# Croc hunt will endanger humans - Bob Irwin



## News Bot (Jun 15, 2012)

CONSERVATIONIST Bob Irwin says a plan for trophy hunters to kill up to 50 saltwater crocodiles in the Northern Territory each year could result in more attacks against humans.






border="0"
|- 
| valign="'middle'" |




| valign="'middle'" |




|-




















*Published On:* 15-Jun-12 03:01 PM
*Source:* via NEWS.com.au

*Go to Original Article*


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 15, 2012)

His argument doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Yes if you remove a large male croc from an area, smaller crocs will move in to that section. However if there was a large croc in the area to start with there would have already been a risk of attack. The main reason people get attacked is due to the younger crocs having to move to new (previously croc free) areas, due to larger crocs evicting them. As a result people don't expect a croc to be in or around the water when they are attacked.


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 15, 2012)

There is another thread: Another go at croc safari hunting dealing with this issue and SteveNT and I commented on removal of large, old crocs.

Taking 50 crocs / year is not going to put a dent into the population and what many people may not be aware of - croc hunting is happening in NT big way .... for socio-political reasons it just doesn't get reported.
What also concerns me is, where will the money go. That needs to be thought out and spelled out very clearly. To say "the indigenous communities will benefit" is just not good enough.
Bob has got his heart in the right place but we should also be listening to Graham Webb _at al_.


----------



## Thyla (Jun 15, 2012)

I agree it should happen but under a number of circumstances:
1. Only if the money earned for issuing the licenses goes directly back into conservation of animals
2. That there is an ongoing population assessment of NT crocodiles (say, once or twice a year)
3. The population numbers determine the following years quota

I don't know why people bring in the issues of increased/decreased chance of being attacked. If anything, the hunters may become the hunted


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 15, 2012)

Thyla,

I like your suggestion 1. The question is, who is going to collect the money and who is going to administer it, distribute it and how. Last thing we want to see is the money going into the government's "black hole" coffers. 
2. Population assessments are carried out in NT regularly and the numbers are available. To survey 2x a year is unthinkable. Do you have any idea the costs involved, just in flying choppers alone?
3. The population numbers have been constant for some years now and 50 crocs is a drop in the ocean. 

The chances of being attacked by crocodiles are also constant - whatever the chances are because the population size is stable.


----------



## Mayo (Jun 15, 2012)

Evolution has always allowed the strongest to survive to full size and breed. To only go after Trophy animals, ie biggest, strongest and least susceptible to disease, my concern starts with weakening the gene pool. This can already be seen with regular kangaroo culls.


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 15, 2012)

From the other thread:

my post:

I am all for it, there is just one thing that the "regulators" need to realise and that is; the trophy hunters want to roll over the biggest crocs and go home with the biggest trophies. The big, old crocs are the foundation of healthy future populations, they have the genes of experienced survivors. It's vital to leave them alone.

SteveNT reply:

I agree Waterrat but you find the big old boys are acutely aware of hunting, they're from a time when it was standard practice to shoot crocs. They are very wary and if you do see them it is never for long.


----------



## Freehandler (Jun 15, 2012)

Gotta get those dang gators... Cleetus, grab me my shootin stick...


----------



## Kareeves (Jun 15, 2012)

we have roo shoots so why not have croc shoots people who shoot the animal for the meat and skin not as a thing to hang on the wall. The meat is sold to the croc farm people or something along them lines. Ow and i think the big old crocs should be of the shooting list


----------



## SteveNT (Jun 15, 2012)

Dont forget you mob that the crocs were around before the dinosaurs, ate the dinosaurs, and are still going strong in northern Australia. They may well outlast homo sapiens too.

A quote from Graham Webb several years ago "give me the Navy, the Army and the Airforce and I still couldn't make them (salties) extinct."

