Horses and heritage

[davidmorr]

I suspect the majority of the people who want to preserve the feral horses have never actually been near one. Perhaps they have seen one from a car, or watched the film.

[Lophophaps]

Zingiberaceae, well said. Science can only go so far; emotions and deeply held convictions will influence views. Fact is the feral horses are often beautiful to behold, and garner sympathy due to this. Pandas and tigers are cute, let's save them, much appeal. The lesser known alpine earthworm is crucial to water quality quantity and timing. Unfortunately the LKAEW has a dreadful look, no appeal. This is why there's a lot more science on life-forms that have a good look, sort of peer-reviewed paparazzi. For information, the LKAEW has never been seen.

One of the first things we can do is give them a better name - feral horses. The word "feral" has a negative aspect, and avoids the word "brumby" which is fixed in many minds in quite another way.

[GBW]

What about this little guy...cuter than any feral horse I've ever seen!


Corroboree Frogs are threatened by feral horses

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/0 ... ecosystem/

[Xplora]

GBW - I would do the cull myself to save that guy alone. Lops is spot on with the name feral. I use is more and more but it will be hard for most horse lovers to call them that. We have many horsey friends who stay or camp with us and ride the High Plains so it is a good chance to give them some education on the matter. Once they see them for what they really are their attitude does change. I think it helps that another horse person is telling them. A while back I was talking to a Parks Vic officer who was conducting a count of feral horses in the Alpine NP. We ran into her several times on our walks and on the last occasion she was handing over to a new girl as she had taken a job with VicForest. The new girl was in awe of the 'brumbies' and said she wanted one herself. I think she even mentioned the Silver Brumby. I was a bit blunt and said I could not understand why anyone would want one of these disease ridden, inbred ferals and she quietly retreated. A few months back I was at a meeting with VicForests and ran into the former Parks officer and we had a good laugh about it. She told me the new girl had smartened up a bit and changed her thinking considerably. Perhaps we should start with pics like the one above and change people's emotive thinking.

[Lophophaps]

ABC tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-02/h ... es/7679874

[Xplora]

This story is a little imbalanced but it does mention briefly the damage the horses do. I also noted it would be cruel to put one of the horsemen pictured on a horse. Nev Barass probably should lose some weight unless he rides a really big horse. That Mick Flannagan is not a little bloke either. I doubt an inbred feral horse would be able to support their weight for long without causing permanent injury. Weight restrictions are now being applied to horse hire places because of the damage done to horses backs. I suppose, according to these bleeding hearts, it is cruel to shoot them but not cruel to torture. Again their argument rest entirely on the romantic notions of story books. I am a little ashamed to call myself a horseman although I have been for over 40 years. Rest assured their opinion is not held by all in the equestrian community.

[Giddy_up]

(Clears throat).........sorry to hijack the thread a little but I'm really curious!. Xplora could you tell me what the safe working limit (SFL) of a horse is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Giddy_up]

(Clears throat).........sorry to hijack the thread a little but I'm really curious!. Xplora could you tell me what the safe working limit (SFL) of a horse is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit: should read SWL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[puredingo]

Whatever it is the Duke must of been testing the outa limits by his career end.

[Lophophaps]

There's also a Wild horse article in Bushwalk Australia, towards the top right of this website.

[Xplora]

(Clears throat).........sorry to hijack the thread a little but I'm really curious!. Xplora could you tell me what the safe working limit (SFL) of a horse is?

Maybe this article sums it up best http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2013/04/01/t ... z4GIWNVESR
In summary up to 20% of the horse's body weight is considered reasonable. That includes all tack but other factors such as age and general condition (muscle), condition of the hoof, the riders own ability to balance and the terrain the horse will be ridden over are factors which could reduce the percentage. Horse breed is also a factor to a small extent but the amount of time you spend on its back is very important. It is not a topic easily mentioned in horse circles. At the moment it is a bit of a rubbery line bu maybe one day there will be some clearer guidelines to prevent obvious cruelty.

