It's time for a change in the way Australia manages its kangaroos. For too long the roo has been hoisted up on a pedestal; elevated as a deity to be worshiped from afar.
Until they become an inconvenience that is.
Australians are quick to exchange that pedestal for the pyre though, the inevitable minute the kangaroo becomes a nuisance.
It really is quite entertaining to observe the switch in a community's attitude; the transformation from rabid crusaders of the roo, to judge jury and executioner is a fast one. In the blink of an eye the cries of "they're on our Coat of Arms, thou shalt not touch them!" are quickly replaced with "they're out of control, they are scary animals, someone is going to be killed, we need a cull!"
Surely as a nation we're mature enough to begin the conversation about following the path that much of the world has already trodden - and done so for hundreds of years - about using their native resources in a sustainable and responsible manner?
But wait, we already do.
And not only do we already do it, but we do it with animals that are in a far more precarious position than the common species of kangaroo - the greys and the reds.
Murray cod, golden perch, Australian bass, silver perch, catfish and Murray crayfish are all native animals, endemic to Australia, that may be targeted and harvested by recreational anglers in NSW. For the inland species, it is estimated that the current populations represents just 10% of the biomass that existed prior to European settlement.
Of course there are measures in place to ensure that the net impact on the populations are not negative - open seasons, bag limits, approved methods. The considerable funds raised by the sale of recreational fishing licenses is returned to the fishery through research, development, habitat restoration, angler access and education. Among the achievements has been the successful captive breeding and release of Macquarie perch, what was once a prevalent native but one that now finds itself on the endangered species list.
It isn't just fish though, if we look across the Murray we have an annual duck season where one can hunt native ducks, observing prescribed bag limits and an open season that is determined by the sustainability of the populations. In NSW however ducks are off-limits (that is, like kangaroos, until they become a pest).
If we look further afield, as I have already alluded to, this practice is as common as the proverbial across the globe. From red deer in the Scottish highlands to wild boar on the European continent to elk in North America and lions on the Serengeti, sustainable use of native species is a viable, responsible method of managing them in a landscape that is far removed from that in which they evolved.
And this point is absolutely pertinent in the discussion. If we look at the environment prior to European settlement, it is perhaps the most changed of any on the face of the planet for two very important reasons: predators and water.
Shortly after European settlement the landscape's apex predator, the Aborigines, were removed. Imagine the North American plains or the African savannah without their respective apex predators. Anyone who thinks the ecosystem could continue to function in a healthy manner is at best naive and at worst simply delusional.
This has been compounded with the enormous increase in the availability of water. If you've recently flown over the inland parts of eastern Australia, you would have no doubt noticed the sparkling strings of dams spread far and frequently across the landscape below. Prior to European settlement these would have been absent. Together with vastly improved pastures and crops, the modern landscape is one that is heavily in favour of the kangaroo.
But what is even more ludicrous in this whole shameful situation is that even when kangaroos are permitted to be destroyed as pests, their nutritious, super-healthy meat is off limits to those undertaking the cull. Instead, those animals destroyed are either left to rot in the paddock or to feed the next generation of wild dogs or feral pigs. This shameful waste of high-quality protein in its own right needs to be addressed.
So let's have the conversation, let's work together to ensure that kangaroos are not propelled into the spotlight for the wrong reasons and relegated to the level of pest. Let's instead value our animals in every way we can, remove the hysterical, emotive and infantile drivel that has plagued the subject in the past and move forward with sensible, rational policy on managing our iconic species, ending the temporary hiatus of a 60,000 year tradition.
Showing posts with label conservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservation. Show all posts
Friday, September 27, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
NPA: Plain Ignorant or Deliberately Misleading?
On Friday, 30 August 2013, the National Parks Association of NSW's (NPA) Campaign Coordinator, Justin McKee released the latest salvo in his association's unrelenting attack on hunters and our culture: Call for an end to recreational hunting on all public land.
In this release, in what can only be described as a hysterical attempt to underpin a flawed argument, McKee's spurious assertions about feral animal control, hunter behaviour and our effectiveness are simply incorrect.
So one must ask the question of McKee, where are these reports? And further, if none are forthcoming, will he retract that derogatory critique of recreational hunters?
Further to this, since recreational hunting was introduced to State Forests, Forestry Corporation, the state owned corporation charged with overseeing the business activities and management of State Forests has relied on recreational hunters for the vast majority of their vertebrate pest control. In fact, since the introduction of recreational hunting in State Forests, that particular corporation now, or used to, quote the annual Game Council report for pest animals destroyed on land under their tenure. In doing this, recreational hunters not only destroyed many thousands of feral animals, but in doing so delivered a $2.4m benefit to Forestry Corporation and contributed some $34m to regional economies annually.