Money from the hunting would be split between the safari operators and the traditional owners under a Section 19 agreement with the Northern Land Council. Along the same lines as G. Bedford's Oenpelli python project. At least we know the safari hunters will be able to find crocodiles lol.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 15, 2012)

Haha Steve, crocs are a lot easier to find then Oenpelli's.


----------



## SteveNT (Jun 15, 2012)

Too right bro, they look for you!


----------



## SteveNT (Jun 15, 2012)

Front page of the NT News today is a 4.4 meter croc shot by police because it was snatching dogs and stalking places where kids like to swim.

Result- 1 dead croc and a few photos of it.

$20,000 for a clown safari hunter to shoot it would be a nice bonus in that Community.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 15, 2012)

If the system is managed correctly it would really help to generate much neede income for the local community.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 15, 2012)

With unrestrained hunting they were shot in their thousands every year. Yet 40 years on they are a problem again, in term of both numbers and large animals encroaching into populated areas. And at the same time, thousands of eggs have been harvested from nests each year to supply crocodile farms. If 50 large crocs per year sounds like a lot, that is because you have no concept of the absolute numbers present, the massive area over which they occur and their reproductive potential. 

Why should removal of large crocs affect the gene pool? Dominant croc have “mating rights” for their stretch of water and so their genes are present in the offspring. The big males will kill or chase off any male that is smaller. When they are too old to fight effectively, one of the subordinates will take over but it will have to battle for the position. It doesn’t matter if it comes from that stretch of water and is a son or if comes from elsewhere and is unrelated. The stronger will win. The same thing happens when you shoot the dominant croc. The remaining crocs battle it out until one establishes dominance. 



Mayo said:


> Evolution has always allowed the strongest to survive to full size and breed. To only go after Trophy animals, ie biggest, strongest and least susceptible to disease, my concern starts with weakening the gene pool. This can already be seen with regular kangaroo culls.



Evolution is not survival the strongest, it is survival of the “fittest”, which means the “best suited” to a given environment. What data leads you to believe there has been a weakening of the gene pool in kangaroos as a result of culling?

Blue


----------



## Sinners121 (Jun 15, 2012)

please people remember that for a croc to get to a monstrous trophy size it has breed countless times!!! hence its genes have already been spread and there is no worry of a problem about weakening the gene pool!! they would have to shoot 1000's of trophy animals to make an effect!!


----------



## Mayo (Jun 15, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Evolution is not survival the strongest, it is survival of the “fittest”, which means the “best suited” to a given environment. What data leads you to believe there has been a weakening of the gene pool in kangaroos as a result of culling?
> 
> Blue



I think your spliting hairs there with the definition Blue, but there are quite a few research papers about killing the Alpha males from mob groups. A quick search on the net will find a lot of information about this. I should state that I am not against culls, I have seen the damage over population can do especially when I was posted at Pucka. Rather than targeting the "Fittest" however, I think they need to look at a wider field. Or allow a greater pick of eggs for the farms to bring numbers down.


----------



## Darlyn (Jun 15, 2012)

"Problem crocs" are only a problem in human occupied areas. There are many, many areas that are populated
by crocodiles where the hunters would never need to go so there will always be a huge amount of crocs and variation to the gene pool.

Bob Irwin suggesting that younger crocs will test their predatory skills and hopefully nobody will be in their way is pretty strange. These people live with crocs all the time, why would they put themselves in the way of any croc, young or old? Makes no difference to them which croc inhabits the areas they will still stay away from them.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 16, 2012)

Mayo said:


> I think your spliting hairs there with the definition Blue, but there are quite a few research papers about killing the Alpha males from mob groups. A quick search on the net will find a lot of information about this. I should state that I am not against culls, I have seen the damage over population can do especially when I was posted at Pucka. Rather than targeting the "Fittest" however, I think they need to look at a wider field. Or allow a greater pick of eggs for the farms to bring numbers down.


