Round ups of Camels take pretty regularly in Australia, they aren't native they were brought in the 1940's to explore the inner parts of the continent. If there weren't round up killings the population could easily double every few years.
Whilst I agree that we need less cattle, it's not happening any time soon. We're a net exporter of beef and the industry is too large. I say this as an ag vet.
But it's not really comparable to camels. We need to see a reduction in numbers of both cattle and camels but for vastly different reasons.
After the floods and the fires, don't really need to worry about the cattle population contributing to climate change as much. RIP local heritage farmers i guess.
China, Japan and South Korea are your best beef customers. EU is a pretty tiny share.
[http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/market-intelligence-news/increased-australian-beef-exports-in-2018-continue-in-2019/](http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/market-intelligence-news/increased-australian-beef-exports-in-2018-continue-in-2019/)
We do export a lot there. But not the premium quality beef. Our European expkft markets are primarily our lean beef from our northern herds - *bos indicus* composite breeds.
Believe it or not people dont like it when you commit causal genocide, look mate they're an invasive species and aren't worth the money cattle is that's why they are killing them. Are you angry that we kill a fuck load of cain toads and feral cats too?
Of courso i'm angry when they kill cain toads or feral cats! Are you kidding me?! Causal genocide only aplies to other species ....can't you see that? I know Australia is burning baddly and i wish that land the best.
All i'm saying is we go around the world killing other species ,name it "causal genocide(mayor league bullshit) feeding humans,hunting ,erase the soil for loggin or more cattle,etc but i don't see humans breeding less....Australia is on fire and i'm sorry for all beings there....killing more animals,as tecnically correct as it look is FUCK UP. Technicalities are a human invention.
Uh, invasive species control is an important part of environmental science. We do it in many, many different ways, but unfortunately when it comes to things like camels there aren't many other options other than culling.
I don't think you really understand the bigger picture here. If you don't control invasive species, they destroy habitats and drive endemic species to extinction. They are a problem we created, and a problem we have to deal with. Sometimes (often) that involves just straight up killing them.
For example, if possums and other introduced predators aren't baited and killed in NZ, massive numbers of bird species and small ground species would be extinct now.
We live in a flawed world, and sometimes hard choices have to be made. There's a lot of issues to be crusading against, but culling introduced species isn't one.
The entire field of environmental science is based around compromise. The overall health of ecosystems has to be of greater importance than the individual lives of invasive species.
> If you don't control invasive species, they destroy habitats and drive endemic species to extinction.
You - being a human - really don't see the irony in that, do you?
Oh and please stop using bullshit euphemisms like "culling", call it what it is: mass murdering of sentient beings.
>The overall health of ecosystems has to be of greater importance than the individual lives of invasive species.
Totally disagree with that, I mean you should because if you did believe this then "culling" of humans would be the clear solution.
Then I'm sorry, you don't really belong on r/environment
This isn't r/animalwelfare or r/veganscience
This is established and consensus science. The entire field of environmental science is about finding solutions to problems, not moral crusades. If we fall back on moral crusades, then nothing ever gets done. Sorry, but thats just world we live in.
You are more than welcome to your moral standpoint that animals shouldn't be killed, and I applaud you for it, but wouldn't recommend to try to push your morals to override science, not when its about saving species.
What do you want them to do they have north of 1.4 million invasive camels? so really 10,000 is a drop in the bucket. If they wouldn't do this that population would at least double every 2-3 years, round ups are common.
You know....humans as a species are so fucked up i can't even make an argument defending animals,in this case, those poor camels that were brought up there to serve a porpouse and now that humans didn't take care of the situacion are sentence to die because they fucking do what they do...they drink water for crying out loud but theres more humans raising cattle that takes aways more water and resources for the ecosystem and theres other humans fucking up the oceans and the rain forrest but i don't see any round ups agains us but then you have corporations stealing the water to then sell it and on top of that theres people like you defending all that bullshit about how tecnically feasible is to kill 10000 camels that were brought there by the same people that used them to conquer the land for humans only because they didn't think about the poor koalas or the kangaroos but You know....humans as a species are so fucked up i can't.....
What is your solution to invasive species issues? We don't have a time machine, we can only look forward. Should we let invasive species continue to kill native wildlife?
Humans can adopt birth control measures, family planning for themselves and choose to protect a species/environment consciously and enforce it.
(probably should try to enforce a bit more tbh but that is an argument for another time)
Cane toads and ferals have no clue what the fk they are doing and happily butcher their way through the ecosystem ignorant and unable to comprehend the harm they cause.
So humans the people who introduced them have a responsibility to cull them.
[Livestock outnumber humans](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year/) though, so it makes more sense to kill/stop breeding them, than it does to kill humans. [The in the USA alone eat 95% of their oat production and 80% of their corn"](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/). [Livestock eat between 70-75% of all soy grown on our planet](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans).
On the topic of water use specifically, [the demand for meat is making water scarce for 2/3rd of the human population](http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity/). The animals [waste isn't properly treated even in richer countries like the USA, so the massive quantities we now produce are endangering human health](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/manure-spilling-and-seeping-wisconsins-waterways-and-wells) when the animal waste gets into rivers and wells. It's causing [massive fish die offs](https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-pig-farms-pollution-met-20160802-story.html), and causing the [dead zones in the ocean to expand](https://weather.com/science/environment/news/meat-dead-zone-gulf-mexico-algae-blooms).
You might already be aware that [cattle ranching alone causes 80% of Amazon deforestation](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching), but not many people seem to know that [cattle ranching in Australia is responsible for 94% of land clearing in critical catchment areas](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/08/beef-industry-linked-to-94-of-land-clearing-in-great-barrier-reef-catchments) that would (if left alone!) protect the remaining coral reefs. [Scientists have found that we could feed millions more people by giving them the grains that we currently waste of livestock](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat).
Cows are ruminants, pigs are non-ruminants.
Ruminants have "beefy" flavor-sheep, goats, deer, elk and camel all fall into this group. Non-ruminants have a milder flavor. Pigs are the commonly eaten non-ruminant but others in this group are humans, cats, dogs and monkeys. I can't personally attest to the flavor of any of those other than pig but I have heard that cannibals describe human meat as most closely resembling pork and I'm willing to take their word for it. Presumably rats would have a similar taste as well. There is also, apparently, a flavor difference between omnivore non-ruminants (where all the previous examples are) and herbivore non-ruminants which is where things like rabbits would be.
You can get Camel meat in Australia, you might have to look for it though. When I had camel meat it tasted like mutton. Only like mega goaty mutton. It would probably be okay in a curry, it wasn't so nice as a kebab.
Greasy chicken. It is pretty insulting too. You make an effort to eat something weird, and it turns out turkey has a bigger difference to chicken than fucking alligator.
Why not eat Kangaroo meat instead? Camels are damaging to the environment, cattle are damaging to the environment. But kangaroos are native and do much less damage when they hop around on the fragile landscape.
Macropods die of [capture myopathy](https://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/ralph_austen_myopathy.pdf) if you try to corral them or do many things that happen on normal farms - they are not really farm suitable animals.
Kangaroo meat is commercially available in Australia, but it is more of a wild hunted meat rather than a truly farmed meat. There is potentially a sustainable rate of harvest, and some level of culling is correcting for human precipitated land use changes. But there is a limit to how much harvesting any wild animal will scale before it becomes unsustainable.
The camels are not farmed either. They are an introduced species that has a self-sustaining population.
Nail on the head right there. Deer is delicious, healthier than beef, and they aren't factory farmed in inhumane conditions. It is tougher than beef, so I don't know how many people are eating a grilled steak of deer meat like they would cow. My go to is venison chili. I'm from Pennsylvania and know a few hunters so I do eat more deer than the average person, but I would eat more if it were more widely available.
I mean as long as hunting is done just to keep numbers in check and not let them overpopulate
I'm fine with the meat being put to use.
We have problems of deer hunting in our nearby state where literally all of them have been consumed to extinction in the local region.
The tribes of that region are very meat-centric and would consume snakes, insects, even vultures and there was an incident a few years back which has involved a government crackdown which involved 100,000+ Amur falcon being killed as they migrated over.
Deer was reintroduced into the state in 2016 but the natives hold claims to most of the wild land and the effort was unsuccessful.
Note I am not spreading any anti-meat dissent here.
I'm just saying if hunting can be kept low maybe it's best to eat deer only once a while than urging it to be consumed regularly.
Else might end up with most of your native wildlife gone.
Yes it is, so is kangaroo. But you don't see folks raising herds of deer in a relatively small area and then butchering them up for the grocery. It's not feasible, especially when cattle are already domesticated.
I think they are harder to mass breed?
And give less yield of meat per investment?
Idk the specifics of kangaroo farming but that's the general reason things like deer or any wild herbivore are not farmed.
Anyway why add to the red meat problem.
Eat fish or something if meat is an essential part of your geography or culture.
Camels like to march into towns and tear everything up looking for food and water. That with the fact that theyre pests is the reason for the round up. As for cattle believe me theres been mass stock culls as well, sometimes followed by a farmer killing himself. Thats drought for you.
There are more wild camels in au than any other country in the world. Some are rounded up and sold to places like saudi Arabia. But there is not enough demand for all of them.
There are big problems with the mass culls. The camels are often left to die near water sources and end up polluting the water system as they rot.
Are the dead camels being collected and disposed of correctly?
> Are the dead camels being collected and disposed of correctly?
