OPINION: Why the snap action to kill so many wild animals?
CROCODILE and alligators snatching humans from beaches has been a hot topic in the world news in recent times.
For me, the questions raised are not about the signage or why people are in areas that are known to be the home for these wild creatures, but why authorities had to kill so many beasts in order to find out which one was the offending animal.
I mean, seriously, was it really necessary to euthanise so many (about five alligators for the Disney incident and two for the far north Queensland case last month)?
I completely understand the need to find closure for the victims' families, but isn't there a better way than to kill off all the nearby suspects?
Surely they could be caught, sedated and x-rayed to see if that particular animal is in fact the offender?
Once the offending wild animal has been identified, surely veterinarians can remove remains of the victim/s from its stomach for burial and identification purposes.
And then the offending animal should be released again back into its natural habitat. It is not their fault food wandered into its territory.
A poll on The Bulletin website asking people if they thought there were too many crocodiles around gave readers the options of - "Yes. Humans need to be protected first" (15% of votes), "No. It's their habitat we should stay out of it" (52% of votes), "Yes. A cull is warranted" (18%) and "No. Crocodiles should be protected" (13%).
The results of this poll clearly show people understand the areas these incidents occurred were the habitats of the wild animals and humans need to behave accordingly (aka don't swim in waters, be alert, better yet, stay away) when in or near those areas.