Parrot killings in Australia

Description of your first forum.

Parrot killings in Australia

Post by Stanley G. Kaminsk » Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:28:36




<snip>

Quote:
> They've always been here.  They always will be here (is the thinking).
The
> papers also if push came to shove (culling vs livlihood) are more likely
to
> side with the plight of the farmers, thus fanning the flame of apathy
toward
> the birds.

Unfortunately, the kind of mindset you refer to can have truly disastrous
results. According to the online Lexicon of Parrots

http://www.arndt-verlag.com

two parrot subspecies native to the USA (Louisiana Parakeet and Carolina
Conure) which ranged from The SE US to Wisconsin were last sighted in the
1920's. From the drawings they appeared to be beautiful birds and now
they're lost forever.

--
---Stash

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
 - Dan Quayle

 
 
 

Parrot killings in Australia

Post by David La » Tue, 06 Mar 2001 03:03:15


Hi Laurens,

I just got this info forwarded to me from a non-parrot-shooting
vineyard-owning friend in Australia. It shows that there are alternatives to
the slaughter and very viable ones at that:

Rather than shooting parrots which is both morally offensive and of dubious
effectiveness, one Australian grower has invested in netting his vines,
resulting in a net annual gain of $1,275 per acre
He is reaping as he has sown, is making a handsome profit and has provided
us with a detailed analysis of his figures.

Bruce's nets cost him about $2,250 per acre and are expected to have a
lifespan of ten years.

This means the cost per annum is $225 per acre but Bruce estimates bird
losses in 1998 were 50% i.e. $1,500 per acre. He grows Young Pinot Noir
vines which yield about 1.5 tonnes per acre and sell at $2,000 per tonne.

The nets are proving to be very effective so it can be assumed that losses
due to birds are now insignificant.

Bruce is therefore enjoying a gain of $1,275 ($1,500 minus $225) every year.

What's more, these figures do not include increasing yield as the vines
mature. Bruce's vineyard is now yielding 2.5 to 3 tonnes per acre.

Assuming only a static yield of 1.5 tonnes per acre and a constant 'bird
loss' of 50%, the cumulative benefits over the 10 years life of the netting
is per acre:

Year 01: Loss $750
Year 02: Gain $750
Year 03: Gain $2,250
Year 04: Gain $3,750
Year 05: Gain $5,250
Year 06: Gain $6,750
Year 07: Gain $8,250
Year 08: Gain $9,750
Year 09: Gain $11,250
Year 10: Gain $12,750

The question then is: why aren't more growers reaching for the Yellow Pages
to look for netting installers instead of their guns ?

Could it be, they can't do sums or do they just like killing ?

David

Quote:
>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.

>Laurens

 
 
 

Parrot killings in Australia

Post by Coffe » Thu, 08 Mar 2001 03:05:09


once when I wrote a letter to a couple of whineries, one of them replied
that they doubt any of them actually go around blatently killing birds. As
there are now better ways, such as sirens and such to ward off animals.

Coffee

 
 
 

Parrot killings in Australia

Post by Melissa Walke » Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:46:25


I got this from another ng and thought it fits in with this subject

The words 'vermin' & 'pest' are used often to describe  any creature that
is

Quote:
> capable of being a nuisance to us i.e.foxes for simply hunting for food ,
> pigeons for leaving there droppings on our buildings & carrying diseases.
We
> on the other hand pollute our seas repetitively with tons of crude oil
from
> tankers (as recently near the galapagos islands) which kills large amounts
> of marine life , we destroy rainforests and countryside which causes
> numerous species to be endangered. The result is these are then placed in
> zoo's to be captive bred in an alien environment where some, such as
panda's
> will not produce young. (thanks to mother nature). We then force them to
> produce young by artificial insemination and condemn there offspring to a
> life in captivity for the publics viewing.

> Also some of us humans happily keep the likes of parrots in a corner of
our
> living room with clipped wings to stop them flying, others keep rabbits in
> hutches not much bigger than the rabbit itself .We then hear them say how
> they love there pets!

> All the creatures of our world try to live as nature intended whereas we
are
> constantly finding ways to defy it and destroy the world we live in. To
come
> to the point bluntly the real vermin of our planet is our own species.

 Mel


- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> 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)

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> 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.

> Laurens

 
 
 

Parrot killings in Australia

Post by David La » Mon, 12 Mar 2001 20:14:52


Hi Adam,

Well you are quire right of course, we do all know live parrots are worth
more than dead ones.

To answer your question about whether all of the 45000 parrots were
protected ones, I believe the answer is a resounding Yes.  This can be
confirmed by looking up the discussions concerning the s51A Amendment of
National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972 which is the legislation that
specifically permited the unlicensed killing of the protected birds. Far
more 'unprotected' grade parrots are being killed elsewhere in Australia of
course, notably corellas and***atoos.

Hansard (Australia) refs.

Legislative Council July  5 2000
Legislative Council July 13 2000
Legislative Council Nov  29 2000

Search Hansard for yourself at:
www.parliament.sa.gov.au

As regards struggling farmers, there is at least one detailed cost-benefit
analysis of investment in netting by a vine grower in his vineyard:

Cost-effectiveness of netting:
Year 01: Loss $750
Year 02: Gain $750
Year 03: Gain $2,250
Year 04: Gain $3,750
Year 05: Gain $5,250
Year 06: Gain $6,750
Year 07: Gain $8,250
Year 08: Gain $9,750
Year 09: Gain $11,250
Year 10: Gain $12,750

You might want to take a trip to the web site of the Bird Care and
Conservation Society which is an Australian organisation:
http://www.moonsgarden.com/
very encouraging is the level of protest about the parrot slaughter that is
now growing in Australia itself.

I do not understand why a protected bird would be designated a protected one
if it was not endangered somehow. Why for instance, does a bird carer have
to buy a permit costing, I think A$40, to nurse an injured rainbow lorikeet
while someone else can shoot the same bird for free ?

Quote:

>Prove how many of the 45000 were actually protected?
>Adam Seidel