What do you consider a humane death for any animal?
I think most people would want the death to be as quick and painless as possible.
So if I told you that the term "Conditionally Acceptable" when applied to Humaneness Models means:
- The animal may take 4-6 hours before they no longer feel any pain from the culling method.
- The animal will experience moderate to severe suffering for those 4-6 hours.
http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf
-->Time to Death 4-6hours & during those 4-6hours
--> prolonged or profuse vomiting,
--> laboured respiration often with a white froth around the mouth and nostrils
--> some pigs also exhibit signs of central nervous system disturbance
--> including hyper-excitability, squealing, manic running paralysis or convulsions
How would you react?
That is exactly what the term "Conditionally Acceptable" means when you see it in any document produced by
- DPI (Department of Primary Industries)
- LPHA (Livestock Health and Pest Authorities.)
- NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife)
- Draft Wild Dog Action Plan
You can read the model here:
http://www.feral.org.au/a-model-for-assessing-the-relative-humaneness-of-pest-animal-control-methods/
Shooting is rated as "Acceptable",
So lets have a look at what makes the difference between "Acceptable" & "Conditionally Acceptable"
This is how the Model Rates Shooting vs 1080 Poison
REF:http://www.feral.org.au/animal-welfare/humaneness-assessment/wild-dog/
(At the end of this post I have some video you can see what that actually looks like)
Have a look a that again, and keep in mind that
--> 1080 Poison is rated as "Conditionally Acceptable"
--> Shooting is rated as "Acceptable"
If you have any experience with hunting or shooting I ask you:
How many animals that you have seen shot, took more than 1-2 min to die?
My Point?
- not that 1080 poison does not work.
- not that 1080 poison should not be used.
My point is that the Sharp and Saunders Model is strongly biased against shooting,
It chooses to use the term "conditional" to help mask the reality of the alternative to shooting.
If you have to use a word like "Conditionally" in order to get your 1080 poison method to pass the Humane Test I think you are not being honest and direct.
Other models will say outright that the poison is nasty and suffering is terrible, but it is unavoidable if you want large scale culling. (see McLeod 2007 down further)
Especially Biased against Ground Shooting
Sharp & Saunders Model enables you to assess Aerial Shooting as more humane than ground shooting.
Apparently they have concluded that bullets fired through the animals chest kill faster & with less pain if fired from a helicopter [1]
If you have any understanding of how a bullet kills, this is a ludicrous conclusion.
What have other models on Humaneness said about Poison & Shooting:
Compare that to this alternative assessment from 2007
That right, Shooting was on the 2nd highest level of Humaneness.
1080 was on the second lowest rating for humaneness.
Interesting aside - the assessment on Species Specificity for poison is not nearly as high as the Saunders Model . This McLeod Study does gel with 2011 Victorian Study on rate of non target animal victims of baiting.
Finally WARNING _ Following Videos Not for Faint of Heart.
Not sure what "Conditionally Acceptable" Looks Like.
Go to 4min 10sec on this video to see impact. 1080 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcF53Ojc3n4
Not sure what "Acceptable" looks like:
Go to 43sec in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hsP2xORt2Y
[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/bullets-fired-from-helicopters-hurt-less-kill-faster-or-why-sharp-saunders-model/206775252834853?comment_id=413582&offset=0&total_comments=1&ref=notif¬if_t=note_comment
No comments:
Post a Comment