[Giddy_up]

Hmmm, NZ research and 3 years old. My next question to you is why you thought it was acceptable to call out and name two gentlemen who appeared on ABC on Bushwalk. You choose to attack their BMI rather than their position on Brumbies in the high country, little wonder this issue is so difficult to resolve. Just a few clicks away on this forum is person who was emotionally challenged by a "look" at camp in the very same high country and this thread has been very busy with strong opinion, yet here we have the double standard being presented for all to see. Which part of Mick Flannagan's or Nev Barass's position don't you support on Brumbies, the men part or the fat part?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slparker]

Hmmm, NZ research and 3 years old. My next question to you is why you thought it was acceptable to call out and name two gentlemen who appeared on ABC on Bushwalk. You choose to attack their BMI rather than their position on Brumbies in the high country, little wonder this issue is so difficult to resolve. Just a few clicks away on this forum is person who was emotionally challenged by a "look" at camp in the very same high country and this thread has been very busy with strong opinion, yet here we have the double standard being presented for all to see. Which part of Mick Flannagan's or Nev Barass's position don't you support on Brumbies, the men part or the fat part?

This is on the internet and so must be true:
http://www.horsesciencenews.com/horseba ... -carry.php


Either way, it is probably safe to assume that any horse would suffer some kind of pain or chronic condition with any significant weight placed upon their back. Horses have evolved to carry the weight of their organs suspended from their shoulder and hip girdle and carried by their spinal column. Placing a significant load on the back is sure to cause stressors on the spine.A quick lit search of the veterinary literature (I am not a vet) shows the correlation between horse musculoskeletal health and the presence of a rider (let alone the additive effect of jumping etc.)

Sure, we have bred horses to be stronger through the thorax and abdomen but unless you are a horse you probably don't know what it is like to carry a 120kg bloke and all that tack on your back. hell, probably.

I think readers on this site are right to question the effect of horse riding on the environment and on the horse.

That horse riders themselves seem oblivious to these effects tells of the confirmation bias in the riding community whom, if they gave a *&%$#! about the welfare of both wild and domestic horses, would view their own practices with a more critical eye.

[Giddy_up]

Hmmm, NZ research and 3 years old. My next question to you is why you thought it was acceptable to call out and name two gentlemen who appeared on ABC on Bushwalk. You choose to attack their BMI rather than their position on Brumbies in the high country, little wonder this issue is so difficult to resolve. Just a few clicks away on this forum is person who was emotionally challenged by a "look" at camp in the very same high country and this thread has been very busy with strong opinion, yet here we have the double standard being presented for all to see. Which part of Mick Flannagan's or Nev Barass's position don't you support on Brumbies, the men part or the fat part?

This is on the internet and so must be true:
http://www.horsesciencenews.com/horseba ... -carry.php


Either way, it is probably safe to assume that any horse would suffer some kind of pain or chronic condition with any significant weight placed upon their back. Horses have evolved to carry the weight of their organs suspended from their shoulder and hip girdle and carried by their spinal column. Placing a significant load on the back is sure to cause stressors on the spine.A quick lit search of the veterinary literature (I am not a vet) shows the correlation between horse musculoskeletal health and the presence of a rider (let alone the additive effect of jumping etc.)

Sure, we have bred horses to be stronger through the thorax and abdomen but unless you are a horse you probably don't know what it is like to carry a 120kg bloke and all that tack on your back. hell, probably.

I think readers on this site are right to question the effect of horse riding on the environment and on the horse.

That horse riders themselves seem oblivious to these effects tells of the confirmation bias in the riding community whom, if they gave a *&%$#! about the welfare of both wild and domestic horses, would view their own practices with a more critical eye.

Not the point of my post slparker, at no time in that post does the poster make reference to the issue, that being Brumbies in national parks. All the poster does is attack the persons appearance!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slparker]

The comments at first appearance appear to be ad hominem, yes. but questioning the riders' capacity to realise their effects on riding one of their own horses lends less credibility for any of their arguments on horse welfare.

Mr Barass states: '"So they do get rid of a few and their first option is to adopt. Unfortunately if they don't adopt they are sent off to the knackery, which breaks your heart, as a horse person," he said.'

So he is heart is broken that NPWS wants to cull a feral animal from a national park yet he is sanguine about subjecting a horse to his 100+ kg? And you wonder why his arguments have little credibility beyond emotive appeals to 'the silver brumby' and so forth? Particularly as Mr Barass also has an economic interest in harvesting brumbies for his project.



Now you are right to point out that Mr barass's BMI does not effect the credibility of his arguments towards environmental degradation but the people who ought to be heard in any debate over environmental degradation are those who are experts on the matter - not people with vested interests. There have been sufficient studies done in the high country to state authoritatively that horses impact negatively on alpine environments.

the gentlemen in question ought to be consulted for any questions on horse riders' beliefs, opinions or wishes about the high country from the perspective of a rider but i would not regard their opinions on the environment or horse welfare with any more credibility than the coal industry's opinion on global warming.