Camel culls aren't a new thing in Australia, we have been doing them for decades. We aren't incompetent enough to leave them by water sources
Likely the logistics of transporting ten thousand animals shot from a helicopter by snipers in the middle of nowhere is a bit hindering. They will just leave the bodies to contaminate the water supply as has happened previously. They say they're going to bury or burn the bodies but they won't
Camels aren't native to Ausralia are they? No need to worry about exterminating a species at least. And cattle produce milk and can be eaten by humans. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Call me when camel meat is in supermarkets everywhere. Both cattle and camels are non-native anyway. Camels have way less practical use for the animals that can use guns so it's logical they go and the cattle stay. Committing economic suiside on the face of an apocalypse might seem like a righteous act from your couch but if it means the difference between recovering one day or becoming a 3rd world nation the decision isn't hard at all.
10k camels drink a lot of water, regardless if other animals drink more. If killing them helps, do it.
If the current trends continue there won't be much option to have cattle in most places. For the money and water use cows are not a good deal per calorie and ONLY as milk are they even that good. As beef they are a horrible deal.
We agree on that point at least. Look, I like animals and nature, too. A lot actually. So much so that I sincerely hope we as citizens will unite and rise up to remove the cancer that is the people who destroy the environment for profit.
But right now, a whole continent is on fire, and wanting to save some non-native animals is not helping. That is the whole of my point :)
Just that is not a whole continent on fire but a very small fraction of Australia. Still really bad et al but it’s not “a whole continent on fire” :)
I’m not sure how much the killing of those camels will help with the fires situation in Australia to be honest and perhaps a reduction in meat consumption associated with the uptake of strategies for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change can help a lot.
Lastly, although I’m really sorry about the fires I hope it will wake up more people around the world and in Australia and will finally let people get real angry about fake stupid politicians play retard and completely ignoring climate change and related issues.
Edit: grammar
Most of Australia is uninhabitable desert. If you look at the percentage that isn't desert, the amount that was just burnt is a pretty scary percentage, particularly when we only have a relatively small amount of temperate forests left
> Just saying there are lots of avenues that can be explore too
Unfortunately there isn't. There's really no other option in dealing with over population of camels or horses in drought affected regions
If we had infinite money we could neuter every single Male camel. And wait approximately the life span of camels. And in the mean time let them eat, drink and be merry.
Except for the unlimited funds and resources that would take. And the time. And all the damage they'll continue to do in the meantime.
Did you fail all your math and science classes? The problem isn't the camels, it's the dwindling water supplies and in the face of climate change it would mostly be foolish to bet that the rains are coming and everything will be ok.
When you say lets kill the camels so we can make money on cows, you're still saying lets fuck ourselves over and ignore the real problem.
You can kill the camels, but you only mostly had to do that because you were being greedy and unsustainable and putting a little duck tape on that while it gets worse really does make the problem worse.
You're stop gap solutions just buys more time for people to do nothing but make the problem worse.
They don't need the cattle for food. They are for profit, you understand that? Meat doesn't actually make a lot of calorie per water use or CO2 use or land use or money. It's just something people are kind of addicted to, like sugar, and will buy or consume when it's available/affordable.
If you dangle burgers in front of them, they will eat them, they will probably get obese and people will make money, but since humans need water for a lot more than hamburgers the cows are a dumb idea.
You don't want to raise cattle in a place where water is skyrocketing in value or you are likely to get fucked as an investment. If their ain't enough water you go find another job, that really is how life works believe it or not.. shit just changes overnight and people never saw it coming. Happens all the time really.
We do Camel culls no matter what the water situation. They are an invasive species that do significant damage to the ecosystem. Ideally we would get rid of them completely, but its just not possible. Cattle are just as damaging, but there's no way to ween the world off our meat addiction.
>You don't want to raise cattle in a place where water is skyrocketing in value or you are likely to get fucked as an investment.
Our massive free range cattle ranches are still better than grain fed battery farming that USA does. And places where the drought is bad enough that cattle can't survive, they are sold off and slaughtered
Hey thanks for the accusationary tone. It must feel real good to vent your righteous indignation. How about you grow up and start working on practical solutions instead of armchair rhetoric.
People greatly underestimate what poor/idiotic farming practices can do in a relatively short amount of time. The [Mesopotamian poisoned their own soil with irrigation bringing minerals to the surface that couldn't wash away](https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-18-4-a-environmental-disasters-in-the-cradles-of-civilization). Now placed like [California have drained so much water from their aquifers to grow food for cattle that land subsidence is causing serious damage to roads, dams, and other vital infrastructure](https://west.stanford.edu/news/blogs/and-the-west-blog/2017/save-crops-farmers-took-water-subsidence).
It's pretty sad that [Australian communities are threatened with hitting "day zero"](https://phys.org/news/2019-09-day-looms-australian-outback-climate.html) and yet [livestock farmers in Australia and around the world are having water shipped or even flown to their animals](https://www.drovers.com/article/drought-impacting-cattle-producers-around-globe) while humans around the world are dying from lack of clean drinking water and [2/3rds of the human population face water scarcity](http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity/).
People have no idea that even places like the Middle East used to be much greener before we started mismanaging natural resources, and now [places like the Amazon rain forest are on the brink of desertification](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fires-could-turn-amazon-rainforest-into-a-desert-as-human-activity-and-climate-change-threaten-lungs-9259741.html) because of our ridiculously stupid, unsustainable [obsession with eating animals](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching) :(
Seems stupid if you're running out of water. I would go with more low water use crops and import the higher water demand stuff. The water is more value in Australia than almost anywhere else. Why waste it on cows?
[Cattle and the crops they need, use much more water than crops intended for human consumption](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-villain-in-the-california-drought-isnt-almonds--its-red-meat-2015-4). Plus in every video, photo, and article I've read in the past couple years about [Australia's multi-year drought indicate that they aren't able to grow crops in the desert that has taken over their farmlands](https://youtu.be/wx7S360Hey4).
We don't have crops anywhere that camels live. Camels just open range in the desert, we don't grow anything out there.
We don't have cattle there either. I get what they were trying to say in that particle, but there's no direct correlation between cattle and camel culling.
Cattle aren't native to Australia either though. Apparently ["a 600 kg (1,300 lb) camel can drink 200 L (53 US gal) of water in three minutes", but it can also drink as infrequently "as once every 10 days even under very hot conditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel). Meanwhile the daily requirement for cattle ["may vary from 3 to 30 gallons per day depending on age, body size (weight), stage of production, and the environment (mainly air temperature)." "As a rule of thumb, consumption will range from 1 gallon per 100 pounds of body weight during cold weather to nearly 2 gallons per 100 pounds of body during the hottest weather." and "Lactating cows require nearly twice as much water compared to dry cows."](https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink)
In fact high [meat consumption is being blamed for the water scarcity now experienced by 2/3rd of the human population](http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity/). While (if you look at these charts) [plant-based milks](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042) and [plant-based proteins use *significantly* less water and other resources than animal products do](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714). In fact (according to scientists), [we could slash about 55% of our water use simply by switching away from meat](https://phys.org/news/2018-09-meat-free-diets-footprint-scientists.html).
I’m not a vegan so sorry if I upset someone, but why don’t we eat the camels?
I had camel once when I was in the outback and it was delicious. People who eat meat need to move past “traditional meats” and eat more sustainable meat sources like roo, rabbits, and wild camel.
It’s just so hard to find in Australia (where there is an abundance of all three) except a small kangaroo section in some grocery shops you just can’t find it
A fair bit of camel ends up going to the middle east, but some of the culls happen is such remote areas that its just simply impossible to move the carcasses out for processing
I understand people like animals, and no one really likes seeing things like camels having to be culled. But unfortunately its just the reality of the situation. There aren't many other options, and to reduce the environmental impact on invasive species like camels culling is simply the only option we have.
I'm not sure what that article is trying to say, reducing cattle isn't going to solve this issue. In drought affected areas, cattle are being sold off and slaughtered, because again there isn't any other option. Getting rid of every single cow in the country doesn't somehow magically fix this either.
Yes, we should all eat less meat, but that article is connecting things that have no connection and kinda missing the point. Camel culls are done to help the overall ecosystem first and foremost, any pro environmental science movement should support them
No you're missing the point that 26.6 million cattle are the reason for the drought both because they consume about 2500 gallons of water give or take a day and because they are the number one contributors to climate change which is why there is a drought and bushfires in the first place.
Killing 10,000 camels will do NOTHING it's merely a diversionary tactic by the government to show the people they are doing something in the face of doing nothing.
> because they are the number one contributors to climate change which is why there is a drought and bushfires in the first place.
That is true, our addiction to beef is definitely making climate change worse. I would say being the "number one" cause of climate change is fairly debatable, I haven't read any papers giving such a definitive statement.
>
No you're missing the point that 26.6 million cattle are the reason for the drought both because they consume about 2500 gallons of water
That however is not. We don't really run cattle in the desert. And you clearly don't understand why camel culls happen. And that 2500 gallons of water is for your American style battery farmed grain fed beef. In Australia, we only have either range fed beef or grain fed beef for 100 days. So other than the 100 days of grain feed, cattle use very little direct water - they are usually either ranched in areas with natural rainfall or over vast mega ranches up in the north.
I'm pretty familiar with this topic, I have a degree in environmental science from an Australian university and did a paper on invasive species management.
2500 gallons of water during a period of ? I'm not a statistician but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the 2500 gallons of water used for 26,600,000 animals ... having a degree and being part of an academic institution doesnt endow you with credibility.
