Discussion points on keeping animals for the purpose of land management.
In the meantime, the current rules apply for Animal Husbandry: no new animals without prior discussion. Existing pets may come with new residents, if they are properly cared for / fenced as appropriate :)
Note Chesterton's fence: we should only be trusted to keep animals if we know all of the reasons why we shouldn't.
- manages grass
- no fossil fuel use (except for relocation, acquisition of food, tools, infrastructure, vet, etc.)
- all-year round responsibility when grass is only difficult to manage during Summer rains
- requires handling, taming and management commitment
- requires excrement management
- requires feeding when the grass is not prolific
- animals discriminate based on taste, so do not target only weeds (and may ignore weeds for fruit trees or natives)
- constant greenhouse gas emissions
- requires fencing, water and infrastructure
- competitive exclusion generally encourages attitude of keeping out native wildlife (e.g. snakes etc.)
Hooves are not present in Australian native conditions and cause additional disturbance to the soil layer.
- video on goats for land management 1: note this was produced by a Goat Herders Association so should be treated as biased material.
Instinctively - I'm not supportive of introducing a herd of animals.
I am supportive of perhaps horses in the future if appropriate stables and fencing were able to be built. Everything else no.
Totally agree and support the above mandate - as long as owners take full responsibility of their care when not on the property like holidays away etc.
my perspective on keeping animals on the land for grazing purposes, is as my own pragmatic response to fossil fuels and waste. i feel that the amount of lost effort that goes into constantly cutting the grass that only supports its increasing presence, strangling out native plant opportunities and just bandaids the problem. that effort could go into higher service. like more nuanced land management including gardens which grow food. my understanding is that grazing animals are a part of the system that has been created by this earth to maintain itself.
to me, focusing on one single area of native only is a little bit ludicrous in the face of evolution. machines run off of fuel, which only comes from mining areas which are often held by indigenous people as sacred. if we want to demonstrate a value system which does not support continuous mining, then something else needs to be done that is practical and realistic. people are not going to scythe 40 acres of land by hand every few weeks endlessly, let alone manage weedy forests and land much larger than that. animals have their place, and we are all on this land to do a job, not just give each other nice feelings, that includes animals. we evolved together to work in this system.
i understand when it is said that it should be thought through before acquisition, i am totally on board, which is why i highlight the potential for hypocrisy if one ignores a useful fact in favour of an ideology which is not cohesive with a secondary ideology (animal use vs coal mining).
"exotic animals" not okay but 90% of ones diet being made overseas and shipped overseas. i am not trying to shame or uninspire here, just being an advocate for transparency in values.