WIRES on a PR attack


Late Monday night past, WIRES posted a story about a joey on its facebook page. This joey was the victim of a shooter they report. The joey's mother was reportedly shot by unknown persons in early July but has only now made it on to their facebook page. This post came only hours after reformwires commented on the issue of feral control in National Parks. We think their post is a reaction to our criticism of WIRES over this issue.

The odd thing is, in spite of the fact that feral animals are a huge danger to native wildlife, and are responsible for multitudes more death and injury than is shooting, WIRES has not once (not ever) posted a single story on their facebook page about the horrific effects of feral animals. They have made multiple posts against feral control in National Parks in the last few weeks however on both their facebook and twitter sites. 

WIRES has been sticking the boot into the Minister for Environment and the Premier using the resources paid for by members and donors. It is well known in WIRES that Stan Wood, the former chair, is a staunch Labor man and a passionate anti-Liberal. Many of those he has groomed for power, who still rule the organisation, are of a similar mind. He still has considerable control of the levers behind the scenes.

WIRES has been using the full weight of its brand and donated money to make these attacks. One has to wonder if the donors were consulted about the use of the money they donated to care for sick animals prior to WIRES using the money to attack its political enemies.

Were the members consulted about this? There seems to be plenty of evidence that there is no consensus among the membership about the issue of feral control in National Parks. Contributors to rw.com have asked if WIRES is a political protest group or an animal rehabilitation group? Most people who join WIRES do so to rehabilitate native animals, not for political representation. How can WIRES justify the use of donated money, members' resources and the organisation's name for political activism against its enemies?


Effy Iffy
# Members/ Endangered species.Effy Iffy 2012-09-16 08:41
The S in WIRES is for Snake Oil.
If WIRES management continue to hide information and waste donors altruistic gifts and bequests there will be no F in Funds.
Just F in Fraud and Fake.
There is already no F in management or leadership. and at the present rate of resignations no F in Volunteers.
# Grave Robbers.Henri 2012-08-22 10:24
Wires employ staff with members money donors and government money.
The money is not used for wildlife care but to employ staff/security /investigators/wardens/ to denigrate and persecute separate and conquer members and volunteers.

I regard this as obtaining money buy deceit.
# RE: Grave Robbers.margaret 2012-08-22 19:34
The donors should be demanding an explanation. Hard earned money being wasted to hound its members. The money belongs to the members as it it donated to them but they have no say on how it is spent.
The man from TUBICRQ.
# Van 54 where are you?The man from TUBICRQ. 2012-08-22 10:15
I received a call to pick up a wires animals from a vet as nobody was available from wires. I rang a wires member and asked can they take it for me. The wires member said yes. Where is it . They said I’m going past there in half an hour. Being a very experienced wires member the comment came back why didn’t they ring me. They don't ring me anymore all the rescues are given to the new members and over loading them. Note: This member is devoted experienced and well known.
I called wires to ask them had they tried every body. When I said to them what about (named) I received a call back stating that there was nobody else to contact.
It looks like another willing wires horse being deliberately disillusioned.
next day.
Never the less the Quote:
personal contact is what this is about.
It is a pity that Hq have not come to recognise this. Recognise that wires is about people and animals not money money and bullshit.
The next day i ran into another member who stated that the new members were not staying and those who do are being overloaded while older members are being excluded.
# RE: Van 54 where are you?guest 2012-09-20 21:57
NOthing new here - same old, same old
Lorry Van Driver
# Wombat Van Driver.Lorry Van Driver 2012-08-19 21:59
While the van was picking up a Pymble Possum from the floor inside a home and able to be picked up and carried the ambulance was required for such a job. Are there no volunteers in Pymble who can pick up the animal and take it to the Vet. At the same time another Possum was sitting waiting for WIRES to find somebody to pick it up from a cage at a vets in another not quite so affluent suburb. The possum was, as circumstances are with vets, unavoidably yet altruistically held amongst dogs and cats all pining for a home and attention, like a mouse being tormented by a cat. It seems nothing has changed REF: Lorry van Driver 2010. In fact worse as volunteers are avoiding being contaminated by the stench of incompetence. I can only say ‘Well done Joanne. Well done Leanne and the board.’ As for possum no 2 it never got picked up and the vet referred it to another group who picked it up immediately. ( An ex WIRES member). The vet still has not heard from WIRES; ANOTHER BLACK HOLE? I would rather a volunteer pick up possum 1 and the van pick 2 possum even if it had to be driven around in the van until it recovered. As for Mr. Thompson and Inspector Poirot the board and the secretary MS NASTY B…. . Next time that you are waiting for an ambulance FOR YOURSELF OR LOVED ONES or a good Samaritan to come along with the benefits of a bequest to help you, think to yourself, what good is my 2.6 million dollars if nobody turns up. Maybe they have just knocked off for a bit of a PR chat to get some more money that will never help me if I don’t get into care. Or maybe the person who took your call thought it was unimportant or misunderstood or didn’t evoke enough details from you. Or is it as I know the volume of volunteers and the social communications have been dismantled; ‘Quote:
The warm lap replaced with the warm laptop”.
WIRES is ALLEGEDLY not for profit. I think not. WIRES is not for us. Not for animals . Not for the community ANYMORE. It is just a big fat over fed cat that can no longer catch a mouse or find it’s bum to lick and still it gets fed like Mr. Belvedere. It has become as obscene.

