TimePencil

@FireWire400

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettamogah/_Pub

@DiaDeLosMuertos

@ArcaneSlime

No. Not really. AUS is very different from the USA.

Generally, Aussie governments don't perform roo culls. (In some limited circumstances, pro roo shooters may be engaged by a gov't authority if a town is 'overrun' with roos... but this is unusual.)

If one is in roo country, then one is in gun country. There's no shortage of firearms in the bush.

Shooter limits are often in place, but not often reached, as 'market forces' and the low returns for roo meat dictate how many roos may be taken.

Australia, being a dry country, is much more susceptible to 'boom/bust' cycles, enabling population 'explosions'. (I *think* the total flow of ALL Australian rivers, combined, is still less than just the Mississippi!)

Have a read of the Wikipedia page on roos. Unlike deer, female roos are almost always pregnant and have, effectively, three offspring (in different stages of development) reliant on them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo

@Davriellelouna

@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

@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

@Taleya

I've not moved the goal posts.

This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.

One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."

You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."

I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.

You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."

I haven't moved the goal posts at all.

This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

@Taleya

Thanks.

However, that report relates to 'filicide', and this thread is discussing 'working with children'.

Are you aware of any studies that show that women (who are NOT the mother of a child victim) "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

The report you provided seems related to 'domestic violence', and unrelated to the 'child care' sector.

@Taleya

"Statistically"

I would like to see those specific statistics.

Please tell me where I can see them.

@rowinofwin

@SuperMoosie

Look, here's the bottom line(s):

'Age verification' systems - where a person's ID is submitted - will not work.
Kids will find a way around them.
ID verification systems are a privacy nightmare and something only a dictatorship would implement.

Device/OS/platform 'age restriction' features are workable, but Labor is too incompetent to liaise with the EU to implement them.

It is for parents to supervise and control their kids' devices, NOT for everyone else to have to provide ID just to access social media.

@Zagorath

@Zagorath

That's right! (That's what we/you were talking about, wasn't it?)

Compel the major devices and OSes to have the feature you suggested.

Make it a requirement for all devices, and available to all users. Give parents the *option* to 'lock down' or 'age restrict' a device.

The government should otherwise steer away from their likely dystopian solution.

@makingStuffForFun

50% of Zagorath's name is 'rath'... as in 'wrath'.

Beware the wrath of Zagorath!

@Zagorath

@Zagorath

Oh, I do agree with you, Zag!

I detest the notion of citizens having to provide ID, and solutions - at the device or OS level - could be implemented.

It should be a responsibility of parents to limit the social media access by their children, and NOT the 'surveillance state' solution of compelling the entire population to hand over their 'Australia Card' just to crap on about something here!

@shirro

The 'ID is required for beer and smokes' example is misleading.

Most adults are NOT required to provide ID to purchase such items. Only those who look "Under 25 years" *may* be required to produce ID, and even then, that ID is NOT recorded. (An exception may the the NT for alcohol sales.)

Requiring the citizenry to provide ID to either a social media entity OR via a government controlled gateway is something that must NOT be tolerated.

A requirement such as this will 'chill' free speech, weaken our democracy, and undoubtedly expose our personal information to hackers.

It's akin to allowing a person to purchase a pen, paper, envelope, and stamps - but then demanding the writer present both their ID and the unsealed letter at a Post Office, so that one's written words may be recorded against one's name.

To paraphrase Robert Bolt, it's akin to "cutting down privacy to protect children from the devil".

If you wish to argue in favour of this incoming law, do so *after* you've sent a copy of your ID to me.