Letters: Return to culling crocs could save lives
CROC chaos can be avoided by reintroducing culling.
The majority would like to return to the time when recreation in and around our waterways was relatively safe.
Swimming, fishing, water sports, camping near rivers and creeks enjoyed without the fear of becoming a meal for some iconic croc.
A minority have presently put us in the position where these recreational activities are severely restricted.
Rather than imposing a ridiculous $28,383.75 fine plus three years prison for culling a croc, there should be a bounty for scalps.
The message forced on us that crocs are a necessary part of our ecosystem and in danger of extinction is a load of crock.
They survived the dinosaurs' extinction and many years of being shot on sight.
I find the information regarding removal of crocs published in the Bulletin to be confusing.
Croc expert John Lever:
"We know crocodiles of this size have to be taken away from areas of public recreation.”
Environment and Heritage Protection, Michael Joyce: "If this iconic crocodile had been reported to the Dept of Environment and Heritage Protection, wildlife officers would have immediately taken steps to remove it in accordance with the Queensland Croc management plan.”
How does one type of removal differ from another in controlling the behaviour of the remaining croc population?
Crocs are pretty smart so it might work if crocodile signs were put up on the river, warning, Behave or you could be the next turned into a handbag.
Income management will achieve nothing
WHEN I was about 13 my dad was made redundant and was out of work for a while. My school had an odd system for processing concession meal tickets.
If your parents were on benefits you were given a white ticket for school dinners (the fully paid ones were pink) and you also lined up separately. After a couple of days of it, I decided it was better to go without lunch than to face the taunts from other kids. They started to notice last year's blazer, a little too short and with threadbare elbows, and my worn shoes with glued soles.
The vernacular where I grew up was different, but it was very easy to become known as what in Australia would translate to "povo”.
While I can understand why some would think compulsory income management cards are a good idea, the government's approach raises serious concerns.
There is little evidence to suggest that the use of the Indue cards actually achieves the stated goals. The "evidence” the government is quoting has serious methodological flaws and has been rubbished by academics from the Australian National University, among others. It amounts to little more than a market research study.
At $10,000 per card (30-40% of what the welfare recipient is receiving), as a taxpayer, I want to know that the investment is delivering results.
If the government is insistent on income management, can they not come up with a system that further stigmatises people?
Can existing banks not come up with a system that prevents purchase of prohibited items, but to the rest of us looks like a normal bank card?
They might even do it at less than $10k per head as well. I would be very interested to know who this company is and what tender process was used in selecting their product, to essentially privatise an aspect of welfare.
Perhaps the cards have nothing to do with the stated goals.
This debate is focusing attention on the "welfare epidemic” - you know the headline "Bludgers ripping off hard-working Aussies”.
There is no epidemic.
Australian spending on welfare programs as a percentage of the gross domestic product per capita is below most comparative OECD countries including that communist enclave known as the USA.
Meanwhile, some of our tax laws are a joke, with large companies sending millions overseas without paying tax.
The income management program will achieve nothing to improve the finances and health of Australians. It is a cynical and expensive political exercise disguised as tough- love philanthropy.
If I had to use one I would feel just like I was holding my white meal ticket.
'No' voters not 'vicious idiots'
I TRUST that I am not alone in taking exception to the Your Say tirade in Saturday's Bully by GTW Agnew of Coopers Plains, where "no” voters were referred to as "vicious idiots”! That may be borderline hate speech and as I am reasonably literate, the logic of this diatribe escaped me right from the title: "All kids have a mum and dad”, to the final illogical and hateful sentence that declared "The only way to make these vicious idiots treat everyone equally is to vote 'Yes'!”
If this is the level of argument for the "yes” campaign it is not going to say very much for the mental processes of the rest of us should they win!