It is time for the Board to resign in shame and allow a more humane and altruistic group to bring it back to reality before it is too late. To bring it back to good Democratic Governance and Ideals with resolutions always as a priority in the interest of animals and Volunteers. Where members can concentrate on caring rather than fund raising to subsidise the fat cat that consumes more than its share and pays staff who were not qualified to begin with rather than utilise the skills of the volunteers who WANT to do the job because of their passion and commitment. There will still be problems but at least they can draw on their social structure for assistance, advice and encouragement and the donations can go to where the donor expects it to go. The first few minutes of starting a RICC course I realised my trainer and assigned buddy were my type of people. They are now cherished friends. None of us presently have respect for the Board or the manager. In fact they are openly referred to as "Those Bastards". Quote:
Members should know that when you resign you are asked to return WIRES property. What an insult when you have supplied everything yourself. Further you are not allowed a reference nor any details of your records. Further there is never a mention of WIRES animals that you still have in care.
They just overlook the animals and leave them with you despite the fact you no longer have the authority to care for them.
Some might call it disrespectful to call them Bastards but I feel sure that our management have never considered that outside of WIRES the collective of members can make life difficult for them instead of them making things difficult for us inside WIRES and Reformwires is an obvious example of that. Recent radio reports of rumours about WIRES (which are fact) is another example. However you look at the less than 2% spent on animal care is inexcusable. It is inexplicable and that is why we have no Annual Report. It cannot be spun out so it is withheld. Tell me I’m dreamin’. So much for your dose of Dexal and the boards aenema for the day.

My Mum is calling me. I have to go now and spend my 42 cents on a four quarter of mouse for the 3 kookaburras.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackApache 2012-08-14 03:47
I was just reading wires facebook post on 26 june that said
rally in barry ofarrells ku-ring-gai electorate to protest against the decision to allow volunteer hunting
i don't think ive heard anyone else refer to it as "volunteer hunting" before. usually they say "recreational"
i now understand why wires is against it because its VOLUNTEER hunting. wires hates volunteers no wonder theyre so agaisnt it.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackSaTAN WOOD 2012-08-14 08:52
thats odd cause Wires is so good at hunting volunteers!!!!!
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackguest 2012-08-14 16:18
And they are armed with private investigators, resignation demands, expulsion, censures, cloaks and daggers.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackguest 2012-08-15 23:42
dont forget bullying - they have a masters in bullying and board members are coached in the art. They have it down to a very fine degree. noone does it better than they do.
Claude Balls
# When I say DUCK! I don't mean duck.Claude Balls 2012-08-16 08:16
Dear Apache

You silly kid! 'Hunting Volunteers' has been exclusive to Wires management Elma Fudd and wires Board for years. They just don't want others to hunt them. Just keep poking holes in their [edit] they will have to start using their trigger fingers [edit]. I just keep seeing this picture of the board striped down to their g strings playing Vertical 'Twister' against the [edit] wall. I hope you are not having breakfast.
I might make up a big sign for the rally. any suggestions. IE 'Flack Jackets for Wires Volunteers' and a picture of Yosemity Sam with a big speech balloon saying Quote:
"When I say duck I mean DUCK."
Poor Daffy Duck. Now I know how he felt.

