Reports that livestock thieves are getting away with economic murder is distressing and infuriating.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In Victoria, 266 thefts were reported to police last year, however it is believed the number of offences is far higher.
Of those reported, only four led to arrests. Not bad odds for criminals.
Predictably, the police have been blamed by some, but there is no way they can be effective short of massively increased patrolling - something totally out of the question. They would have to stop every vehicle carrying livestock, night and day, and check every animal.
Right across Victoria, there's a spread of police officers tasked with rural crime prevention and apprehension. The argument that there should be a dedicated livestock squad is made on the presumption that the problem is fuelled by repeat offenders.
Victoria Police has said that ear tags are so easily removed and replaced, allowing stock to be processed by sale or slaughter.
Unlike petty crims, livestock thieves have to be well resourced with transport and, more than likely, very good working dogs.
They also have to be skilled at stock handling, at best working by moonlight.
So, it follows that most thefts are carried out by those who have had experience in livestock handling.
Also making apprehension and prosecution hard is that a large number of thefts are discovered by farmers weeks after they occurred.
Cattle can be freeze branded, but this is expensive and time consuming. Microchipping has been touted, but their natural migration eventually causes carcase contamination.
In the end, it falls to the owners of livestock to put in place systems that thwart theft.
There are systems that can send alerts to mobile phones or home computers when gates or fences are breached. Regular mustering and number counting must also be part of management.
MATTER OF TRUST
"Trust me, I am a scientist" sounds like the old joke about the cheque in the mail.
Allegations have surfaced that scientific information relating to the lower lakes on the Murray River was tampered with by South Australian scientists in submissions made during deliberations on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Something was always dodgy, as repeatedly pointed out by Griffith-based Darren DeBortoli and others.
The South Australian government was fooled by the science, as was the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that sang from a flawed hymn sheet.
What should be clear is that scientists venture an opinion that is not always cognisant of the facts, but based on opinion.