Talk:Rabbits in Australia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kuppenbc, Mafer9728, Decoteaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page renamed

Why was this page renamed ? I think that is a bad idea. The "invasion" word is important. The old title was much more significant than the first one.

Why does this page exist at all. It should be just a couple paragraphs in the rabbit article. --rmhermen

nope. The goal of the article is not to relate the happy life of rabbits in Australia. It is to give an example of invasive species. That is why it is important that the initial title be kept

Far better to concentrate on the happy life of introduced cane toads in Australia which

are now hopping across Kakadu into Western Australia. How stupid was it to introduce a toad to eat a bug that lived so high up on the sugar cane, the toad couldn't reach it anyway? Now the unstoppable creatures are heading our way. The feral rabbits have never been a major problem in Western Australia (this is fact based on the amount of expenditure on feral rabbit control never having risen here for over 10 years). God help us all if we too become infested with the Cane Toads - stupid Australian authorities for allowing their introduction which would have taken scientific ratification from the stupid boffins in high places for the introduction to occur (if scientists had publicly vilified the toads BEFORE their introduction they never would have been introduced here!!!!)

.==Rabbit invasion in Australia== Discussion copied over from User talk:Tannin and User talk:Anthere and slightly edited by me, Tannin 10:02 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

For which reason did you rename the rabbit invasion in Australia ?User:anthere

I renamed RIOA for several reasons: because it's not actually an "invasion" (though it's ofen been called that informally) but an infestation;

oups, yes, that's the word we use in french, I saw it in english, but didnot realise it was not the best.

because it's not very grammatical;

I would not know ;-)

and because it's a rather POV title. (Mind you, I can't think of a single thing good to say about rabbits here in Oz, but surely someone else will sooner or later. I hate the damn things with a passion.)

The main reason though, was because I started reorganising the entries on Australian fauna and flora, and I intend to add some companion pieces on other feral vermin here: in particular the fox and the cat, but perhaps also the Cane Toad the European Carp, and as many others as I (or you, or whoever else) finds time to do. I'm not convinced that <Rabbit (Australia)> is an ideal title, and if you have a better one to suggest I'd be glad to hear it, but at least this way we can (a) use the pipe trick, and (b) have some regularity between the vermin articles: Rabbit (Australia) and Fox (Australia)? and Cat (Australia)?, and so on. Tannin

Hum, so you want to limit these articles to invasive aspect ? good. But thinking again, I feel that first this type of "low-information" title will maybe lead some people to think it would be easier to include the article in the rabbit one, and second, that it was maybe not a good idea to put a focus on the country.

I am wondering whether it is necessarily to limit these articles to a country (or a continent). Fox for example could be considered "vermin" in most countries where they thrive. Would we have a Fox (Australia) and a Fox (France) and a Fox (England)...since the focus would already be double (the animal and the fact it might be considered a pest), do we really need to add a third focus, the country ? I mean that the reason why the rabbit might be a pest for example if its very high reproduction rate. This is true whatever the place. Hence, if you limit these type of articles to only countries, they will likely be many repetitions among the various pest articles. Besides, even if not true in Australia, an infestation can cover several bording countries (they don't care for political borders :-)). One example might be this Taxifolia caulerpa, an article on it will focus on its invasive character first thing. But it is all over the mediterranean sea, in California, other places maybe? So what about rather calling the article rabbit infestation, and have it not specifically focus on Australia (I agree this one it mostly will though)  ? anthere

Hmmm .... Bear with me while I think aloud a little. I'll just stick to rabbits for the moment, and trust that foxes, European Carp and the rest might fit into the same sort of framework if we can just get rabbits right first. There seems to be three or four different stories to tell about rabbits. I'm not about to suggest that each of these have a seperate article, but I'll give them bold-type names just for now, so as to make them easy to talk about.