That's All folks.
# UPDATESpartacus 2012-08-03 10:26
WIRES has now linked its website to the official NOHuntingNP website where WIRES is the top listed supporter.

Also, WIRES facebook page has more stories of animals being shot - they seem to be trawling the news media for them - but still not one story about the devastating effects of introduced species.

WIRES is a political activist group and not a native animal rehabilitation group.
lorry Van Driver.
# Precious Pussy's.lorry Van Driver. 2012-08-07 07:35
If the Board of Wires were genuinely caring they would become political about the real threats. 'Cats in the Suburbs' our neighbours cat kills more birds and blue tongues than we rescue and release It's best effort is 5 in a week and they do not eat them.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackSpartacus 2012-07-25 16:27
I managed to stir the possum with this topic.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackdusty 2012-07-26 12:42
And yet, we have only opinion and not evidence that this legislation will have a net benefit to wildlife
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-26 12:55
NO WE HAVE FACT. Saying we have only opinion is your opinion. We do in fact have overwhelming scientific evidence that doing nothing and leaving it to NPWS will cause serious harm. Look up "Australian extinction crisis" and you'll see that introduced species are a significant factor in the projected demise of many mammal and bird species. They have been responsile for many extinctions in the past. The evidence is overwhelming. We can't gain evidence until its tested. WE ARE 100% SURE (SCIENTIFIC PROOF) THAT THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS ARE FAILING AND FERALS ARE A SERIOUS DANGER. So you are saying let the feral problem get worse until the world is a perfect utopia. The risks from hunters are minuscule compared to those from ferals, if you can't see that then your simply not being genuine.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-26 13:09
I'm not going to explain it again Dusty - I'm a bit tired of hearing my own voice.

Last point on science: you start with a hypothesis, a kind of best guess as to what will happen. You can't know for sure in advance what will happen. You can't have overwhelming proof until you test it. So arguing that until there is "evidence of net benefit" then there can be no testing of the hypothesis is circular and contradictory. You need one to get to the other.

Best evidence is that doing nothing will kill lots of native animals and allowing hunting might help but we won't know until we try.

If WIRES was serious it would know that. It is being political and anti-gun, not pro-wildlife. If they were pro-wildlife they would give anything a go that is likely to knock off ferals.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackdusty 2012-07-27 12:30
it appears you are only listening to your own voice Magnum PI; where have I said that ferals aren't a problem? I think it is reasonable to ask: where is the evidence of benefit of this particular legislation, and how is it to be monitored? Where have I said -do nothing?
over and out
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackOwlEyes 2012-08-01 10:22
Magnum, I have to thank you. And with no sarcasm. I'm sure my brother thankws you too.

You've swayed me. I was TOTALLY against Hunters in our NP's, but you're right - this is about the eradication of feral animals - and I don't see wires bringing up another way we could do it. Heavens forbid we're not allowed to have a gun license.

I know people who hunt, and no, they are not bad people. But I've seen so much damage caused by red-necks that it's so hard to say 'yes, some native animals will be killed, but it's for the greater good"

I hate the idea of more people out there with guns, being able to go and shoot animals that are nearly home (like that wombat, 100mts from his burrow, shot dead.)

I'm so damn conflicted now.

On a side note, did anyone see on the WIRES FB page where a MOP was asking for WIRES stance on relocating possums? Apparently a good friend of a board Member is saying WIRES advocates this..... three days after posting it no comment from WIRES...

Took printscreens if needed.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackLegalease 2012-07-25 10:11
Has anyone actually read the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Act 2012 No 52?

