DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Mister.levitra** · 06-07-2012, 03:04 AM

They would not have been in the Sydney area around settlement as both the aborigines AND the people off the First Fleet would have been feasting on them and the latter not near starvation. A little common sense would not go astray either.

What makes you think they didn't? They are up to a kilo of good meat at different times of year. Some groups of aboriginal people did not eat them because of cultural reasons but there are records of the various species being eaten at different times.

They are not as easy to catch as you might imagine because a normal camp situation because they roost over 10 metres and can see any projectiles (or people) coming. Colonial roosting obviously has advantages for predator awareness. While in flight might be the easiest time although this has the disadvantage for the hungry of hunting a highly mobile target in the dark.

Finally, the view that they could not be in the Sydney area or else they would have been eaten to the point of extinction is particularly illogical: the animals live up and down the east coast. Humans have lived up and down the east coast for the best part of the last 40,000 or 60,000 years (or whatever the latest records indicate). These two species have co-existed for that time in some kind of balance. Subsequent to the arrival of Europeans the various species appear to have suffered from increasing declines; not associated with being a food source; but with being unpopular, loss of both feeding and roosting habitat and a competitor for similar food sources.

As someone who holds themselves out as an academic I am surprised by the lack of factual material and rigour shown in your arguments. I am at a loss as to where to suggest you start to remedy your knowledge deficient; perhaps Francis Ratcliffe's 1931 Report would be a useful beginning as that will at least get you off the ground. It would be worth your checking out the SPRAT and the other associated pages.

I don't expect you to change your mind regarding the dispersal of the bats from the RBG but perhaps you might be able to put together some more coherent arguments.

I have spent a great deal of time discussing with many people the various merits of the BGDT's intentions but rarely have I met someone who attempts to engage with this subject who is so lacking in knowledge.

06-07-2012, 03:04 AM	#2
Mister.levitra Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 493 Senior Member	They would not have been in the Sydney area around settlement as both the aborigines AND the people off the First Fleet would have been feasting on them and the latter not near starvation. A little common sense would not go astray either. What makes you think they didn't? They are up to a kilo of good meat at different times of year. Some groups of aboriginal people did not eat them because of cultural reasons but there are records of the various species being eaten at different times. They are not as easy to catch as you might imagine because a normal camp situation because they roost over 10 metres and can see any projectiles (or people) coming. Colonial roosting obviously has advantages for predator awareness. While in flight might be the easiest time although this has the disadvantage for the hungry of hunting a highly mobile target in the dark. Finally, the view that they could not be in the Sydney area or else they would have been eaten to the point of extinction is particularly illogical: the animals live up and down the east coast. Humans have lived up and down the east coast for the best part of the last 40,000 or 60,000 years (or whatever the latest records indicate). These two species have co-existed for that time in some kind of balance. Subsequent to the arrival of Europeans the various species appear to have suffered from increasing declines; not associated with being a food source; but with being unpopular, loss of both feeding and roosting habitat and a competitor for similar food sources. As someone who holds themselves out as an academic I am surprised by the lack of factual material and rigour shown in your arguments. I am at a loss as to where to suggest you start to remedy your knowledge deficient; perhaps Francis Ratcliffe's 1931 Report would be a useful beginning as that will at least get you off the ground. It would be worth your checking out the SPRAT and the other associated pages. I don't expect you to change your mind regarding the dispersal of the bats from the RBG but perhaps you might be able to put together some more coherent arguments. I have spent a great deal of time discussing with many people the various merits of the BGDT's intentions but rarely have I met someone who attempts to engage with this subject who is so lacking in knowledge.
	Quote