Skip to content
City folk may not like it, but it’s perfectly legal and ecologically responsible. The BFD.

As psychologist Hal Herzog writes, in his Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, humans are practically incapable of thinking consistently rationally about animals. Animal activists are well aware of this basic irrationality and exploit it to the hilt. The campaigns of animal activists are invariably long on emotional manipulation and short on reason, let alone facts.

The latest case of outrage-mongering by unscrupulous activists has hit the media from here in Tasmania. An activist scouring Facebook for something to be outraged about hit emotional paydirt with an image posted by a hunting group.

An apparent massacre of up to 140 wallabies and pademelons in northern Tasmania has prompted outrage and calls for tougher protection for native wildlife.

An image apparently posted by a group of hunters on Facebook, before being removed, was on Thursday released by the Animal Justice Party, which claimed it was “gruesome and distressing”.

The post, which the AJP said was made on June 13, shows a large pile of the dead marsupials with the words: “Good morning down the west Tamar … 140 on the ground.”

Note the purposeful emotional manipulation even by The Australian’s reporter. Instead of calling it what it appears to be, a cull, he plumps for the deliberately inflammatory “massacre”.

In any case, so what? We’re not exactly short of the creatures. Drive anywhere in rural Tasmania at night and you’ll have to avoid easily dozens of them. Tasmania isn’t Australia’s roadkill capital for nothing.

Moreover, this gives every appearance of being a legally-organised culling effort. As one Tasmanian reader commented, “We are absolutely over run with them at our place. If you don’t keep on top of the problem you end up with a pile of them as in the article photo…It’s difficult for townies and animal lovers to understand. I hate shooting animals, but sometimes you have to”.

But who needs facts and logics when you’ve got feelings.

“It is extremely distressing to know that hunters are intentionally targeting our native wildlife,” said Animal Justice Party Tasmania convener Tim Westcott.

“While the hunting groups may claim that they are controlling a pest, these animals are native to Tasmania and local residents do not consider the mass slaughter of native animals to be pest control.”

Which “local residents”? Name them, Timbo. Do they represent the views of all Tasmanians or just a little clique of Sandy Bay wankers sputtering outrage into their skinny soy almond lattes?

Poisonous jack-jumper ants are native to Tasmania, too. But they’re not as cute as paddys, are they?

In fact, Westcott tacitly admits that he is wrong on nearly every point of fact.

Mr Westcott told The Australian that while permits were required to shoot pademelons and wallabies in Tasmania, these were readily available and the only limit was that shooting occur during the day.

He conceded shooting was better than poisoning to control marsupials but urged landowners to explore other methods, such as fencing, retaining or restoring bushland and protecting rather than harming predators, including Tasmanian devils and eagles.

Devils and eagles are protected (except from the green-left’s beloved wind farms, of course). There are massive efforts underway to protect and conserve devils especially. Devils are rarely predators.

As for his “other methods”, each of those is far worse than shooting. Fencing simply leaves animals to die of thirst and hunger as their numbers explode in confined spaces. 1080 is an ecological disaster.

As proof, perhaps, of the basic irrationality of human thinking about animals, a final disclosure: I volunteer as a wildlife rescuer. Yes, I spend my time and money saving the lives of injured animals – usually struck by cars. Yet, while I am not interested in the least in hunting, I understand the need for species control and have no intention of interfering in the legal right of hunters to pursue their activities.

Am I as irrational as an “animal activist”? Probably. The difference is that I’m not interfering with anyone else’s rights.

City folk may not like it, but it’s perfectly legal and ecologically responsible. The BFD.

If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.

Latest