It amends several acts but primarily amends the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 No 64

It allows for the taking of only "non-indigenous animals" ie. ferals.

Many national Parks are excluded - Blue Mountains, Bouddi, Brisbane Water, Cattai, Dharawal, Dharug, Garigal, Georges River, Heathcote, Kamay Botany Bay, Ku-ring-gai Chase, Lane Cove, Marramarra, Popran, Royal, Scheyville, Sydney Harbour, Thirlmere Lakes, Wollemi, Yengo.

Many nature reserves and State Forests are also excluded.

Any wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act 1987 and all World Heritage listed sites are also excluded.

Dogs are not permitted in these areas under the Act. Hunting with dogs is therefore prohibited.

Release of feral animals for the purposes of hunting them or their descendents is prohibited.

In Section 6, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 [POCTA] is not to be affected in any way. POCTA has full affect.

A "restricted game hunting license" can only be used on designated public land at declared times. The land must be declared open for hunting and permission sought to hunt on that land in advance of entering the area. This means that everyone will know where and when hunting is to take place.

The Game Council will appoint inspectors which can include NPWS officers. The NSW Police have full power under the act and cannot be directed in any way by the Game Council.

This Act has been written specifically to target feral animals. It only allows for pre-approved restricted hunting in specific places at designated times.

On the face of it, this Act appears to support WIRES aims of reducing threats to native animals. The activity permitted under this Act may reduce the number of feral animals in these areas and for that reason you'd think WIRES might support it. The reason they do not support it is a cosmetic one centred around their desire to appeal to other interests, and perhaps personal prejudices of those within the organisation.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 08:10
I totally disagree with you "an eagle"

When I am forced to join this group in order to get an authority to rescue and care for native animals and forced to pay for the privilege I don't think they have any right to say they represent me and my views, which is what they do when they use their name to protest - I'm tarred with their brush. I didn't sign up for this. If it was my choice that would be different.
And it doesn't answer the substantive point of the article which is that they have a conflict of interest. This policy targets ferals and they know full well they are a major threat to wildlife. So why so adamantly against it? At best they should say anything that helps protect wildlife is worthwhile and we have nothing to say on the subject - we are a rescue group - you want this sort of thing then join PETA. I didn't join PETA!
White Ant
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackWhite Ant 2012-07-25 09:06
To solve a problem sometimes its good to work backwards.

By this I mean a large percentage of feral (no owners and not native) and domestic (owners and no responisbility) animals inflict harm on native habitat and native animals which then come into WIRES care.

Do we just keep caring for these animals without trying to fix the problem or do we become pro active instead of band-aiding.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 10:20
Exactly. This legislation is targeting feral animals! So why is WIRES against it?

You'd think removing them in the wild would be a start towards a good fix, rather than letting them attack natives and then take care of them. But WIRES wants to keep the ferals in the wild?
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackSkippy 2012-07-25 09:13
There is no real voice out there for native animals and this is where WIRES could step up to the plate.

Although the below groups will add native animals to there agenda they are mostly known for others reasons. For example:

PETA is animals in labs, abuse
Animals Australia - farm animals.
RSPCA - domestic/ farm animals
WSPA - Worldwide sancturaies
IFAW - Worldwide seal hunt and disasters
Voiceless - harvesting Kangaroos
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 10:27
Fine - but lets not forget that this legislation SPECIFICALLY FOCUSES ON FERAL ANIMALS. Ferals are a huge danger to wildlife so why is WIRES opposing the control of ferals?

I signed up to look after natives and help remove the problems that bring them into care - this act seems to go some way towards this.

Everyone seems to be getting confused about this. This legislation prohibits the killing of native animals! At the same time it reduces one of the biggest threats to them. I think everyone is being trendy anti-gun/anti-shooter. WIRES is not an anti-gun activist group, and if it is, it should say that and give its members the right to go to a group that does focus on native animals and their needs.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackSkippy 2012-07-25 12:13
This about the risk to native animals from being shot by mistake. When hunters go duck hunting they also shoot endangered ducks and other animala which dont look anything like what they are suppose to be shooting at. Weve all seen the photos of ducks injured and not killed so their is a welfare aspect that WIRES may be picking up the pieces when this happens.

