I was not trying to conjure up poverty stricken farmers and families when I
wrote the passage that you quoted. Merely trying to make the point that there
are always two sides of a situation, and that all who get involved in this
"fight" should study both sides.
You talk about a glut of wine being produced; and not being informed about that
particular aspect of farming community, I was not aware of that. But, just
because the wine is being exported, does not mean that it is not part of the
farmer's livelihood. (again, I am not supporting the killing of these birds,
kind of playing devil's advocate). Stopping expansion is understandable, as I
know that fertile land is a very low commodity and the country doesn't want
to loose all of it's wild country to fruit production. But what do you say
regarding the farms/vin yards that already exist? Are they also to allow the
flocks to destroy these crops? Where would you put the line of defense?
And having farmed for a living, I know that this years glut can
be easily translated into next years drought/disease/Animal consumption.
By making people look at both sides of the situation, you get them to start to
generate ideas, such as BJ's, that are better answers for both the wild life and
the human population. If you just side on one or the other something somewhere
will eventually snap, whether it be the extinction of the species or the loss of
farm/vin yard by the humans.
Also, the problem with the flock/farm aggravation
is not specific to Southern Australia (Evem of the vin yards are). How do you
say to one farmer yes you can kill the native protected species, and tell
another that he may not? Is one protected species more precious than another?
O.K. to kill Galas but it's not O.K. to kill Rosellas.
That is what I was trying to get across. Not that we should continue to kill the
birds so the farmer could have a fat livelihood, nor that we should say the heck
with the farmers (whom if they are exporting product also fall into the catagory
of bring in outside revenue to the Government, which may be why they are
allowing the killing). Just that the situation be looked at with a balance. And
I believe that through out the thread it was recommended that the government be
approached about changing legislation, but not with an ultimatum, instead with
at least the glimmer of a solution.
Sorry if my comments were misconstrued.
> It's good that we should have a balanced view and try to see things from the
> farmers' point of view as well. The original question though was
> specifically about law changes in South Australia making it legal for vine
> and fruit growers to kill certain birds even though the birds remain
> protected species. Very odd to say the least. Some of the postings conjure
> up the image of a poverty-stricken subsistence farmer struggling to feed his
> family or perhaps his people.
> The image is compelling but incorrect. Even Australian sources say that
> there's too much wine being produced (Paul van der Lee, director of the
> Australian Wine and Brandy Corp.,
> http://www.winesandvines.com/frontpg_01_15_01_wineglut.html) partly due to a
> spectacular additional vine planting of 35,000 hectares in the last 4 years.
> Again, educated Australian sources say that the necessary clearance of
> native vegetation that this involves actually has a negative effect on
> agriculture (David C. Paton, Dept of Environmental Biology, University of
> Adelaide, http://www.ccsa.asn.au/esa/birdpop.htm).
> As a result, more wine is actually being made than the farmer's family or
> his country can consume so it has to be exported to priority targets in
> Britain, the United States,
> Germany and Switzerland with anticipated growth of 12 to 19% (Paul van der
> Lee again) but in Europe the EU already has a "wine lake" where according to
> Mitchell Beaseley (http://www.reedbooks.co.uk/docs/mitchell/wine/wine1.htm)
> people are producing more but drinking less.
> What it all amounts to is the needless killing of beautiful creatures just
> to swell the waters of a lake of surplus wine nobody wants to drink.
> The one good thing is that there are plenty of environmentally conscious
> Australians and this thing was started by an Australian newspaper. We should
> be supporting them any way we can.
> >Now having said this, I can easily put my feet in the shoes of the
> >farmers in
> >Australia. I grew up on a Fruit orchard, and you don't make a lot of
> >(and that is putting it mildly ....
Have you made your contribution to the PDD research fund this year, 2001?
We need your money to save all of our fids from this horrible disease.
This year's challenge hasn't started yet, but your responsibility to your
companion can still be addressed today.
Don't let complacency stand between your loving feathered companion and
a test/vaccine that could save their lives. Send your dollars today.