1. Rabbit as a domesticated animal: rabbit farming, rabbits as pets & etc. A general interest and 'how to' topic - call it Domestic Rabbit.
2. Rabbit as a wild creature, originally native (as I recall) to Spain, but widespread throughout Europe. Call this Rabbit: Biology.
3. Rabbit as an invasive & destructive creature around the world. This is veering away still further from the domestic rabbit topic and into ecology. Call it Rabbit: Ecology
4. Rabbits in Australian history. It would not be difficult to argue that the rabbit has been the single most significant animal in the history of Australia. (Apart from humans, of course.) Rabbits have changed our ecology, our landscape, our economy, and quite possibly even our military history - we need not imagine that the well-respected Australian infantryman of the two World Wars leaned to shoot straight by aiming at painted targets! There have been rabbit plagues of astonishing proportions, two seperate major attempts to wipe them out with biological agents (Mixo and Colesi Virus), they severely reduce agricultural productivity, make a massive contribution to the erosion of our fragile soils ... there is enough in this topic alone to fill a 32k article to overflowing! Call this one Rabbits: Australian History.

OK, at present we have Rabbit which is mostly #1, but has a little tiny bit of #2 and #4 in it. (Or it did last time I looked at it.) And we have Rabbit (Australia) which is all about #4.

Where do we go from here? I'm not sure. Do we wait for people to write stuff and then move it around and rename things till it's all organised? Or plan it out first and then write to the plan? There is too much for one big article. Not sure if it makes sense to have four though. And maybe there is a good deal of rabbit-as-vermin history in other countries that I don't know about? With your permission, Anthere, I'm going to move this discussion over to Talk:Rabbit (Australia) and await your thoughts, and see if anyone else has a bright idea. Tannin 10:02 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think that Rabbit (as a generic topic) should either be designed in one of two ways:

• Should either be mostly #1, but with a little bit of #2, #3 (with #3 pointing towards #4)
• Should be a placeholder that points to #1, #2, and #3 (with #3 again pointing towards #4)

It certainly makes sense to break it apart; all of that information in one page will definitely be unwieldly. I've looked at other encyclopedias on rabbits, and they suffer badly from that same problem (weaving between #1 and #2 mostly, but with #3 and #4 certainly in there also). It makes it nearly impossible to read. That said, I really don't have any preference on whether we follow my first suggestion or my second suggestion (barring anybody coming up with something better). -- Marumari 21:59 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting proposition

Your proposition is very interesting. For it tries to summarize all we could find in the encyclopedia about rabbits. Reading it, I had the feeling something was missing. Plus I would not separate the information that way.
Let me give you my own vision of the different spaces of information I see about rabbit. I roughly see four main domain (I don't say four articles) - history/evolution of the rabbit - biology - rabbit raising - rabbit and ecology, with in particular Australia issue

§§§§§§§§§§

1 A first space is about history and evolution of rabbits
Taxonomy
It's origin of Oryctolagus cuniculus, geographical location and extent from about 5 or 6 millions of years to now
What it was used for in the past
How it was discovered and by who - so etymology as well
When cuniculture started and by who. First being wild rabbits raised in closed environment first, in particular to hunt them later, or eat the fœtus (since some claim that it is in order to easily get fœtus that domestication really started.)
Then, when it started to be raised for more than hunting or mass production, but also as a pet. Then later, development of modern domestic rabbits, when races started to be isolated by artificial selection
Maybe some exemples of such races, and their caracteristics (those for food, those to be pets, albinos ones…), and finally creation of hybrides.
I think that space should also include some info such as the fact that the rabbit is the only species of its genus, so can't breed with other species. Maybe some genetic studies to show that all current rabbits are from 2 lines, and that domesticated and wild rabbits really form a unique group. Which means domestic rabbits are really the descendants from the wild ones, even if some domestic rabbits went back to wilderness.

Note that very little of all this is in the current rabbit chapter

I think this is rather what should be in the rabbit article. General information. And links to

• the more specialized information Rabbit (biology)
• more professional information (cunniculture)
• and to more in-depth information (Rabbit (Australia).

§§

2 Then comes the rabbit biology chapter, where I wouldnot really put all that detailed stuff about races and what these rabbits are used for. Biology should not really focus on the difference among the differents races, but rather on what is common to all of them. What unite them, and what define them apart from the others : that is morphology, squeletum and growth, reproduction, respiratory system, digestive system, nutrition, excretion….