[Giddy_up]

Now you are right to point out that Mr barass's BMI does not effect the credibility of his arguments towards environmental degradation but the people who ought to be heard in any debate over environmental degradation are those who are experts on the matter - not people with vested interests.

So your belief is that no other person with vested interest or a stake holders opinion should be heard and matter on a topic of environmental degradation. Wow!!!! That flies in the face of due process, public submissions and our constitution.

All people and Govt agencies have their own vested interest, how do you propose that all respective parties put forward their views or are we all to sit back and listen to the wisdom of a youthful doctorate holder and apply that because they are deemed "expert".

Also please don't make any assumptions based on my mom de plume, it will surely lead you in the wrong direction on this topic.

Back to my original question, what right does someone have to shift focus from an issue to a persons weight, it's divisive at best and serves no purpose in this debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slparker]

So your belief is that no other person with vested interest or a stake holders opinion should be heard and matter on a topic of environmental degradation. Wow!!!! That flies in the face of due process, public submissions and our constitution.

That's not what I wrote. I implied that their views are biased and are not reliable. The accuracy of their views on environmental degredation are of the same worth of my views on astrophysics. i have strongly held opinions on astrophysics but as I am not an astrophysicist you would be unwise to base policy upon my opinions.

All people and Govt agencies have their own vested interest, how do you propose that all respective parties put forward their views or are we all to sit back and listen to the wisdom of a youthful doctorate holder and apply that because they are deemed "expert".

I would say that the body of scientific evidence on environmental degradation ought to be examined in light of the quality of the research; not on the youthfulness, or otherwise, of the research team. You also confuse evidence with policy. yes policy makers have bias but scientific evidence, whilst not totally free from bias, is more likely to be an objective truth than one person with an axe to grind or a politician attempting to curry votes.
I would also state that the professional opinions of experts in the field, notwithstanding any bias that they might have, is a more useful contribution to policy than the opinions of one person with both a pecuniary and ideological interest. In the same way I would prefer to get an oncologists's opinion if I had cancer than an astrophycisist's - who might be very smart and well intentioned and had seen cancer in his family a number of times, but has no credentials in the field . It is a fallacy to state that because all people have a right to be heard in a debate, that all people have equal credibility in a debate. read this if you don't believe me:

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-no ... inion-9978

Also please don't make any assumptions based on my mom de plume, it will surely lead you in the wrong direction on this topic.

I never made any assumptions based upon your nom de plume but I'll take that information into account if I feel like making an assumption.

Back to my original question, what right does someone have to shift focus from an issue to a persons weight, it's divisive at best and serves no purpose in this debate.

You mean the same way that you expressed doubt upon scientific research based on the youthfulness of doctorate researchers?

Anyway, did you not read my post? It casts doubt upon these gentleman's views on equine welfare if they willingly subject a horse to bearing their excessive weight - which appears contrary to equine welfare - in effect it exposes their hypocrisy. Would you ask a greyhound breeder to comment authoritatively on canine welfare policy? I think that the views of those with vested ideological and pecuniary interests in equine policy ought to be considered with their established biases in mind.

[Giddy_up]

So your belief is that no other person with vested interest or a stake holders opinion should be heard and matter on a topic of environmental degradation. Wow!!!! That flies in the face of due process, public submissions and our constitution.

That's not what I wrote. I implied that their views are biased and are not reliable. The accuracy of their views on environmental degredation are of the same worth of my views on astrophysics. i have strongly held opinions on astrophysics but as I am not an astrophysicist you would be unwise to base policy upon my opinions.

All views carry some bias (Govt and private) stake holders and all have a right to be heard and their opinion considered regardless of how far left of centre they are, this is called consultation.

All people and Govt agencies have their own vested interest, how do you propose that all respective parties put forward their views or are we all to sit back and listen to the wisdom of a youthful doctorate holder and apply that because they are deemed "expert".

