Bindi Irwin, daughter of the late Crocodile hunter Steve Irwin, may be the youngest person to ever address the National Press Club in Washington DC. According to ABC Online she follows in the footsteps of Winston Churchill, Indira Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.
But the new face of nature conservation got it wrong when she suggested koalas could go extinct in “my lifetime”:
"It is very sad that in my lifetime, a lot of wildlife could disappear," she said, wearing her trademark khaki and pigtails. "We could lose tigers and gorillas and even my favourite koalas." "We need to help my daddy's work and make this world a perfect place for animals."
In fact there is no evidence to suggest that the Australian koala is threatened with extinction, and some evidence to suggest some populations, including on Kangaroo Island, may benefit from culling.
How could Bindi get it so wrong?
Perhaps the economics of conservation favours ignorance and failure?
Indeed the Australian Koala Foundation has generated and maintained its support base on the false belief that the Australian koala is a species in decline and furthermore the organisation has not supported measures, in particular control burning, that may significantly benefit koala populations.
We might have to leave this 'discussion' there.
Ian Mott is correct to point out that I have never banned him or anybody else from this site. It is possible to ban a commentator by blocking their IP address.
I have deleted comment from Ian Mott, Pinxi and others on various occasions.
I do not intend to start blocking IP addresses. However, I am going to stop further comments at this thread at least for the moment as Pinxi is continuing to re-post comment after it has been deleted.
I regret having to do this and it is a first time.
----------------
Update 5pm 22nd Jan
Libby has requested this comment be added to clarify her position:
Jennifer,
I do not wish to harp on with this particular point, but I am incensed that you are saying you did not delete a comment you made regarding how you question if it is healthy for 8 year girls to be doing what Bindi is doing. This was on 21 January, in the post now timed at 4:46pm. The comment was added to as well, which prompted me to reply regarding zoos, and you have recognised this.
In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter, but I do not wish to be made out to be fabricating points. As for it being "A problem at this thread is that many would like Bindi and the Irwins to be revered, not criticised." That is extraordinary. Maybe the problem is that some here would like to see the Irwins criticised. Is that at all a possibility?
You did after all, post this thread criticising Bindi Irwin for 'getting it wrong' on koalas.
And why is it a "problem" anyway?? Is it then also a "problem" when people at this blog don't agree with whaling, or logging or culling or AGW or threatened polar bears?
I originally posted a response to this saying that Bindi Irwin had said "could" regarding the extinction of koalas in her life time. This had nothing to do with not wanting any Irwin to be criticised, and for the record I have plenty of criticisms. The fact now anyone who defends the Irwins has/is a problem is really irrational and as evidence-based as all your other arguments."
end of comment.
-------------------
So, leaving aside all this confected outrage, wot about these bloody koalas?