Note that some of it is currently in the rabbit chapter, mostly some information on morphology and some on reproduction (but not on embryology). However, there is nothing really on the other points.

§§

3 Then there is the cunniculture chapter (call it the way you wish, cunniculture or rabbit farming or whatever - I mean the action of raising domestic rabbit.
How to reproduce them, feed them, clean them, breed them…
Maybe here would it be interesting to spend some times on the different races, and their usage. For a rabbit intended to be eating, or used for his fur, or to be sold as a pet, is not raised the same way.
It could probably be good to add some stuff about some of the diseases from which suffer a rabbit.
That chapter could pretty well also host information such as recipes (when rabbits are raised to be eaten), or their relationships with humans (the fur and maybe some stuff about complaints against fur using, and of course for the friendship/pet issue). That chapter could just as well deal with rabbit raising for experimental goals (rabbits used in labs for tests…).

Should someone intending to understand how to raise rabbit get on wikipedia, I think he would maybe appreciate an article specialized in all the little details of that activity.

Note that quite a lot of this is in the current rabbit chapter. Already very much filled up thanks to Marumari. Bt Imho, this should not be in the rabbit article so much, but in the cuniculture article. I think it is really too homocentric to focus an article about a species on the way we use it.

§§

4 Then there is the whole rabbit and ecology chapter, which you already described a good deal The major issue of the rabbit as an infestation species. Its being host, and vectors of several diseases. Consequences on agricultural matters, soil erosion, replacement of species…

I understand your wish to have an individual article of infestation in Australia. That's what I wanted to do when I wrote it the first time.
I don't think it would be best to put the other rabbit/ecology information in a separate article. It is maybe best that most of the ecological aspects could be added in the general rabbit article. If the information is very abundant (such as the infestation in Australia), we could just introduce the issue and link to the specific article. Should another specific point arise, we could do the same. For example, myxomatosis is an important issue, but it could just make a small paragraph, the rest of it being in the myxomatosis article.

&&

As for the couple of funny things, such as rabbit for easter (absolutely not a french habit, we only receive eggs from the sky bells :-)), they could fit in the rabbit article best.

I am not entirely sure I was clear. But in short, I think rabbit could be mostly #1, with pointer to #2, pointer to #3, include some of #4, with pointer to parts of #4 (such as rabbit (Australia)). That's nearer Marumari second proposition in the sense it doesnot introduce a rabbit only as a species with a set of raising techniques, but rather on a species on its own, replaced in the ecology.

What do you think ?

User:anthere

I want to ponder a litle longer on the exact organisation, but in general, yes, I agree. (With both of you!) I have to go to a family function shortly, but I'll look at this again tonight when I get home. Tannin

Few quick points

I have to head out from work in a bit, but I'd like to make a few quick points before I go.

First of all, Rabbits are a real tough subject, because they are known for so many things (farming, pets, pests). Those lucky cat or dog editors have it comparatively easy.  :) I have a few problems with anthere's arguments above; my biggest is that I don't feel that a discussing on the raising of rabbits as pets would fit well with an article on cunniculture. Besides the fact that I don't know an incredible amount on cunniculture, I do know that their feeding methods, breeding methods, etc., are completely different. Not to mention that an article on raising a rabbit could run 100k, easily (if I were so inclined). I don't know exactly how I would break it out now, I'm going to need some time to think about it. Hopefully, this could end up being a model for other Wikipedia articles on various fauna and flora. -- Marumari 22:26 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hummm...I don't know much about cats and dots, much more about any farming animal, and I can assure you an article on cattle certainly deserve more than what it currently has ;-)
You are quite right that the pet raising might not fit perfectly in the cuniculture article.
However I don't think the fact you don't know much about cuniculture should not be a reason not to do an article on it. Would you suggest switching to a more neutral title such as rabbit raising so both cunniculture and pet raising could fit together, or would you rather prefer that the two are separated in two different articles ?
I think the very fact an article on raising rabbit could be so long is an "excellent" reason to separate it from the rabbit article. Please tell me what you think and if I can help. user:anthere

---

• Rabbit (Domestic)

- Diet

- Behaviour

- Health (Mostly mental, minor physical - link to Rabbit (Biology)

- Housing

- External Links

• Cunniculture

- Farming techniques

- Diet

- Etc.