Again the gentlemen of Biosecurity NSW appear to be at odds with another of McKee's flailing, hysterical attempts at grabbing the public's attention.
McKee goes on to say that "The door on recreational hunting in State Forests should be kept shut".
Following a question posed by The Green's MLC Cate Faehrmann, Mr Tracey offered this:
"We advocate, and it is something that we support quite strongly, an integrated approach to pest management. We want to take advantage of as many tools as we can to reduce pest impact."
And further Mr Bruce Christie, Executive Director, Biosecurity NSW had this to say:
"we need to do more wherever we possibly can to try and control feral animals, including shooting."
But the hysterics do not end there.
Further on in his fantastical piece of fiction, McKee cites the recent spate of animals suffering at the hands of criminals as reason enough to prohibit hunting on public land. In these instances it is usually the case that a kangaroo or other common marsupial is found with a target arrow lodged in it somewhere.
The truth of the matter is this: to attempt to draw a link between this sort of behaviour and legitimate, law-abiding hunters is as irresponsible and deceitful as using the behaviour of back-yard drug cooks to justify controls on pharmacists. The persons carrying out these acts are not hunters, in name or spirit and their actions are no more relevant to the debate than said drug cook is to pharmacology.
In throwing their weight into the argument over hunting in State Forests - a state owned corporation and land manager in their own right - one can't help but to question the motives of the NPA. I fear that they are following the well trodden path of many environmental groups, and most famously walked by The Greens, of using the conservation cause to catapult their organisation to prominence, only to abandon sensible discussion on conservation matters in the interest of satisfying some unknown agenda.
On this matter they have shown their hand and the environment is a noticeable absentee.
In this release, in what can only be described as a hysterical attempt to underpin a flawed argument, McKee's spurious assertions about feral animal control, hunter behaviour and our effectiveness are simply incorrect.
"Amateurs are ineffective in fighting the feral animal problem on public land in NSW; report after report tells us that" - McKeeRight from the outset McKee oversteps the mark by misleading his readers. In an address to the General Purpose Standing Committee No 5 - Inquiry Into Public Land Management, Mr John Tracey - Manager, Invasive Species, Biosecurity NSW, explicitly stated that there were no studies in existence that had examined the impact of recreation hunters on feral animal numbers in State Forests.
So one must ask the question of McKee, where are these reports? And further, if none are forthcoming, will he retract that derogatory critique of recreational hunters?
Further to this, since recreational hunting was introduced to State Forests, Forestry Corporation, the state owned corporation charged with overseeing the business activities and management of State Forests has relied on recreational hunters for the vast majority of their vertebrate pest control. In fact, since the introduction of recreational hunting in State Forests, that particular corporation now, or used to, quote the annual Game Council report for pest animals destroyed on land under their tenure. In doing this, recreational hunters not only destroyed many thousands of feral animals, but in doing so delivered a $2.4m benefit to Forestry Corporation and contributed some $34m to regional economies annually.
Again the gentlemen of Biosecurity NSW appear to be at odds with another of McKee's flailing, hysterical attempts at grabbing the public's attention.
McKee goes on to say that "The door on recreational hunting in State Forests should be kept shut".
Following a question posed by The Green's MLC Cate Faehrmann, Mr Tracey offered this:
"We advocate, and it is something that we support quite strongly, an integrated approach to pest management. We want to take advantage of as many tools as we can to reduce pest impact."
And further Mr Bruce Christie, Executive Director, Biosecurity NSW had this to say:
"we need to do more wherever we possibly can to try and control feral animals, including shooting."
But the hysterics do not end there.
Further on in his fantastical piece of fiction, McKee cites the recent spate of animals suffering at the hands of criminals as reason enough to prohibit hunting on public land. In these instances it is usually the case that a kangaroo or other common marsupial is found with a target arrow lodged in it somewhere.
The truth of the matter is this: to attempt to draw a link between this sort of behaviour and legitimate, law-abiding hunters is as irresponsible and deceitful as using the behaviour of back-yard drug cooks to justify controls on pharmacists. The persons carrying out these acts are not hunters, in name or spirit and their actions are no more relevant to the debate than said drug cook is to pharmacology.
In throwing their weight into the argument over hunting in State Forests - a state owned corporation and land manager in their own right - one can't help but to question the motives of the NPA. I fear that they are following the well trodden path of many environmental groups, and most famously walked by The Greens, of using the conservation cause to catapult their organisation to prominence, only to abandon sensible discussion on conservation matters in the interest of satisfying some unknown agenda.
On this matter they have shown their hand and the environment is a noticeable absentee.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
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 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?
Sunday, July 28, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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?
"volunteer participants [will be] held to anThis is a wonderful sentiment and I applaud the ambition of her statement. However, if only the reality were true.
equivalent high standard that currently applies to NPWS staff and contractors" - Ms Parker
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 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)