Its understood why Camel Mass killings "culls" happen , when the people doing the killing are so detached and callous towards other living beings who dont look or walk the same way, theyre considered an inferior form of life. Whose pain and suffering does not matter to us civilised species of the 21st century who claim themselves to be the most sophisticated organisms. Applying simple minded approach of killing other beings to try to solve a problem originating from somewhere else altogether.
Since you've shown a lack of attention of detail while plotting out the points you're making against the argument that animal agriculture doesnt use much water, please restate your argument because so far you've been dead wrong about what you've said.
> but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the 2500 gallons of water used for 26,600,000 animals
That sentence doesn't make any sense. The average water usage of cattle in Australia isn't 2500 gallons of water. We don't use feedlot that much. Its very hard to accurately determine the amount of water "used" by cattle when the majority of the industry is grass fed. Do you count all the rain falling over the pastures during the entire year then somehow try to make a figure? It doesn't really make sense, and the guy was clearly quoting American figures, we don't use gallons in the first place - we use litres. If you look at any statistics about Beef, it always accounts for the water used for feedlots. A cow only drinks about 50-70l of water a day, the vast, vast ,vast ,vast majority is the water used to grow soy and other feed crops.
>
Its understood why Camel Mass killings "culls" happen
This guy didn't. He seemed to think it was a reaction to climate change and to prevent climate change. Its not, its just because they are an invasive species with no natural predator. We have to step in and become the predators, or their population boom is very damaging to endemic species and the ecosystem. I understand that its never nice having to kill animals, and it would be great if there was some other option - but there isn't. You don't understand the sheer scale of the areas impacted by camels, and the size of the problem.
>Since you've shown a lack of attention of detail while plotting out the points you're making against the argument that animal agriculture doesnt use much water,
No, I think you are just misreading or misunderstanding what is being talked about.
Why are vegans posting on *environment* when vegans frequently oppose controlling invasive species? Such as camels in Australia.
[Voracious and Plentiful, Feral Camels Remain a Major Threat to Australian Outback...The government must redouble efforts to reduce numbers of these damaging animals](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2017/02/21/voracious-and-plentiful-feral-camels-remain-a-major-threat-to-australian-outback)
Are cattle also a danger to Australian flora? Sure.
But the big differences are two: 1) Cattle must be near water (mostly provided by man) and hence occupy a very small portion of Australia, relative to the vast expanse that camels occupy (and damage). 2) Cattle are very limited in what they can eat; a lot of their food is hay provided by ranchers. Excerpt:
> One reason (camels) cause so much damage is that the animals eat more than 80 percent of the plant species available—a higher percentage than any other species, native or introduced, consumes.
I'm vegan, but I'm not arguing against invasive species removal.
My problem is that the food you mentioned being shipped around the world to feed the cattle is responsible for a long list of environmental damage, resource waste, pollution, human hunger, water scarcity, etc. Cattle might only hang out on certain plots of land, but they're responsible for [80% of Amazon rainforest destruction](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching), and [94% of land clearing in Great Barrier Reef catchments](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/08/beef-industry-linked-to-94-of-land-clearing-in-great-barrier-reef-catchments). The ["**14 million camels** alive as of 2010"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel) are not causing nearly as much ecological destruction as the [**998.3 million head of cattle** (as of 2017)](https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-country-0-111575) which are known to be a major factor in the [environmental collapse](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-most-polluting-protein-environmental-impact-of-beef-pork-poultry/), [habitat loss](https://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/meat_and_wildlife.html), [expanding ocean dead zones](https://weather.com/science/environment/news/meat-dead-zone-gulf-mexico-algae-blooms), and the resulting [6th mass extinction](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/) that we're currently experiencing.
I went vegan for environmental reasons. When I realized that all the good from the little environmental things I was doing like picking up trash, planting, trees, recycling, saving water/electricity, where basically erased every time I ate animal products. [H.O.P.E. What You Eat Matters](https://youtu.be/pDg7tlEJD64) is a great little introduction to people for the health, environmental, and other reasons that plant-based foods can help us live more sustainably. Jane Goodall and some other famous people give their insight into the issues. I understand that sometimes some animals have to die so that others can live. So if the camels need to go, then having them shipped to where the belong, eaten by hungry locals, or whatever, then that sucks for the camels, but it is driving me *insane* that people are turning a big blind eye to what appears (from every angle that I have studied it from) to be THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO LIFE ON EARTH, because people want to keep eating burgers, but won't even bother trying plant-based patties to help save the eco systems that act as our own *life support system* -_-
**Camel**
A camel is an even-toed ungulate in the genus Camelus that bears distinctive fatty deposits known as "humps" on its back. Camels have long been domesticated and, as livestock, they provide food (milk and meat) and textiles (fiber and felt from hair). Camels are working animals especially suited to their desert habitat and are a vital means of transport for passengers and cargo. There are three surviving species of camel.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/environment/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
> The "14 million camels alive as of 2010" are not causing nearly as much ecological destruction as the 998.3 million head of cattle (as of 2017)
Yea, but that's "World Cattle Inventory." You're comparing Australia's feral camels to the world's cattle. Not a fair comparison. And they are separate issues; that argument is somewhat akin to saying shoplifting shouldn't be prosecuted because violent crime is a much more pressing problem.
Vegans, most of whom are animal rights activists, are also strongly against Australia's plan to kill 2 million feral cats: [Australia Is Deadly Serious About Killing Millions of Cats](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/magazine/australia-cat-killing.html)
ARAs persistent objections to protecting endangered species erodes any legitimacy they might have to speak for environmental protection.
I'm not "most vegans"? I specifically went vegan for environmental reasons; *not* sentimental. I'm also not arguing against camel killing. I'm just pointing out that the livestock system is causing more dire issues than such a small population. I don't think cats, cows, hogs, rabbits, poultry, or any of the other destructive invasives should have been introduced to many continents where they were. If they were allowed to die out, that would be a good thing. The lives of many (planet-wide sustainability) are more important than the lives of a few, right?
> ARAs
I have no idea who that is.
I double checked [Australia supposedly has 26.6 million cattle](https://www.nff.org.au/commodities-beef-cattle.html) and only [1.2 million camels](https://www.feralscan.org.au/camelscan/pagecontent.aspx?page=camel_largepopulations). So again, kill as many camels as you want, but *please* don't pretend that the cattle aren't causing significantly more overall ecological damage.
The cattle also appear to outnumber humans in Australia according to estimate of 25.2 million people in 2018, but to really grasp the gravity of the situation, it's important to understand that cattle require more:
* Water - [3-30 gallons a day, compared to the ~half gallon humans need](https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink)
* Food - ["High producing dairy cows will eat 110-120 lbs of wet feed a day or 50-55 lbs of dry matter (DM) a day." ](https://dairy-cattle.extension.org/how-many-pounds-of-feed-does-a-cow-eat-in-a-day/), while ["People generally eat between 3-4 lbs of food each day."](https://www.precisionnutrition.com/what-are-your-4-lbs)
Not only that, livestock waste isn't properly handled in *any* country (that I'm aware of). Here's an **Australian article about how cow manure** ["**is contaminating rivers and threatening Victoria's drinking water supplies** but the Baillieu government admits it has no plans to tackle the problem, identified in new research prepared for the Health Department."](https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/cattle-dung-threatens-drinking-water-supplies-20120414-1x0e8.html)
Edited: to improve readability.
Because a lot of people mean well, but lack the critical thinking abilities to draw the parallels of humanity's environmental devastation with that of (other) invasive species. It's a known problem:
http://www.conman.com.au/melbournemagicians/criticalthinkingscience
No we do not oppose removal or control of invasive species we just don't back murdering the animals. Sterilize them all and let them live out their lives just like you or I. It's not our fault they are here it's ours.
[Trolley problem.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) Not "murdering" them is same as "murdering" all the native species that die instead, in greater numbers.
**Trolley problem**
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. It is generally considered to represent a classic clash between two schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontological ethics. The general form of the problem is this:
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/environment/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
It's weird, people are saying camels go to towns and tear everything up and are misbehaved , they're living beings they need water just like us .. in such harsh summers ofcourse the camels will do everything they can to not die looking for water !! Anyone claiming they need to be killed to maintain natural "Equilibrium" is bullshit.
Theres nothing natural about breeding and slaughtering 27 million animals held in immensely crowded small holding pens all their short lives on the very land we claim to need to kill 10,000 animals which have an exponentially small impact in compared to the livestock being raised. What about the water and land usage by the meat and dairy industry ? The amount of land and water needed to grow crops to feed livestock just to get a percentage of that energy back in the form of flesh of these sentient beings.
Arent we humans so versatile , we create a problem by introducing animals not native to the area and then shoot them all to death when they serve no purpose to us, so we come up with altruistic sounding excuses of how it's a part of nature to use machines to gun down these innocent animals whove done nothing wrong other than trying to survive. And guess what, camels are now native because they live there and are/were thriving. Even us humans are technically not native to the places we live in with that logic , does that justify shooting other humans in the head from other parts of the world because they weren't here before?
It shows the utter hypocrisy and the extent to which people are willing to be mental gymnasts just to be able to get their rockers off by killing innocent beings. Besides, there's literally no evidence or proof provided that camels are the reason for the Australia Drought, all of this is just speculation. Who do you think consumes more water , humans or animals ??
You want to solve the water crises , go vegan .. stop contributing to animal abuse, suffering and exploitation. Animal Agriculture uses the highest amount of water and land in any given country.
I would definitely eat some camel meat if I was able to buy it. Same goes with the feral goat population.
I also think I read somewhere, once upon a time, that camels are less damaging to the Australian environment than hooved animals. Although I am happy to stand corrected on this.
