Non-Commercial Roo Cull: Wasteful & Disrespectful

Once again the issue of culling kangaroos has come to the fore of the media, particularly in Canberra, but the truth is that following the conversion of much of the landscape to grazing and cropping country, in a good seasons this practice is repeated time and time again across NSW as populations of Eastern Greys reach levels that cause damage to primary producers.

The ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) set an annual quota for 2013 of 1244 kangaroos; the reaction was considerable particularly from the animal welfare and green groups. But the truth is that some properties in isolation can be granted this many tags for their annual cull such is the problem with excess populations of eastern grey kangaroos.

The science behind the culling of native animal populations is fairly well settled: our understanding of the population, their response to stress and the "excess" is now well known and gone are the days of an all out declaration on them - thank heavens for that! The fact that we're back every year culling again suggests that the overall impact is not of any great detriment to the population.

But what this little piece is about is what happens to them following the cull.



Now kangaroo meat is widely regarded (ironically less so in Australia) as a valuable source of rich protein; it is low in fat and has other anti-carcinogenic and anti-diabetes properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_meat#Products).

It is also widely held as an ecologically superior product to domesticated livestock with kangaroos being vastly superior in their adaptation to the Australian landscape, performing better during droughts, limiting the damage to root systems of native pastures and leading to much less erosion and siltation of waterways.

 All in all, kangaroo is a very valuable natural resource.

In NSW, non-commercial culling of macropods (the dominant being eastern grey kangaroos) is governed by the National Parks and Wildlife Act. A landholder makes an application to the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service; a staff member makes a determination and issues the appropriate number of tags. In my experience and the experience of those I've talked to in the past is that the local NPWS rangers are often very friendly, easy to get along with and are sympathetic to the farmers' plight.

So what's the problem?

Well the problem arises when one tries to put all that wonderful protein to use. You see the overwhelming majority of permits prohibit the carcasses being removed from the property.

This has two major problems: the waste of protein and the increased food available to feral carnivores and omnivores.

Following the ACT cull this year, the former issue was raised in the mainstream media (Dumped Roos Seen as Waste of Protein). Unfortunately it never amounted to any real interest among the public, despite the waste of something in the order of 28,000kg of rich protein.

In this case, the concerns of Territory and Municipal Services Minister Shane Rattenbury are valid; with a commercial enterprise in place the investors would want to see a return on their investment and this may mount undue pressure on the annual quota, particularly in a dry or run of dry years. But to dismiss any use of the meat for human consumption on the grounds of these concerns is, to put it bluntly, a soft option; it's a cop out.

If we look to similar programs around the world, the United States sets the standard with their Sportsmen Against Hunger program. This program enables hunters to donate game meat to be used for feeding the disadvantaged within their communities. In 2010 they donated enough meat to generate 1.9 million meals.

Why can't this be replicated in Australia? With hundreds of thousands of kangaroos culled annually we are not short of protein. Instead though they are left to rot in paddocks, providing a temporary food source for destructive pest animals such as wild dogs and feral pigs who then turn on native wildlife and stock to supplement their feed once the glut of prime kangaroo is spent.

It is an incredible waste and an act of despicable disrespect. It's a valuable resource that could contribute to improving the lives of our fellow man, why not use it?

The Deceit Runs Deeper Than Hunting

The Government’s decision to summarily abolish the Game Council and its impact goes far beyond recreational hunters; it has shown just how contemptuous Barry O’Farrell and his Government is and the regard with which he holds regional and rural NSW.

It is true that some 20,000 licensed, law abiding hunters have now been locked out of public lands and that the future of hunting is on shaky ground and it would be of little surprise that there is strong resentment within that group – and shooters and hunters generally.

The effect though will echo throughout regional NSW.

The recently released Public Benefit Assessment Report of the Game Council’s activities in the 12 months to April 2013 was glowing in its assessment of the benefit restricted and game licensed hunters have presented.

For regional NSW, the annual economic injection amounts to almost $65 million – all of which is spent outside of the major metropolitan areas. In a time where economic hardship is a grim reality for many smaller towns and shires, in a time when orchards are being ripped from the ground, in a time when huge corporations are buying up vast tracts of formerly family farmed land, every cent of that $65m will be sorely missed. What the knock-on effect will be, only time will reveal. 

The Assessment also revealed that the impact of restricted licensed hunters on public lands, that is State Forests, is so great Forests NSW now no longer spends any funds worthy of mention on feral and pest animal control. In fact the lost opportunity to Forests NSW is now approaching $2.4 million – a figure that one can now assume they will have to try and find to discharge their duty to continue to control feral and pest animals. The reality is that Mr O’Farrell has overseen the end of the halcyon days for Forests NSW. 

His decision also demonstrates his absolute contempt for primary producers. In the weeks since the abolition of the Game Council, there have been articles in various media outlets warning of the pending explosion of feral pigs, of the very real threat to rangeland wool growing from wild dogs and even just the other day a report of a young boy being gored by a wild pig. In this instance Mr O’Farrell has turned his back on primary producers and has hung them out to dry.

