Xenophobic Aus?
i was readin gmy notes on the role of vets in wildlife care for my AHM(animal health and management) subject, when i came across something that i felt was so so so so wrong!!!
Quote:
"wildlife is defined as any animal of a vertebrate species, other than humans or fish, which is indigenous to australia or its territorial waters."
"what is not wildlife? most introduced species are not wildlife (such as rabbits and foxes) and should not be treated and released. there are unassailable ecological reasons why introduced species should not be released in spite of the enthusiasm of some people for saving everything. the cost to our native wildlife from introduced species is devastating and this should be borne in mind."
WHAT THE F?????? this is soooo wrong! they are saying that if someone brings a wild fox/rabbit to me for treatment, and he/she is willing to pay for the cost of the treatment, i still cannot treat the animal. that i must let it die, even though it was some car who knocked it down, even though some family moved into its territory and their dog injured it, etc etc...
it's almost saying that the PRs here cannot receive medical treatment coz they are not 'real citizens' that they were not born here. this is so wrong! isn't a vet suppose to treat all animals? isn't that our obligation to do so? isn't it our obligation to save as may lives as possible. we are the doctors of the animal world, we have no right to say "no, i wont treat this animal coz he doesn not deserved treatment, coz it's foreign, that he's an introduced species"
so what happens to human doctors if these rules apply? doesn this mean they cannot treat the paitent coz he's not a citizen here, that he's not under medicare(where costs are charged to the gov, sort of) so u let ur paitient die?
this is just so wrong! i'm disappointed. i though australia was unlike singapore in that they care a whole lot more for the eniviroment and their animals. wildlife or domestic. i though they didn;t discrimminate animals, just like how they claim to not diacrimminate against people of certain races. those lines that i typed above just proved sooooo unotherwise.
alright, i cannot deny that introduced species will sort of upset their ecological system and what not there. but how will the treatment of 1 or 2 animals and returning them to the wild affect the ecological balance so severely? afterall, these animals that have been treated are already weakened. nature will take it's course and claim their loves someday. so what big diiference does a treatment make to the ecological balance, other than giving the animal a 2nd chance of life?
well, i guess that's that. if i ever practise in aus, i hope i dont encounter such a "introduced wildlife case" puts in a such a dilemma
Quote:
"wildlife is defined as any animal of a vertebrate species, other than humans or fish, which is indigenous to australia or its territorial waters."
"what is not wildlife? most introduced species are not wildlife (such as rabbits and foxes) and should not be treated and released. there are unassailable ecological reasons why introduced species should not be released in spite of the enthusiasm of some people for saving everything. the cost to our native wildlife from introduced species is devastating and this should be borne in mind."
WHAT THE F?????? this is soooo wrong! they are saying that if someone brings a wild fox/rabbit to me for treatment, and he/she is willing to pay for the cost of the treatment, i still cannot treat the animal. that i must let it die, even though it was some car who knocked it down, even though some family moved into its territory and their dog injured it, etc etc...
it's almost saying that the PRs here cannot receive medical treatment coz they are not 'real citizens' that they were not born here. this is so wrong! isn't a vet suppose to treat all animals? isn't that our obligation to do so? isn't it our obligation to save as may lives as possible. we are the doctors of the animal world, we have no right to say "no, i wont treat this animal coz he doesn not deserved treatment, coz it's foreign, that he's an introduced species"
so what happens to human doctors if these rules apply? doesn this mean they cannot treat the paitent coz he's not a citizen here, that he's not under medicare(where costs are charged to the gov, sort of) so u let ur paitient die?
this is just so wrong! i'm disappointed. i though australia was unlike singapore in that they care a whole lot more for the eniviroment and their animals. wildlife or domestic. i though they didn;t discrimminate animals, just like how they claim to not diacrimminate against people of certain races. those lines that i typed above just proved sooooo unotherwise.
alright, i cannot deny that introduced species will sort of upset their ecological system and what not there. but how will the treatment of 1 or 2 animals and returning them to the wild affect the ecological balance so severely? afterall, these animals that have been treated are already weakened. nature will take it's course and claim their loves someday. so what big diiference does a treatment make to the ecological balance, other than giving the animal a 2nd chance of life?
well, i guess that's that. if i ever practise in aus, i hope i dont encounter such a "introduced wildlife case" puts in a such a dilemma
2 Comments:
At 2:12 PM ,
joonwin said...
lol since we're not discussing this, i thought i might as well put my thoughts here. and can NOT be angry with me in real life. but u can flame me online ;)
An animal that is not native in australia is mostly likely, and with foxes and rabbits this is evident, to cause harm to the balance of the ecosystem. as you would understand, that is bad news. the protection of the ecosystem over the protection of the life of the individual animal has very different priorities. the ecosystem supports the animal, but the animal does not neccessarily support the ecosystem. it's like saying you have a criminal that will kill other people. Somebody has caught him, and is about to put him in jail. Is depriving this man his freedom good for him? no, but it is for the good of the whole people. just like killing those introduced species in australia is to save the natural wildlife here in australia. These introduced species bring along with them nothing but destruction. If they are allowed to survive and persist, they will destroy the ecosystem, which will in turn, destroy the whole wildlife of australia. but not killing these introduced species, you are murdering the native species of australia, who have the greater right to be here. Therefore it is not a matter of each individual animal, but rather you have to think for the greater good. This is only in ecosystem terms. Introduced species bring harm to the agricultural economy. Which will push farmers to do bad things like illegal deforesting and using bad methods to improve their crop since they are losing valuable crop to these introduced species. Think about these consequences. In that perspective, the fox that got hit by the car suddenly don't seem to matter anymore. there is a greater issue at hand. and that issue must be addressed at all levels, especially at grassroots, if anything is to be done about it.
At 1:07 AM ,
Ningning said...
shut up...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home