IS THIS TRUE?

[Loving my Oldies]

I can hardly type these words.  The horror, if it is true, is unbearable.  

 

I have seen reports from many and varied media outlets that the Victorian Government authorised the shooting from helicopters of Koalas in the Budj Bim National Park, citing they were in danger of starving because of recent bush fires.  The reports say approx 750 Koalas have been killed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:26 AM by Loving my Oldies

[tdierikx]

Sadly... yes it's true.

 

T.

[persephone]

yes, true. 
From The Guardian 
 

Deakin University associate prof Desley Whisson, a wildlife ecologist who specialises in koala management, thinks it was a “merciful, compassionate response” in the circumstances, and one made despite the repercussions.

“It’s political suicide,” she says. “It would have just been easier for them to walk away and not do anything.”

“This is quite a drastic response,” she says.” But if you’ve got helicopters flying over an area and you see hundreds of koalas that are burnt, or covered in fire retardant, or otherwise showing signs of distress, I think you would want to make a decision to put them out of their misery.”

 

Palma says while the organisation would not like to see aerial killing of wildlife become the norm, euthanasia should be carried out using the approach that causes the least stress to the animal, as humanely as possible, and always be scrutinised.

---

Is aerial culling accurate?

Todd says koalas were euthanised only after being individually assessed first, often at less than 30 metres, supported by use of binoculars and other optical aids.

 

He says an initial aerial trial – supported by a ground-based veterinary assessment – demonstrated that aerial shooting was both accurate and humane. According to Todd, a wildlife vet’s assessment during the trial showed that “all koalas assessed and euthanised by the aerial team during the trial were in very poor health and would have continued to suffer in a deteriorating state of welfare if they had remained alive”.

[sandgrubber]

Death by starvation may be worse.

How many animals we loose to unceasing growth

[_PL_]

To my understanding, they would not have starved to death if allowed access to the plantation nearby.

It's poor management and for goodness sake ... the carry-on over that nitwit who picked up a wombat for tiktok .... but we're shooting our koalas instead of better environmental planning. 

[Loving my Oldies]

4 hours ago, _PL_ said:

To my understanding, they would not have starved to death if allowed access to the plantation nearby.

It's poor management and for goodness sake ... the carry-on over that nitwit who picked up a wombat for tiktok .... but we're shooting our koalas instead of better environmental planning. 

I couldn't agree with you more.  Poor management is being kind to them.  All they needed to do was to get the rescue groups involved and who knows how many could have been saved.  Rescue groups are hugely experienced and would know how to triage and humanely euthanise those who did not stand a chance.  

 

I really and truly sickens me how people talk about a "humane approach" when what they really mean is that it's too hard, let's just shoot them all.  

 

Although it is a long time ago, this reminds me of an incident when I was volunteering at Sydney Dogs and Cats Home.  There was an outbreak of cat flu and the manager of the Home couldn't be bothered to try to manage the situation and said to have all the cats killed.  The lady who was in charge of the cats came into the office where I was, obviously in huge distress, and gasped out to me, "They are killing my cats."  Luckily before the wholesale slaughter of the cats could take place, the owner of the veterinary hospital to which the Home was attached took charge and put in isolation practices and dealt with the outbreak.  

 

Some people are not suited to manage difficult situations and it would seem that people in Victoria are certainly in that category.   

 

As for that ridiculous person who was so pilloried on social media, well I agree what she did was totally stupid, but why isn't this horrible horrible event all over social media?

 

How anyone could contract for a job that involved sitting in a helicopter and shooting little animals is beyond my comprehension.  And assessed at 30 metres!!!  FFS!!!!   I would be hard pressed to tell a Koala from a Pademelon at 30 metres let alone whether it was in extremis or not.  

Edited Thursday at 09:28 AM by Loving my Oldies

[tdierikx]

9 hours ago, Loving my Oldies said:

I would be hard pressed to tell a Koala from a Pademelon at 30 metres let alone whether it was in extremis or not.

 

Ummm... pademelons aren't generally found high up in trees. (tongue in cheek comment there)

 

What isn't really being mentioned is how much foliage was (or wasn't) on the trees that the koalas were spotted and shot in. If they were all virtually leaf free, then I suppose spotting koalas in them would be easier than usual. That said, triaging from a moving platform at a range of 30 metres or more via binoculars would still be an impossible task, don't you think? Also, if the fire damage in the area was so extensive as to render the trees leafless, then it also stands to reason that undergrowth would also have been removed by said fires too... which should have made on foot incursions to the area less onerous than when the area was in full vegetation, yes? So I'm calling bullsh!t on the supposed reason for deciding on aerial culling as being "too hard" to get to on foot. Pretty sure there were at least dozens, if not hundreds, of wildlife rescuers completely willing to trek in there and do the job with less totally lethal outcomes for at least some of the animals that ended up being killed - and those that did need to be euthanised would have been given some dignity in their deaths.

 

T.

[Little Gifts]

Lets not forget that had they brought in suitable skilled rescuers they likely wouldn't have paid them a penny to do days of heartbreaking work to triage, save, euthanise, rehabilitate or relocate any of the koalas, so cost was not a factor in their decision. Probably what was was outsiders seeing the reality of what had happened and how many koalas were harmed and lost.

 

Decisions weren't made about the koalas - they were made to suit the humans, as usual.

[asal]

The photos I saw on the brumby page were koalas in a commercially planted gum plantation being clear felled with no effort to remove them first.

My grandfather 's business in 1940's was felling for timber and firewood. He NEVER cut a tree with a koala in it. No one was allowed to harm a koala

Tragic isn't the same now!

Edited 22 hours ago by asal