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 and the Pursuit of Ideology

In basing a political party on a set of political ideologies, the Greens are not unique. It is true that many of our choices of political parties have, deep in their foundations, an ideology which molds and shapes their approach to policy and power. 

Quite aptly, Wikipedia includes in its explanation of political ideologies, among other things, doctrines and myths. Quite apt because this is largely what sets the Greens apart from other mainstream political parties.

The other aspect that sets them apart is their dogged and unwavering pursuit of these ideologies, so unwavering we could quite accurately describe their approach as utopian - from their perspective at least this is the case.

 The birth of the Greens was quite noble; deep in the Tasmanian wilderness a few brave men and women fought hard for the environment, in this regard they weren't too dissimilar to the hunters that fought hard to save the Macquarie Marshes and other wetlands in NSW in the face of the threat of drainage for agriculture. It is a great shame that these die-hard environmentalists, while not perfect, have seen their party overrun with modern extreme leftards whose heads are airily found in a utopian ideal. They cannot compromise, they cannot foresee the impact of their agendas and most of all, they are so far entrenched in a dogmatic ideology that they represent the greatest threat to the freedoms of the Australian people.

The problem with this dogma is that it often sees the sacrifice of pragmatism and compromise in the pursuit of solutions and the shaping of policy.

For example take the very first attempt at an emissions trading scheme in Australia, the Rudd Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2008. From the outset, because it didn't meet the utopian ideals of the Greens, they rejected it. Despite it being a big step forward in Australian energy policy and its response to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the Greens rejected it and called for even more ambitious targets.

Because of their pursuit of the ideal position, it was four years before a new scheme was introduced and in actual fact there was bugger all difference, in terms of achievements to tackle AGW. This was four years the slightly less ideal scheme could have been in force, stoking R&D in renewable and clean energy. It is highly unlikely that the Greens resistance to the CPRS gained anything for the environment and almost entirely certain that it cost.

A more recent example has been the abolition of the Game Council and the suspension of hunting in State Forests in NSW.

The Greens have made it no secret that they wanted the figurative head of the Game Council on one of the iron spikes on Macquarie Street. They have been nothing short of continuous in their hounding of the Game Council and volunteer recreational and conservation hunters since its inception in 2006. With the news of the decision to abolish the Game Council and suspend hunting in all State Forests braking, the Greens were practically orgasmic in receiving and retransmitting the news with slogans such as "We did it! Game Council abolished".

Now I'm not about to suggest that hunting should be celebrated by everyone; far from it for me to tell others how to think, how to source their meat or how to contribute to the conservation movement - I'll leave that to the Greens - but what I do expect is that while ever my own pursuits are conducted within the law and are not impacting detrimentally on others, I will not be vilified for it. However, the unrelenting and dogged pursuit of volunteer conservation and recreational hunters by the Greens and their followers, in the name of environmental ideology, has been the exact opposite.

Their campaign was so hysterical and so venomous they whipped up vicious, vilifying antics by their sheeple (people exhibiting the characteristics of sheep i.e. they follow without question). There were instances of graffiti on prominent hunters' private property, hate mail and derogatory, almost defamatory material spread across the internet.

All of this behaviour aside, where the Greens have spectacularly failed is in addressing the actual problem. And at that, it is an issue that plagues their flagship cause: conservation and the environment.

Because of their ideological pursuit of hunters and the Game Council, 400 State Forests are now with absolutely no strategy or means for the control of feral animals and the management of their increased impact on the indigenous biodiversity.

State Forests have, for almost seven years, enjoyed an annual economic benefit of $2.4m from restricted licence (r-licence) hunters. The recent Public Benefit Assessment has outlined the contribution r-licence hunters have made to the control of feral animals on State Forest land. In fact, such was the impact of our collective achievements, Forests NSW had virtually eliminated their budget for feral animal control across the lands for which they were responsible.

Now though, because of the Greens ideological pursuit of hunters, there is an enormous vacuum, potentially in the order of 21,000 feral animals annually. Their impact on our indigenous flora and fauna remains to be seen, but we can reasonably expect that it will be quite marked with the passing of time.

What is quite troubling however is the alternative should hunting in State Forests not resume at the same levels of efficiency as in the days of the Game Council.