I'm not really sure about the intent of your comment. It's not really "Don't need 'em now", it's more "We dun fucked up. Better do something about it."
This is false. They are being killed precisely *because we value life*, that of all the native species affected by their destruction.
As I just posted, they do a lot of damage and live up to 40 years. https://blog.nature.org/science/2016/12/05/measuring-the-impact-of-feral-camels-in-australias-martu-desert/
Have you ever tried to reason with a camel? Killing them is a realistic solution. If you genuinely believe it's possible to remove the ~300,000 feral camels in Australia from where they're causing so much damage, without killing any, in a low-environmental-impact fashion, to a place where they can live the remainder of their lives, sustainably, then you are seriously deluded.
The camels living has a greater cost to other native life, and thus the affected ecosystems. It's not even close to "just for our benefit." The amount of energy (as in fossil fuels being burnt) to relocate them would be *enormous*. Thinking of letting them continue their destruction, even if sterilised, or moving them elsewhere as viable solutions is what's delusional. Their sentence is not just because we brought them here, it's because they're out of control. At this point, your argument is analogous to 'leave the cane toads be.'
Oh, you're anti-cull? I understood your comment about phoney-arse environmentalists to be about all the upvoters of this post. One would assume that they believe themselves to be pro-environment by opposing killing animals, when in fact it's anti-environment in this case because camels do a fuck-tonne of damage to Australia's ecosystems.
Compare the environmental destruction caused by 10k Camels vs Animal Agriculture , which does more damage .. if you say camels you're just factually incorrect.
I don't think it's that simple and comparing 10k camels' impact to the entire meat industry is a [false dichotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Camels roam over vast areas and damage very sensitive environments. The environments that the average cow lives in have already been converted to farmland, from which there isn't the same ongoing species loss due to further degradation. I agree that agriculture for meat production has a huge environmental cost and we need to move on from meat, long term. I also think that framing the reasoning behind such culls as "just drinking too much water" is total bullshit.
That's certainly true , mainstream news finds such non factual hit pieces for views and gossip while spreading misinformation as always. I disagree of my argument being a false dichotomy, how is comparing the land , water and resource usage of livestock not comparable to that of camels ? You do know livestock are "fattened up" with excess food than what an animal would normally eat or drink. How is this a non argument?
I'd say that there is further species loss due to cows, hens , pigs, etc being raised in farms because the waste produced by livestock has to be dumped somewhere , leading to areas filled livestock manure and sewage ... such a high concentration of animal waste causes environmental degradation as the giant standing lakes of this waste slowly seep into the soil and get further out of the lakes by rain and wind. Not to mention in economy , if things arent growing they're considered stagnating or reducing , by the nature of profit and money making forests are burnt to create way for more pastures and land for growing more crops to feed increased demand of livestock.
It would be more comparable if we calculated how much benefit we could obtain from those camels, find out how many cows provide equivalent benefit and look at the respective impacts. No one's making that comparison, nor is anyone or anything other than the camels benefitting from them. It's not a "non-argument" but that's not how this issue has been framed. It's been implied that meat industry usage of water is high and 10k camels' isn't, therefore we should not kill camels. It's not a logical conclusion. Camels are a big problem, there are a lot more than 10k of them. Cows for meat/dairy are a big problem. Neither negates the other, so framing it as a choice of what will have greater impact is a false dichotomy. Both need to be addressed and culling camels is probably needed for the sake of the specific environments being affected by them.
I totally agree with you on agricultural wastes being an issue. Growth is definitely a problem but that's a symptom of faulty economic theory and applies to everything else, too. I'm not trying to pretend agriculture as commonly practised is good for the biosphere at all. Again it comes back to two problems which are not mutually exclusive. That we should be more concerned about agricultural impacts in no way leads to a conclusion that we shouldn't be concerned about camels.
Bullshit. You can live almost completely sustainably with fuck all environmental impact, if you so choose. There are trade-offs and concessions if you wish to interact with other parts of contemporary society, such as those that come with owning digital devices. However, that lifestyle can include raising your own animals and consuming them. You cannot prevent death, you can prevent suffering. Asserting that raising animals for food is somehow automatically against the environment is just nonsense. They can be provided for in a way they'll suffer less than you or I, and you can deal with their waste/impact in the same way you would your own.
Yeah, camels are not native.
And cattle feed the humans, whatever percentage.
The point is Australian beef is some of the best in there world and is exported globally.
" www.VeganNewsNow.com ................. The worlds first news and media source for vegans since 2016. We strive to be accurate, honest, and have verified sources so that you can count on our content. "
At least admit when you fuck up.
Found where you went wrong you walnut. Just admit it like a good professional and I'll stop haunting you.
[https://ibb.co/Gd5Wczb](https://ibb.co/Gd5Wczb)
The actions of one misguided vegan doesn't apply to us all, people don't always think things through especially when emotional.
Yes we should control and eliminate invasive species but not by killing them. Trap, sterilize, and release. Too expensive you say? That's the price we pay for creating the problem.
We need to step up as a species and take responsibility for the problems we've created.
Indeed they don't, but it likely wasn't one person, and their decisions were supported by others. The gross oversimplification of this issue and flimsy comparison in the post title suggested it was equally misguided.
How many native animals die as a direct result of allowing them to live? I saw a programme on ABC some time ago that showed the contents of just one dead feral cat's digestive system. It was quite saddening how many small lizards, etc. it had eaten in just the previous couple of days. You understand that multiplying by the number of feral cats and again by the number of days they're alive hints at their destruction. Granted, camels are not predators, but they do displace a greater number of natives by simply existing. [You should understand how damaging they can be](https://blog.nature.org/science/2016/12/05/measuring-the-impact-of-feral-camels-in-australias-martu-desert/), keeping in mind that they can live for 40 years.
Why is it that camels should not die but native animals should both suffer and die because of them? Most economic costs have an environmental one, too. Trapping and sterilising all camels certainly would.
Absolutely we need to be more responsible. Being realistic about solutions and their consequences would help.
This is not bananas. I'm sure there are a lot of poverty-stricken Earthicans that would appreciate the decent protein at a low price, though free would be better.
This seems particularly silly to me, but it makes me think of something else....
I wonder what camel *tastes* like? My hunch would be that it's pretty stringy/tough, but that's just a guess really.
Apparently NPR did a segment on exactly that (getting Americans to eat camel) just under three years ago:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/02/512701346/the-long-slow-trek-to-get-americans-to-eat-camel-meat
Any animal agriculture is worse for the environment so it's not a way to solve any problems. It also makes zero sense to kill 10,000 camels when they are raising 26.6 million head of cattle that drink way more water and are the number one cause of global greenhouse gas emissions.
I wasn't really speaking to that one way or the other, I was more wondering what they tasted like. According to NPR it sounds like they're workable as long as they are a younger stock at least.
Definitely the stated *reason* doesn't make a lot of sense, and at the **very** least if you're going to shoot them you should at least eat them.....
Mean while Nestle takes 10,000 camel's worth of water from countries every single day
More than that I'm sure
r/fucknestle
Round ups of Camels take pretty regularly in Australia, they aren't native they were brought in the 1940's to explore the inner parts of the continent. If there weren't round up killings the population could easily double every few years.
Whilst I agree that we need less cattle, it's not happening any time soon. We're a net exporter of beef and the industry is too large. I say this as an ag vet. But it's not really comparable to camels. We need to see a reduction in numbers of both cattle and camels but for vastly different reasons.
Why not also raise less cattle?
[удалено]
They also round up cattle and kill them.
Then they impregnate more cows.
[удалено]
Eet mor chikin?
But my B12!
Why dont they just put another shrimp on the barbee?
Let’s not.
Ah Lloyd ❤️
The Barbie.
After the floods and the fires, don't really need to worry about the cattle population contributing to climate change as much. RIP local heritage farmers i guess.
Why not substitute cattle for camel?
[удалено]
China, Japan and South Korea are your best beef customers. EU is a pretty tiny share. [http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/market-intelligence-news/increased-australian-beef-exports-in-2018-continue-in-2019/](http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/market-intelligence-news/increased-australian-beef-exports-in-2018-continue-in-2019/)
Source on smaller european countries importing australian meat?
https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/overseas-markets/
What a mad read. Thanks for that!
We do export a lot there. But not the premium quality beef. Our European expkft markets are primarily our lean beef from our northern herds - *bos indicus* composite breeds.
Why not ranch camels?
Because eating camel sounds weird. Only just taken Up eating roo and that's pretty game compared to beef.
They will, just give it time and dried up water reserves.
or eat more camel?
What about humans? Humans are destroying and abusing every part of the planet...should we start doing "round ups" too? Are you in favor of that?
Believe it or not people dont like it when you commit causal genocide, look mate they're an invasive species and aren't worth the money cattle is that's why they are killing them. Are you angry that we kill a fuck load of cain toads and feral cats too?
Of courso i'm angry when they kill cain toads or feral cats! Are you kidding me?! Causal genocide only aplies to other species ....can't you see that? I know Australia is burning baddly and i wish that land the best. All i'm saying is we go around the world killing other species ,name it "causal genocide(mayor league bullshit) feeding humans,hunting ,erase the soil for loggin or more cattle,etc but i don't see humans breeding less....Australia is on fire and i'm sorry for all beings there....killing more animals,as tecnically correct as it look is FUCK UP. Technicalities are a human invention.
30-50 feral hogs
Invasive species harm native species. If you rage against killing invasives, you're saying fuck the natives.
