Kangaroo populations will naturally go through “boom and bust” cycles as the amount of available feed and water varies tremendously. (Aussies often forget that this is the world’s driest continent.)
Mass deaths within local kangaroo populations will always occur due to drought. That’s nature, and it’s a bad way to die
Having ‘extra’ dingos manage the ‘roo population’ would mean they’d suffer a similar fate, just delayed by a few months, if that.
When the 'roo population fell to low numbers, the dingos would turn on whatever is available… including, as you say, livestock.
It’s a complex problem, and there are no easy answers.
However, which is worse? Letting 'roos die horrible mass deaths from inevitable droughts, or controlling their numbers via managed culls, and then tapping into that resource? Most, but not all, kangaroos that are culled will die an instant death.
In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective…
… even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.
I’m not convinced that increasing dingo numbers wouldn’t at least help control the population. Basically all predator-prey systems go though cycles afaik (we teach this model to first year maths students). Obviously I’d have to read more to form a stronger opinion though.
In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective…
… even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.
This I agree with, I live overseas now and I miss a good roo-steak.
Oh, increasing the dingo population (by any method) would, as you say, definitely impact the roo population. No question!
But the *location* of that roo population matters and affects whether any cull makes economic sense.
I was a spotter and offsider for a few pro roo shooters over a few seasons.
Culling roos usually only makes sense when it benefits the farmer AND value can be extracted from the roos.
Most culls I’ve seen were in cattle country that was still ‘close to town’, usually within 1-2 hrs’ drive. (I’m sure that culls also occur down in sheep country, too.)
Primary producers rarely look upon dingos favourably, and there’d be little support for increasing them.
The ‘predator-prey’ ‘boom/bust’ cycles are still common, but generally where the station’s size is measured in 1000’s of sq. kms. In the ‘back of beyond’, diesel alone costs much more than can be made from any culled roos.
@TimePencil
Apparently increased dingo numbers does help to keep the feral cat, fox and dog numbers down, which in turn benefits the smaller prey animals that cats especially like to hunt @spiffmeister
Farmers livestock might be at risk but can we not reintroduce more dingos to manage the population?
@spiffmeister
Kangaroo populations will naturally go through “boom and bust” cycles as the amount of available feed and water varies tremendously. (Aussies often forget that this is the world’s driest continent.)
Mass deaths within local kangaroo populations will always occur due to drought. That’s nature, and it’s a bad way to die
Having ‘extra’ dingos manage the ‘roo population’ would mean they’d suffer a similar fate, just delayed by a few months, if that.
When the 'roo population fell to low numbers, the dingos would turn on whatever is available… including, as you say, livestock.
It’s a complex problem, and there are no easy answers.
However, which is worse? Letting 'roos die horrible mass deaths from inevitable droughts, or controlling their numbers via managed culls, and then tapping into that resource? Most, but not all, kangaroos that are culled will die an instant death.
In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective…
… even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.
@Davriellelouna
I’m not convinced that increasing dingo numbers wouldn’t at least help control the population. Basically all predator-prey systems go though cycles afaik (we teach this model to first year maths students). Obviously I’d have to read more to form a stronger opinion though.
This I agree with, I live overseas now and I miss a good roo-steak.
@spiffmeister
Oh, increasing the dingo population (by any method) would, as you say, definitely impact the roo population. No question!
But the *location* of that roo population matters and affects whether any cull makes economic sense.
I was a spotter and offsider for a few pro roo shooters over a few seasons.
Culling roos usually only makes sense when it benefits the farmer AND value can be extracted from the roos.
Most culls I’ve seen were in cattle country that was still ‘close to town’, usually within 1-2 hrs’ drive. (I’m sure that culls also occur down in sheep country, too.)
Primary producers rarely look upon dingos favourably, and there’d be little support for increasing them.
The ‘predator-prey’ ‘boom/bust’ cycles are still common, but generally where the station’s size is measured in 1000’s of sq. kms. In the ‘back of beyond’, diesel alone costs much more than can be made from any culled roos.
Edit: check out the dingo fence…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo/_Fence
@TimePencil
Apparently increased dingo numbers does help to keep the feral cat, fox and dog numbers down, which in turn benefits the smaller prey animals that cats especially like to hunt @spiffmeister