“Article: Bias in Kangaroo Culling 
BY DR. DAVID CROFT, SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE,
UNSW, SYDNEY NSW 2052....
*Should we be concerned?*The short answer is that we know insufficient about the genetics of the species in the commercial harvest to determine whether appropriate genetic diversity is being conserved. If a ‘good gene’ is being eliminated in the cull then we would not know until those individuals missing it are tested by some vagary in their environment and found wanting....
*We do not know what is happening**because this is not a priority of the kangaroo management**programs but we should be nervous!**....”*

This is not exactly what you put across in your post. They put forward their grounds for concern but that is as far as it goes.

I am not splitting hairs with respect to the definition. I am simply correcting a common mistake that many make in believing the strongest are more likely to survive. The process we are actually talking about, by the way, is not evolution but the mechanism that allows evolution to occur - *natural selection*. Young crocs get by on reflexes and stealth, their ability to get a feed without being fed upon, their ability to find a section of water that avoids larger crocs that will make a meal of them. At this stage of the proceedings, strength has nothing to do with survival. 

Don’t forget that natural selection applies to all creatures. Strength is hardly likely to be a requisite characteristic for butterflies, nudibranchs, jellyfish, slugs, red-backed spiders, sponges and so on.


----------



## Thyla (Jun 16, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> Thyla,
> 
> I like your suggestion 1. The question is, who is going to collect the money and who is going to administer it, distribute it and how. Last thing we want to see is the money going into the government's "black hole" coffers.
> 2. Population assessments are carried out in NT regularly and the numbers are available. To survey 2x a year is unthinkable. Do you have any idea the costs involved, just in flying choppers alone?
> ...



NRETAS would be the obvious choice to manage the project including collecting the funds and issuing the licenses. In terms of distributing it out, I'm not good with finances but as long as there is enough going into the research of the ongoing population size of the crocodiles (can pay for those costly helicopter trips you mention), I'm happy. 
It's important to note that just because something is common and abundant today, doesn't mean it will be that way in the future (especially with ongoing increased downwards pressure on the population size). If 50 a year is a drop in the ocean today, in 20, 30 and 50 years time, it may be a lot more significant.

You say population assessments are "regularly" carried out in NT? How often exactly? and in the top end in general?

Blue, well said regarding the evolutionary pressures. I challenge anyone to find me 5 peer reviewed papers concluding that the "strongest" individual in a particular population is evolutionarily "fitter" than the others. You will struggle


----------



## longqi (Jun 16, 2012)

Just a quiet suggestion on the hunting method used

Permit the hunter to pay $20,000 prior to the hunt
Take him to a place you know big crocs are
Hand him a spear gun flippers and face mask and toss him over the side

Get rid of a few yanks and germans and maybe even a croc or two


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 16, 2012)

Thyla said:


> It's important to note that just because something is common and abundant today, doesn't mean it will be that way in the future (especially with ongoing increased downwards pressure on the population size). If 50 a year is a drop in the ocean today, in 20, 30 and 50 years time, it may be a lot more significant.
> 
> You say population assessments are "regularly" carried out in NT? How often exactly? and in the top end in general?



Do you know how many croc eggs are harvested each year in NT? It leaves the 50 crocs for dead. Why would 50 be any more significant in 50 years? Still the same drop in the ocean provided no other pressures are applied. Read some of Webb & Manolis papers, it's all there.


----------



## Thyla (Jun 16, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> Do you know how many croc eggs are harvested each year in NT?


No, do you?


Waterrat said:


> It leaves the 50 crocs for dead. Why would 50 be any more significant in 50 years? Still the same drop in the ocean provided no other pressures are applied. Read some of Webb & Manolis papers, it's all there.


Yes of course if no other pressures are applied it will be the same. But honestly, what are the chances of no other pressures being applied? In 50 years time when the human population in NT increases, suitable habitat for the crocs will decrease to name one inevitable pressure. This will have a feedback effect as there will be more "incidences" between crocs and humans and we all know gets booted out of whos backyard if this happens.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 16, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> Read some of Webb & Manolis papers, it's all there.