Even though the Game Council claim feral animals will only be shot that in reality is not what happens.

Shooting is not very effective way of edradicating or reducing feral animals e.g Game Council claims on their website they "shoot 25,000 goats since 1992" thats in 20 years not really effective when they claim there are "2.6 millions goats" roaming around eating vegetation.

With all this who is going to police it not the 350 NPWS staff employees who are going to lose their jobs.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 12:42
What is the alternative? NPWS has had ages to do something about it and has done nothing. So maybe the sacking of 350 NPWS people will be a net sum gain.

You say 25,000 goats is not really effective. The shooters might argue that if they had better access they might do a better job of it.

Taking your argument WIRES might say it wants better oversight and compliance but that is not what they are saying. They are just against it. They don't like the idea of shooting period and even if it helps more natives than it hurts they are going to oppose it.

I'm just reminded of the Royal NP many yeas ago. Everyone was so concerned about removing the dear. I visited the Royal and it was wall to wall dear shit and not a single blade of grass. It was a wasteland. I couldn't see the problem in removing them. Years later I went back after the dear were gone and the place was transformed. Best thing that ever happened to the Royal.

The reality is that there are dickheads out there now shooting natives in National Parks and there is no control at all. You can't legislate crime away. You also don't have to punish and demonise everyone for the misdeeds of a few yahoos. If this was properly managed it could be part of a solution.

Again, how many animals come into WIRES care through ferals and how many from hunting? The proportion from ferals is massively higher and any deaths at the hands of idiots. One feral cat will kill more natives in one year than the average hunter would kill in a lifetime. With an equation like that I would be willing to work with the shooters.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackdusty 2012-07-25 12:53
It is important to remember that this legislation is a political decision, and not based on evidence that there will be a net benefit to wildlife. It would be interesting to know how this is going to be monitored and reviewed for harms/ benefits.
If WIRES inc has evidence that this legislation will result in net harm to wildlife then they are right to be protesting against it.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 13:04
Do they have that evidence? No - its all supposition.

As for the politics: the Game Council was created under Labor to sweeten an alliance with the Shooters party. The Libs are capitalising on the situation to spite the Greens and independents. What did you expect?

I don't really give a rats which party brought it in and who's side their on. I see native animals under threat, I see a way of helping remove that threat, if done right it could help them, and for that reason I'm willing to support it and work with it. I don't have political allegiances and I don't let personal biases come into the equation. I don't like shooting personally but it might help native animals so I'll work with anyone who might help out.
Family Man
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackFamily Man 2012-07-25 13:22
I know a few hunters and they are good people. They think of themselves as environmentally aware. They recycle and care about conservation. They hunt feral animals as a sport. Not one of them would shoot a native animal in a million years and they would be the first to report someone who did. They think of what they do as helping the Australian environment. I think Magnum PI is right to distinguish between law abiding shooters with morals and the criminal element who don't care. Not all shooters are bad people and stupid red necks who hate animals. Anyone who thinks like that is a pointless as the crazies who think everyone who cares about the environment or believes in global warming is a smelly hippy wearing a koala suit.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackdusty 2012-07-25 14:30
But is there evidence it will be beneficial either? I think the precautionary principle should be applied. I agree it doesn't matter which political party made the legislation, animals don't vote. However it still stands that it was a decision made for political reasosn not on sound evidence of value to native wildlife and I would like to see how it is to be reviewed and monitored
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 14:37
Look at WIRES own stats and just some common sense. Ferals are a greater threat than organised and regulated hunting. What do we do? Leave the ferals there? NPWS hasn't done anything about it. I'm sure a few natives will get killed or injured either deliberately by idiots or by accident but more ferals will go and every feral removed is hundreds or thousands of natives saved. Ferals are placing massive stress on natives right now. That is a precautionary principle - if we don't knock off these ferals then native animals will decline.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 15:00
And on the precautionary principle.