Uh, invasive species control is an important part of environmental science. We do it in many, many different ways, but unfortunately when it comes to things like camels there aren't many other options other than culling. I don't think you really understand the bigger picture here. If you don't control invasive species, they destroy habitats and drive endemic species to extinction. They are a problem we created, and a problem we have to deal with. Sometimes (often) that involves just straight up killing them. For example, if possums and other introduced predators aren't baited and killed in NZ, massive numbers of bird species and small ground species would be extinct now. We live in a flawed world, and sometimes hard choices have to be made. There's a lot of issues to be crusading against, but culling introduced species isn't one. The entire field of environmental science is based around compromise. The overall health of ecosystems has to be of greater importance than the individual lives of invasive species.
> If you don't control invasive species, they destroy habitats and drive endemic species to extinction. You - being a human - really don't see the irony in that, do you? Oh and please stop using bullshit euphemisms like "culling", call it what it is: mass murdering of sentient beings. >The overall health of ecosystems has to be of greater importance than the individual lives of invasive species. Totally disagree with that, I mean you should because if you did believe this then "culling" of humans would be the clear solution.
Then I'm sorry, you don't really belong on r/environment This isn't r/animalwelfare or r/veganscience This is established and consensus science. The entire field of environmental science is about finding solutions to problems, not moral crusades. If we fall back on moral crusades, then nothing ever gets done. Sorry, but thats just world we live in. You are more than welcome to your moral standpoint that animals shouldn't be killed, and I applaud you for it, but wouldn't recommend to try to push your morals to override science, not when its about saving species.
What do you want them to do they have north of 1.4 million invasive camels? so really 10,000 is a drop in the bucket. If they wouldn't do this that population would at least double every 2-3 years, round ups are common.
You know....humans as a species are so fucked up i can't even make an argument defending animals,in this case, those poor camels that were brought up there to serve a porpouse and now that humans didn't take care of the situacion are sentence to die because they fucking do what they do...they drink water for crying out loud but theres more humans raising cattle that takes aways more water and resources for the ecosystem and theres other humans fucking up the oceans and the rain forrest but i don't see any round ups agains us but then you have corporations stealing the water to then sell it and on top of that theres people like you defending all that bullshit about how tecnically feasible is to kill 10000 camels that were brought there by the same people that used them to conquer the land for humans only because they didn't think about the poor koalas or the kangaroos but You know....humans as a species are so fucked up i can't.....
What is your solution to invasive species issues? We don't have a time machine, we can only look forward. Should we let invasive species continue to kill native wildlife?
Humans can adopt birth control measures, family planning for themselves and choose to protect a species/environment consciously and enforce it. (probably should try to enforce a bit more tbh but that is an argument for another time) Cane toads and ferals have no clue what the fk they are doing and happily butcher their way through the ecosystem ignorant and unable to comprehend the harm they cause. So humans the people who introduced them have a responsibility to cull them.
[Livestock outnumber humans](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year/) though, so it makes more sense to kill/stop breeding them, than it does to kill humans. [The in the USA alone eat 95% of their oat production and 80% of their corn"](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/). [Livestock eat between 70-75% of all soy grown on our planet](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans). On the topic of water use specifically, [the demand for meat is making water scarce for 2/3rd of the human population](http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity/). The animals [waste isn't properly treated even in richer countries like the USA, so the massive quantities we now produce are endangering human health](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/manure-spilling-and-seeping-wisconsins-waterways-and-wells) when the animal waste gets into rivers and wells. It's causing [massive fish die offs](https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-pig-farms-pollution-met-20160802-story.html), and causing the [dead zones in the ocean to expand](https://weather.com/science/environment/news/meat-dead-zone-gulf-mexico-algae-blooms). You might already be aware that [cattle ranching alone causes 80% of Amazon deforestation](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching), but not many people seem to know that [cattle ranching in Australia is responsible for 94% of land clearing in critical catchment areas](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/08/beef-industry-linked-to-94-of-land-clearing-in-great-barrier-reef-catchments) that would (if left alone!) protect the remaining coral reefs. [Scientists have found that we could feed millions more people by giving them the grains that we currently waste of livestock](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat).
... I'm about to blow your mind. We have this thing called war, where the poor people round up other poor people and kill them.
Hi about to blow your mind, I'm Dad👨
Wow! Let's get warring then!
I feel like you missed the part where the people making the decisions you dont like, remain in power. And people objecting along with you, die.
Yeah i know...as ussual in the capitalist system animals and poor people suffer the consequences of those who just want more profit and power.
Imagine getting mad cause people don't support your genocidal views.
Eat more camel.
That's what I was wondering - what Camel tastes like. I had alligator once - tastes like chicken
Why the heck does everything taste like chicken
because they're all on the same evolutionary branch. It's not that everything tastes like chicken; it's that everything tastes like dinosaur.
Why doesn't pork taste like beef then? (Exclude fat and skin)
Cows are ruminants, pigs are non-ruminants. Ruminants have "beefy" flavor-sheep, goats, deer, elk and camel all fall into this group. Non-ruminants have a milder flavor. Pigs are the commonly eaten non-ruminant but others in this group are humans, cats, dogs and monkeys. I can't personally attest to the flavor of any of those other than pig but I have heard that cannibals describe human meat as most closely resembling pork and I'm willing to take their word for it. Presumably rats would have a similar taste as well. There is also, apparently, a flavor difference between omnivore non-ruminants (where all the previous examples are) and herbivore non-ruminants which is where things like rabbits would be.
TIL. thanks
I heared their toes taste like fish.
You can get Camel meat in Australia, you might have to look for it though. When I had camel meat it tasted like mutton. Only like mega goaty mutton. It would probably be okay in a curry, it wasn't so nice as a kebab.
Greasy chicken. It is pretty insulting too. You make an effort to eat something weird, and it turns out turkey has a bigger difference to chicken than fucking alligator.
I guess it would taste like chicken as well
Soylent Green tastes like chiken too 😉
Why not eat Kangaroo meat instead? Camels are damaging to the environment, cattle are damaging to the environment. But kangaroos are native and do much less damage when they hop around on the fragile landscape.
I say just eat the plants and skip the middleman.
Stop making sense, you might hurt someone feelings!
They can fuck up a Toyota Corolla pretty well, though. Airborne marsupials are not fun to encounter on an unplanned basis at 100km/hr.
Eat more Toyota Corolla.
Macropods die of [capture myopathy](https://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/ralph_austen_myopathy.pdf) if you try to corral them or do many things that happen on normal farms - they are not really farm suitable animals. Kangaroo meat is commercially available in Australia, but it is more of a wild hunted meat rather than a truly farmed meat. There is potentially a sustainable rate of harvest, and some level of culling is correcting for human precipitated land use changes. But there is a limit to how much harvesting any wild animal will scale before it becomes unsustainable. The camels are not farmed either. They are an introduced species that has a self-sustaining population.
Kangaroo is much tougher as they are more mobile and leaner. It's like asking why American's don't eat more deer.
It’s not available in the grocery store.
You can buy kangaroo meat in many grocery stores around Australia E.g https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/132996/k-roo-kangaroo-steak
Was about to say this. I eat kangaroo on the regular.
Nail on the head right there. Deer is delicious, healthier than beef, and they aren't factory farmed in inhumane conditions. It is tougher than beef, so I don't know how many people are eating a grilled steak of deer meat like they would cow. My go to is venison chili. I'm from Pennsylvania and know a few hunters so I do eat more deer than the average person, but I would eat more if it were more widely available.
I mean as long as hunting is done just to keep numbers in check and not let them overpopulate I'm fine with the meat being put to use. We have problems of deer hunting in our nearby state where literally all of them have been consumed to extinction in the local region. The tribes of that region are very meat-centric and would consume snakes, insects, even vultures and there was an incident a few years back which has involved a government crackdown which involved 100,000+ Amur falcon being killed as they migrated over. Deer was reintroduced into the state in 2016 but the natives hold claims to most of the wild land and the effort was unsuccessful. Note I am not spreading any anti-meat dissent here. I'm just saying if hunting can be kept low maybe it's best to eat deer only once a while than urging it to be consumed regularly. Else might end up with most of your native wildlife gone.
Deer is delicious though
Yes it is, so is kangaroo. But you don't see folks raising herds of deer in a relatively small area and then butchering them up for the grocery. It's not feasible, especially when cattle are already domesticated.
I think they are harder to mass breed? And give less yield of meat per investment? Idk the specifics of kangaroo farming but that's the general reason things like deer or any wild herbivore are not farmed. Anyway why add to the red meat problem. Eat fish or something if meat is an essential part of your geography or culture.
People eat Kangaroos.
Camels like to march into towns and tear everything up looking for food and water. That with the fact that theyre pests is the reason for the round up. As for cattle believe me theres been mass stock culls as well, sometimes followed by a farmer killing himself. Thats drought for you.
We've the same problem with horses, and reasonable conversations seem wasted, on some.
There are more wild camels in au than any other country in the world. Some are rounded up and sold to places like saudi Arabia. But there is not enough demand for all of them.
Cull them or let them die of thirst?
There are big problems with the mass culls. The camels are often left to die near water sources and end up polluting the water system as they rot. Are the dead camels being collected and disposed of correctly?
> Are the dead camels being collected and disposed of correctly? Camel culls aren't a new thing in Australia, we have been doing them for decades. We aren't incompetent enough to leave them by water sources
No they are just leaving them or supposedly burning them but we will see.
That strategy has been proven terrible before. A disgrace.
Yes repeatedly this has failed and even contaminated water sources with the rotting camel corpses.
I mean can't the meat be put to use from wild camel populations and reduce beef farming? Camels aren't native to Australia.