• Rabbit (Biology) <-- Should be default

- Reproduction

- Appearance

- Taxonomy

- Health (Mostly physical)

• Rabbit (Ecology)

- Ecological impact

- Rabbit infestation in Oceania

• Rabbit (Culture)

- Rabbits and People

- Rabbits in Culture and Literature

• Rabbit (Species)

- Various species

---

I think this is maybe too many article, but that could be a layout maybe. Too be adapted too other species.

There are two things I don't really agree with. The first one is that I don't think the default article should be the Rabbit (Biology). I think the default should be the Rabbit, and that it should contain not only a bit of biology, but also a bit of every of the other articles. The common reader, coming to the article by default will want to have a clear layout of all the important things to know about a rabbit. Which involve a bit a taxonomy and description, but also a bit about rabbit history, about rabbit and people, and a bit of rabbit and ecology. I think the infestation of rabbit in Australia is too much important not to have at least a bit in the main article.

Besides, it may be that you didnot understant what I meant about Rabbit (Biology). What I think could be there is really specialized stuff, the type of which only rabbit-crazy people or biology student would be interested in reading as well as writing. Let me give you an example : a very interesting feature in rabbits - that you certainly know of - is caecotrophy. I guess a couple of lines about this could be in the main article, but if someone wishes to explain it in length, it belongs to another. You could answer, no problem, let's put it in a separate article. Ok, then, say someone wants to write really more about rabbit, stuff like this; it would not fit very well in the main article I guess.
Of course, if the main one is rather a simplification or an introduction to others, change is there are a little bit of repetition.

• Rabbit <-- Should be default

- Taxonomy

- Appearance

- Biology (basics) <-- link to Rabbit (biology)

- History (also include Rabbit and Culture and Litterature)

- Rabbit and People <-- link to Rabbit (domestic) and Cuniculture

- Ecology (where do we find them, biomes, climate..., predators...(basics))<-- link to specific article eg Rabbit (Australia)

• Rabbit (Domestic)

- Diet

- Behaviour

- Health (Mostly mental, minor physical - link to Rabbit (Biology)

- Housing

- Famous species <-- link Rabbit (species)

- External Links

• Cunniculture <-- link to Rabbit (Biology)

- Farming techniques

- Diet

- Etc.

• Rabbit (Biology)

- Taxonomy

- Morphology and growth

- Nutrition and excretion <-- link caecotrophy

- Reproduction

- Evolution <-- link Rabbit (species)

• Rabbit (Australia)

- Rabbit infestation in Oceania

• Rabbit (Species)

- Various species

---

I need to read these suggestions more carefully than I am capable of at this time of night - it's pushing 2AM here. Tannin

OK, I'm back and a little rested, if not refreshed. :) Seems to me that we all pretty much agree here, at least on the main things. Anthere's and Marumari's outlines are pretty close when you look at them side by side. Let me see if I can have a crack at a nice simple outline:

• Rabbit General introduction, including a summary of the more specialised articles (about one paragraph to each)

• Rabbit (Domestic) and Cunniculture Split both of these off from Rabbit (leaving a brief summary and a link, of course). Leave them together in one article for now, but be prepared to split them apart if and when it seems like a good idea.

• Rabbit (pest) - the rabbit as an invasive species, especially in Australia. Again, be prepared to split this if it starts to get too big or too confusing. One potential problem is that the rabbit is, in Australia, a creature of genuine historical importance: it would be very easy for the article to become more about this particular aspect of Australian history and ecology than about rabbits as invasive species in the world more generally. If this becomes a problem, then a split should fix it.

• Rabbit (Biology) Leave this stuff as part of Rabbit for now. If and when someones wants to expand on it and get down to a detailed biological level, then split this off too. But we don't have enough material to do this yet.