I would say that the body of scientific evidence on environmental degradation ought to be examined in light of the quality of the research; not on the youthfulness, or otherwise, of the research team. I would also state that the professional opinions of experts in the field, notwithstanding any bias that they might have, is a more useful contribution to policy than the opinions of one person with both a pecuniary and ideological interest. In the same way I would prefer to get an oncologists's opinion if I had cancer than an astrophycisist's - who might be very smart and well intentioned and had seen cancer in his family a number of times, but has no credentials in the field . It is a fallacy to state that because all people have a right to be heard in a debate, that all people have equal credibility in a debate. read this if you don't believe me:


https://theconversation.com/no-youre-no ... inion-9978

I'm sure this is how our aboriginals feel when they try to impart their pecuniary and ideological points of view. Do what we tell you, it's in a everyone's best interest.

Also please don't make any assumptions based on my mom de plume, it will surely lead you in the wrong direction on this topic.

I never made any assumptions based upon your nom de plume but I'll take that information into account if I feel like making an assumption.

Touché

Back to my original question, what right does someone have to shift focus from an issue to a persons weight, it's divisive at best and serves no purpose in this debate.

You mean the same way that you expressed doubt upon scientific research based on the youthfulness of doctorate researchers?

Anyway, did you not read my post? It casts doubt upon these gentleman's views on equine welfare if they willingly subject a horse to bearing their excessive weight - which appears contrary to equine welfare - in effect it exposes their hypocrisy.

I will await the provision of accurate assumptions on what is excess weight burden for a horse, though you seem to accept that the gentleman in questions BMI is to great for the animal.

Would you ask a greyhound breeder to comment authoritatively on canine welfare policy?

No I would not, but I only see the RSPCA pursuing PWS with regards to mistreatment of animals (Brumbies) not the gentleman in question.

I think that the views of those with vested ideological and pecuniary interests in equine policy ought to be considered with their established biases in mind

Couldn't agree more, especially since both pecuniary and ideological outcomes are driven both by the Brumby movement and environmental outcomes too, both sides should be accountable to the same rules
.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Giddy_up]

So your belief is that no other person with vested interest or a stake holders opinion should be heard and matter on a topic of environmental degradation. Wow!!!! That flies in the face of due process, public submissions and our constitution.

That's not what I wrote. I implied that their views are biased and are not reliable. The accuracy of their views on environmental degredation are of the same worth of my views on astrophysics. i have strongly held opinions on astrophysics but as I am not an astrophysicist you would be unwise to base policy upon my opinions.

All views carry some bias (Govt and private) stake holders and all have a right to be heard and their opinion considered regardless of how far left of centre they are, this is called consultation.

All people and Govt agencies have their own vested interest, how do you propose that all respective parties put forward their views or are we all to sit back and listen to the wisdom of a youthful doctorate holder and apply that because they are deemed "expert".

I would say that the body of scientific evidence on environmental degradation ought to be examined in light of the quality of the research; not on the youthfulness, or otherwise, of the research team. I would also state that the professional opinions of experts in the field, notwithstanding any bias that they might have, is a more useful contribution to policy than the opinions of one person with both a pecuniary and ideological interest. In the same way I would prefer to get an oncologists's opinion if I had cancer than an astrophycisist's - who might be very smart and well intentioned and had seen cancer in his family a number of times, but has no credentials in the field . It is a fallacy to state that because all people have a right to be heard in a debate, that all people have equal credibility in a debate. read this if you don't believe me:


https://theconversation.com/no-youre-no ... inion-9978

I'm sure this is how our aboriginals feel when they try to impart their pecuniary and ideological points of view. Do what we tell you, it's in a everyone's best interest.

Also please don't make any assumptions based on my mom de plume, it will surely lead you in the wrong direction on this topic.

I never made any assumptions based upon your nom de plume but I'll take that information into account if I feel like making an assumption.

Touché

Back to my original question, what right does someone have to shift focus from an issue to a persons weight, it's divisive at best and serves no purpose in this debate.

You mean the same way that you expressed doubt upon scientific research based on the youthfulness of doctorate researchers?

Anyway, did you not read my post? It casts doubt upon these gentleman's views on equine welfare if they willingly subject a horse to bearing their excessive weight - which appears contrary to equine welfare - in effect it exposes their hypocrisy.

I will await the provision of accurate assumptions on what is excess weight burden for a horse, though you seem to accept that the gentleman in questions BMI is to great for the animal.

Would you ask a greyhound breeder to comment authoritatively on canine welfare policy?

No I would not, but I only see the RSPCA pursuing PWS with regards to mistreatment of animals (Brumbies) not the gentleman in question.