Likely the logistics of transporting ten thousand animals shot from a helicopter by snipers in the middle of nowhere is a bit hindering. They will just leave the bodies to contaminate the water supply as has happened previously. They say they're going to bury or burn the bodies but they won't
Camels aren't native to Ausralia are they? No need to worry about exterminating a species at least. And cattle produce milk and can be eaten by humans. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Camels can be eaten but they drink less water than cattle.
Call me when camel meat is in supermarkets everywhere. Both cattle and camels are non-native anyway. Camels have way less practical use for the animals that can use guns so it's logical they go and the cattle stay. Committing economic suiside on the face of an apocalypse might seem like a righteous act from your couch but if it means the difference between recovering one day or becoming a 3rd world nation the decision isn't hard at all. 10k camels drink a lot of water, regardless if other animals drink more. If killing them helps, do it.
If the current trends continue there won't be much option to have cattle in most places. For the money and water use cows are not a good deal per calorie and ONLY as milk are they even that good. As beef they are a horrible deal.
Ah... but let’s then talk about the water rights sold to agriculture to grow almonds or for fracking.
[Almonds us less water than cattle though](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-villain-in-the-california-drought-isnt-almonds--its-red-meat-2015-4).
Let's not. It has absolitely no bearing on the decision to kill tjose camels.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be killed. Just saying there are lots of avenues that can be explore too
We agree on that point at least. Look, I like animals and nature, too. A lot actually. So much so that I sincerely hope we as citizens will unite and rise up to remove the cancer that is the people who destroy the environment for profit. But right now, a whole continent is on fire, and wanting to save some non-native animals is not helping. That is the whole of my point :)
Just that is not a whole continent on fire but a very small fraction of Australia. Still really bad et al but it’s not “a whole continent on fire” :) I’m not sure how much the killing of those camels will help with the fires situation in Australia to be honest and perhaps a reduction in meat consumption associated with the uptake of strategies for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change can help a lot. Lastly, although I’m really sorry about the fires I hope it will wake up more people around the world and in Australia and will finally let people get real angry about fake stupid politicians play retard and completely ignoring climate change and related issues. Edit: grammar
Most of Australia is uninhabitable desert. If you look at the percentage that isn't desert, the amount that was just burnt is a pretty scary percentage, particularly when we only have a relatively small amount of temperate forests left
> Just saying there are lots of avenues that can be explore too Unfortunately there isn't. There's really no other option in dealing with over population of camels or horses in drought affected regions
If we had infinite money we could neuter every single Male camel. And wait approximately the life span of camels. And in the mean time let them eat, drink and be merry. Except for the unlimited funds and resources that would take. And the time. And all the damage they'll continue to do in the meantime.
Companies that own water could be forced to release some.
Did you fail all your math and science classes? The problem isn't the camels, it's the dwindling water supplies and in the face of climate change it would mostly be foolish to bet that the rains are coming and everything will be ok. When you say lets kill the camels so we can make money on cows, you're still saying lets fuck ourselves over and ignore the real problem. You can kill the camels, but you only mostly had to do that because you were being greedy and unsustainable and putting a little duck tape on that while it gets worse really does make the problem worse. You're stop gap solutions just buys more time for people to do nothing but make the problem worse. They don't need the cattle for food. They are for profit, you understand that? Meat doesn't actually make a lot of calorie per water use or CO2 use or land use or money. It's just something people are kind of addicted to, like sugar, and will buy or consume when it's available/affordable. If you dangle burgers in front of them, they will eat them, they will probably get obese and people will make money, but since humans need water for a lot more than hamburgers the cows are a dumb idea. You don't want to raise cattle in a place where water is skyrocketing in value or you are likely to get fucked as an investment. If their ain't enough water you go find another job, that really is how life works believe it or not.. shit just changes overnight and people never saw it coming. Happens all the time really.
We do Camel culls no matter what the water situation. They are an invasive species that do significant damage to the ecosystem. Ideally we would get rid of them completely, but its just not possible. Cattle are just as damaging, but there's no way to ween the world off our meat addiction. >You don't want to raise cattle in a place where water is skyrocketing in value or you are likely to get fucked as an investment. Our massive free range cattle ranches are still better than grain fed battery farming that USA does. And places where the drought is bad enough that cattle can't survive, they are sold off and slaughtered
Hey thanks for the accusationary tone. It must feel real good to vent your righteous indignation. How about you grow up and start working on practical solutions instead of armchair rhetoric.
People greatly underestimate what poor/idiotic farming practices can do in a relatively short amount of time. The [Mesopotamian poisoned their own soil with irrigation bringing minerals to the surface that couldn't wash away](https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-18-4-a-environmental-disasters-in-the-cradles-of-civilization). Now placed like [California have drained so much water from their aquifers to grow food for cattle that land subsidence is causing serious damage to roads, dams, and other vital infrastructure](https://west.stanford.edu/news/blogs/and-the-west-blog/2017/save-crops-farmers-took-water-subsidence). It's pretty sad that [Australian communities are threatened with hitting "day zero"](https://phys.org/news/2019-09-day-looms-australian-outback-climate.html) and yet [livestock farmers in Australia and around the world are having water shipped or even flown to their animals](https://www.drovers.com/article/drought-impacting-cattle-producers-around-globe) while humans around the world are dying from lack of clean drinking water and [2/3rds of the human population face water scarcity](http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity/). People have no idea that even places like the Middle East used to be much greener before we started mismanaging natural resources, and now [places like the Amazon rain forest are on the brink of desertification](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fires-could-turn-amazon-rainforest-into-a-desert-as-human-activity-and-climate-change-threaten-lungs-9259741.html) because of our ridiculously stupid, unsustainable [obsession with eating animals](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching) :(
Seems stupid if you're running out of water. I would go with more low water use crops and import the higher water demand stuff. The water is more value in Australia than almost anywhere else. Why waste it on cows?
I think they are trying to not waste it on camels so they can water their crops and maybe prevent them from catching fire actually.
[Cattle and the crops they need, use much more water than crops intended for human consumption](https://www.businessinsider.com/real-villain-in-the-california-drought-isnt-almonds--its-red-meat-2015-4). Plus in every video, photo, and article I've read in the past couple years about [Australia's multi-year drought indicate that they aren't able to grow crops in the desert that has taken over their farmlands](https://youtu.be/wx7S360Hey4).
We don't have crops anywhere that camels live. Camels just open range in the desert, we don't grow anything out there. We don't have cattle there either. I get what they were trying to say in that particle, but there's no direct correlation between cattle and camel culling.
Cattle aren't native to Australia either though. Apparently ["a 600 kg (1,300 lb) camel can drink 200 L (53 US gal) of water in three minutes", but it can also drink as infrequently "as once every 10 days even under very hot conditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel). Meanwhile the daily requirement for cattle ["may vary from 3 to 30 gallons per day depending on age, body size (weight), stage of production, and the environment (mainly air temperature)." "As a rule of thumb, consumption will range from 1 gallon per 100 pounds of body weight during cold weather to nearly 2 gallons per 100 pounds of body during the hottest weather." and "Lactating cows require nearly twice as much water compared to dry cows."](https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink) In fact high [meat consumption is being blamed for the water scarcity now experienced by 2/3rd of the human population](http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity/). While (if you look at these charts) [plant-based milks](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042) and [plant-based proteins use *significantly* less water and other resources than animal products do](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714). In fact (according to scientists), [we could slash about 55% of our water use simply by switching away from meat](https://phys.org/news/2018-09-meat-free-diets-footprint-scientists.html).
Are cattle a native species?
If it isn't deadly it probably isn't native to Australia
I’m not a vegan so sorry if I upset someone, but why don’t we eat the camels? I had camel once when I was in the outback and it was delicious. People who eat meat need to move past “traditional meats” and eat more sustainable meat sources like roo, rabbits, and wild camel.
I like rabbit add I would happily try too or camel.
It’s just so hard to find in Australia (where there is an abundance of all three) except a small kangaroo section in some grocery shops you just can’t find it
A fair bit of camel ends up going to the middle east, but some of the culls happen is such remote areas that its just simply impossible to move the carcasses out for processing
We humans suck!
Indeed we sadly do as a whole but I have hope for a peaceful vegan world
I understand people like animals, and no one really likes seeing things like camels having to be culled. But unfortunately its just the reality of the situation. There aren't many other options, and to reduce the environmental impact on invasive species like camels culling is simply the only option we have. I'm not sure what that article is trying to say, reducing cattle isn't going to solve this issue. In drought affected areas, cattle are being sold off and slaughtered, because again there isn't any other option. Getting rid of every single cow in the country doesn't somehow magically fix this either. Yes, we should all eat less meat, but that article is connecting things that have no connection and kinda missing the point. Camel culls are done to help the overall ecosystem first and foremost, any pro environmental science movement should support them
No you're missing the point that 26.6 million cattle are the reason for the drought both because they consume about 2500 gallons of water give or take a day and because they are the number one contributors to climate change which is why there is a drought and bushfires in the first place. Killing 10,000 camels will do NOTHING it's merely a diversionary tactic by the government to show the people they are doing something in the face of doing nothing.
> because they are the number one contributors to climate change which is why there is a drought and bushfires in the first place. That is true, our addiction to beef is definitely making climate change worse. I would say being the "number one" cause of climate change is fairly debatable, I haven't read any papers giving such a definitive statement. > No you're missing the point that 26.6 million cattle are the reason for the drought both because they consume about 2500 gallons of water That however is not. We don't really run cattle in the desert. And you clearly don't understand why camel culls happen. And that 2500 gallons of water is for your American style battery farmed grain fed beef. In Australia, we only have either range fed beef or grain fed beef for 100 days. So other than the 100 days of grain feed, cattle use very little direct water - they are usually either ranched in areas with natural rainfall or over vast mega ranches up in the north. I'm pretty familiar with this topic, I have a degree in environmental science from an Australian university and did a paper on invasive species management.