If people where to do some research like you said and read some of the paper on crocs by Webb & Manolis, they would have a better understanding of the facts before making a decision. I think most would see the situation differently afterwards.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 16, 2012)

Here is a link where it discusses egg collection numbers. No more then 50000 where to be taken in 2009-2010 season. Management Program for Saltwater Crocodiles - NRETAS Internet Site


----------



## Thyla (Jun 16, 2012)

Wait, so the eggs are destined for crocodile farms? So the croc farms don't even breed their own crocodiles? They just take wild eggs, hatch them, fatten them up in overcrowded spaces and then kill them for their skins to sell. That's worse than I thought...


----------



## Sinners121 (Jun 16, 2012)

Thyla said:


> Wait, so the eggs are destined for crocodile farms? So the croc farms don't even breed their own crocodiles? They just take wild eggs, hatch them, fatten them up in overcrowded spaces and then kill them for their skins to sell. That's worse than I thought...



and yet it hasnt even made a dent in the population


----------



## Frozenmouse (Jun 16, 2012)

Crocodiles are still not even close to recorded population sizes before hunting nearly wiped them out so i would have to say i am against trophy hunting until we see an increase in population size, they are still no where near as numerous as they should be.


----------



## Darlyn (Jun 16, 2012)

Frozenmouse said:


> Crocodiles are still not even close to recorded population sizes before hunting nearly wiped them out so i would have to say i am against trophy hunting until we see an increase in population size, they are still no where near as numerous as they should be.




Proof?


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Jun 16, 2012)

Why does everything need to be measured in conservation value to determine its value. There is also an ethical question about whether its right to kill native wildlife for fun. If its not imperative for maintaining ecosystems, then why allow slaughter of native wildlife? Seems absurd the government would allow this. Its amazing how loud hunting lobby groups can be.


----------



## Sinners121 (Jun 16, 2012)

BigWillieStyles said:


> Why does everything need to be measured in conservation value to determine its value. There is also an ethical question about whether its right to kill native wildlife for fun. If its not imperative for maintaining ecosystems, then why allow slaughter of native wildlife? Seems absurd the government would allow this. Its amazing how loud hunting lobby groups can be.



there are already culls which in most cases is the government paying other people to shoot them. there is no real reason not to allow the hunting (please use appropriate terms, slaughter implies something that hunting is not) of native wildlife. Lets also keep in mind that a real hunter is ethical! it seems absurd the government hasn't allowed this earlier with all the revenue it could raise for them, the owners of the land and without even impacting on the population. Hunting lobby's are not nearly as loud as greenies!!

i apologise if i sound rude, i dont mean to there is just a few misconceptions.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 16, 2012)

I am not a hunter, I don't like hunting however these animals are already being culled every year. There is something like 500 crocs killed every year, the trophy hunting would only be removing 50 of the 500. The main reason I support it is that it can/will create an income for traditional owners. Coupled with that is once the croc has a monetary value, communities will be less likely to kill crocs on their land without good reason. Why destroy something if it takes money out of your pocket. This means in the long term there is the potential for the croc numbers to increase, even with the culling.

This then means the crocodiles have a use. A quote from Grahame Webb on the topic of conserving Australia's crocodiles through commercial incentives "Without a use, any item, wildlife included, runs the risk of being seen as useless".


----------



## Skeptic (Jun 16, 2012)

LOL, gotta love the term 'hunting'. They pay a guide to take them to the animal and shoot them with a high powered rifle from a safe distance. Ooohh, so tough! I personally hate hunting and have serious concerns about people who enjoy it. The idea of someone taking the life of a beautiful animal so they can blow their load is unintelligible to me. But hey, money talks.