I think that the views of those with vested ideological and pecuniary interests in equine policy ought to be considered with their established biases in mind

Couldn't agree more, especially since both pecuniary and ideological outcomes are driven both by the Brumby movement and environmental outcomes too, both sides should be accountable to the same rules
.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies for my response to your post is intermingled with your statements and not clear, rather hard to do on my phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lophophaps]

The following is a general observation, not aimed at anyone.

This thread is about horses and heritage. Any related aspect seems to me to be fair. There's two aspects - the welfare of the horses and the damage they do to the environment. Jess Hancock discussed this in August Bushwalk Australia, well worth reading.

Horse welfare includes having a heavy rider. The comments about this aspect yesterday are fair. It does get hard when people are named, but if they put themselves into public purview then their actions are reasonably subject to public comment.

There are two links about horse and rider weight. I'm not a horse rider so I cannot comment on the veracity of those links, but they seem to be a good starting point at the very least. If the links are dated or inaccurate, please post better ones. In my view this aspect of horses is not hijacking - it's a legitimate point, horse welfare.

The subject will not be enhanced by name calling and misunderstanding. I'd like everyone to be careful about what what they post. If something offends you, don't post immediately. Put it aside. There's a lot of excellent advice here from people that care about the environment and horses, and know a lot about these areas.

Thank you for your understanding.

Lophophaps
Moderator

[Xplora]

Hmmm, NZ research and 3 years old. My next question to you is why you thought it was acceptable to call out and name two gentlemen who appeared on ABC on Bushwalk. You choose to attack their BMI rather than their position on Brumbies in the high country, little wonder this issue is so difficult to resolve. Just a few clicks away on this forum is person who was emotionally challenged by a "look" at camp in the very same high country and this thread has been very busy with strong opinion, yet here we have the double standard being presented for all to see. Which part of Mick Flannagan's or Nev Barass's position don't you support on Brumbies, the men part or the fat part?

I read you comment this morning and took some time to think about a response. As I did the debate continued so this response may be a little late as some things I mentioned have been mentioned by others.

I am not clear on the standard you have said is doubled by my post. You are welcomed to clarify this for me. There is a double standard when someone says they are concerned for the welfare of a group of horses and then load up their own without a care, causing it permanent damage. I am also not clear as to why you are sceptical of NZ research. Are their horses different to ours? Was that what you were implying or was it they are not capable of researching such a thing? 3 years ago is also recent and I could exhaust the pages with more but you can look it up as well as I. Would Japanese research be any more acceptable? Are you also trying to say you do not agree with the research and take objection to my view about it being a cruel form of torture for the horse being ridden by heavy people? As for being not acceptable to name them in a Bushwalk forum. Why not? They have been named in the media with an expressed view so naming them here does little. Showing how their arguments are self serving highlights their inconsistencies and naming them takes out the ambiguity. I was not picking on them because they were not slim, simply pointing out they were heavy enough to inflict cruelty to the horse they rode. I did not start this thread nor did I start the other you have referred to in such a condescending manner (I do agree the other thread has probably run its course but it not the OP giving it oxygen. Suz has made no comment on that since the first page and the views for and against have been aptly spoken) but since it is here then I am entitled to state my view and you or course can disagree all you want. I am not sure why you would think I do not support them because they are men and I do not recall saying they were fat.

Of course I do not support their view on FERAL horses and that should be clear enough from my previous post and everything else I have included on this thread. My opening sentence, in the post which seems to have caused the objection, indicated I was speaking directly about the article mentioned and that refers to the problem in question of horses in the NP. These horse loving people also want to go back to the days of 'Brumby running' where they chase the animals to exhaustion, then throw a rope around them and drag them onto the back of truck. Surely a bullet is less stressful but maybe not as lucrative? They admit only 1 in 5 is re-homed with the rest to dog food which nets them around $500 for each one sold to the abattoirs. A green broken young horse is sold for around $1000 and unbroken about $500 (minimum). Is this a business? Smells like one. Are they upset because their income source is being taken away? Look to the real motives and the hidden agenda. The arguments presented by the 'save the brumbie' people are as full of holes as those presented by the High Country Cattlemen. And before anyone says I know nothing of that I should say I own a part of on one of the heritage High Country cattle properties (which has a hut named after the original owners), I started my working life many years ago running cattle and I was trained at university in agricultural science with particular emphasis on beef cattle, sheep and horses. The cattleman's agenda is also financial and while I have sympathy for their loss I cannot find any good reason to continue the practise.