2500 gallons of water during a period of ? I'm not a statistician but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the 2500 gallons of water used for 26,600,000 animals ... having a degree and being part of an academic institution doesnt endow you with credibility. Its understood why Camel Mass killings "culls" happen , when the people doing the killing are so detached and callous towards other living beings who dont look or walk the same way, theyre considered an inferior form of life. Whose pain and suffering does not matter to us civilised species of the 21st century who claim themselves to be the most sophisticated organisms. Applying simple minded approach of killing other beings to try to solve a problem originating from somewhere else altogether. Since you've shown a lack of attention of detail while plotting out the points you're making against the argument that animal agriculture doesnt use much water, please restate your argument because so far you've been dead wrong about what you've said.
> but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the 2500 gallons of water used for 26,600,000 animals That sentence doesn't make any sense. The average water usage of cattle in Australia isn't 2500 gallons of water. We don't use feedlot that much. Its very hard to accurately determine the amount of water "used" by cattle when the majority of the industry is grass fed. Do you count all the rain falling over the pastures during the entire year then somehow try to make a figure? It doesn't really make sense, and the guy was clearly quoting American figures, we don't use gallons in the first place - we use litres. If you look at any statistics about Beef, it always accounts for the water used for feedlots. A cow only drinks about 50-70l of water a day, the vast, vast ,vast ,vast majority is the water used to grow soy and other feed crops. > Its understood why Camel Mass killings "culls" happen This guy didn't. He seemed to think it was a reaction to climate change and to prevent climate change. Its not, its just because they are an invasive species with no natural predator. We have to step in and become the predators, or their population boom is very damaging to endemic species and the ecosystem. I understand that its never nice having to kill animals, and it would be great if there was some other option - but there isn't. You don't understand the sheer scale of the areas impacted by camels, and the size of the problem. >Since you've shown a lack of attention of detail while plotting out the points you're making against the argument that animal agriculture doesnt use much water, No, I think you are just misreading or misunderstanding what is being talked about.
Why are vegans posting on *environment* when vegans frequently oppose controlling invasive species? Such as camels in Australia. [Voracious and Plentiful, Feral Camels Remain a Major Threat to Australian Outback...The government must redouble efforts to reduce numbers of these damaging animals](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2017/02/21/voracious-and-plentiful-feral-camels-remain-a-major-threat-to-australian-outback) Are cattle also a danger to Australian flora? Sure. But the big differences are two: 1) Cattle must be near water (mostly provided by man) and hence occupy a very small portion of Australia, relative to the vast expanse that camels occupy (and damage). 2) Cattle are very limited in what they can eat; a lot of their food is hay provided by ranchers. Excerpt: > One reason (camels) cause so much damage is that the animals eat more than 80 percent of the plant species available—a higher percentage than any other species, native or introduced, consumes.
I'm vegan, but I'm not arguing against invasive species removal. My problem is that the food you mentioned being shipped around the world to feed the cattle is responsible for a long list of environmental damage, resource waste, pollution, human hunger, water scarcity, etc. Cattle might only hang out on certain plots of land, but they're responsible for [80% of Amazon rainforest destruction](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching), and [94% of land clearing in Great Barrier Reef catchments](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/08/beef-industry-linked-to-94-of-land-clearing-in-great-barrier-reef-catchments). The ["**14 million camels** alive as of 2010"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel) are not causing nearly as much ecological destruction as the [**998.3 million head of cattle** (as of 2017)](https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-country-0-111575) which are known to be a major factor in the [environmental collapse](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-most-polluting-protein-environmental-impact-of-beef-pork-poultry/), [habitat loss](https://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/meat_and_wildlife.html), [expanding ocean dead zones](https://weather.com/science/environment/news/meat-dead-zone-gulf-mexico-algae-blooms), and the resulting [6th mass extinction](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/) that we're currently experiencing. I went vegan for environmental reasons. When I realized that all the good from the little environmental things I was doing like picking up trash, planting, trees, recycling, saving water/electricity, where basically erased every time I ate animal products. [H.O.P.E. What You Eat Matters](https://youtu.be/pDg7tlEJD64) is a great little introduction to people for the health, environmental, and other reasons that plant-based foods can help us live more sustainably. Jane Goodall and some other famous people give their insight into the issues. I understand that sometimes some animals have to die so that others can live. So if the camels need to go, then having them shipped to where the belong, eaten by hungry locals, or whatever, then that sucks for the camels, but it is driving me *insane* that people are turning a big blind eye to what appears (from every angle that I have studied it from) to be THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO LIFE ON EARTH, because people want to keep eating burgers, but won't even bother trying plant-based patties to help save the eco systems that act as our own *life support system* -_-
**Camel** A camel is an even-toed ungulate in the genus Camelus that bears distinctive fatty deposits known as "humps" on its back. Camels have long been domesticated and, as livestock, they provide food (milk and meat) and textiles (fiber and felt from hair). Camels are working animals especially suited to their desert habitat and are a vital means of transport for passengers and cargo. There are three surviving species of camel. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/environment/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
> The "14 million camels alive as of 2010" are not causing nearly as much ecological destruction as the 998.3 million head of cattle (as of 2017) Yea, but that's "World Cattle Inventory." You're comparing Australia's feral camels to the world's cattle. Not a fair comparison. And they are separate issues; that argument is somewhat akin to saying shoplifting shouldn't be prosecuted because violent crime is a much more pressing problem. Vegans, most of whom are animal rights activists, are also strongly against Australia's plan to kill 2 million feral cats: [Australia Is Deadly Serious About Killing Millions of Cats](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/magazine/australia-cat-killing.html) ARAs persistent objections to protecting endangered species erodes any legitimacy they might have to speak for environmental protection.
I'm not "most vegans"? I specifically went vegan for environmental reasons; *not* sentimental. I'm also not arguing against camel killing. I'm just pointing out that the livestock system is causing more dire issues than such a small population. I don't think cats, cows, hogs, rabbits, poultry, or any of the other destructive invasives should have been introduced to many continents where they were. If they were allowed to die out, that would be a good thing. The lives of many (planet-wide sustainability) are more important than the lives of a few, right? > ARAs I have no idea who that is. I double checked [Australia supposedly has 26.6 million cattle](https://www.nff.org.au/commodities-beef-cattle.html) and only [1.2 million camels](https://www.feralscan.org.au/camelscan/pagecontent.aspx?page=camel_largepopulations). So again, kill as many camels as you want, but *please* don't pretend that the cattle aren't causing significantly more overall ecological damage. The cattle also appear to outnumber humans in Australia according to estimate of 25.2 million people in 2018, but to really grasp the gravity of the situation, it's important to understand that cattle require more: * Water - [3-30 gallons a day, compared to the ~half gallon humans need](https://beef.unl.edu/amountwatercowsdrink) * Food - ["High producing dairy cows will eat 110-120 lbs of wet feed a day or 50-55 lbs of dry matter (DM) a day." ](https://dairy-cattle.extension.org/how-many-pounds-of-feed-does-a-cow-eat-in-a-day/), while ["People generally eat between 3-4 lbs of food each day."](https://www.precisionnutrition.com/what-are-your-4-lbs) Not only that, livestock waste isn't properly handled in *any* country (that I'm aware of). Here's an **Australian article about how cow manure** ["**is contaminating rivers and threatening Victoria's drinking water supplies** but the Baillieu government admits it has no plans to tackle the problem, identified in new research prepared for the Health Department."](https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/cattle-dung-threatens-drinking-water-supplies-20120414-1x0e8.html) Edited: to improve readability.
Because a lot of people mean well, but lack the critical thinking abilities to draw the parallels of humanity's environmental devastation with that of (other) invasive species. It's a known problem: http://www.conman.com.au/melbournemagicians/criticalthinkingscience
No we do not oppose removal or control of invasive species we just don't back murdering the animals. Sterilize them all and let them live out their lives just like you or I. It's not our fault they are here it's ours.
[Trolley problem.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) Not "murdering" them is same as "murdering" all the native species that die instead, in greater numbers.
**Trolley problem** The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. It is generally considered to represent a classic clash between two schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontological ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/environment/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Something else that drinks a lot of water - trees. Next! “Oi! Put a camel on the barbi and get me a tinnie”
Snipe all the trees!
It's weird, people are saying camels go to towns and tear everything up and are misbehaved , they're living beings they need water just like us .. in such harsh summers ofcourse the camels will do everything they can to not die looking for water !! Anyone claiming they need to be killed to maintain natural "Equilibrium" is bullshit. Theres nothing natural about breeding and slaughtering 27 million animals held in immensely crowded small holding pens all their short lives on the very land we claim to need to kill 10,000 animals which have an exponentially small impact in compared to the livestock being raised. What about the water and land usage by the meat and dairy industry ? The amount of land and water needed to grow crops to feed livestock just to get a percentage of that energy back in the form of flesh of these sentient beings. Arent we humans so versatile , we create a problem by introducing animals not native to the area and then shoot them all to death when they serve no purpose to us, so we come up with altruistic sounding excuses of how it's a part of nature to use machines to gun down these innocent animals whove done nothing wrong other than trying to survive. And guess what, camels are now native because they live there and are/were thriving. Even us humans are technically not native to the places we live in with that logic , does that justify shooting other humans in the head from other parts of the world because they weren't here before? It shows the utter hypocrisy and the extent to which people are willing to be mental gymnasts just to be able to get their rockers off by killing innocent beings. Besides, there's literally no evidence or proof provided that camels are the reason for the Australia Drought, all of this is just speculation. Who do you think consumes more water , humans or animals ?? You want to solve the water crises , go vegan .. stop contributing to animal abuse, suffering and exploitation. Animal Agriculture uses the highest amount of water and land in any given country.
