AN attack on a child by a large wallaby in Cairns has sparked calls for a cull of the area’s growing mob before someone is killed.
Concerned dad Alwyn “Bones” Bailey said if he had not been there to fight off the 1m-tall wallaby at White Rock on Saturday afternoon, he had no doubt his nine-year-old son Morgan would have been mauled to death.
“It’s deadset serious. Someone should get a gun and shoot the buggers,“ Mr Bailey told the Cairns Post.
“They’re not just friendly, cute little wallabies any more – they’re killers.“
I hesitate to suggest this because I love children too, but animals, even those who tolerate humans normally have reasons to attack. Human children, particularly those old enough to move about somewhat freely but still too young to respect the life of others, often take delight in deliberately antagonizing by sudden scare tactics. For a human child this is a game they commonly do with birds, rabbits, even dogs and cats. It isn’t their intention to cause harm, but harm is the payoff frequently to the animal and sometimes to the child as well.
Animals remember these kinds of threats too, especially if they have offspring nearby and learn to posture and even attack specific targets they’ve recalled to mind. Animals know the difference between babies, children and adult humans as well and can easily differentiate the ones who are threats to them.
Any wild animal should be given not only wide berth, but also respect for their ‘space’ and even dignity in the world. Teaching this to humans must begin at a very young age because our young do harmful things. Human posturing is still noted by animals as threat aggression and is filed away for future reference.
Since the article notes ‘children’ having been attacked, I’m inclined to believe that a child in the past, or a group of them have taken delight in abuse toward these animals thinking it fun and play.
I have to agree that wild animals should be respected and given their space, but after reading the full article, it seems that calls for a cull are legitimate. The wallabys are way overpopulated for their area and are beginning to act in abberant ways. If the details of the article are accurate, the child was approached at his home by the wallaby and hadn’t done anything provocative when he was attacked!
Harvesting animals is often the only way to prevent them from over-populating a given area and dying lingering deaths from starvation. Folks that live in cities, away from the natural rhythm of nature, often forget this. Time and again, ETA*loss or restriction of hunting of animals such as deer only leads to the loss of whole herds this way. Which is more humane; to ‘cull’ 20 percent of the herd, or to stand by and watch the whole herd slowly starve in a lean year?
The problem is that, compared to other animals on this planet, humans have a unique impact on nature, and thus any interaction we have with it must be done with great care. It is easy to talk of ‘culling’ and the good effects we may believe it would have, but what we are talking about is the manipulation of the natural world. To believe that we can create a better balance and order than the process of evolution has done is somewhat presumptuous, even before we get into the issue of what civilisation has already done by accident.
It is of course incredibly complicated. Sometimes the population of a certain species might skyrocket and this of course puts strains on resources - the exact same thing has happened to humanity. On the one hand, many of these problems are caused by humanity; our cities, our own demand for resources, etc. Conversely, this isn’t to say that intervention cannot sometimes be beneficial.
So the motives of those who advocate either side might be questioned. Are those who say we shouldn’t intervene merely taking a moral stance rather than a practical one? Are those who encourage ‘culling’ merely hunters who have something to gain from it personally?
Of course, its always wise to expect a backlash when something tragic such as this happens; facts and opinions can get mixed up, the truth slightly distorted, and its understandable. The best course of action is to get scientific experts onto the matter, and find out exactly what is going on and, if there is a problem, discuss what the best way of tackling it might be.
The fact is, Ark, that we have and will continue to effect the habitat/life of wildlife. I believe that we must be good stewards of the resources around us, and animals are resources. (I know that many folks have anthropomorphised ‘Bambi”, but the fact is deer are a renewable resource like trees if managed properly.)
Out here in the western USA, we have a ‘fair chase’ philosophy that has been taking root. It emphasizes ethical and humane ways of hunting and managing wildlife for hteir maximum benefit and ours. ‘Cause face it, people are here to stay. We must come up with reasonable compromises to the issue of hunting/culling/harvesting. (Because they are all natural resources, whether it is minerals, trees, or wildlife.)
The problem is that people who are not experts in wildlife are saying “don’t worry, if we do this A, then this B will happen, and the problem will go away”. Most cases such as this stem from people not having respect for the natural world, but feel that since they are human they are thus somehow able to manage the natural world in the way we would like to manage civilisation. Unfortunetly, these are two worlds which do not follow the same rules.
I am not saying that we should not attempt to interact wisely (as I did point out), merely that people approach it the wrong way. And the benefits of what is being done currently are, as is everything, up for debate. Every time a creature attacks a human, reactionary cries of ‘they need culling now!‘ are immediatly taken up with little thought. And as I also said, it’s understandable - especially when the victim is a young child.
At the end of the day, a scientific approach on how to deal with the problem is of the highest importance - sadly, the media prefers scandal and excitement.