I don't get upset when people disagree with me. I think it is healthy to debate issues but I agree with Lops that it should not become personal. I am happy to hear contradictory evidence about anything I have said and I will weigh that up with the volume of evidence supporting my view. My views have certainly changed over the years with life experience and education and I am always open to be proved wrong. I liked the reference to The Conversation article and agree totally with the writer's opinion. (hope you get the irony). If you hold and opinion it must be held to scrutiny. Scrutinise away.

[RFG]

Public exhibition and submissions close 5.00pm, Friday 19th August, 2016!

NSW NPWS update to the community and stakeholders on the Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) Wild Horse Management Plan Review process. - 12th August, 2016.

Dear Sir/Madam,
You are receiving this email as you have previously had interest or involvement in the community and stakeholder engagement process for the Kosciuszko National Park wild horse management plan review. Thank you for your ongoing interest in the development of the Draft KNP Wild Horse Management Plan.

• A reminder to all community and stakeholders that the Draft Plan public exhibition closes in 1 week at 5.00pm Friday 19th August, 2016, and during this time the community is encouraged to provide feedback.
• All submissions received during the exhibition period will be considered and reviewed by NPWS during preparation of the final plan and changes may be made to the plan where deemed appropriate. NPWS will provide its Southern Ranges Regional Advisory Committee with an overview of feedback from the community. The final plan will be posted on the OEH website when completed, together with a summary of the submissions received. Subject to approval of a final plan by the Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage, actions in the plan will be implemented as part of an integrated regional pest management strategy across Kosciuszko National Park.

• The Draft Wild Horse Management Plan and associated documents can be viewed and downloaded online as well as details on how to provide feedback can be found at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectsnowies/
• Display hard copies of the draft plan and associated documents are available for viewing at the NPWS Office and Information centres at Tumut, Khancoban, Jindabyne, Queanbeyan, Bombala and the OEH Head Office, Goulburn St, Sydney.
• Further information including a common Question and Answers section (see electronic copy of flyer attached) and videos and images gallery can be found at https://engage.environment.nsw.gov.au/w ... ement-plan and https://www.flickr.com/photos/nswnation ... 487910404/ .
• Any general enquiries in regard to the wild horse management planning process should be forwarded to the KNP wild horse plan mailbox at: kosciuszko.wildhorseplan@environment.nsw.gov.au
• Any media enquiries in regard to the draft wild horse management plan should be made to the OEH Public Affairs Team on Ph. 02 9995 5347
As always, if you have any questions or concerns or would like to discuss any matter relating to the KNP Wild Horse Management Plan Review or wild horse management program, please contact Rob Gibbs, Senior Project Officer, Kosciuszko National Park -Wild Horse Management Plan Review Project at rob.gibbs@environment.nsw.gov.au

Thank you for your continued interest and involvement.

Mick Pettitt,
Regional Manager
NSW NPWS - Southern Ranges Region

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/protectsnowies/knp-wild-horse-plan-flyer.pdf

[slparker]

This article appears in the conversation today

https://theconversation.com/the-ethical ... rses-64602

Charlie Lovick, from the MCA, writes today in NE Victorian newspapers against the proposed cull from 'armchair experts'.

[Lophophaps]

Charlie's made very fair comments, and raised issues that I hope have been raised in NSW and Victoria.

[Xplora]

I find it interesting to see Charlie commenting about the damage done by deer and horses (as hard footed animals) but would be happy to bring the cattle back which also do a similar damage. I have met Charlie and he is a very nice (and genuine) bloke but is only driven by financial gain on the issue of cattle in the mountains. BTW cattle are still in the mountains and have been the entire time. The Treasure family have had a continuing High Country lease in State forest on the Dargo High Plains. Not sure why they had to bother with the Wonangatta trial (which is not Alpine) when it could have all been done with the Treasure's. I digress. Sorry. I do agree with Charlie though that deer are a more significant problem and cannot be controlled in the ANP with any shooting program. The numbers shot in the Bogong cull do not even account for the annual increase through birth. I have no problems with the estimate of horses and suggest it could be a little low. Aerial shooting of horses has been shown to be the most effective and less stressful way of control when conducted appropriately. Unfortunately one operation poorly executed is being relied upon as the call to have it banned. One of the marksmen involved in another program told me of the great success of operations he was involved with. I had taken a Mossberg bolt action 12 guage to him for repair and he said it was the exact gun he used as it had a variable choke which ensured a quick kill with one shot. Easier too from a helicopter.