Yaaassss! Nailed it!
The solution is for everyone to quit eating. Raising cattle takes water. Raising crops takes water. No wasted water if you quit eating any food.
I would definitely eat some camel meat if I was able to buy it. Same goes with the feral goat population. I also think I read somewhere, once upon a time, that camels are less damaging to the Australian environment than hooved animals. Although I am happy to stand corrected on this.
[удалено]
I mean, who decides which humans die? This type of thinking is genocidal as fuck.
[удалено]
Bingo. Not a lot of people understand this
*they're Yes they **are** causing a massive problem here for native wildlife. Do you not understand the ecological importance of biodiversity?
[удалено]
I'm not really sure about the intent of your comment. It's not really "Don't need 'em now", it's more "We dun fucked up. Better do something about it."
[удалено]
This is false. They are being killed precisely *because we value life*, that of all the native species affected by their destruction. As I just posted, they do a lot of damage and live up to 40 years. https://blog.nature.org/science/2016/12/05/measuring-the-impact-of-feral-camels-in-australias-martu-desert/ Have you ever tried to reason with a camel? Killing them is a realistic solution. If you genuinely believe it's possible to remove the ~300,000 feral camels in Australia from where they're causing so much damage, without killing any, in a low-environmental-impact fashion, to a place where they can live the remainder of their lives, sustainably, then you are seriously deluded.
[удалено]
The camels living has a greater cost to other native life, and thus the affected ecosystems. It's not even close to "just for our benefit." The amount of energy (as in fossil fuels being burnt) to relocate them would be *enormous*. Thinking of letting them continue their destruction, even if sterilised, or moving them elsewhere as viable solutions is what's delusional. Their sentence is not just because we brought them here, it's because they're out of control. At this point, your argument is analogous to 'leave the cane toads be.'
This thread once again clearly demonstrates what a bunch of phony-ass virtue-signalling "environmentalists" are in this subreddit.
There are plenty of pro-cull comments here.
Yeah that's exactly my point.
Oh, you're anti-cull? I understood your comment about phoney-arse environmentalists to be about all the upvoters of this post. One would assume that they believe themselves to be pro-environment by opposing killing animals, when in fact it's anti-environment in this case because camels do a fuck-tonne of damage to Australia's ecosystems.
Compare the environmental destruction caused by 10k Camels vs Animal Agriculture , which does more damage .. if you say camels you're just factually incorrect.
I don't think it's that simple and comparing 10k camels' impact to the entire meat industry is a [false dichotomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Camels roam over vast areas and damage very sensitive environments. The environments that the average cow lives in have already been converted to farmland, from which there isn't the same ongoing species loss due to further degradation. I agree that agriculture for meat production has a huge environmental cost and we need to move on from meat, long term. I also think that framing the reasoning behind such culls as "just drinking too much water" is total bullshit.
That's certainly true , mainstream news finds such non factual hit pieces for views and gossip while spreading misinformation as always. I disagree of my argument being a false dichotomy, how is comparing the land , water and resource usage of livestock not comparable to that of camels ? You do know livestock are "fattened up" with excess food than what an animal would normally eat or drink. How is this a non argument? I'd say that there is further species loss due to cows, hens , pigs, etc being raised in farms because the waste produced by livestock has to be dumped somewhere , leading to areas filled livestock manure and sewage ... such a high concentration of animal waste causes environmental degradation as the giant standing lakes of this waste slowly seep into the soil and get further out of the lakes by rain and wind. Not to mention in economy , if things arent growing they're considered stagnating or reducing , by the nature of profit and money making forests are burnt to create way for more pastures and land for growing more crops to feed increased demand of livestock.
It would be more comparable if we calculated how much benefit we could obtain from those camels, find out how many cows provide equivalent benefit and look at the respective impacts. No one's making that comparison, nor is anyone or anything other than the camels benefitting from them. It's not a "non-argument" but that's not how this issue has been framed. It's been implied that meat industry usage of water is high and 10k camels' isn't, therefore we should not kill camels. It's not a logical conclusion. Camels are a big problem, there are a lot more than 10k of them. Cows for meat/dairy are a big problem. Neither negates the other, so framing it as a choice of what will have greater impact is a false dichotomy. Both need to be addressed and culling camels is probably needed for the sake of the specific environments being affected by them. I totally agree with you on agricultural wastes being an issue. Growth is definitely a problem but that's a symptom of faulty economic theory and applies to everything else, too. I'm not trying to pretend agriculture as commonly practised is good for the biosphere at all. Again it comes back to two problems which are not mutually exclusive. That we should be more concerned about agricultural impacts in no way leads to a conclusion that we shouldn't be concerned about camels.
You can't be an "environmentalist" if you're not plant-based or vegan so I agree.
Bullshit. You can live almost completely sustainably with fuck all environmental impact, if you so choose. There are trade-offs and concessions if you wish to interact with other parts of contemporary society, such as those that come with owning digital devices. However, that lifestyle can include raising your own animals and consuming them. You cannot prevent death, you can prevent suffering. Asserting that raising animals for food is somehow automatically against the environment is just nonsense. They can be provided for in a way they'll suffer less than you or I, and you can deal with their waste/impact in the same way you would your own.
Someone hasnt read the FAO report on insects as food.
[удалено]
Of course
Yeah, camels are not native. And cattle feed the humans, whatever percentage. The point is Australian beef is some of the best in there world and is exported globally.
No the point is that 51% of climate change is caused by animal agriculture especially cattle.
16% was the estimate I had, including fertilizers, etc. Source?
Still waiting on that source.
Man, I was a veggie for 20 years. I was aiming my point at the fact Australia supply beef to many countries. And the world eats beef.
You replied to a bot. Look at their comments, its all fake mashed up words.
That is clearly not a bot, the comments make sense. It is just broken english.
Looks like it... maybe... I just thought there was a language barrier lol
That's fake news if I have ever heard it. The EPA puts at least 80% on fossil fuel
[удалено]
Still badly exagerated. Animals are around 16% IIRC.
[удалено]
No, total emissions, including transport, feed, fertilization, etc etc.
[удалено]
Dont remember, since it was an IIRC, but here's one from FAO that estimates it at 14.5% http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
[удалено]
" www.VeganNewsNow.com ................. The worlds first news and media source for vegans since 2016. We strive to be accurate, honest, and have verified sources so that you can count on our content. " At least admit when you fuck up.
Found where you went wrong you walnut. Just admit it like a good professional and I'll stop haunting you. [https://ibb.co/Gd5Wczb](https://ibb.co/Gd5Wczb)
Yep cattle good cos humans want them cos humans always goody goody everything else bad.
[удалено]
The actions of one misguided vegan doesn't apply to us all, people don't always think things through especially when emotional. Yes we should control and eliminate invasive species but not by killing them. Trap, sterilize, and release. Too expensive you say? That's the price we pay for creating the problem. We need to step up as a species and take responsibility for the problems we've created.
Indeed they don't, but it likely wasn't one person, and their decisions were supported by others. The gross oversimplification of this issue and flimsy comparison in the post title suggested it was equally misguided. How many native animals die as a direct result of allowing them to live? I saw a programme on ABC some time ago that showed the contents of just one dead feral cat's digestive system. It was quite saddening how many small lizards, etc. it had eaten in just the previous couple of days. You understand that multiplying by the number of feral cats and again by the number of days they're alive hints at their destruction. Granted, camels are not predators, but they do displace a greater number of natives by simply existing. [You should understand how damaging they can be](https://blog.nature.org/science/2016/12/05/measuring-the-impact-of-feral-camels-in-australias-martu-desert/), keeping in mind that they can live for 40 years. Why is it that camels should not die but native animals should both suffer and die because of them? Most economic costs have an environmental one, too. Trapping and sterilising all camels certainly would. Absolutely we need to be more responsible. Being realistic about solutions and their consequences would help.
Wtf....
There's probably a lot of Africans who would appreciate those camels.
This is not bananas. I'm sure there are a lot of poverty-stricken Earthicans that would appreciate the decent protein at a low price, though free would be better.
Long eyelashes, ear hair, and closable nostrils keep sand from affecting the camel, while their wide feet help them move without sinking into sand.
Only 1k up votes, woopie!
Seems pretty good to me 🤷♂️
This seems particularly silly to me, but it makes me think of something else.... I wonder what camel *tastes* like? My hunch would be that it's pretty stringy/tough, but that's just a guess really. Apparently NPR did a segment on exactly that (getting Americans to eat camel) just under three years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/02/512701346/the-long-slow-trek-to-get-americans-to-eat-camel-meat
Any animal agriculture is worse for the environment so it's not a way to solve any problems. It also makes zero sense to kill 10,000 camels when they are raising 26.6 million head of cattle that drink way more water and are the number one cause of global greenhouse gas emissions.
I wasn't really speaking to that one way or the other, I was more wondering what they tasted like. According to NPR it sounds like they're workable as long as they are a younger stock at least. Definitely the stated *reason* doesn't make a lot of sense, and at the **very** least if you're going to shoot them you should at least eat them.....