And..... go


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 17, 2012)

Please follow *Waterrats’* advice and express facts rather than opinions as if they were facts. Crocodiles have been intensively studied since the early 1970's when Sydney University set up a research station at Maningrida. Dr. Graeme Webb was one of the early scientists to get involved, along with his then Ph.D. research student, now Dr. Charlie Manolis. Both individuals ended up forgoing the academic life of teaching to devote themselves exclusively to research in studying this animal full time over many years. There have been plenty of other researchers involved over time, not the least of which is (now retired) Professor Gordon Grigg, who expressed sentiments similar to those of Graeme Webb, as quoted by Abnormal in post No.32. Having spent a fair bit of time with Gordon, many years ago, I know just how passionate he is about all aspects of wildlife, not the least of which is conservation. He would not make that statement unless he believed it was ultimately in the best interests of the animal concerned.

Historically, it is interesting to note that original funding for the research was drummed up by Prof. Harry Messel, Head of Physical Sciences at the Uni. He was a American who came to visit and stayed and had a knack for funding research projects. He convinced the government of the day that crocs were in imminent danger of extinction and they had to do something and he knew what. As time went by and the research data clearly showed that crocs were far from on the brink of extinction, Messel maintained his initial line to continue the funding. That caused a bit of in-fighting and some good measure of public confusion about what was really the case at the time… but the money kept flowing. 

If you want a good read as well as the facts, try Graeme Webb’s “Crocodiles of Australia” by Webb and Manolis. Reed 1989. Getting a little dated but the history and facts contained therein have not changed. There is also a great foreward by Hal Cogger.

Blue


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 17, 2012)

Crocodile conservation in Australia is an outstanding success and it clearly illustrates that government's protection of species can only be successful if the wider community and business gets involved. Such was and still is the case of crocodile populations recovery. Crocodile farmer's contribution and people's understanding of crocodiles played a major part in crocodiles going from CITES Appendix I (near extinction) to having healthy populations across northern Australia as we see it today. Along the recovery success, we have a thriving crocodile industry that supplies the world with best quality skins and meat, indigenous people can practice traditional hunting (with modern weapons :?) and tourism is benefiting big way.
Why did all this happen? Because along with the great research done by the gentlemen mentioned above, crocodile farmers established a monetary value on crocodile's head. Like with everything else, worthless things are not worth taking care of and all the greenies and governments in the country couldn't achieve this level of conservation without the industry. 

Times are changing; I was involved in removal of "nuisance" salties in NQ in the eighties, we took them out of the Daintree River, Cooper Creek and other waterways where crocs are well established today and tourists are paying money to see them. As BigWillieStyles said, it's now more of an ethical question whether they should be hunted for trophies rather than economical. If the 50 shot crocs is going to bring $500,000 per year, it's nice but both the crocs and the people can live without that money. Estuarine crocodiles don't need any other, higher level of protection that they are having today. Do the property owners, indigenous communities and the administrators need the money? I can't answer the question but I tend to lean towards "no".

M


----------



## happynagini (Jun 17, 2012)

Swamp people aus style haha


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 17, 2012)

happynagini said:


> Swamp people aus style haha



Ke?


----------



## MR_IAN_DAVO (Jun 17, 2012)

You have got to love crocs, marinated in coconut milk & spices cooked on the BBQ.LOL.


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jun 17, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> Ke?




tv show on 7mate, on Thursday night about alligator hunters...


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 17, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> If you want a good read as well as the facts, try Graeme Webb’s “Crocodiles of Australia” by Webb and Manolis. Reed 1989. Getting a little dated but the history and facts contained therein have not changed. There is also a great foreward by Hal Cogger.


This book is a good beginners book if people want to get an understanding on Australian Crocodiles. It can be bought from Andrew Isles bookshop for $35 or so.