But the deceit runs deeper, the contempt more venomous. A number of ministers have been quoted as having the ambition to introduce a tenure-blind approach to pest animal control: one set of rules for National Parks, for State Forests and for public land. This wouldn’t be such a bad thing if they objectively assessed the different methods currently employed across the various tenures and implemented the most effective and most efficient, but given Mr O’Farrell’s summary beheading of the most successful and most efficient, it would appear a cold day in Hell would be more likely than this model being implemented across all tenures.

If it is to be believed the Government want to impose the grossly inefficient model of pest animal management that is currently proposed for National Parks across freehold land - across your land. They cite the model of bushfire management as the successful big brother whose footsteps pest animal control will follow, but one only needs to look to the Warrumbungles and the catastrophic fire that razed 95% of the National Park to glean an indication how successful National Parks has been in managing bushfires.

But the most telling fact in this sordid tale is the reason for all that is listed above. If there were serious, life threatening, corrupt or criminal undercurrents at work in the Game Council, one may understand Mr O’Farrell’s decision. If there were a history of injuries and deaths then it may be justifiable. But we are not. In over 80,000 hunting days by some 20,000 restricted license hunters, there was not a single serious injury reported, let alone a fatality.

In essence the Game Council was the Government’s highest performing unit. Yes, there were issues with governance but these were not insurmountable by any stretch of the imagination. All that was needed was additional funding. To put it bluntly, Mr O’Farrell’s decision was akin to shooting your best working dog because he needed his claws trimmed.

This whole affair, for all the bad, also gave us a wonderful insight into the character of Mr O’Farrell.

If the Shooters and Fishers Party MLC’s are to be believed – and there’s no reason not to, I haven't seen anything from Mr O'Farrell to deny this – Mr O’Farrell gave them his word that he would consult with them on the findings of the Dunn report prior to any announcement or policy shift being made. The reality though could not have been further from what was promised. Instead Messrs Brown and Borsack did not find out until the decision had been made and the story was breaking across media outlets.

I want to stress this, because it goes a long way in highlighting Mr O’Farrell’s character: he did not make any outlandish or radical promises. He did not promise to enshrine hunting on public land time in perpetuity. He did not promise to grant National Parks to the Shooters & Fishers, he did not promise to cement the Game Council in its existence forever more. 

His promise was a very simple one; it was simply to talk to those whose constituents would be most affected but he couldn’t even keep that simple promise.

What sort of leader is it that acts so quickly and so irrationally that he cannot honour a very simple undertaking given to fellow colleagues? Is this someone who can be trusted? Is it someone the people of NSW can have confidence in?

And where were the Nationals in all of this? Where were the flag bearers of regional NSW, the knights of the primary producers? They were standing there, by his side as he rang the death knell of the most successful pest animal control program in the history of Australia. They stood there as he turned his back on regional NSW and threatened to jeopardise $65m of vital economic benefit. They stood by his side as he gave primary producers the bird and finally they stood there as he committed a gross act of political bastadry all in the name of power and authority.

The Greens: Champions of the Wasteful & Disrespectful Destruction of Animals

So in my blog The Greens and the Pursuit of Ideology I went through some of the issues that challenge the Greens due to their dogmatic pursuit of their chosen ideology.

Well yesterday, late in the evening, another one to add to the list came to light.

Greens federal election candidate Scott Campbell-Smith  has admitted that he hunts deer... sorry, that should be he shoots deer on his property.

According to the article on the Weekly Times website (Greens deer hunt admission), Mr Campbell-Smith has deemed the deer to be a pest on his property. The article doesn't outline the damage the deer cause, and being only a few acres, one could reasonably assume that his losses, whatever they are, aren't exactly financially draining; it is far more likely to be the odd backyard vege or rose bush getting a flogging.

Now the Greens have, as one of their aims, "A ban on recreational shooting of all animals, including Australian native water birds". There are no misgivings about their intent with this one: they want to see the end of hunting in Australia, not just on public land, National Parks, State Forests etc, but across all land tenures.

So it has to be asked, does Mr Campbell-Smith's actions fly in the face of one of his party's core aims?

Well not according to him it doesn't.

As I alluded to above, the Greens aren't so naive as to not support the control of pest animals and in this regard they believe that shooting pest animals - by professionals I might add - is acceptable. Mr Campbell-Smith has deemed the deer on his property to be a pest so his actions fall within the party policy, sans professional.

But what is the difference between recreational hunting and pest animal control when undertaken by the landholder or an agent of the landholder (i.e. not a 'professional')?

From what I can gather, the main point of difference is actually pretty simple: when undertaking pest animal control, the animals killed are left to rot in the paddock, or to become a food source for other pest animals - foxes, wild dogs and pigs. When recreational hunting though, it is incumbent upon the hunter to use as much of that animals as possible - the meat and the pelt of course being the two most common resources.

Not only is there the moral obligation to use whatever one can from an animal harvested from the wild, it is also a sign of respect of the quarry that their life - regardless of whether it is deemed to be a pest or not - be of value in the end. To simply shoot an animal and leave it to rot when its meat could be harvested is grossly disrespectful.

We can go even further though and glean from the recent events that the Greens aren't just about the abolition of recreational hunting, but are indeed about the abolition of the right of an individual to feed themselves and their family from the land, even when their quarry is an introduced species!!!

So, is this really what the Greens stand for, the wasteful, disrespectful destruction of animals? And more shockingly the revocation of the right of an individual to feed themselves and their family with meat harvested from the landscape?