It is often misunderstood. The environmental movement has been widely reported to be the originator of it. It basically holds that if the evidence you have suggests a catastrophic outcome then it is wise to prepare for it until better evidence is available.

Many think it means imagining the worst possible outcome and acting as if it were real. Many believe this is what the environment movement was doing. In fact science had good evidence, although not conclusive evidence, that pollutants like DDT were a danger to reproduction and that carbon and particulate emissions were causing climatic change. The potential outcomes were catastrophic. That is the crux of it: there needs to be evidence that an outcome will be catastrophic, irreparable, before the precautionary principle is put to use. IS this the case in this instance? I don't think so.

The neo-cons used the same bastardised precautionary principle with the war on terror. They took very flimsy evidence, blew it out to extremes imagining the very worst case scenario based on no evidence, and then went about assuming it was true and scaring the living shit out of all of us.

The precautionary principle cannot be used in all circumstances. If it was to be used in this case my thesis would be that the dangers from hunting can be managed and any threats reversed; the dangers from doing nothing and leaving ferals to keep killing natives is an unmanageable situation and could very well reach a tipping point from which we cannot return (ie species extinction). In this case, the evidence would point to intervention as the prudent response.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackdusty 2012-07-25 22:22
Magnum PI I have often agreed with your comments in this forum; now I beg to differ, in fact we are in the same book; just not the same page.
where is the evidence this will be of benfit to the feral problem: if professoinal shooters are not the way to go why do we think this will work with amateurs? a 25000 goat cull in the face of 2.5 million, clearly hasn't been enough shooters to fix the problem. the point of this debate was WIRES right to wade into it? yes if they didnt have an agenda of their own to pursue, but we know that not the case. I think there are 2 arguments her; 1)the wires inc repsonse to this legislation and 2) our reasoned and polite discussion here
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackdusty 2012-07-25 22:24
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackMagnum P.I. 2012-07-25 23:51
Lifted straight from wikipedia - word for word perfect.

That is pretty much what I said; except I went a bit deeper. The confusion often has to do with the idea of "taking action". Deciding to do nothing is also taking action - the action is deciding not to act. Doing nothing can be harmful, as in this case, so deciding to do nothing places the burden of proof on those deciding to do nothing.

If you have two options where evidence suggests (although not conclusively) that both options might cause harm but that harm can be halted and/or reversed in both cases then you can take either. If one has likely no harm and the other a likely harm then you are best to err on the side of no harm until better evidence is available to make the assessment.

There is heaps of evidence that feral animals are a major threat to wildlife - have you forgotten your RICC training? The evidence is that shooters are a minimal threat - using your argument:
a 25000 goat cull in the face of 2.5 million, clearly hasn't been enough shooters to fix the problem
You're saying they have little effect so why then stop them if they might remove at least some of the pressure on native populations? I don't see the problem with letting them access feral populations and help reduce the numbers.

As someone already pointed out, the NPWS arranges for killing kangaroos and it is very effective - NPWS kills more natives every year than hunters I would guess. They have done lots of native animal killing and almost nothing about feral animal control in all these years. Maybe recreational hunters, with proper access, might be able to assist in the removal of ferals - why not try it? We have little to lose in doing it that can't be repaired and a lot to lose if we do nothing or leave it to NPWS.

Are you saying that controlled feral eradication in selected areas is a greater threat to wildlife than are the feral animals in that area? I think you are wrong on that.

In this case we have two alternatives: 1) Do nothing and know for sure that natives will be killed in numbers by ferals; 2) Let controlled shooting in and perhaps have a positive effect on the survival chances of the native population. 1 is a definite harm and potentially irreversible; 2 is a possible harm and (even using your argument) will have not an effect too great that it cannot be reversed. Precautionary principle would be to go for less harm - that's number 2.

On that line again:
a 25000 goat cull in the face of 2.5 million, clearly hasn't been enough shooters to fix the problem.
When has there been a concerted effort by NPWS to systematically cull these ferals? Point is they have let the problem get out of hand "2.5 million: and they don't have the money to fix it with "professoinal shooters". The problem is money and access. They can't afford to pay professionals to kill ferals (they can always fund native culls) and they have never allowed others, like sporting shooters, to take a shot at it (pardon my pun).