• Leftovers: Where do we put the different species? Are they not all just varieties (i.e., same as breeds of dog?) In that case, they belong with the pet rabbit & rabbit farming sections. Rabbits and people? In the main entry for now, maybe?

That gives us three articles to start with: General (including biology); domesticated (farm and pet); pest (worldwide and Australia). That seems like a nice, workable arrangement that we can get to easily from here, and that is flexible enough to accord with Anthere's and Maurmari's futeure plans.

The only thing that remains unresolved is the best names to use. I don't have any bright ideas or strong opinions on that. -- Tannin 10:23 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How about the following names: Rabbit, Rabbit (Ecology), Rabbit (Domestic), Rabbit (Biology), and Rabbit (Culture). As far as redirects go, Rabbit (Pet) -> Rabbit (Domestic) (for now), Cunniculture -> Rabbit (Domestic) (for now), Rabbit (Australia) -> Rabbit (Ecology) (for now). If the articles fill up, we'll figure it out then. Marumari

Let's do it. Anthere? Cool with you? Tannin

let's see...

Rabbit : ok
Rabbit (ecology) perfect (rabbit (pest) was a nono :-))
Rabbit (domestic) ok
Rabbit (biology) sure
Rabbit (culture) is the one I am the least convinced, but that's my language bias. Anyway, right now, "culture" will stay in the general article, right ?

The redirects look fine to me.

That's ok. ant

---

Woops! Thanks Tim. The 1861 figure of mine was just brain-fade. In my head I was thinking 2 years later, 10 million caught. Then I sorted my rough notes out and got the correct 10 years later, 2 million caught, meanwhile leaving the 1859 + 2 = 1861. Doh. Tannin

Name

Shouldn't this be renamed "Rabbits in Australia" or somesuch? The parentheses notation is used for disambiguation, as for a different meaning of the word, such as "Rabbit (car)". —Ashley Y 01:49, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to move this to Rabbits in Australia unless someone objects. —Ashley Y 05:44, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________

If there is a Rabbits in Australia page, why is it I can't find a "Possums in New Zealand" page and a "Stoats in New Zealand" page? Possums were introduced into New Zealand and are a nuisance and so are stoats (this is a very serious problem). We also have rainbow lorikeets in NZ (unwanted by many) so where is the page on that?. As for "invasion" by rabbits in Australia, rabbits didn't arrive in space ships from the planet BUNNICULOUS they were a deliberately introduced species along with many others. If we have one page for "Rabbits in Australia" then I think it's only fair to put up pages on all the other introduced species. We also need a "Foxes in Australia, Camels in Australia, Goats in Australia, Pigs in Australia" and so on. The rabbit is not that big a problem that it needs a whole page plus if we are going to have rabbits in Australia, it is only fair to mention that CSIRO has been promoting rabbit farming in the Eastern States while in Queensland, a scientist with past associations with CSIRO seemed to be supporting a total ban on the keeping of any domestic/farmed rabbit at all (can you believe the Queensland Government won't allow the keeping of any domestic or farmed rabbit, even sterilised and microchipped and they increased fines for the keeping of a pet rabbit to $30,000. I believe they are scared of another species emulating the cane toad. Elsewhere in Australia, every State has deregulated the keeping of pet rabbits.....go figure that one out). During the escape of the last deadly virus tested to kill rabbits , CSIRO put out a press release saying it was OK to eat rabbits infected with Viral Hemorrhagic Disease of rabbits (they quickly withdrew this statement after it was pointed out eating meat from diseased animals isn't healthy.....anyone want an E.Coli sausage?? see the convoluted logic and the desperation in trying to convince people spreading diseases and eating subsequently diseased animals was safe???. This all needs to be added to "Rabbits in Australia" as it is fact and points out the strange attitude of some people in Australia towards rabbits.