[slparker]

I've never been involved in shooting horses but i would have thought a high powered rifle would be a better firearm than a shotty for killing horses from a chopper.

[slparker]

Charlie's made very fair comments, and raised issues that I hope have been raised in NSW and Victoria.

Charlie Lovick made a number of unsubstantiated claims yesterday in the media, many of which are at odds with the evidence on horse culling in Alpine areas.

His comments were not fair. they were biased and factually incorrect. he accused the authors of the report of not understanding the terrain , animal welfare and practical issues of feral horse management. Charlie stated that management of feral horses ought to be the province of MCAV families; that is, those with a commercial interest in exploiting the high plains.

I disagree that Charlie lovick is the voice to listen to when making policy decisions on the management of feral animals in sensitive alpine areas. he might be a nice bloke but he is terminally biased in his regard on what is the best option of environmental policy in Alpine areas.

Policy on feral species management ought to be made on deliberation of the evidence on what is best for the environment and the welfare of the horses, not on emotive appeal to culture. By all means celebrate out mountain cattleman culture but they do not manage the public Alpine areas any more and their voice should not be privileged over others because of historical connections to alpine industry.

[Xplora]

I've never been involved in shooting horses but i would have thought a high powered rifle would be a better firearm than a shotty for killing horses from a chopper.

I am certainly no expert in ballistics but I have shot a great many different weapons over my life on the range and in the field. The information I posted was direct from the mouth of one of Australia's leading experts in the field and it is not my assertion. He is a marksman, armorer and worked with the NSW Police firearms section. If he said it then I would tend to believe him and certainly my experience would not allow me to mount any reasonable argument against him. Possibly you have more experience but I am unaware of your credentials in that area although I am happy to receive instruction from those equally qualified to the man I was referring to. How I understand it, when shooting from a moving vehicle or aircraft high powered rifles can only rely on one projectile at a time. There is a movement which the shooter cannot control particularly when shooting a moving target as well. This means the shooter must be spot on first time or the animal could suffer. The shotgun with a choke at a good range can, depending on the load, places a number of projectiles into the animal with one pull of the trigger. The variable choke used on the Mossberg can reduce the spread of the shot at a larger distance. They do lack the velocity but this is counteracted by the sheer weight of the projectiles which is considerably more than a single 7.62mm (308). Shotguns are commonly used to hunt deer in heavily wooded areas so I am told. I am unaware of the load he used in the shotgun however there are types with more aerodynamic projectiles which are used specifically for hunting.

[Xplora]

I do agree Charlie has a vested interest however his knowledge of the High Country gives him the right to have a say. We all have that right but he can speak with authority on the terrain. The terrain is the problem with the deer cull in the ANP along with the dense scrub. Aerial operations are good for open areas but many large mobs are in the thick wooded areas or quickly retreat to them when in danger. I think the solution long term will be the incorporation of a number of methods depending on the area. On what we can agree is there is a need to do something and having someone like Charlie Lovick supporting a horse cull goes a long way toward quietening those in opposition.

[slparker]

I've never been involved in shooting horses but i would have thought a high powered rifle would be a better firearm than a shotty for killing horses from a chopper.

I am certainly no expert in ballistics but I have shot a great many different weapons over my life on the range and in the field. The information I posted was direct from the mouth of one of Australia's leading experts in the field and it is not my assertion. He is a marksman, armorer and worked with the NSW Police firearms section. If he said it then I would tend to believe him and certainly my experience would not allow me to mount any reasonable argument against him. Possibly you have more experience but I am unaware of your credentials in that area although I am happy to receive instruction from those equally qualified to the man I was referring to. How I understand it, when shooting from a moving vehicle or aircraft high powered rifles can only rely on one projectile at a time. There is a movement which the shooter cannot control particularly when shooting a moving target as well. This means the shooter must be spot on first time or the animal could suffer. The shotgun with a choke at a good range can, depending on the load, places a number of projectiles into the animal with one pull of the trigger. The variable choke used on the Mossberg can reduce the spread of the shot at a larger distance. They do lack the velocity but this is counteracted by the sheer weight of the projectiles which is considerably more than a single 7.62mm (308). Shotguns are commonly used to hunt deer in heavily wooded areas so I am told. I am unaware of the load he used in the shotgun however there are types with more aerodynamic projectiles which are used specifically for hunting.

I wasn't argument seeking - just surprised.