I still hold that we should try this out and work with this system to reduce feral numbers because on the evidence you quote everything done previously has failed to reduce ferals which are a real and serious threat.

WIReS is there to protect natives: they are being hypocrites. Ferals are a bigger danger than hunters (just go by the numbers of ferals vs. hunters and add up the hours of contact each has with wildlife)- it is bleeding bloody obvious. WIRES is there to do anything it can to assist the survival of natives. It should welcome this new approach, considering everything else has failed. It is, as usual, brainless and thoughtless and going with the crowd - it is more concerned with what others might think (especially donors next time they have their hand in their purse) than they are with what is potentially better for animals. At the least they should just abstain from the argument - not use the name and the donated money to protest an action that might have positive net outcomes and poses little risk.
an eagle
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackan eagle 2012-07-25 18:11
what is needed is an advocate for the wildlife. The animals are the pawns in all of these political games.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackGlider 2012-07-25 14:29
Nat Parks officers are screaming blue murder about their jobs and protesting shooting in parks yet they have no problem to organise for roos to be shot in massive numbers at the drop of a hat but can't organise to shoot off the ferals. They sound like hypocrites to me.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackguest 2012-07-30 21:51
Good point Glider and don't forget the culling licences for flying foxes and wombats too. OEH loves handing out culling licences for natives, they don't give it a second thought. There is no compliance as to how this culling is carried out or whether the conditions of the licence is adhered to. On the other hand OEH is keen to keep a very tight reign on wildlife carers and monitor their every move, dictating every aspect of what happens to an animal in care and how it is to be done. With paperwork to be kept on every aspect of what is being done with a native in care. Go figure???

As for WIRES, since when has it been a political organisation and who are these people to assume the views of their members who have not been consulted. Looks like more bullying tactics by the Board - pushing their views down other peoples throats.
# RE: WIRES on a PR attackchick-a-dee 2012-07-31 09:15
Yes guest agree don't forget the oiling of bird eggs which is a slow death of suffercation for the chick.

In regards to a political organisation all WIRES cares about is that their friends at NPWS may lose their job leaving them open to answer a lot of questions.
an eagle
# RE: OEH gets cut - will WIRES get clipped? (2)an eagle 2012-07-25 07:36
I am a member who believes WIRES should make a political stand against policies that are viewed as having a direct impact on wildlife or its volunteers and supported campaigns to protect flying foxes. I see the stand taken against the govt on this issue as having some backbone and that there is a need for all organisations dealing with animals to work together on such campaigns. The only failure I see is that the membership as a whole is not consulted for their views. So although a supporter for reform, disagree with rw on this one but, unlike the WIRES intranet discussion site, am confident my views will be put up here.
Magnum P.I.
# RE: OEH gets cut - will WIRES get clipped? (2)Magnum P.I. 2012-07-25 10:44
I want to take up the point about flying foxes.

WIRES should take a stand over the senseless killing of flying foxes, and it does, and it should be praised for it. Flying foxes are NATIVE - WIRES is there to advocate for NATIVES.

The feral animal control act kills off FERALS, not natives. Ferals that are a huge threat to natives.

They are really very different - one is a NATIVE the other a FERAL - and WIRES needs to realise that.
# RE: OEH gets cut - will WIRES get clipped? (2)Apache 2012-07-25 11:00
youre pushing shit up hill Magnum. No one is thinking. all they hear is "guns and parks" and off they go in hysterics. you make good logical sense but that won't help. you know if they really sat down and thought about it they's see youre right and their position is about e3motions and prejudices. actually they probably have figured that out and thats why theyre so anti.

Add comment


SUBSCRIBE TO UPDATES - This option has been deleted due to abuse. You now have no reason to leave an email address so that option is gone too.

Security code

Write the minister

NSW Environment Minister - Paul SpeakmansGive The Minister the message


Put them behind bars!

What is reformwires?


Additional information