----------



## apprenticegnome (Jun 17, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> With unrestrained hunting they were shot in their thousands every year. Yet 40 years on they are a problem again, in term of both numbers and large animals encroaching into populated areas. And at the same time, thousands of eggs have been harvested from nests each year to supply crocodile farms. If 50 large crocs per year sounds like a lot, that is because you have no concept of the absolute numbers present, the massive area over which they occur and their reproductive potential.
> 
> Why should removal of large crocs affect the gene pool? Dominant croc have “mating rights” for their stretch of water and so their genes are present in the offspring. The big males will kill or chase off any male that is smaller. When they are too old to fight effectively, one of the subordinates will take over but it will have to battle for the position. It doesn’t matter if it comes from that stretch of water and is a son or if comes from elsewhere and is unrelated. The stronger will win. The same thing happens when you shoot the dominant croc. The remaining crocs battle it out until one establishes dominance.
> 
> ...


I'm in total agreeance. Unless you decimated the majority of the crocidile population you definately wouldn't be affecting the gene pool and the previous harvesting of crocs in Australia for skins has proven this. I'd like to know where the weakening of the gene pool in kangaroos is proven? It's hard to believe that if this was evident that the issuing of culling permits is still readilly available. I'd recommend a trip out in the country and I don't mean an hour or 2 west of Sydney or Canberra to see the numbers of roos that thrive out there despite culling. Controlled culling can be beneficial in financially supporting the policing of illegal and unregulated hunting.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jun 17, 2012)

Frozenmouse said:


> Crocodiles are still not even close to recorded population sizes before hunting nearly wiped them out so i would have to say i am against trophy hunting until we see an increase in population size, they are still no where near as numerous as they should be.


Its estimated that between 1945-1970 the total number of crocodiles killed was 330000 (140000 from NT & 190000 from QLD & WA). In 1993 Saltwater croc numbers for NT where calculated to be 59400 with a population increase of 6.5% p.a.

If you consider how many where culled & how quickly they where able to build their numbers up again it is really remarkable. During the 1945-1972 heavily vegetated freshwater swamps acted as safe havens for Saltwater crocs, once commercial hunting stopped their numbers started to increase again. As the core habit they previously inhabited hadn't changed, it allowed for the crocodiles to re-inhabit these areas once again. We continue to see this spread today.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 17, 2012)

At that rate of increase, current numbers would exceed 150,000 in the NT and they could be expected to increase by more than 9,000 this year alone. Still concerned of a cull of 50?

A medical treatment has affected this part of my memory so I am not sure if I have it right. Please correct me if you know otherwise. My understanding is that crocs were getting to sufficient size and numbers on a lot of stations that they were starting to account for significant stock losses. Although they are not supposed to, the station owners were shooting them and this became evident and aan issue. In order to get rid of them on a more permanent basis, they took to doing things like dropping a few sticks of jelly into the billabong or water hole in the river and blew the crap out of everything. I think a billabong was filled in with a font-end loader or possibly pumped dry. The idea of the hunting bounty was to make it worth the station owners while to maintain the environment for the crocs by paying for stock losses and some. What I am certain of is that the motivation was to provide an incentive to maintain the environment in which crocs currently live.


----------



## NTNed (Jun 18, 2012)

Some more stats from NRETAS. 
Just how many Crocs are captured in populated areas in the NT? 
How many of these are actually relocated and not slaughtered anyway?

50 Crocs a year.:shock:..... oh yeah, that's gonna decimate em for sure............ I better get out there somewhere and see them in the wild within the next couple of million years or I'll miss out.:lol:

Have a look on a map and see how many of these captures in rivers equate to them being in Darwin Harbour per year. But hey, it's easy to be an expert when it's not in your back yard.

Crocodile Captures - NRETAS Internet Site


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 18, 2012)

Thanks for that NTNed. And to think... I have been swimming in the Katherine River at night. Not any more!
Those in the Katherine River certainly are a long way inland. I was dubious about a fella telling me they regularly cleared the crocs out of Berry Springs so that tourists can swim. I can see I did him an injustice.
You can only imagine how many there are out in the gulf country.