---

Hi,

I am considering putting up my own version of "Rabbits in Australia" since the beat up/spin on this page is so convoluted, misinformed and a continuation of the spiel put out by certain persons who have based their careers on portraying the feral rabbit in Australia as the main perpetrator of environmental degradation. Nowhere do we see a proper discussion of the rabbit/degradation/loss of species issue which takes an Eastern States (of Australia) problem, leaves out many facts and then deems the feral rabbit to be the main cause of uncountable wrongs, loss of species etc without exposing the whole truth. This issue is becomeing so tiresome and annoying that I am sure I am not the only one who has had enough. The worst problem with the whole "feral rabbit in Australia being the MAIN cause of environmental degradation/species loss blah, blah, blah," is the suseptibility of people from other countries to swallow this story in all its entirety. I will shortly pick up the pen and start putting wrong to right (I am not paid to perpetuate spin doctored information like some, so my time is donated, free, to get the story straight). Start looking at the Goyders line of rainfall and the history of European settlement before you blame the feral rabbit for being a sole cause of species loss etc etc. European settlement North of the Goyders line (which really designates an area where sustainable agriculture and clearing of land was inappropriate due to the overall lack of rain), is one main causes of irreversable degradation and species loss where European settlers repeatedly ignored scientific data not to inhabit and clear the land or graze large numbers of livestock there. The type of damage done by the European settler and introduced species such as sheep, cattle, goats, camels, wild pigs etc etc as well as the European rabbit is never properly explained by those vilifying the feral rabbit. Damage done to the Australian environment through continued grazing by sheep, cattle etc far outweighs damage done by rabbits but many will not discuss this because the economy derives income from the economically acceptable introduced species while those (such as the feral rabbit) which compete with the cattle/sheep are vilified. Really, we are becoming tired of all the hype surrounding the rabbit. Where I live, precious bushland is being continually ripped out for the urban sprawl (Australia's best land is in coastal areas where humans compete with native animals for space). No-one will stop this devastation and just look at Tasmania and Western Australia where huge irreplaceable tracts of superb forest are sold for a pittance as woodchips and NATIVE ANIMALS (in Tasmania) die in agony from 1080 for daring to eat the tree saplings on tree farms that are replacing native forests (they are deliberately poisoned with 1080 baits). Please don't be hoodwinked by Australian authorities who seem to want to fight to the death to preserve jobs and careers based on vilification of the rabbit while much of our country is destroyed by humans, introduced cotton and bad irregation and a hundred other issues of far greater importance than continuing misinformation about rabbits in order to preserve a few careers and reputations.

And to those who redirected my small explanation of what my website was about (Rabbit Information Service) to the Rabbits in Australia site, this was a stupid and futile attempt to continue to stifle debate. I have undertaken years of FOI and research and on rabbits and rabbit diseases and your inept attempts to silence my voice including your attempt to underhandedly link my website with yours shows how afraid you are of people learning the truth about your inaccuracies. I know you are funded and are adults but you really need to grow up mentally and stop resorting to stupid attempts to stifle speech and distort facts by ommission.

M. (- 203.59.186.143)

M., here at Wikipedia, we assume good faith and try to keep free of personal attacks. It's understood that this issue may be very dear to someone--they may have made it their life's work. Also, they may know much more about it than anyone else currently editing. However, even the experts have to provide backup for their claims--us lowly "amateurs" prefer reassurance that we are taking part in the spreading of truth, not misinformation, and your cooperation would be very much appreciated. This means, however, that you must try to stay calm and keep cool. Try having a nice cup of tea, if you'd like. But please try not to be a fanatic. Phoenix Song (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

re-doing some things

I've revised some of the language on this page in order to be more in line with what I consider to be encyclopaedic writing. If I've removed/re-worded anything which someone feels strongly about, don't be shy and let me know here about any problems you see.

The article contained some strange comments about human impacts on the ecology of Australia - which would be fine if the article weren't about Rabbits in Australia. I've tried to retain the fact that humans have also affected the ecology while making the effects of rabbits more central. An article on the ecology of Australia would be a more suitable place for discussing the impacts of humans on Australia beyond what is currently included in the article.

