.

(Hint: just watch your typing, otherwise you will feel the wrath of the grammar nazi)

Hi sporadic

I'm going to ignore the entire first half of your latest post because it really adds nothing to this topic.  You actually make intelligent posts and even if I don't agree with a great deal of what you say, I find it strange that you bother to spend your time here achieving nothing at all.  In my experience, people who argue purely for the sake of arguing are somewhat arrogant and probably shouldn't spend so much time on internet forums (while that is an implied attack at you, I really don't know who you are or what you do in real life so unless you take offense to this I'd suggest ignoring it)

Not killing the rare species of animal would be the more ethical choice, even if it isn't the most practical one.  This hypothetical scenario is quite off topic and rather useless.  I'll save everyone the time of continuing it and extrapolate how it will go

my point - playing "what if" all day is quite useless.  I suspect your use of capital letters may imply that you were actually asking this sarcastically, in which case that was lost in translation


No one suggested otherwise - it's the extent of our impact that we have control over.  

Simply by existing and being raised in a modern society and using the infrastructure which has been built, we start our lives in deficit in terms of the destruction of nature and use of (often non-renewable) resources.  Are you implying that it's impossible to go on to create change for the better?

If everyone who had an interest in environmental conservation / ethical (or abolition of) animal treatment came to the conclusion that by merely existing they were doing more damage than good and checked out, then the whole planet would turn to crap pretty quickly

^^ I actually agree with you on this...

...but then you went and lost any respect I had for your ability to put forwards intelligent arguments when you decided that using someones age against them in an online conversation would somehow work to your benefit.  To even be in a position where you feel the need to do that in the first place shows more about you than it makes an impact as a lame attempt to belittle someone else.  That's okay though, it's a rookie mistake you'll learn from in time... you hang on to that pointer real tight for next time, kiddo - that one's free of charge

Yes, science does add value to welfare discussions.  If you're implying that inputs which are driven largely by emotion add no value what-so-ever to welfare considerations (apologies if you're not - but it seems you are) then I'd disagree.  On the contrary, those who look at a problem entirely from the perspective of the recipient of said welfare will often promote the best possible outcome for the animal and thus improve welfare conditions by providing the highest possible target.  Yes, often a compromised outcome is reached, but at the end of the day the interests of the animal will most likely benefit

As you said though, in the real world it's a complex science that needs to consider multiple populations of competing species.  In this particular instance though (this seems to be getting more theological and less about the original post!) when you strip away all of the "welfare" arguments, the competing population here seems to be the economy of modern farming.  If you remove this entirely from the equation I'd be interested to see how willing the Government would be to chip in $8.8m.  History generally shows when the interests of man are pitted against the interest of animals... and man has a decision to make on how to proceed... the decision makers tend to favour the interests of man purely for economic reasons, and THAT is what you'll find most people here disagree with.

It's all good and well to cite welfare in this but really - what are YOU'RE interests in this?  Unless you actually enjoy spending your time in online debates... "arguing on the internet is like competing..." (oh, the irony of me saying that)

Good point.  The way these issues come to light in the community (apart from mainstream media) are by people similar to us becoming aware of them, taking an interest, and raising public awareness.  Sure, many other people (particularly those who lose "their" "stock") would consider wild dogs to be a pest, but perhaps others won't.

That said, comments by Mitch and yourself seem to be the biggest instigators in this "ranting".  This entire conversation hasn't added any value as neither side will convince the other side of changing their mind.  Heck, I didn't even add value by this post because everything I would have said has been previous put forwards by others.  So I don't really see the point of continuing this any further (again with the irony!)

Anyway I'm off to discuss this atrocity with the other members of my commune, maybe weave a sign to put up by the river in protest and even write a song of the toils these wild dogs face, so I bid you adieu

We wouldn't have a problem with dogs breeding with dingos if dog owners desexed their animals?