----------



## ghosts (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't understand why people are making a fuss over this the nt government pays professional shooters each year to shoot 500 crocs now they are letting hunters shoot 50 of the 500. What they should be doing is let the hunters shoot all 500 and get the royalties instead of paying for the service. It's funny where is the thread about the 500 crocs being shoot each year or collecting 50,000 croc eggs for farming? But as soon as the tv highlights 50 crocs being shoot by hunters everyone becomes a ecowarrior


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 21, 2012)

Mate, I don't argue otherwise but could you please give a reference to the 500 crocs being shot each year on Government orders? What happens with the carcases?
I am also curious who are the professional shooters and what kind of permit they operate under. This is all new to me.


----------



## pseudechis4740 (Jun 21, 2012)

Touchy subject, much? As long as all involved are transparent and accountable I can't see the harm to croc populations. Immoral? Maybe. If you are ever unsure as to the why of anything add a $ value to it and you will have your answer. Sure to be a vote grabber in the top end for the political party that sells it.


----------



## ghosts (Jun 21, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> Mate, I don't argue otherwise but could you please give a reference to the 500 crocs being shot each year on Government orders? What happens with the carcases?
> I am also curious who are the professional shooters and what kind of permit they operate under. This is all new to me.



It's not a government order (cull quote) but around 500 nuisance crocs are shoot or trapped each year which the government has to pay a professional trapper or shooter to do. As for the license, what they do with the bodies ect I'm not 100% sure as I can't find where I originally read it


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 21, 2012)

junglejags said:


> It's not a government order (cull quote) but around 500 nuisance crocs are shoot or trapped each year which the government has to pay a professional trapper or shooter to do. As for the license, what they do with the bodies ect I'm not 100% sure as I can't find where I originally read it



Yah, I got that but I was after a reference to the facts, this sound more like a fifth hand info. I am genuinely interested in this. InQld all removal of nuisance crocs is done by QPWS personnel, not by contractors. Also the "quota to cull" doesn't seem right, how can anyone predict the number of nuisance crocs each year to set the quota, also the mention that the gov. is actually paying anyone to do the job. ???
Are you sure your information didn't come from another thread on APS posted by someone "assuming"?


----------



## ghosts (Jun 21, 2012)

I said it's not a quota to cull and I did read it not on a forum, as soon as I find it I will post the link. But even if I read it wrong and it's not contractors the government is still paying someone to do the job. So why shouldn't they have someone pay them to do it instead


----------



## mmafan555 (Jun 22, 2012)

Mayo said:


> Evolution has always allowed the strongest to survive to full size and breed. To only go after Trophy animals, ie biggest, strongest and least susceptible to disease, my concern starts with weakening the gene pool. This can already be seen with regular kangaroo culls.



That is definitely a real concern (hunting caused "dwarfism" or whatever its called) but hunting "up to 50 crocs a year" out of such a huge population is unlikely to have any negative impact in that regard.


----------



## meksy (Jun 23, 2012)

MY OPINION ITS SAD!!!!
no need for humans to go into the crocks area/home and kill them!! thats just not right dont stuff with nature my opinion they wer here first we built onto there homes therefor we made the mistake nd the wanna fix it by culling all the crocks? pfft pathetic in my eyes!!
save the crocks!!!!


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 23, 2012)

meksy said:


> MY OPINION ITS SAD!!!!
> no need for humans to go into the crocks area/home and kill them!! thats just not right dont stuff with nature my opinion they wer here first we built onto there homes therefor we made the mistake nd the wanna fix it by culling all the crocks? pfft pathetic in my eyes!!
> save the crocks!!!!



You have a rather strange view on this.
First of all, THEY don't want to fix anything by culling crocs. Shooting 50 crocs is not a "cull" to speak of and it wouldn't fix anything - the idea of this proposal is entirely different.