Most importantly, I added headings and sectioned the text a bit better. --ABQCat 05:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, should Commonwealth or U.S. spelling be used in this article? To my (commonwealth- English) eye, "defenses" looks a touch odd. 203.129.43.101 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Calicivirus

If my memory serves me correctly, the Calicivirus was not so much introduced by the CSIRO, but rather, was accidentally introduced into Tasmania, then spread to the mainland by (presumably) a frustrated farmer while the CSIRO was considering the issue.

mike40033

Content removals by 81.145.240.83, what do you think?

While reviewing the recent edits to this article, I noticed these two edits by 81.145.240.83 (talk · contribs). While they seem to be legitimate attempts to improve the article by condensing it, I can't help but feel that, to me at least, the overall impact seems mostly negative. To be sure, some of the removed prose was a bit clunky, and the Strabo quote probably didn't really need to be placed just there, but the resulting version doesn't read that well either, and some of the removed information seems quite encyclopedic. It's not referenced, unfortunately, but then neither is the rest of the article...

It would help if the IP had bothered to give an edit summary explaining why they chose to make those changes. Given that they didn't, does anyone else have an opinion as to whether those edits should stay or be undone? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image not up to standard

IMHO, the image 'Rabbits' enemies' is not good enough for a Wikipedia article (no offence to the artist) and I hope someone can replace it with something better. Alpheus 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually being a historical document, it can outline past behaviours associated with the Rabbits introduction. Enlil Ninlil 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Predators

John Ballard said what preditors the rabbit has. They would be the Dog, Cat, Quolls, Tasmanian Devil, Wedge tailed Eagle etc. So is there any evidence that they were affected by the decline in the Rabbit population at any time? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that most predators were feral, so the decline in rabbit numbers would be good on that score also. I did think of the Tassie Devil, but it said Calici was less strong in colder climates anyway. I forgot about the Wedge Tailed Eagle or Quoll. Anyway, if a cite can be found saying that the decline had a negative effect on native predators, it can go back in, but it sounded dubious to me. The sentence was originally put in by an editor with only 2 edits to his/her name. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You were correct in removing the edit. But it got me thinking that many native species would have become use to their pressence, and some would identify them as food. I will search over the next few weeks and post any liks on this talk page. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the word "predator" does not appear at all in the article, which seems strange to me. Also, an obvious question is, "why did rabbits overpopulate Australia, but not Europe?" The only answer I could find in the article was that Australia's mild winters allow year-round breeding, but wouldn't this also be true in the UK? So what's the difference? 66.66.149.221 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are the rabbitohs?

Seriously. There was a professional job which centered on rabbit killing. Why isn't it mentioned? --Luigifan (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's called rabbit hunter. Asdfjkl1235 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Odd dates

Why does this article begin with: "Since their introduction from Europe in 1859..." when according to the second reference rabbits were reported as: "becoming so numerous..." in 1827?

It seems the first rabbits were brought to Australia by Lieutenant-Governor King when he arrived in Sydney on 23 September 1791. He purchased them for the colony at the Cape of Good Hope. ("Historical Records of New South Wales" Vol. 1 Part 2, Government Printer, p. 493.)SydneysiderJ (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the person who added the information about early presence of rabbit in Australia before they became a plague issue. I am baffled firstly by its removal, since it seems to set some relevant context for the discussion of their later pest status, secondly because it corrects the very misleading 'introduction from Europe in 1859' myth and thirdly fairly bewildered by the apparent zealous rudeness of some of the people who have tinkered with the page, if the previous entries on this page are any guide. I leave it to others to reinstate it - I dont know how. 115.128.1.113 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it. FurrySings (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Added external link

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to our video: Nox-All Rabbits. This video documents the 1932 plague and methods of control.Eleworth (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

extraordinary claim?

This uncited statement:

"It is possible that native predators, particularly carnivorous dasyurids, were much more effective as natural controllers of the population than the later foxes and feral cats. When their populations collapsed as a result of habitat destruction, and sometimes deliberate hunting, rabbit populations could rise with far less restraint."