The Greens have already made murmurs about deer being listed as pests, paving the way for the use of aerial baiting with 1080 poison; a similar path to that followed by NZ and no doubt a similar ecological blitzkrieg awaits us.

And finally a rather bizarre example is one where the Greens position actually flies in the face of the historical ideology of the left-wing, that is the position that supports social-equality in the face of unjust disadvantage.

So venomous and all-consuming is their hatred of hunting, farming and fishing, they are prepared to sever the public from these interests - in effect they aim to remove society's ability to feed itself should we ever suffer a food crises.

And should we ever face a food crises, who will be the first to suffer? Whose children will be the first to go hungry? It will be the disadvantaged among us that will not have any means to harvest their own food from the water or the land. They will be slaves to higher food prices and they will suffer as a direct result of those who are supposed to champion their plight.

But it gets worse - and this is where their ideology creates hypocrites of them - their pursuit for organic, free-range (note, not true free-range, but farmed free-range) and generally less intense farming, if successful, will guarantee that food prices will increase and there is absolutely no question that the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society will suffer the most.

All in the name of a utopian ideal.

National Parks & Wildlife Services - a Model for Inefficiencies

In her recent announcement about the trialling of volunteers taking part in orchestrated culls, The Hon. Robyn Parker - Minister for Environment & Heritage - established that any volunteer hunter would be held to the same standard as NPWS staff.

"volunteer participants [will be] held to an
equivalent high standard that currently applies to NPWS staff and contractors" - Ms Parker

 This is a wonderful sentiment and I applaud the ambition of her statement. However, if only the reality were true.

The sad truth is that National Parks are grossly under-resourced and the skill of their staff, particularly those in higher management roles, leaves a lot to be desired.

In the photo below, supplied by a friend who frequents the area, we can see the impact of wild pigs on the riparian zone of a river that is listed as critical habitat for the endangered Macquarie Perch. One of the key threatening processes for the Macquarie Perch is siltation of deep water holes and spawning grounds and it doesn't take a genius to work out that if this particular river were to rise only a few centimetres, highly mobile and dispersive sediment would begin to wash into the river. The fellow who supplied this photo detailed a number of complaints to various NSW Gov. departments, including NPWS, however almost two months on nothing has been done.

Erosion from foraging feral pigs. The river in the background is identified
critical habitat for the endangered Macquarie Perch. 

It is a sad reality that this scene is repeated across many National Parks. I have seen similar damage across vast areas of the Coxs River in the Blue Mountains National Park. Interestingly the appearance of pigs in this case followed the change of land tenure from private to public.

It is not all about a lack of feral animal management though.

In the summer just gone we were witness to perhaps one of the most devastating incidences of destruction by neglect, when the Wambelong bushfire razed over 95% of the Warrumbungle National Park in northern NSW (Monster bushfire ravages Warrumbungle NP, Warrumbungle National Park sprouts regrowth after catastrophic bushfire). It is almost inconceivable that 95% of a National Park can be razed in this day and age.

Since the fire, heavy criticism has been leveled at its management in its early stages, management that fell to NPWS.  Irrespective of any neglect in the years prior to the devastating fire through a failure to maintain fire trails, conduct hazard reduction operations, etc, the decisions made in the first few hours of the fire - it ultimately led to the scorching of over 54,000Ha, 53 homes razed and hundreds of livestock burnt - highlights the NPWS management's inability to manage bushfires.

On top of all this, there are now allegations of corrupt behaviour - sufficient to dismiss one ranger - where it is alleged benefits were accepted in return for allowing poachers access to the Paroo-Darling National Park in far western NSW. One has to question: is the governance in place is robust enough if this sort of behaviour can occur (National Parks and Wildlife Service deals with drugs for hunting scandal in NSW's west)?

All in all, the Minister's assertion that NPWS are the epitome of public land managers is evidence of just how out of touch she is with what is occurring on the ground. The truth is that NPWS management have failed numerous times to achieve the objectives of National Parks. The suggestion that it is these people that will oversee any planned pest control shoots is a dangerous one - they have failed so far in many of their undertakings, what's to say they'll reverse this form when peoples' lives are at stake?