Secondly, the crocs that are being removed by capture/relocation or shooting are the ones that come too close to our homes, not the other way around.
Perhaps we should demolish all cities, bridges, buildings and anything that we put in where crocs used to roam and move to China.
Do some reality check.


----------



## peterducks7889 (Jun 23, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> There is another thread: Another go at croc safari hunting dealing with this issue and SteveNT and I commented on removal of large, old crocs.
> 
> Taking 50 crocs / year is not going to put a dent into the population and what many people may not be aware of - croc hunting is happening in NT big way .... for socio-political reasons it just doesn't get reported.
> What also concerns me is, where will the money go. That needs to be thought out and spelled out very clearly. To say "the indigenous communities will benefit" is just not good enough.
> Bob has got his heart in the right place but we should also be listening to Graham Webb _at al_.



Why on earth should the indigenous communities get money im getting quite sick of this gimme giime gimme attitude we said sorry for something we did not do they already get benefits and god knows what else given to them for free think its time to go out and get a job like everyone else if the community gets money its not just for indigenous ppl its for the whole community thats just racist only giving to the indigenous community


----------



## SteveNT (Jun 23, 2012)

The crocs are on aboriginal land so the money goes to the land owners. Indigenous Ranger groups (full time employment Mr. Dux) already remove problem crocs stalking the Communities. Relocation doesnt work so they are shot and the meat distributed to the Community.

Outside aboriginal land the crocs are trapped or harpooned by P&WS Rangers. They are then sent to croc farms.

Pastoralists regularly cull crocs that are eating their cattle, no questions asked. Just common sense really.


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't want to get tangled up in politically correct / racist crap but my question is: WHO OWNS AUSTRALIAN NATIVE WILDLIFE? 
I own my block of land, does it mean I can shoot the kookaburra in my tree?


----------



## SteveNT (Jun 23, 2012)

No, but if they were being commercially harvested from your property you could reasonably expect to be paid.


----------



## geckoboy2001 (Jun 23, 2012)

abnrmal91 said:


> His argument doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Yes if you remove a large male croc from an area, smaller crocs will move in to that section. However if there was a large croc in the area to start with there would have already been a risk of attack. The main reason people get attacked is due to the younger crocs having to move to new (previously croc free) areas, due to larger crocs evicting them. As a result people don't expect a croc to be in or around the water when they are attacked.


hello his only what like 7 or 8


----------



## Darlyn (Jun 23, 2012)

peterducks7889 said:


> if the community gets money its not just for indigenous ppl its for the whole community thats just racist only giving to the indigenous community



Mostly the whole community where the crocs are located are indigenous so what's the problem?


----------



## Wild~Touch (Jun 23, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> I don't want to get tangled up in politically correct / racist crap but my question is: WHO OWNS AUSTRALIAN NATIVE WILDLIFE?
> I own my block of land, does it mean I can shoot the kookaburra in my tree?




I think you will find that Australian Native Wildlife is property of the Crown ..

it is stated somewhere (?) in the Code of Practice

It really peeves me that legally my animals don't actually belong to me


----------



## snakeg56 (Jun 23, 2012)

I say shot the pollies think of how much money would be saved , sounds like a plan, oh hell they took our guns away from us


----------



## ghosts (Jun 23, 2012)

peterducks7889 said:


> Why on earth should the indigenous communities get money im getting quite sick of this gimme giime gimme attitude we said sorry for something we did not do they already get benefits and god knows what else given to them for free think its time to go out and get a job like everyone else if the community gets money its not just for indigenous ppl its for the whole community thats just racist only giving to the indigenous community



That is the most ignorant and unaustralian comment I have ever read on here!!! do some research before running your mouth because it really does make you look.....


----------



## mmafan555 (Jun 24, 2012)

I can't view the link but it there a specific area where the 50 crocs will be shot? Any specific river system/systems? I hope it's not in a national park or something.


----------