Quolls and such can catch rabbits? Just look at the Quoll. Does that sound believable to you? How in the world could a quoll be better at catching rabbits than a cat or fox? I can't belive it. I plan to remove it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quolls are effective predators within their habitats. It was noted in the 19th century that many rural farmers did not have chickens because of the devastation of 'native cats' or quolls. Quolls, at least the modern surviving species, will hunt animals in their burrows. What makes you think they would not be equal to fox / cat? [[60.242.50.195 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)]].

So if "it was noted" where was it noted? It could be our source (for something that still seems a bit unlikely to me) HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact rabbits are a major food source for quolls [1]. --99of9 (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you don't say where you get the information from. And it seems unlikely because rabbits are larger, faster, and more atheletic than quolls. I suppose underground they might be able to catch one, but it hardly seems likely. I think the default thing would be to not include it until someone can cite something authoritative saying that quolls can and do catch rabbits. Chrisrus (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you read the sentence my diff made, it makes reference to this scientific article. 99of9 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

When I was reading this, someone inserted the sentence "can i get aids" several times. McBenjamin (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bans on keeping pet rabbits.

At the moment, as far as I know, Queensland is the only state to ban the keeping of rabbits. There's a brief mention of this on the talk page but it seems notable enough for the main article. But recently I saw an old newsreel that showed rabbits being surrendered at a Victorian zoo due to a recent ban. Does anyone have any more info on the current Queensland ban, and any previous state bans that have since ended. There's occasional talk about stopping the Queensland ban but never gets taken seriously. --Dmol (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline in the skin and fur markets.

It's tempting to think that the decline in the use of fur and skins over the last few decades has had an impact on the use of rabbits commercially. This market would not be as susceptible to virus infections like the rabbit meat trade would. I don't want to put any original research in to the article, but wonder if there is any reliable sources information to support this. (or refute it ??) --Dmol (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Foxes

Was the introduction of Foxes one early countermeasure? Another one that failed, because the foxes preferred some endemic species to the rabbits. User:ScotXW^t@lk 15:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Foxes were introduced around the same time as rabbits, and for the same purpose: for the sport and entertainment of the leisured class, though to be fair to those gentlemen, the outcome could not reasonably have been predicted. Doug butler (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Rabbits in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050722013034/http://www.austmus.gov.au/eureka/2000/winner_pol.htm to http://www.austmus.gov.au/eureka/2000/winner_pol.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208223109/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rural/features/rabbitingon/ to http://www.abc.net.au/rural/features/rabbitingon/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070304222740/http://www.csiro.au:80/communication/rabbits/qa4.htm to http://www.csiro.au/communication/rabbits/qa4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110306094416/http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/stories/but-thats-another-story/9395/nox-all-rabbits/ to http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/stories/but-thats-another-story/9395/nox-all-rabbits/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph/title

I just came across the article and I think the opening paragraph must change. It just can't be that an article titled 'rabbits in Australia' would begin with only their damage to agriculture. I understand that's the reason for the article but I think an article dedicated to rabbits should begin at least with some description about the rabbits themselves, their species and when and how they arrived in Australia, and provide a more neutral viewpoint. Otherwise the title must be changed to something more specific to their influence on agriculture. The dissonance between the picture of the cute rabbit and the first sentence is terrifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.139.219.79 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed: at the very least, the article title is plain wrong. Maybe invasive rabbits in Australia?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rabbits in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050722133944/http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm to http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121218144317/http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/173733/Rtn08a.pdf to http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/173733/Rtn08a.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215045032/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/rab006-rabbit-warren-destruction-ripping.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/rab006-rabbit-warren-destruction-ripping.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226233249/http://ddmrb.org.au/About%20DDMRB.htm to http://www.ddmrb.org.au/About%20DDMRB.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What about cats against rabbits?

I have read (some time ago: no ref) about cats spread in the wild against rabbits. Then those cats became themselves a new pest (lol!), more precisely an invasive species. The article does not (seem to) talk about that. Is it a legend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denispir (talk • contribs)

Worth adding a link in See also. I'm not sure the article needs more than that seeing as it's specifically about rabbits. BTW you might be interested in the article Cat predation on wildlife. Daß Wölf 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)