Thread: Expensive wallabies

Some of you need to learn a bit more about biosecurity and pest management and the difference between that and hunting.
My happiest day will be when that last individual of an invasive species is killed, to kill this individual will probably cost a significant order of magnitude of cost more than the first one killed. Eradication projects across the globe have failed because as the numbers went down the costs went up, the politicians get uncomfortable, reduce the budget because the species is at low density. The gains are lost, the budget spent is wasted, and you're back to square one.

Read up on invasive curves and the economic returns of control at certain stages: https://www.invasivespeciescentre.ca...nvasion-curve/ you only have to look at the graph.

I left the biosecurity field (although still do a bit of advisory work in biosecurity), because I got sick of politicians insisting I waste budget on species that are already here, aren't going anywhere, cost millions to control this year, next year, and every bloody year after that.

But they wouldn't adequately fund the eradication projects (or the surveillance to detect species before they are too established to eradicate) of very early invaders with very real invasive and impact potential where getting them all is feasible and the economic benefit is immeasurable. They see the cost per plant/animal and think it's outrageous, but I was intending to save them millions by not incurring the social, economic, and environmental cost of these species establishing and spreading. They do not have the foresight to see that these species are the ones they'll be wanting controlled when it's too late to do so.

If you ever want to advocate for sensible biosecurity budget use, ask your local biosecurity officer "what is the species that you are managing that I've never even heard of?". Then tell your councillors to fund the control of that species dollar for dollar it'll be best bang for buck. Not legacy pests that's bad money after bad to try and manage them as a population (without disruptive tech) - you're only left with the expensive option of the management of their effect and suppression in areas of economic or environmental value.

I'm encouraged that the local authorities in question are making dedicated and sensible efforts in controlling spread rather than allowing wallabies into their areas.

There is nothing more expensive than when you can kill an animal pest species for $1 an animal.

Also the tax payers union needs to crawl up their own jacksies. Bunch of moronic cock wombles in every occasion I have ever heard from them.